I've owned mine now for nearly a year. It's been turned on more or less 24/7 and there is not a hint of burn-in anywhere on the monitor.
OLED is
>High refresh rate from 240hz and up
>0.03ms response vs 1.0+ on outdated tech like TN/VA. That is over a thousand times faster.
>With each pixel capable of producing seperate colors, and with every color being graded perfect, it's quite literally "pixel perfect"
>Burn-in was solved years ago
There are no good arguements to stay with outdated and poor tech. Not switching to OLED just makes you a fool
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Looks nice, but 1000 bucks?
LCD is that bad Yes
Might go for one of those ultrawide curved Samsung displays instead, better fit for my usecase. Are they as good as the Asus ones? They seem to have similar specs.
Not bright enough for a sunny room.
buy an ad
Learn to include the product name shill
I just picked up the Alienware 32" 4K 240HZ QD-OLED AW3225QF and it is quite nice. I think you are right for the people who have $600-1200 to drop on a display. But good IPS monitors are very cheap and tempting for people. Most don't think about spending anywhere near $600 on a monitor. The AW3225QF shits on my Samsung Neo G7. I am a fan of MiniLED thanks to the fullscreen brightness it can maintain, and the halos were a non-issue with its LED density but VA and its colors were a compromise. I'm not worrying about burn-in thanks to the 3-year burn-in warranty and Dell will overnight a new display if I have burn-in. It also doesn't nag at you constantly to pixel refresh like the Samsung G8 OLED Ultrawide I tested and quickly returned. 4090 can stretch its legs now. Many games hit 200fps at 4K and aren't even at 100% GPU utilization, and other times even 4090 is CPU limited at 4K. I wanted to get the ASUS/MSI models but they are sold out and one of them is overpriced, I am glad I got the Dell/Alienware model. I would like to have USB C/KVM and DP 2.0 though, that might make me upgrade because alt-tabbing while fullscreen in some games is a fricking shit experience thanks to Nvidia's DSC implementation.
Take a picture of the screen with a 5% stimulus grey slide.
>1 year
You won't be saying the same thing in 3 years.
1 year is nothing
My most recent monitor is a 27" IPS I got in 2015
I still use a CRT daily
>Burn-in was solved years ago
Burn in mitigation makes your screen dimmer over time to the point that you can't use it during day. Enjoy:)
>Oledgays utilizing screen-crippling tech to avoid damaging their screens.
You can't make this up.
I'm sure it's nice, but it wont give me the same smooth feeling my CRT does. Not that I want everyone to go out and get a CRT, but I use it for watching media, so it makes more sense. For apps I use my LCD but don't care enough about color and smoothness to go OLED. Maybe if I played vidya?
>lower color depth
>oversaturate
>download anime at 240p
>get static filter
There, I solved your autism for you, now you can use normal monitors
normal monitors even glossy ones are not glossy enough.
CRT is the ultimate gloss which is a huge part of crt soul
I remember as a kid thinking I hated any bit of glare on a CRT I couldn't wait to grow up and live in total darkness.
Now that I am grown up I'm actually with you and have found myself seeking the gloss.
Can you fix my blacks too or do I need an OLED for that?
>>0.03ms response vs 1.0+ on outdated tech like TN/VA. That is over a thousand times faster.
Yet motion clarity is still utter dogshit and loses to CRTs.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_motion_blur
>Both OLED and "Crystal LED" technologies also have response times far shorter than LCD technology, and can reduce motion blur significantly. However, all consumer OLED displays are sample-and-hold,[2][31] which leads to the same amount of motion blur as a conventional LCD.
op clearly posted a 240hz monitor
Doesn't matter
And how many games run at 240fps with max settings again?
>And how many games run at 240fps with max settings again?
plenty
also
>theres no fps between 60 and 240
240hz is still about 5-10 times less than what you'd need to match the clarity of a 60hz CRT
60Hz CRTs visibly flicker
use 85hz then
This graphic makes zero sense.
What doesn't make sense?
It is good though. Imagine looking at a moving car in real life.
CRT is like closing and opening your eyes a couple of times while it passes. Your brain knows what's happening and fills in the rest, that's why you feel CRT much smoother. The car is also stays perfectly clear.
Sample&Hold is like keeping your eyes open, and the car doesn't move, just stays in one place then suddenly teleports. While your eyes are trying to follow it, your vision smears the car like it does the background.
The problem is, with crt like technology there is flicker, which bothers a lot and is probably unhealthy.
For perfect clarity and non flickering, we would need 200+ FPS movies and games with 200+ Hz CRT like frame flashing.
My friend just said that qd oleds do 480hz and that crts are only superior at 60hz or 120hz, that crts are really dead now. Kindly counter him
At 480Hz samle and hold motion blur would be close to negligible, but not perfect, although probably good enough.
Just don't drop under 480FPS in games and don't watch videos under 480FPS.
He took that comment as you conceeding or are you saying that this sample and hold thing is neglible only if you have fps to match the high refresh rate?
If your game runs at 100hz then the motion blur caused by sample and hold will be the same on a 120hz and a 480hz display.
480hz OLED is pretty nice as long as your content has a pretty high FPS, but it's still not as perfect as a CRT clarity wise.
120Hz CRT has issues too, if you watch a 30fps movie on a 120Hz CRT then you will have something that is worse than motion blur IMO, you'll get trailing (like when you turn on mouse trails in windows).
We will never have 200+ FPS movies, so you will probably always have to choose between motion blur or flicker, sadly.
IMO they should perfect black frame insertion so you doesn't lose brightness, then you could dynamically use BFI for low FPS and sample and hold for high FPS, but you would still have the flicker problem at low FPS...
Yeah, but the problem is that this would only be YOUR perceived vision of the moving object, while the graphic, using that blurry alien thing, suggests the actual picture is blurring.
This effect wouldn't be picked up on a camera, for instance. Sample and hold would not blur an image for a camera observer.
>This effect wouldn't be picked up on a camera, for instance. Sample and hold would not blur an image for a camera observer.
It all depends on if you're tracking the motion or not.
Set the camera exposure to 1/4000 seconds. Chad OLED: perfect picture. Virgin CRT: pure black, or maybe 2 rows of pixels if you get lucky. Just upgrade your eyes, persistence problem solved.
OK, I get it.
Nobody suggested that the actual picture is blurring. It's called a pursuit camera test, and yes the effect is picked up on the camera, as that is exactly how the blurry alien photos are made.
They are moving the camera with the same speed as the alien. Like how your eyes are tracking a moving object.
If you open up testufo.com, you can see this effect with your eyes instantly. The max FPS ufo is clearer, even though if you make a photo with a 1/480 shutter speed, all of them are perfectly clear and not blurred.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/hardware/design/dn642112(v=vs.85)?redirectedfrom=MSDN
The graphic is ripped directly from Microsoft Research
>And how many games run at 240fps with max settings again?
Why set an arbitrary standard? Why can't I play my games on minimum settings for 240fps if I want to?
That's a compromise you wouldn't need to do if you were using a CRT, as they can offer a superior experience with far fewer frames.
You're wasting a ton of performance just to poorly brute-force motion clarity.
>That's a compromise you wouldn't need to do if you were using a CRT
I would if I wanted 240fps, because I want 240fps.
But flicker is still bad. Irritating under 100Hz and probably still unhealthy under 200Hz.
With some exposure you can get used to even 60hz flicker, to the point you almost never even see it.
When I rediscovered CRTs, 75hz felt little straining at first. But now I can spend all day staring at a 60hz one and I feel nothing.
I highly doubt that. At the last place I worked, we had LED lighting that had 100Hz PWM (measured it), and it drove me crazy. I could see it blinking in my peripherial vision. I literally bought and replaced the lights in my office.
The only real solution is 200+ FPS content.
>This effect wouldn't be picked up on a camera
pic related, just made both with my phone on the same display. Bottom one is what you see with your eyes.
>I could see it blinking in my peripherial vision
The soft rolling phosphor-flicker of a CRT that's largely in your fovea is nothing like harsh squarewave LED ambient global flicker.
I mean, you can still see the flicker in some situations, such as fullscreen whites. But most games and content generally are darker, and you can't really see the flicker of dimmer colors (also blacks don't flicker on a CRT like they would on a strobed LCD :^))
Black flickering is solved with oled.
I did use 60Hz CRTs as a kid and sure I didn't really notice the flicker, but I'm too afraid of it in terms of what it does with your brain. I rather have motion blur ATM.
>, but I'm too afraid of it in terms of what it does with your brain
Nothing, it does nothing, once you get used to it anyway. You may experience dry eyes or such at first but all of these symptoms went away for me after enough use.
This is something you can get used to.
>I rather have motion blur ATM.
Motion blur unnecessarily stresses out your eyes focusing muscles and brain's vision processing.
Your eyes are constantly trying to bring blurry things into focus. A thing they cannot focus on creates strain.
If you've ever after a long session of grinding counter-strike or such have felt a strained burning sensation, a headache of sorts, that for me was purely caused by sample&hold blur.
This is not something you can get used to.
>Nothing, it does nothing
>that for me was purely caused by sample&hold blur
Hah, you're not that different than me just in reverse.
You experienced something and you drew conclusions, this is how humans work and it's fine, but a lot of issues can really only be uncovered by rigorous research.
What you're saying about the eyes trying to focus because of motion blur doesn't sound completely bullshit, just very unlikely.
However, we, as humans already had a lot of issues with flicker, almost every other person got headaches from CRTs back in the day, certain frequencies have a higher chance of causing an epilleptic seisure, etc. There are many papers about this.
Flashing lights at certain intervals into your eyes literally makes these electric pulses in your brain (that's just how eyes work). To me it's much easier to believe this can easily cause all sorts of issues.
Maybe 120hz makes you a nazi, that would explain a lot of gamer's behavior
Also as HDR content and displays get brighter, flickering would be getting more noticeable and annoying too.
>30fps is superior as that ufo is clearly faster than the others
Post source for the Sony GDM test you only posted the LG test
No clue where the picture used in that pic comes from, but there are numerous other CRT motion tests out there, and they all look the exact same.
Here's a Dell P1130 which is a rebadged CPD-G520, a slightly inferior monitor to the GDM-F520.
?feature=shared&t=973
This guy invented the current gamma-corrected response time measurement methodology Hardware Unboxed, TFTCentral, and other reputable reviewers currently use. Those guys listen to him, you should probably too.
Picrel is off an slotmask CRT taken by some anon. The tracking rails verify the validity of the picture
https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera/
I appreciate the links but my conclusion here is that your original picture was misinformation and there are no like-for-like comparisons between CRTs and 2024 QD-OLEDs. Given how much variation there are in your own links I think anything less than a like for like test using the exact same methodology by the same person on the same camera is pointless. But beyond that I'd like to see this extended to all monitor specs and benchmarks to get a full story
The specifications of the test guarantee the reasonable validity of comparisons by controlling camera settings, as described in the link. Invalid camera settings would immediately be visible in the tracking rails. No misinformation is possible.
QD-OLEDs have approximately the same motion blur as LCDs. This is fact, provable with theory and observed in practice.
https://blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/
Why not do a side by side with the strobing version, so we have a better comparison.
There might be some crosstalk in most lcds, but it's not as bad as pure sample and hold.
>Why not do a side by side with the strobing version, so we have a better comparison.
THERE ISN'T ONE
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE CURRENT-GEN OLED MONITORS HAVE STROBING OF ANY KIND
Frick you I don't want to consume another piece of diminishing returns tech for the next 10 years. I will use and abuse every piece of tech I own to the ground and I will get my money's worth.
>1 year
one of my monitors is 10 years old, the other is 13
good luck with that
Buy an ad.
everyone i know who owned an OLED had to claim warranty 3 times in 5 years and all of them had burn in
OLED uses PWM to control pixel brightness which is unacceptable
no one ever refutes this.
and PWM to control pixel brightness is unacceptable.
PWM is actually just pretty much always unacceptable
my ips started getting burn in a few years in
my oled phone has burn in after 2 years
I would buy one if it didn't have the cringe gaming logo/stand. Same as all other gaming monitors
Post a picture with timestamp and show us there's not burn in.
shill thread
>buy a 240hz (280hz OC)
>play some games
>move the camera around in circles
>get literally nauseous
what the frick?
Sample&hold motion blur
Im poor. Maybe when I get more money I'll buy a $3000 PC with a OLED monitor
>Burn-in was solved years ago
no it hasnt
I don't game, most important to me is that text is displayed clearly. I am drawn to OLED because it's meant to be better for the eyes. I hate how incredibly bright my monitor is, but won't the text be shit?
just turn brightness down Black person
Do people not know about monitor controls anymore these days?
That would dim the entire screen including the text, which in theory could be worse in some ways, or certainly not better. With OLED in theory the text should be bright while the overall monitor won't be fricking radiating light at you.
You're an idiot.
>1 year in and thing I bought hasn't even grenaded itself yet!
what a time to be alive
Do you Black folk even understand what the UFO test measures? It's tracking motion blur: when you're following a moving object with your eyes.
For gayming, you'd usually stare at the crosshair while you move your mouse. For that you want the highest refresh rate possible, not low persistence.
>b-but I can read the text while I'm scrolling it!
What kind of moronic usecase is that?
>For gayming, you'd usually stare at the crosshair while you move your mouse
Wrong. Play on a 60hz CRT and then try to play on a 60hz LCD. You'll literally get a headache from trying to play on a 60hz LCD, while the CRT will be a vastly more pleasant experience.
Your eye is constantly, without you noticing, jumping around tracking objects, in ways you're not even conscious of.
Also you'll be able to resolve information after quick flicks way faster, as your eye tracking is able to parse the picture in full detail, before the motion stops. When spectating I can tell immediately when people are playing on low-hz LCDs, as it takes them a full second to parse the picture after a 180 degree turn for example.
Also, your post implies the only video game in existence is counter-strike, which is not true. CRTs make all games look vastly better. Clear motion clarity is primarily a picture quality feature, the performance it allows is secondary.
>60hz CRT
I remember switching to 72Hz because the flickering was so bad.
Yes yes all CRTs can run 160hz, but anon implies there shouldn't be any difference between 60hz LCD or CRT, because you supposedly don't ever track anything in a video game. Which is obviously false if you ever played on a CRT, but it's particularly obvious at low refresh rates just how annoying sample&hold really is.
I have a marquee 9500lc that has a refresh rate of up to 180hz autolock
>There are no good arguements to stay with outdated and poor tech. Not switching to OLED just makes you a fool
I'm not paying 800+ per monitor, frick off
Gamer product ideas: strobing glasses for motion clarity (you can reuse 3D glasses hardware for this).
Actually, it seems this already exists?
Wasn't this strobing glasses tech marketed with 3D monitors in the early 2000s? Though I guess it alternated for 3D, but the principle is similar.