Would you ever go back to LCD after experiencing OLED?

Comixbooks

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
22,029
You might have some people going back to LCD monitors just like CRT monitors.
 
I did go back but only because OLED doesn't exist in 32" monitors and that will change next year. I just don't want a 42/48 monitor and no amount of viewing distance argument is going to change my mind.
 
I think OLEDs are fantastic for TVs, but until they start coming with RGB pixel structures and less compromises for desktop size displays, I'd still veer on the side of LCD in that area.
 
kasakka said:
I think OLEDs are fantastic for TVs, but until they start coming with RGB pixel structures and less compromises for desktop size displays, I'd still veer on the side of LCD in that area.
Click to expand...
Samsung's OLED panels are RGB, the subpixel structure is just arranged in a triangle shape.

1st gen QD-OLED:
1701107753671.png


2nd-gen QD-OLED:
1701107792997.png
 
I did with my phone and regretted it. This was about 10 years ago. I had a 1920x1080 resolution OLED phone which died and I had to just go to a store and buy a new one in a hurry without doing any real research. OLED phones were still stuck at 1920x1080 and I wanted to at least get an upgrade over my old phone. So I got a 2560x1440 resolution LCD phone. The bump in resolution was very nice, but I constantly missed the OLED contrast. It wasn't worth it.

I won't ever go back to LCD as my phone, main monitor, or TV.
 
It's definitely difficult to go back to an LCD after trying one out, but honestly yeah I would. There are longevity issues and also text display issues. And more than anything, just doesn't look like any OLED out there really ticks all my boxes anyway.

Also this video definitely gave me some pause:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7V_OOu6B8

Granted I keep most of my displays at 25%-50% brightness, but the fact that the burn in can get that bad at any point during the display's life cycle kind of makes it much less of an investment. I suppose one can view it like upgrading the GPU regularly. It's still going to last a while, but on the other hand I have LCD monitors from probably 20 years ago that still work and don't have burn-in. I've had a plasma before, so I know what it's like to have a display that you have to handle with baby gloves, and it's kind of annoying.

I have to admit though, that 45" 3440x1440 OLED ultrawide that I tried was absolutely amazing for immersion, though.
 
MistaSparkul said:
I did go back but only because OLED doesn't exist in 32" monitors and that will change next year. I just don't want a 42/48 monitor and no amount of viewing distance argument is going to change my mind.
Click to expand...
INNOCN has a 4k/60hz 32" OLED, which reviews well as a pro display. And has a pixel structure which doesn't have the fringing issues.
Unfortunately. All inputs are USB-C and it doesn't seem to support VRR.
 
chameleoneel said:
INNOCN has a 4k/60hz 32" OLED, which reviews well as a pro display. And has a pixel structure which doesn't have the fringing issues.
Unfortunately. All inputs are USB-C and it doesn't seem to support VRR.
Click to expand...

I have the InnoCN 4K144Hz FALD monitor :) it's a great monitor and I'll definitely be holding onto it even after I get a 4K240Hz QD OLED next year.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
It's definitely difficult to go back to an LCD after trying one out, but honestly yeah I would. There are longevity issues and also text display issues. And more than anything, just doesn't look like any OLED out there really ticks all my boxes anyway.

Also this video definitely gave me some pause:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7V_OOu6B8

Granted I keep most of my displays at 25%-50% brightness, but the fact that the burn in can get that bad at any point during the display's life cycle kind of makes it much less of an investment. I suppose one can view it like upgrading the GPU regularly. It's still going to last a while, but on the other hand I have LCD monitors from probably 20 years ago that still work and don't have burn-in. I've had a plasma before, so I know what it's like to have a display that you have to handle with baby gloves, and it's kind of annoying.

I have to admit though, that 45" 3440x1440 OLED ultrawide that I tried was absolutely amazing for immersion, though.
Click to expand...

I have to say even with the text issues I still prefer working on an OLED. Those blacks just make day to day use a lot more enjoyable. I don't know about longevity, that is a valid concern although so far none of my OLED displays have gotten burn in. Oldest is an LG C6 that I bought in 2016.

If my AW 34" develops burn-in after the warranty is up I'll just gladly buy a new one I guess. They've gotten some heavy discounts this BF. Prices keep trending down, so eventually, OLED will be so cheap it'll just be the defacto option.
 
Ya I love my QN90B Mini LED more than anything else on the market right now & nothing to make me want to upgrade yet.
 
I've been buying exclusively OLED for ~7 years now. And as soon as the OLED Deck dropped, I listed my LCD for sale and purchased the OLED.

Used them with my PC since day one. Never had any issues, such as burn in. Seems like the tests in regards to it aren't relatable to casual, real world use. The only time anyone is putting still images at high brightness for long periods of time are for these kinds of tests. Similarly, that's also the only time anyone is looking at the slides required to see the burn-in in the first place.
 
I have been on OLED and I will never go back to it. I look at text way more than I look at pretty graphics on a monitor . Text quality is terrible on OLED if you are looking at it hours on end every day. A big NO Thank You for me. Even with graphic use, I found it too dim for my liking, add ABL into the mix and I immediately knew this monitor technology is not for me. Yes, I know I'm in the minority.
 
I hear this font clarity issue all the time and simply do not see it on my 48in C2. Are you guys holding up a magnifying glass to the panel and studying the sub pixels? Or are you using it in a normal win11 environment?

I have had my 48in C2 for a year and more now running Win11 desktop and have 0 text issues. You folk out there have superhuman eyeballs?
 
jarablue said:
I hear this font clarity issue all the time and simply do not see it on my 48in C2. Are you guys holding up a magnifying glass to the panel and studying the sub pixels? Or are you using it in a normal win11 environment?

I have had my 48in C2 for a year and more now running Win11 desktop and have 0 text issues. You folk out there have superhuman eyeballs?
Click to expand...
It's apparently worse on the QD-OLEDs, especially 1st gen ones.

I can notice it on my LG CX 48", especially at 100% scaling. It's ok at 125% scaling or higher and I used it for work for two years. It's going to be more apparent if you have a standard IPS RGB panel next to it - you see some yellow/green fringing on some text, at the edges of some things and so on.
 
I go back and forth between two PCs: One with a QD-OLED 175Hz monitor and another with an IPS 165Hz monitor. Both are calibrated and set in SDR/sRGB mode. I don't do HDR because the implementation sucks in Windows and isn't color accurate.

While OLED dominates in terms of contrast, black levels and per pixel lighting, the color rendering is about the same. I actually have no issues going back to the IPS and honestly, babying the OLED is a bit of a pain in the ass with several hours of normal desktop use daily and I seem to notice motion looks "choppy" on it more than the IPS at relatively low frame rates. The text rendering of the QD-OLED bothered me at first but I got used to it eventually.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
For anything other than cost reasons? No.
The only reason to not pick OLED at this point is because of money.
Click to expand...
These days you're going to be spending about the same amount of money on an equivalent LCD monitor or TV as an OLED.
 
Yes, I did actually. Not "go back" so much as have both. I have an S95B TV that I love. Minor issues but overall great display, so nice for games. I wanted to get an HDR monitor for desktop gaming (computer is hooked to monitor and to TV, I can switch back and forth). I was looking at an OLED monitor, but decided I was too worried about desktop use/burn in and got a PG32UQX which is a 4k 1152-zone MiniLED LCD monitor. It is great. It has issues the OLED doesn't, like slower response and some haloing, but it also looks amazing, it is SO BRIGHT, doing like 1700nit peak and 1400 full-field. I am really split as to which I like better.

I could see that with improvements, MiniLED could continue to be very compelling to me. Like if you got to 4000-5000 zones, I'm not sure the haloing would be noticeable anymore, and there are new TVs coming out with that and advertising 4000nit or greater output. That is amazing, and not something OLED can compete with. No real burn in risks either, at least with an SDR desktop (you could theoretically get zone burn in with protracted static HDR content, but it'd be hard).

On the other hand, even if this monitor had a faster panel (it is slow, even by LCD standards) they just aren't going to compare to the clarity of an OLED, and the QD-OLEDs have just amazing viewing angles that IPS can't touch.

Basically having seen examples of both being done quite well, it isn't the clear OLED victory that some think. It is if you take OLED vs non-HDR, not very wide gamut, LCD. But if you compare it to a good MiniLED display with lots of zones and a nice QD color layer, it is no longer the blowout you might expect.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
For anything other than cost reasons? No.
The only reason to not pick OLED at this point is because of money.
Click to expand...
There are still a couple of fringe cases. Example is Viewsonic XG-2431 blur busters monitor. With QFT + strobbing it has motion clarity close to CRT at 60hz and better than CRT at 85hz (OLED simply cannot do this yet). That being said, I would love to have an OLED monitor that had BFI. Even if it's not as clear as the Viewsonic, it's got no cross-talk and doesn't need tricks like QFT to be viable.
 
Armenius said:
These days you're going to be spending about the same amount of money on an equivalent LCD monitor or TV as an OLED.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it depends on what you mean by more expensive or less expensive and for what level of product.
There are definitely LCD's that cost as much as OLED's but that requires them to have specific technologies and feature sets.
If you're looking for an LCD that has a similar amount of capabilities as an OLED (not the same as we know they have different limitations) then yes, arguably they cost the same amount.
It becomes a discussion about what models of LCD you're cherry picking and what models of OLED you're cherry picking.
So if the goal is proving or disproving my statement would come down to the models and specs you're cherry picking.

I would still say on the whole though, what I'm saying is correct. At least in terms of lowest cost LCD vs lowest cost OLED, which was my point to begin with. That the reason why you'd pick an LCD over OLED (to me) is because you're okay with accepting a lower cost LCD over getting a more expensive 'base' OLED. And in order to reach feature parity on LCD, that is to raise it to the cost of a similar OLED, being not worth the cost for that buyer.
And then directly how it relates to me, because this question was asking individuals, there is no LCD option, even with full backlight, that I would choose over OLED unless the reason why I'm buying one or the other is cost. However again, for me, as the question is posed to the individual there is no LCD that I would pick over OLED, cost no object. Which is my direct answer to the question as posed in the op.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
The problem is that it depends on what you mean by more expensive or less expensive and for what level of product.
There are definitely LCD's that cost as much as OLED's but that requires them to have specific technologies and feature sets.
If you're looking for an LCD that has a similar amount of capabilities as an OLED (not the same as we know they have different limitations) then yes, arguably they cost the same amount.
It becomes a discussion about what models of LCD you're cherry picking and what models of OLED you're cherry picking.
So if the goal is proving or disproving my statement would come down to the models and specs you're cherry picking.

I would still say on the whole though, what I'm saying is correct. At least in terms of lowest cost LCD vs lowest cost OLED, which was my point to begin with. That the reason why you'd pick an LCD over OLED (to me) is because you're okay with accepting a lower cost LCD over getting a more expensive 'base' OLED. And in order to reach feature parity on LCD, that is to raise it to the cost of a similar OLED, being not worth the cost for that buyer.
And then directly how it relates to me, because this question was asking individuals, there is no LCD option, even with full backlight, that I would choose over OLED unless the reason why I'm buying one or the other is cost. However again, for me, as the question is posed to the individual there is no LCD that I would pick over OLED, cost no object. Which is my direct answer to the question as posed in the op.
Click to expand...
A strict requirement for comparison is that the LCD needs a FALD with an appreciable number of dimming zones. For televisions I am comparing a LG C3 to a Samsung QN90C. For monitors I am comparing a ASUS PG27AQDM to a INNOCN 27M2V.

Lets examine some of the reasons for choosing an OLED:
  • Perfect blacks. LCDs can't come close to achieving a perfect black point, but they do better with FALD.
  • Near-instantaneous response time. Paired with BFI an OLED can achieve great motion clarity that can rival CRT.
  • HDR capability. The pixels are self-emissive, only limited by the manufacturer in how bright they can get due to concerns of screen longevity. LCD needs FALD to compete, and comes with its own issues like blooming and bleed despite being able to achieve more brightness.
If you're considering the "base" OLED, then you shouldn't be considering a LCD without FALD. The "base" LG OLED is the B3. The arguably best LCD you can get without going above the price of the B3 is the Samsung Q80C. The Q80C only has 96 dimming zones compared to the 8 million on the B3 or the 720 on the QN90C.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xar
like this
Armenius said:
A strict requirement for comparison is that the LCD needs a FALD with an appreciable number of dimming zones. For televisions I am comparing a LG C3 to a Samsung QN90C. For monitors I am comparing a ASUS PG27AQDM to a INNOCN 27M2V.

Lets examine some of the reasons for choosing an OLED:
  • Perfect blacks. LCDs can't come close to achieving a perfect black point, but they do better with FALD.
  • Near-instantaneous response time. Paired with BFI an OLED can achieve great motion clarity that can rival CRT.
  • HDR capability. The pixels are self-emissive, only limited by the manufacturer in how bright they can get due to concerns of screen longevity. LCD needs FALD to compete, and comes with its own issues like blooming and bleed despite being able to achieve more brightness.
If you're considering the "base" OLED, then you shouldn't be considering a LCD without FALD. The "base" LG OLED is the B3. The arguably best LC you can get without going above the price of the B3 is the Samsung Q80C. The Q80C only has 96 dimming zones compared to the 8 million on the B3 or the 720 on the QN90C.
Click to expand...
I literally covered this whole post in my response.

The question is: would I ever buy an LCD after experiencing OLED. The answer is: no. There are zero qualifications about feature parity in the op.

Basically if I’m going to spend that level of money, it’s going to be OLED. And that isn’t uncommon in terms of thinking.

So the reason for me to buy LCD is still going to be because I can’t buy a better OLED. I’m either getting an LCD that has lesser performance, or if I’m spending money it’s going to be OLED. Is that more clear for you? Is it not obvious that the cheapest LCD is way less expensive than the cheapest OLED?
 
Its definitely not a “crt like” miss it thing. I dont feel bad about having given my lcds away or them sitting the corner getting chewed on by the cats and collecting dust. Theres been no impulse to connect them back up.

But even though my qdoled aw is great on so many levels its a bit disappointing that even steam deck oled has like 600nit full scene (?) and we’re still at 250 for both woled and qdoled for the foreseeable future on desktop (?)

But, even if old hdr games are hopeless, and there isn’t the literal range there to do the brilliant sky over terrain thing, most newer HDR games do now mange to make a really nice true black 400 image that is unambiguously deeper and more colourful than sdr (I cant stand peak1000 though.. its waaaaay too much of a stretch for this thing). (and there is still plenty of fakeHDR badness) Sdr is brilliant, all it needs is a bfi of some flavour.

But i definitely do want to play with a no fuss 1000 nit full field display. Which I’m sure means I’ll impulse buy an lcd in a moment of weakness at some point…

I think minileds should be nearly at a stage where somebody should be able to just release a no fuss nicely balanced “reference” style 1000nit full-field gaming mini-led? Dont worry about 50 overdrive modes and 5 fald modes and 1200.827nits on a 14.3838% window nonsense that just creates mismatches between scene composition and device performance….just do 1000nits because thats what all the games do out of the box.

Id get a complimentary lcd in the short term for that (does it exist already?). Probably. When its cheaper than a second hand car in my region.
 
I have a 1080p/240hz monitor which does 500 nits in SDR and I set it at brightness setting of '40' (out of 100) for gaming. And that same '40' is otherwise too much, for general computer use.

I dunno how people can stand 1000 nits HDR, on a computer desk. It might be ok in a 12 foot living room experience, etc. And I also wouldn't be looking at a 27 - 34 inch monitor at that point, either.
 
Oh I agree, in SDR 250nit is already too bright for me, I don't run it 100% brightness either there.

But HDR isn't SDR, you bump the brightness in SDR and everything gets bright without any sort of balance, it just stretches the scene out like an ink mark on an elastic band being pulled out. In HDR its more like you stretch the band first and then you've got more space to draw the scene in. Everything should be artist driven and balanced and look good. And I feel like a lot HDR games do the 1000nit peak, 300nit apl thing. So 250nits really just isn't enough for the oleds anyway.

Having 'reference' (in quotes because I know thats not literally happening without dual layer or whatever pixel-perfect tech) 1000nits would be just because, well the tech can do it now, and it removes edge cases and gets you closer to the 'it just works' ideal irregardless of what the scene is doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
I don't want to, but I may be going back (for a secondary display) purely thanks to cost. It's hard to justify ~$800 after taxes and all for a 42" C3, maybe $100 less for a C2, for a second computer that only really gets used when someone has the main PC and 65" OLED tied up with a movie or something. I can get a 32" 144Hz 1440p VA monitor for less than $200, which would still be a big step up from the older 27" 144Hz 1080p being used with it now.
 
Last edited:
The only thing about OLED that I really feel is missing from my Fast-IPS panel are the ultra deep blacks. But I don't really spend that much time looking at a black screen...

I was using a VA panel when I upgraded from Windows 10 to Windows 11. After the upgrade, I could still see the Windows 10 Start Menu icon because it had become burned in. I knew then that if I could cause burn-in on a VA panel, there is no way I should get anywhere near an OLED. Even if you aren't looking at a static image all day, there are still UI elements that are static (such as the taskbar, etc), and that is what is going to burn-in first.
 
GotNoRice said:
The only thing about OLED that I really feel is missing from my Fast-IPS panel are the ultra deep blacks. But I don't really spend that much time looking at a black screen...
Click to expand...

The things that OLED has that a good IPS panel doesn't are:

1) Motion clarity. The instant response does make things look more clear than an equivalent frame rate on an IPS.
2) Viewing angle. This is particularly true with QD-OLED. They have an essentially perfect viewing angle and IPS, good though it is, does have some gamma shift at wide angles and if you are close to your monitor with it taking up a lot of your field of view you get that.

They also have two things up on any IPS panel that doesn't have FALD:

3) Deep black/contrast ratio.
4) Ability to do HDR.


But yes, burn-in was one of a couple reasons why I decided to get an FALD IPS screen instead of a QD-OLED one. It's not just deep blacks that make OLED desirable though, it really is a good tech, but currently its burn-in potential is too much for my comfort for desktop, and its brightness is good but not great.
 
Sycraft said:
But yes, burn-in was one of a couple reasons why I decided to get an FALD IPS screen instead of a QD-OLED one. It's not just deep blacks that make OLED desirable though, it really is a good tech, but currently its burn-in potential is too much for my comfort for desktop, and its brightness is good but not great.
Click to expand...

Why not both? :D Once those 32" 240Hz QD OLEDs come out next year I'll be picking one up but I'm still keeping my FALD IPS on the table as well. For as great as those QD OLEDs are going to be with glossy screens and 240Hz refresh rate, the HDR capability on them is just nerfed too hard. 400 nits on a 10% window is barely HDR so I have a feeling some games are just going to deliver much more impact on my FALD IPS monitor instead, and if I can't even hit above 144fps in such titles anyways then the 240Hz of the QD OLED is a moot point. For playing something competitive where I can hit well above 144fps at 4K though the QD OLED is sure to be phenomenal.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Why not both? :D Once those 32" 240Hz QD OLEDs come out next year I'll be picking one up but I'm still keeping my FALD IPS on the table as well. For as great as those QD OLEDs are going to be with glossy screens and 240Hz refresh rate, the HDR capability on them is just nerfed too hard. 400 nits on a 10% window is barely HDR so I have a feeling some games are just going to deliver much more impact on my FALD IPS monitor instead, and if I can't even hit above 144fps in such titles anyways then the 240Hz of the QD OLED is a moot point. For playing something competitive where I can hit well above 144fps at 4K though the QD OLED is sure to be phenomenal.
Click to expand...
Switching monitors is too much hassle. Not only do I not have the room for 2x 32" on my desk with the setup I have, but even if I did I wouldn't since I'm fussy and like looking at my monitor straight on. So that would mean I'd either need to swap them in and out, or have a second setup. Swapping is just too much of a pain. I actually did that back in the day and got real tired of it. I had a nice professional NEC monitor that was real slow, 33ms processing time, but amazing image and a BenQ 120Hz monitor. 120Hz was super rare back then, marketed for 3D, and it was utter fucking garbage image wise, but 120Hz and low latency to boot (though the low latency mode made it look even worse, disabled FRC and it was only a 6-bit panel). I'd swap it in to play fast shooters, and then swap back, but it was such a pain swapping monitors I found I didn't want to, and it would change what games I was willing to play.

The other option would be two complete setups and I don't have space for that, at least not without making my girlfriend get rid of her art table or something which I won't do. It would also be pricey.

Hence I got one monitor that is pretty good at everything, even if it means I don't get the prettiness of OLED. When I want OLED, I switch over to the TV (S95B).
 
Sycraft said:
Switching monitors is too much hassle. Not only do I not have the room for 2x 32" on my desk with the setup I have, but even if I did I wouldn't since I'm fussy and like looking at my monitor straight on. So that would mean I'd either need to swap them in and out, or have a second setup. Swapping is just too much of a pain. I actually did that back in the day and got real tired of it. I had a nice professional NEC monitor that was real slow, 33ms processing time, but amazing image and a BenQ 120Hz monitor. 120Hz was super rare back then, marketed for 3D, and it was utter fucking garbage image wise, but 120Hz and low latency to boot (though the low latency mode made it look even worse, disabled FRC and it was only a 6-bit panel). I'd swap it in to play fast shooters, and then swap back, but it was such a pain swapping monitors I found I didn't want to, and it would change what games I was willing to play.

The other option would be two complete setups and I don't have space for that, at least not without making my girlfriend get rid of her art table or something which I won't do. It would also be pricey.

Hence I got one monitor that is pretty good at everything, even if it means I don't get the prettiness of OLED. When I want OLED, I switch over to the TV (S95B).
Click to expand...

But in that case aren't you still switching displays in the end? It's either both your monitor and TV are hooked up to the same PC which means you need to switch displays whenever you go back and fourth, or you have two different dedicated setups one for the monitor and one for the TV. I would honestly love nothing more than to have just a single display for anything and everything, and the QD OLED would fit the bill if it could at least do some decent brightness for HDR but since it can't then I simply won't be able to have it all in single monitor unfortunately.
 
MistaSparkul said:
But in that case aren't you still switching displays in the end? It's either both your monitor and TV are hooked up to the same PC which means you need to switch displays whenever you go back and fourth, or you have two different dedicated setups one for the monitor and one for the TV. I would honestly love nothing more than to have just a single display for anything and everything, and the QD OLED would fit the bill if it could at least do some decent brightness for HDR but since it can't then I simply won't be able to have it all in single monitor unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I am, the reason I don't do it with two monitors is space/cost (also complexity because I'd then really have 3). Like we are going to have our TV setup regardless of if my PC hooks to it or not, even if I got rid of the PC entirely the TV would remain for movies, Netflix, consoles, etc. So it doesn't add extra space or cost directly since it is something we already have. But if I wanted a second desktop setup then I'd have to find a spot for a second desk, and then buy all the associated things I want with it.

Basically I can switch from desktop gaming to couch gaming right now. I am just not really able to add a second desktop gaming setup, so I'll stick with one compromise monitor for desktop.
 
Sycraft said:
I am, the reason I don't do it with two monitors is space/cost (also complexity because I'd then really have 3). Like we are going to have our TV setup regardless of if my PC hooks to it or not, even if I got rid of the PC entirely the TV would remain for movies, Netflix, consoles, etc. So it doesn't add extra space or cost directly since it is something we already have. But if I wanted a second desktop setup then I'd have to find a spot for a second desk, and then buy all the associated things I want with it.

Basically I can switch from desktop gaming to couch gaming right now. I am just not really able to add a second desktop gaming setup, so I'll stick with one compromise monitor for desktop.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I tried to live with a single compromise LCD but just ended up not being able to in the end. It just felt a tad bit too sluggish and blurry for playing certain games.
 
Comixbooks said:
You might have some people going back to LCD monitors just like CRT monitors.
Click to expand...
Yes, went from a LGC2 to a mini led QN90B. Honest truth is I hated the oled, and love the mini led so much that I bought 2. I have the QN90A and the QN90B. The wife also hated the oled and similarly loves the mini Leds so much more lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top