What new OLED gaming monitors in 2023?

[MistaSparkul]

I think options will improve. The people that have what is needed to drive 240Hz at 4K is pretty low right now. I would expect in the coming years for that to change.

Let's just say, if someone does make a "smallish" 240Hz 4K monitor today, it's probably going to cost you.

Not really. The Samsung Neo G8 exists and went on sale for $1000 not too long ago. Not sure how much an "OLED tax" would add on but I don't think it would be too much more.

 

[elvn]

Yes, the viewing angle in the corners is affected. That was just about the only benefit I got from the curve on my JS9000 back when I used it as a monitor.

It's not just the viewing angle pushing the sides of the screen outside of your human viewing angle in action games, though that is also compromised usage wise.

I wouldn't mind a version with the mild curve my JS9000 had though to help with view angle on the sides, On my XG438Q there isnt any off angle color shift though, so that is good. I don't have any OLED experience, but I'm pretty sure OLED doesn't suffer from that problem either. Still would be nicer to not deal with the off-angle problem.

OLEDs suffer from color uniformity issues on the off-axis viewing of the sides of the screen, much like VA screens have VA shift/shading on the extreme angles. It's as if you are viewing the screen from the same off angle from the outside of the screen.

For example, something like this which shows a narrow off axis area at the edges - even when sitting at an optimum FOV / viewing angle:

A larger area of the screen goes outside of your view and more off-axis the nearer you sit to the screen, something like this larger area:

If you sat at the radius of the curvature of a curved screen, say 1000R which equals 1000mm or ~ 39.5" radius, you would instead be equidistant from every point on the screen surface.

That would require sitting at radius of the curve, like the focal point of a lens. The dark viewing angle area's distance rather than the transulucent viewing angle in each of these images:

. . . .

I think that would be a waste of pixels. You'd need to scale it up for it to be usable even at close ranges, and that gives up the biggest benefit of 4k on the desktop, more screen real estate.

It's funny you say that because a good number of people sitting with a 42" oled on their desk resort to scaling everything up in windows due the subpixels (WOLED subpixels to be fair) appearing larger which goes back to "The higher the pixel density of displays, the less apparent subsampling artifacts become." (also the less apparent or aggressive aliasing/pixelization of any kind is as the PPD increases). However by scaling up windows scaling (in order to fill each larger sized font with more pixels for a smoother result) - they are therefore losing 4k desktop real-estate in effect *because* they are sitting too close and getting lower PPD.

Any 4k screen size will scale to look exactly the same to your perspective when you scale the distance, providing you have good eyesight or corrective lenses that compensate you back to normal vision more or less.

Any 4k screen size is usable at 1:1 pixel mapping native 4k and at default text sizes at 60PPD to 77PPD and prob even higher. Especially the low end at 60 PPD to 64 PPD. If it isn't, you probably need glasses. Nothing wrong with wearing glasses, plenty of people do.

I have two 43" 4k screens, in portrait mode so not even RGB or BGR
RRRRR
GGGGG
BBBBBB

And a 48" 4k OLED in landscape mode.

I sit at around 60 deg to 50 deg viewing angle from the main screen at a separate island desk on caster wheels, and I use default text sizes on all of the screens with zero problems.

Any sized 4k screen at 60 deg viewing angle is 64 PPD and any sized 4k screen at 50 deg viewing angle is ~ 77 PPD. Default text sizes at 64 to 77 PPD look great.

You could push it and get away with up to maybe 64 deg at 60PPD without much compromising if not WOLED subpixels but otherwise.. you can for example sit at 50 to 60 deg viewing angle on a 32" 4k screen, or any sized 4k screen, and get the same results in viewing angle + perceived pixel density (+ perceived subpixel sizes, fringing/aliasing sizes) + perceived text size at default . . in relation to your perspective.

===========================

.. 32" 4k screen at 24" view would be ~ 64 PPD (and 60 deg) which can be compensated for with aggressive AA and text sub-sampling (though the 2d desktop's graphics and imagery lacks AA outside of text sub sampling)

.. 32" 4k screen at 27" view would be ~ 70 PPD and 55 deg viewing angle.

.. 32" 4k screen at ~30" view would be 77PPD and 50 deg viewing angle.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

It's not just the viewing angle pushing the sides of the screen outside of your human viewing angle in action games, though that is also compromised usage wise.



OLEDs suffer from color uniformity issues on the off-axis viewing of the sides of the screen, much like VA screens have VA shift/shading on the extreme angles. It's as if you are viewing the screen from the same off angle from the outside of the screen.

For example, something like this which shows a narrow off axis area at the edges - even when sitting at an optimum FOV / viewing angle:

A larger area of the screen goes outside of your view and more off-axis the nearer you sit to the screen, something like this larger area:

If you sat at the radius of the curvature of a curved screen, say 1000R which equals 1000mm or ~ 39.5" radius, you would instead be equidistant from every point on the screen surface.

View attachment 540487



That would require sitting at radius of the curve, like the focal point of a lens. The dark viewing angle area's distance rather than the transulucent viewing angle in each of these images:

View attachment 540488

View attachment 540489

. . . .



It's funny you say that because a good number of people sitting with a 42" oled on their desk resort to scaling everything up in windows due the subpixels (WOLED subpixels to be fair) appearing larger which goes back to "The higher the pixel density of displays, the less apparent subsampling artifacts become." (also the less apparent or aggressive aliasing/pixelization of any kind is as the PPD increases). However by scaling up windows scaling they are therefore losing 4k desktop real-estate in effect *because* they are sitting too close and getting lower PPD.

Any 4k screen size will scale to look exactly the same to your perspective when you scale the distance, providing you have good eyesight or corrective lenses that compensate you back to normal vision more or less.

Any 4k screen size is usable at 1:1 pixel mapping native 4k and at default text sizes at 60PPD to 77PPD and prob even higher. Especially the low end at 60 PPD to 64 PPD. If it isn't, you probably need glasses. Nothing wrong with wearing glasses, plenty of people do.

I have two 43" 4k screens, in portrait mode so not even RGB or BGR
RRRRR
GGGGG
BBBBBB

And a 48" 4k OLED in landscape mode.

I sit at around 60 deg to 50 deg viewing angle from the main screen at a separate island desk on caster wheels, and I use default text sizes on all of the screens with zero problems.

Any sized 4k screen at 60 deg viewing angle is 64 PPD and any sized 4k screen at 50 deg viewing angle is ~ 77 PPD. Default text sizes at 64 to 77 PPD look great.

So you would sit at 50 to 60 deg viewing angle on a 32" 4k screen, or any sized 4k screen, and get the same results in viewing angle + perceived pixel density (+ perceived subpixel sizes, fringing/aliasing sizes) + perceived text size at default . . in relation to your perspective.

===========================

.. 32" 4k screen at 24" view would be ~ 64 PPD (and 60 deg) which can be compensated for with aggressive AA and text sub-sampling (though the 2d desktop's graphics and imagery lacks AA outside of text sub sampling)

.. 32" 4k screen at 27" view would be ~ 70 PPD and 55 deg viewing angle.

.. 32" 4k screen at ~30" view would be 77PPD and 50 deg viewing angle.

Well, once I have proper subpixel smoothing, which is tough with a BGR screen in windows where ClearType assumes RGB, but it works well in Cinnamon which gives me a BGR option, my 42" 4k screen looks great to me at ~24-30" distance.

I suspect people wouldn't feel the need to increase scaling if either screen makers got their shit together and stopped installing panels upside down so they result in BGR order, OR Microsoft got their shit together and offered subpixel smoothing for BGR. Either or would really do.

For me this doesnt matter, as all I use Windows for is games, and the lack of proper subpixel smoothing isn't really noticiable in games. As mentioned previously the BGR subpixel smoothing mode I get in Linux carries forward to my Virtualbox Windows VM, which is nice.

(or you could custom mount your screen upside down I guess, but I wonder if that would work, or if Windows would get smart when you flip it, and flip the smoothing as well...)

I wouldn't mind a mild curve to reduce the off angle viewing at the edges,I'd pay a little extra for that, but I'm happy as is and would sooner keep my 42" screen at 24-30" distance before using anything smaller. Once you get used to it, it is tough to go back. The added screen real estate for productivity, and immersive experience from filling your FOV with the screen in games is tough to give up.

You don't need to sit perfectly in the center of the curve unless your goal is to be perfectly equidistant, but that isn't really necessary. You just need to reduce the off angle viewing to the point where it doesn't result in bad color shifts.

 

[sharknice]

2 years also isn't very long when we are talking displays that start at nearly 4 figures and can go well past that. I'm sure most people dropping that kinda money would want their display to last a while, maybe 5+ years. We know that the CX holds up well after 2 years of heavy office use but what about 5 years? If you are concerned about longevity with OLEDs yet want to use them as everyday 8+ hour work displays then I don't know what else to tell you besides look elsewhere.

That's kind of what I'm saying. If you need your display to last a decade you should not be spending thousands of dollars on it. You aren't looking for bleeding edge performance you're looking for other qualities. That's true for the majority of luxury items that cost over 5X their standard counterparts.

 

[kasakka]

I suspect people wouldn't feel the need to increase scaling if either screen makers got their shit together and stopped installing panels upside down so they result in BGR order, OR Microsoft got their shit together and offered subpixel smoothing for BGR. Either or would really do.

Windows does support BGR for ClearType. However some apps might do their own text rendering in which case all bets are off.

 

[elvn]

It's all compensating for poor PPD tp start with. They are attempts at masking it. The higher the perceived pixel density, the less obvious pixilization and sub-pixel artifacts are. There's a reason people sitting with a giant gaming tv in front of them on a desk often bring up text quality issues, and it's not just because it's WOLED, that just makes higher PPD even more appreciable, and thus lower PPD worse, in regard to the text.

Once you go below 60PPD even aggressive/alternative text-ss and in game AA won't compensate fully anymore vs text fringing and graphics aliasing.
Usable? Yes of course - we used to use 1400px tall and 1600px tall screens up close, even 1080p screens up close. I still occasionally use a 32" 2560x1600 up close at times for one filemule system

- - but you won't be getting the full picture quality and fine pixel granularity the 4k display is capable of when you are instead using one at lower PPD. And besides text and game aliasing being unable to compensate to as large of a degree in effect on what are larger pixels and subpixels to your perspective in that usage scenario, 2D desktop graphics and imagery's pixelization remains uncompensated for entirely usually. At lower PPD on a 4k by nature of the nearer distance you are also exacerbating off axis issues and pushing more of the screen outside of your human viewing angle which can be fatiguing in action games (and games with huds, notifications, pointers, chat, etc.on the outer edges of the screen) as well as making larger areas of the screen non-uniform in color (OLED color uniformity issue).

. . .

As for the 1000R curve screen, the example I showed went from mild to extreme sub-optimal distances shown by the translucent viewing angle overlaid. Optimally, every pixel could be on axis with you if you were to sit at the radius of the curve and practically none of the screen would be outside of your viewpoint but I'm sure there is a little wiggle room. You'll exacerbate distortion issues and will end up cutting parts of the screen outside of your 50 - 60 deg viewing angle again if sitting much closer to a curve than it's focal point though so will be compromising down from your optimal picture quality all over again. (Including driving the PPD down of course)..

 

[elvn]

If you want to test RGB/BGR, just change your display settings to flip the screen's display upside down, then turn your head upside down (unless your screen is on a vesa mount that can spin all of the way around or at least 90 deg) , and then look at the text from where you are viewing it at 50 deg viewing angle (at or an inch or so less than the screen's diagonal measurement as view distance), to 60 deg viewing angle (nearer but where the screen's edges aren't outside of your human viewing angle much). You can also flip it to portrait mode in the settings and turn your head sideways to test portrait mode rendering that way too of course.

 

[enc0re]

8K at 42" would be perfect. 210 PPI. But I don't think anyone is doing that yet.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

8K at 42" would be perfect. 210 PPI. But I don't think anyone is doing that yet.

I really feel like anything above 4k is a waste on any screen that will fit inside your FOV.

Anything much over ~110 ppi just isn't going to wind up being perceptible at desktop viewing distances.


Great for a phone which is held much closer to your face, but just a waste of computational power on a desktop monitor.

 

[Westwood]

I must be getting old because I've got two monitors at 1080 and a 1440@144. That 1440 I can't browse on. too fine. couldn't imagine 4k. I bring everything up on the 1080. The 1440 is fine to game on though.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I must be getting old because I've got two monitors at 1080 and a 1440@144. That 1440 I can't browse on. too fine. couldn't imagine 4k. I bring everything up on the 1080. The 1440 is fine to game on though.

27" 2560x1440 is a little small at 100%, I do have to admit. I can do it, but it is a little bit straining. And this isn't just 43 year old me speaking. I had the same experience a decade ago when I first saw one.

While I do think scaling is a waste of pixels, I do believe most people who propose going higher PPI propose doing it with some light scaling, hoping to get smoother fonts or whatever out of it. I tend to think that's a waste of pixels, and by extension money at purchase price, and also a waste of GPU and CPU processing power to make it happen, which also results in needing more expensive hardware, etc. etc.

While I wouldn't buy a monitor just in order to scale on it, just for reading comfort, have you considered running it at 125%?

That said, some apps still don't scale. In my use that includes the RivaTuner statistics charts (as part of Afterburner) but maybe we won't have to worry about that for much longer

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Windows does support BGR for ClearType. However some apps might do their own text rendering in which case all bets are off.

Since when?

Is this a new Windows 11 thing? If so that's the first new feature I've heard of that makes running Win11 worth it

 

[elvn]

Gaming could get use out of using part of a 8k screen at times (e.g. an ultrawide band across part of the screen, or a windowed/1:1 rez inside of the main screen space with other bezel-free real estate remaining) and/or use upscaling to those resolutions or full screen ones as the full screen resolutions got larger.

An 8k 55 inch at the ~ 40inch focal point of a 1000R curve would be around 122 PPD rather than the ~ 61 PPD the 4k samsung ark is at that same distance currently. That would be awesome imo. Would also allow a 32:10 uw resolution across the middle or bottom that isn't limited to 1080 or 1200 high like it is at 1:1 px on a 4k screen. So like 7680 x 2400 at 32:10 uw rez, upscaled from the 4k 3840 x 1200 version most likely.

AI upscaling that is, and if they could move the AI upscaling onto the screens themselves it could potentially be better since it would bypass most of the ports+cable bandwidth bottleneck (e.g. send a fat 4k high fpsHz signal over to a 8k screen and upscale it up to 8k on the screen end, which would allow higher fpsHz throughput over the ports and cables than sending an upscaled 8k signal across the cables would allow.). DSC could also be utilized.

Rendering wise, we wouldn't have to mask the aliasing and pixelization much, perhaps at all anymore after 160PPD or so and so we wouldn't have to jump through all of these hoops struggling to squeeze as much masking out of the compensating systems as possible in order to smudge out the obvious blockiness of the screen grid sizes that are making it necessary to do to.

The human eye can see over 400 PPD in the center but even 122 PPD+ would be big leap (double) compared to what we have now in 4k PPD at the same viewing angles.

Unlike text, it's not necessary to scale things up when avoiding rending jagged/fringed lines and contrasted edges in game worlds. It would be the same aspect ratio scenes and perceived virtual object sizes, just at much higher detail like having a game at the same FoV on a 1080p screen vs a 4k screen at the same screen size and viewing distance. We are also getting to the point where frame amplification technologies and AI upscaling technologies have hit the scene and while immature currently (on pc as compared to VR) - they should advance and get better and better.

Besides, maintaining an optimal text size to your perspective but at higher detail levels is a good thing, as Zarathustra hinted at in his last reply even if somewhat begrudgingly. It's a huge benefit of higher resolutions and PPD - not the idea of shrinking your text down past a certain point as the resolutions and ppd get very high. Keeping your text size down to where it's news/magazine/novel sized print reading size or so relative to your perspective but not having to lean on inadequate anti-aliasing/sub-sampling methods, or to as great of a degree, providing much cleaner results. We are just getting to the point where PPD relative to screen sizes at good viewing angles on PCs is about to exceed where smallish default text sizes have been able to remain 1:1 for the most part. That's a great thing for desktop/app/text use. Increasing the rendering detail without having to oversize your text and interfaces would be a huge benefit.

I had a 15.6" 4k laptop screen for a few years and it's PPD looked great. That screen was about 92 PPD at 1.5' or 18" view distance where I'd normally use it and up to 121 PPD if I used it at 24" view distance on occasion. Really great having such fine PPD for desktop/app use and uncompensated for 2D graphics and imagery. I'd upscale non-simple games from 1080p or 1440p on that since it's gpu was weak but I was never much of a fan of upscaling games on my main pc rig before the modern AI upscaling tech hit the scene. The higher the base resolution you are upscaling from, the better the AI upscaling results are (e.g 1440p to 4k, 4k to 8k will be even better) since the pixels are finer and more detail is there to begin with. Similarly, the higher your frame rate and resolution are to begin with, the better the frame rate amplification results will be as it has to fill in smaller gaps between motion states with "tween" frames and the outlines of everything are finer vs artifacts. The same rule applies to most things: "The higher the pixel density of displays, the less apparent artifacts become.". Those technologies are still young for nvidia but they will get better.

A 55" 4k is like four 27.5" 1080p screens I think so a 55" 8k would be like four 27.5" 4k screens.

. . .

I must be getting old because I've got two monitors at 1080 and a 1440@144. That 1440 I can't browse on. too fine. couldn't imagine 4k. I bring everything up on the 1080. The 1440 is fine to game on though.

It was the opposite for me. At one point I had one of the first 1080p 120hz 27" gaming displays (without g-sync/vrr tech available yet), but I bought a 60hz cinema display at 1440p to go next to it for more desktop/app real estate, less jumbo bar and interface sizes and text sizes, less cramped, finer PPD than 1080 at 27", etc.

I can remember back when people were arguing about 4:3 aspect screens vs the move to 16:9 screens. People were solidly rooted. Even vga to displayport . . . Then 1080p/1200 to 1440p screens vs "need", gains, and "cost" at the time. Also similar get off my lawns about the move to 120hz screen vs 60hz and not needing over 60fps. Those were big ones but also g-sync/VRR adoption, 4k screens(granted they were only 30hz capable at first), and of course HDR adoption, and OLED. For that matter I can remember way back when people were reluctant to get a home pc, and then were reluctant to pay for a separate line to get on the internet and would instead hog the household's single phone line with dialup. Also when people thought paying for a cell phone plan was a waste of money. Same old story, same old song and dance. The world will move on but people can still get by just fine usually. I know a guy that isn't into pc gaming at all but he collects old ancient console systems and plays them happily. Whatever works for you.

To be honest, on at least one of those topics, actually more than one to be perfectly honest, I was the grumpy old rooted man but the more I learned about the breaking technologies I realized their benefits and could admit I was wrong about a few of them. It's usually an adoption over time curve when it comes down to it for most.

 

[kasakka]

Since when?

Is this a new Windows 11 thing? If so that's the first new feature I've heard of that makes running Win11 worth it

It has been supported basically forever. Download Better Cleartype Tuner for a more simple UI to select it.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

It has been supported basically forever. Download Better Cleartype Tuner for a more simple UI to select it.

Well, last I looked into it it wasn't supported and it was a common complaint. Must have been ~2019.

 

[Zeblade]

LG C3;

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1672651962

Did ya catch the video where the guy is talking to the LG guy about the C3? LG guy says "I let you decide if its brighter, it looks brighter huh". HAHA wow

 

[kasakka]

Well, last I looked into it it wasn't supported and it was a common complaint. Must have been ~2019.

It has been supported much longer than that afaik. I think you had bad sources.

 

[Mr Evil]

Well, last I looked into it it wasn't supported and it was a common complaint. Must have been ~2019.

ClearType has always supported BGR as far as I know. Here's an article from 2004 mentioning it for Windows XP: https://web.archive.org/web/20061014120627/http://www.brandonfurtwangler.com/?p=54

 

[elvn]

cleartype does a "fairly good job" on text in general, especially on low rez displays but it's not perfect. It's masking how blocky the effective PPD is using a type of anti-aliasing, smudging the edges. From the quote below: "but can make the edges look more blurry" (even on RGB displays). And regarding the bgr discussion, "BGR can behave strangely even though windows has built-in support for it"

The RTings link about text rendering has some good info on it:

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/picture-quality/text-clarity

Generally speaking, ClearType does a fairly good job at sharpening text, particularly on lower resolution displays, but it can also make the edges of a letter look more blurry, somewhat like an anti-aliasing effect, a process that softens jagged edges in games. ClearType can make text look blocky and jagged on some VA panels, and

displays with a BGR sub-pixel layout can also behave strangely, even though Windows has built-in support for this type of display.

. . . .
(emphasis mine in the quote below) "issues become less apparent the higher the monitor's pixel density is". The higher the effective PPD, pixels per degree, the perceived pixel density at any given distance. Cleartype and graphics Anti-aliasing are hacks to mask how blocky/pixelated the screen really is at your PPD/ppi vs. view distance. And typically, the 2D desktop's graphics and imagery's pixelization remains uncompensated for entirely.

The majority of monitors on the market have an RGB sub-pixel layout, but some use a BGR layout, like the Philips Momentum 436M6VBPAB, where the red and blue sub-pixels are reversed. This type of layout isn't bad in and of itself, as it isn't noticeable when displaying an image, but it can affect text rendering, especially in programs that expect an RGB sub-pixel layout like Google Chrome. Text can sometimes look thin and jagged, and some diagonal lines are nearly invisible. However, this issue is less apparent the higher the monitor's pixel density is. Below, you can see pictures of text on a BGR panel, the Gigabyte M27Q, with ClearType configured for a BGR sub-pixel layout, ClearType configured for an RGB sub-pixel layout, without ClearType, and in Google Sheets. The latter is included because Google Chrome uses its own implementation of text sharpening.

 

[realworld]

It's official. LG 27" is the master race compared to the peasantry 42" and 48" panels lol.

 

[MistaSparkul]

It's official. LG 27" is the master race compared to the peasantry 42" and 48" panels lol.

View attachment 540878

Hopefully in 2024 the 42" and 48" will get updated with MLA too.

 

[realworld]

Hopefully in 2024 the 42" and 48" will get updated with MLA too.

I waited too long for a CX replacecment. I'll just grab the 55" S95C with extended warranty and make damn sure it'll burn in in 2-3 years XD.

 

[SoCali]

Hopefully in 2024 we see a QD-OLED alternative to the C4.

 

[Gabe3]

Anything like the lg c2 42" coming out that is the same size or smaller with a higher than 120hz refresh?

 

[Blackstone]

After working on a 1440p monitor for years (LED), I would never consider a 1440p monitor larger than 34 MAX. The clarity just isn’t there.

I think I would do 34 again at 1440p but I would not want to park myself at that PPI/PPD for ever.

It is just unfortunate that 1440p is now the standard since we have the 4090 (and its inevitable successors) to drive more pixels. I think I’d want a higher resolution to revisit old titles at higher resolution, or even next gen titles a few years from now. But if you lock in at 1440p you don’t have the option of exploting your next gen hardware in that way.

It is kind of like when Nintendo launched the Wii, the Wii U and Switch. Yes the games look great at launch but it doesn’t take long before you start wondering, what would this look like if the screen was 1080p, not 720p, and it could output 4k to a proper screen?

Having said that, I did go from 720 Switch LED to Switch OLED, both at 720p. The OLED is night and day better, even without a resolution bump. But as soon as I hold the device a bit further away, the image solidifies a bit and you realize what could have been had they bumped that res up a level.

Maybe the 27 incher is ok, but to me that is also a bit small.
I just can’t get behind 1440p at $1,000+ I’m thinking 4K or some kind of OLED display less than 4k but more than 1440, but not sure what my options are.

 

[SoCali]

4090 is still in a strange spot since it only had DP 1.4. I think it will be another 20ish months when the 5090 and more DP 2.1 monitors are available or announced for a real upgrade to appear.

Seems the monitor innovation things occurs in cycles. We got VRR and then stagnation, got FALD, then stagnation, got OLED (where we are now) and will see stagnation for a bit again. That 4K 32" OLED prototype supposedly wont see the light of day for a couple years.

 

[kasakka]

4090 is still in a strange spot since it only had DP 1.4. I think it will be another 20ish months when the 5090 and more DP 2.1 monitors are available or announced for a real upgrade to appear.

Seems the monitor innovation things occurs in cycles. We got VRR and then stagnation, got FALD, then stagnation, got OLED (where we are now) and will see stagnation for a bit again. That 4K 32" OLED prototype supposedly wont see the light of day for a couple years.

Yeah it seems like a weird omission from Nvidia considering Intel supports DP 2.x UHBR10 and AMD DP 2.1 UHBR13.5. Makes me wonder if it's intentional to get people to upgrade to a 5090 in a few years just to have the port. I am still holding a bit of hope that Nvidia actually has the hardware but could not develop the support in time so they make a firmware update for DP 2.1 like they did for older gen for 1.4 support. Most likely won't happen though.

While the only DP 2.1 compatible display announced at CES 2023 that actually needs it is the Samsung 57" 7680x2160 superultrawide, it still sucks to have to compromise on what you can get out of it on the most expensive, highest performance GPU on the market.

It does really suck that there's these phases where things happen. It took about 6 years before I considered it worth upgrading from a 1440p 144 Hz TN G-Sync module display. Then it has taken several years for OLED to become viable and now we are still waiting for an actual, no holds barred good 4K 32" HDR display whereas the SDR equivalents are rather good and cheap already. It amazes me that "take this panel, make it work with mini-LED backlight at a similar performance level" is such a challenge.

 

[zehoo]

Maybe the 27 incher is ok, but to me that is also a bit small.
I just can’t get behind 1440p at $1,000+ I’m thinking 4K or some kind of OLED display less than 4k but more than 1440, but not sure what my options are

Dough Tech (formally Eve) have theirs going for $649 for another 36 hours. But I’m not sure if I’d believe their shipping date of July 2023. It’s glossy though.

https://www.dough.tech/blogs/news/meet-dough-spectrum-oled-qhd-240hz-gaming-monitor-es07e2d

 

[kasakka]

Dough Tech (formally Eve) have theirs going for $649 for another 36 hours. But I’m not sure if I’d believe their shipping date of July 2023. It’s glossy though.

https://www.dough.tech/blogs/news/meet-dough-spectrum-oled-qhd-240hz-gaming-monitor-es07e2d

IMO they're a straight up scam. I looked at their forums and there's still guys waiting for their previous display they ordered in January last year!

 

[Stryker7314]

Dough Tech (formally Eve) have theirs going for $649 for another 36 hours. But I’m not sure if I’d believe their shipping date of July 2023. It’s glossy though.

https://www.dough.tech/blogs/news/meet-dough-spectrum-oled-qhd-240hz-gaming-monitor-es07e2d

Yep pretty sure they're a scam.

 

[zehoo]

Well I'm typing this on a monitor I bought from them, but I do agree they have big issues in meeting deadlines.

(though the refund thread in their forums suggests maybe I got lucky, which is a shame since it's a really good monitor)

 

[Blackstone]

Dough Tech (formally Eve) have theirs going for $649 for another 36 hours. But I’m not sure if I’d believe their shipping date of July 2023. It’s glossy though.

https://www.dough.tech/blogs/news/meet-dough-spectrum-oled-qhd-240hz-gaming-monitor-es07e2d

DOUGH Tech? Are you serious?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

After working on a 1440p monitor for years (LED), I would never consider a 1440p monitor larger than 34 MAX. The clarity just isn’t there.

I think I would do 34 again at 1440p but I would not want to park myself at that PPI/PPD for ever.

Yeah, 2560x1440 at 34" will look rather ugly unless you move the screen to more of a standoff distance. That winds up being 86.4ppi which is lower than almost everything in the modern era, except back when we ran 640x480 on 12" monitors.

For 2560x1440, I think the absolute max size I would use (for normal desktop use) would be 29"-30" somewhere.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Yeah it seems like a weird omission from Nvidia considering Intel supports DP 2.x UHBR10 and AMD DP 2.1 UHBR13.5. Makes me wonder if it's intentional to get people to upgrade to a 5090 in a few years just to have the port. I am still holding a bit of hope that Nvidia actually has the hardware but could not develop the support in time so they make a firmware update for DP 2.1 like they did for older gen for 1.4 support. Most likely won't happen though.

While the only DP 2.1 compatible display announced at CES 2023 that actually needs it is the Samsung 57" 7680x2160 superultrawide, it still sucks to have to compromise on what you can get out of it on the most expensive, highest performance GPU on the market.

It does really suck that there's these phases where things happen. It took about 6 years before I considered it worth upgrading from a 1440p 144 Hz TN G-Sync module display. Then it has taken several years for OLED to become viable and now we are still waiting for an actual, no holds barred good 4K 32" HDR display whereas the SDR equivalents are rather good and cheap already. It amazes me that "take this panel, make it work with mini-LED backlight at a similar performance level" is such a challenge.

It sucks that things move so slowly but on the bright side I guess it means display purchases will last much longer. I'm still using an Acer X27 from 2018 and an LG CX from 2020 and I'm 99% sure I won't be upgrading either of them this year yet again. This is the longest I've ever had my monitor setups remain unchanged but given how much these two costed and I bought them both at full launch MSRP I guess it isn't so bad that they are still sticking around.

 

[enc0re]

Yeah, 2560x1440 at 34" will look rather ugly unless you move the screen to more of a standoff distance. That winds up being 86.4ppi which is lower than almost everything in the modern era, except back when we ran 640x480 on 12" monitors.

For 2560x1440, I think the absolute max size I would use (for normal desktop use) would be 29"-30" somewhere.

I currently run 2560x1440 at 32". 92 PPI. I love the size of everything at 1x scaling on both Windows and macOS. Yes, it's bigger than those OS were designed for (96 and 109 PPI). But I think a little extra size is nice on a bigger monitor.

But it is pixely. 92 is definitely not "retina" or whatever you want to call. I'd love if someone made a 5K at 32" monitor. I'd get perfect size at exactly 2x scaling and I doubt my eyes could make out pixels at 184 PPI.

 

[SoCali]

Yeah it seems like a weird omission from Nvidia considering Intel supports DP 2.x UHBR10 and AMD DP 2.1 UHBR13.5. Makes me wonder if it's intentional to get people to upgrade to a 5090 in a few years just to have the port. I am still holding a bit of hope that Nvidia actually has the hardware but could not develop the support in time so they make a firmware update for DP 2.1 like they did for older gen for 1.4 support. Most likely won't happen though.

While the only DP 2.1 compatible display announced at CES 2023 that actually needs it is the Samsung 57" 7680x2160 superultrawide, it still sucks to have to compromise on what you can get out of it on the most expensive, highest performance GPU on the market.

It does really suck that there's these phases where things happen. It took about 6 years before I considered it worth upgrading from a 1440p 144 Hz TN G-Sync module display. Then it has taken several years for OLED to become viable and now we are still waiting for an actual, no holds barred good 4K 32" HDR display whereas the SDR equivalents are rather good and cheap already. It amazes me that "take this panel, make it work with mini-LED backlight at a similar performance level" is such a challenge.

Yeah I think its primarily cost. UHBR20 at this point would probably cut a significant amount into their margin with little to no payoff in actual use case. Nvidia could have opted for a lower standard but this is Nvidia we are talking about who typically don't cut corners like that. They are just timing the market IMO but it still sucks for 4090 owners who intend to keep their GPU for 3-4 years when a nice DP 2.1 display comes along. On the other hand, I'd argue most 4090 buyers have enough disposable income to upgrade every generation anyway.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I currently run 2560x1440 at 32". 92 PPI. I love the size of everything at 1x scaling on both Windows and macOS. Yes, it's bigger than those OS were designed for (96 and 109 PPI). But I think a little extra size is nice on a bigger monitor.

But it is pixely. 92 is definitely not "retina" or whatever you want to call. I'd love if someone made a 5K at 32" monitor. I'd get perfect size at exactly 2x scaling and I doubt my eyes could make out pixels at 184 PPI.

Yeah, low to mid 90's PPI used to be the norm ever since 1024x768 became a standard resolution at ~14" screens in the 90's. I think the pixelation was less apparent on CRT's than it is on modern screens.

In the early wide screen flat panel days 24" 1920x1200 was essentially the standard, but at 94.3ppi it's a little low compared to what we are used to today.

I really liked my 30" 2560x1600 Dell U3011, which wound up at 100.6ppi. That has led me to believe that ~100ppi is pretty ideal at typical desktop distances. You can get things a little bit smoother by upping the pixel density and scaling, but that seems awfully wasteful to me for marginal benefit.

Personally I'm always running out of screen real estate. As long as I have at least 100 ppi, I'm never really bothered by pixelation.

I guess it about priorities. If you are pixel peeping your desktop icons and fonts, maybe higher ppi and scaling makes sense, but as far as I'm concerned, I'll take the greater screen real-estate every time.

 

[Zorachus]

Maybe later this year / early 2024 we will see some super cool OLED gaming displays. Right now the 45" Ultrawide displays from Corsair and LG are ok, but have a poor resoltion for the size and other tech specs are just good not great. And the LG C3 looks like a very minor improvement over the C2. So far nothing jaw dropping amazing compared to last year.

Again, give me an OLED 38" Ultrawide 3840 X 1600res @ 288hz. Something like that will get me thinking about upgrading from my great AW3423DW, otherwise I'm very happy with my 34" Ultrawide OLED.

 

[Blackstone]

I am curious, how does something like a 77 inch OLED, at 4K, at couch distance, say 10-12 feet, shake out in terms of PPD? Is there a way to calculate it?

Edit: I calculate 146 ish.

 

[SoCali]

It's pretty crazy that 48" LG CX owners who bought new at launch realistically have had nothing to upgrade to for almost 3+ years unless they want to downsize to 42.

48 CX to 48 C3 will basically perfom identically.