tongshadow
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2023
- Messages
- 169
Guess it's over for TN apologists.
https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/attachment-files/2023/10/927771_1698178424416.png
![927607_1698156179709.png](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/attachment-files/2023/10/927607_1698156179709.png)
![](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/attachment-files/2023/10/927771_1698178424416.png)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guess it's over for TN apologists.
![]()
https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/attachment-files/2023/10/927771_1698178424416.png
Are you saying Max Refresh Rate is the most important spec when deciding to buy a display? And even if it were, by 2025 I'm sure OLEDs will reach those speeds without having to look so ugly.
Are you saying Max Refresh Rate is the most important spec when deciding to buy a display? And even if it were, by 2025 I'm sure OLEDs will reach those speeds without having to look so ugly.
Only the highest level players or suckers would buy something like this when OLEDs are evolving this fast.
Refresh rate is the only advantage TN has over other panel types. Saying, "Guess it's over for TN apologists," implies that the 360 Hz refresh rate of the Alienware OLED monitors is as good as a TN panel, so I posted a monitor with a refresh rate higher than 360 Hz.Are you saying Max Refresh Rate is the most important spec when deciding to buy a display? And even if it were, by 2025 I'm sure OLEDs will reach those speeds without having to look so ugly.
Only the highest level players or suckers would buy something like this when OLEDs are evolving this fast.
That's precisely the case, OLED's pixel response times are within micro seconds, as opposed to TN's miliseconds. Consider that even TN doesnt have a performance advantage anymore and it has the worst picture of all displays technologies. Do you still think manufacturers will invest in TN panels in the forseeable future? Dont forget the 1080p@480hz OLED is right around the corner:Refresh rate is the only advantage TN has over other panel types. Saying, "Guess it's over for TN apologists," implies that the 360 Hz refresh rate of the Alienware OLED monitors is as good as a TN panel, so I posted a monitor with a refresh rate higher than 360 Hz.
One of the most interesting developments planned is the new “DFR” (Dynamic Frequency and Resolution) technology. This allows you to choose whether you want to prioritise resolution of refresh rate, giving great flexibility for different gaming scenarios and offering you the best of both worlds. The planned new 31.5″ 4K 240Hz panel will be the first to feature DFR.
For graphics focused games and for those who want to prioritise detail and resolution, you can run in the native 4K @ 240Hz mode, which is already very fast anyway. But there is also the option to switch to a 1080p resolution (1920 x 1080) and run the same panel at 480Hz instead! So for games focused on speed, frame rates and competitive Esports, this could be a really useful option.
This new panel is expected around Q3 2024.
They will certainly be available... for pre-ordering. It's a play on words.Are there any valid reasons to expect these to actually be available in January? I recall reading that even Samsungs panels for it wouldn't be ready by then. Dough is probably already selling them but...
The actual response time of the PG248QP in practice is just over 1ms. Lets say you pick the worst-case scenario in a gaming situation and use Normal overdrive, which gives you 1.5ms response time. That is still good enough for no motion-related artifacts up to a refresh rate of 665 Hz. 1.5ms is more than fast enough for 540 Hz. Your reaction time cannot be faster than the picture being presented, so the fractions of a second response time of an OLED at the same refresh rate is not going to give you any appreciable advantage when both LCD and OLED are sample and hold.That's precisely the case, OLED's pixel response times are within micro seconds, as opposed to TN's miliseconds. Consider that even TN doesnt have a performance advantage anymore and it has the worst picture of all displays technologies. Do you still think manufacturers will invest in TN panels in the forseeable future? Dont forget the 1080p@480hz OLED is right around the corner:
1.5ms is more than fast enough for 540 Hz. Your reaction time cannot be faster than the picture being presented, so the fractions of a second response time of an OLED at the same refresh rate is not going to give you any appreciable advantage when both LCD and OLED are sample and hold.
View attachment 626643
Or just use a pair of good stereo speakers and a receiver. Soundbars suck.Let's talk about how these new bad boys have eARC. No more crazy exotic setups to get 5.1. Plug a damn sound bar in and enjoy.
Do all Soundbars suck? I have a Katana soundbar for my PS5 it's not bad but I'm wondering how TV soundbars would sound like a Bose.Or just use a pair of good stereo speakers and a receiver. Soundbars suck.
eARC is nice though, about time it's supported on monitors too.
Plz don't try and school me with your generic sound bar sucking nonsense. I have gone through a massive sound journey with the PC starting with ISA sound blasters. My current setup is schit audio with monitors and Mr speakers ether flow headphones.Or just use a pair of good stereo speakers and a receiver. Soundbars suck.
eARC is nice though, about time it's supported on monitors too.
What about a z5500? It's small, simple, and use optical connection. It has a tiny footprint for a 5.1 aside from the big 10" sub.Plz don't try and school me with your generic sound bar sucking nonsense. I have gone through a massive sound journey with the PC starting with ISA sound blasters. My current setup is schit audio with monitors and Mr speakers ether flow headphones.
It is next to impossible to get a quality 5.1 setup on a PC. Yes, you can do HDMI to a receiver. Lame if you want to use display port and gsync. It also adds latency if running multi monitor setup. I hated having a massive receiver. I hate having external volume control. For PC, a Sonos Arc with a proper rear setup would be amazing. Even a standard Sonos amp (which has arc) with my existing monitors would be amazing to link into.
You talk about shortcomings while using a QN90B as a gaming display?Too small. 27 is for a side monitor and is laughable as a main monitor. 32 is better but not big enough. 40 or 45 would be perfect. This isn't 2012 a large majority have moved on from smallish displays. Also they are still dim according to reviewers that have actually seen these new ones at CES. Still multiple shortcomings not even including thein the room BURRRRRRN BABY BUUUUUUURRRRRRRN
No, all sound bars do not suck. Yes, a high end setup will always be better. A quality sound bar will beat a shitty 2.1 or 5.1 setup. They also make amazing 2.1 sound bars.Do all Soundbars suck? I have a Katana soundbar for my PS5 it's not bad but I'm wondering how TV soundbars would sound like a Bose.
Feel free to PM me and we can chat. I don't want to derail a thread about a cool monitor. My initial response was just identifying a cool spec it had.What about a z5500? It's small, simple, and use optical connection. It has a tiny footprint for a 5.1 aside from the big 10" sub.
The QN90B is jaw dropping gorgeous. Brilliant HDR and outstanding brightness. I had an LG C2 oled it doesn't help your gaming performance. If you're good you can perform just as good on 144 as 240. A better player will not lose to a worse player because of 144 vs 240. Skill is the difference. Visually the oled looks worse for me. The dim colors are unacceptable for me. It lacks the big bold beautiful punch i need in a big gaming display. I want to be blown out of the water with brightness and color, not a dim display that will burn if I max out the brightness and then suffer from burn in and not even be bright enough maxed out lol. When they fix the brightness and burn in I will get one again. Until then the mini led QN90B is still the king of large gaming displays in my opinion.You talk about shortcomings while using a QN90B as a gaming display?
The QN90B is jaw dropping gorgeous. Brilliant HDR and outstanding brightness. I had an LG C2 oled it doesn't help your gaming performance. If you're good you can perform just as good on 144 as 240. A better player will not lose to a worse player because of 144 vs 240. Skill is the difference. Visually the oled looks worse for me. The dim colors are unacceptable for me. It lacks the big bold beautiful punch i need in a big gaming display. I want to be blown out of the water with brightness and color, not a dim display that will burn if I max out the brightness and then suffer from burn in and not even be bright enough maxed out lol. When they fix the brightness and burn in I will get one again. Until then the mini led QN90B is still the king of large gaming displays in my opinion.
I stand correctedA QB90B is the king of large gaming displays? Hisense 110UX with 10,000 nits + 40,000 dimming zones would disagree
https://www.cnet.com/tech/home-ente...ge-110-inch-tv-maxes-out-mini-led-brightness/
Too small. 27 is for a side monitor and is laughable as a main monitor. 32 is better but not big enough. 40 or 45 would be perfect. This isn't 2012 a large majority have moved on from smallish displays. Also they are still dim according to reviewers that have actually seen these new ones at CES. Still multiple shortcomings not even including thein the room BURRRRRRN BABY BUUUUUUURRRRRRRN
Plz don't try and school me with your generic sound bar sucking nonsense. I have gone through a massive sound journey with the PC starting with ISA sound blasters. My current setup is schit audio with monitors and Mr speakers ether flow headphones.
It is next to impossible to get a quality 5.1 setup on a PC. Yes, you can do HDMI to a receiver. Lame if you want to use display port and gsync. It also adds latency if running multi monitor setup. I hated having a massive receiver. I hate having external volume control. For PC, a Sonos Arc with a proper rear setup would be amazing. Even a standard Sonos amp (which has arc) with my existing monitors would be amazing to link into.
The QN90B is jaw dropping gorgeous. Brilliant HDR and outstanding brightness. I had an LG C2 oled it doesn't help your gaming performance. If you're good you can perform just as good on 144 as 240. A better player will not lose to a worse player because of 144 vs 240. Skill is the difference.
At some point higher fpsHz becomes more about the blur reduction but that is an important aspect. Blur reduction is a huge aesthetic/visual benefit so high fpsHz is not just something that competitive gamers benefit from. Besides, if you look into the nature of *online* gaming servers and how it all works your local fpsHz is definitely not a 1:1 relationship to how online gaming server's tick rates, online ping times, and server interpolated results works so a lot of the competitive gaming (online gaming) promotion of very high fpsHz is just marketing. Most testing of very high fpsHz benefits in competitive games shown in videos is done locally on a lan and/or vs bots which is completely different from internet gaming's ticks/varying pingtime graphs/server's biased choices/coding on how to interpolate results to be delivered. (Plus online gaming is rife with cheaters and even low-key less obvious cheating methods to give an edge to carry and ladder, cheaters by the thousands even if some get caught).
There are two benefits from higher and higher fpsHz.
One is motion clarity. aka blur reduction.
The other is motion definition. aka smoothness. More dots per curved dotted line. More unique frames in an animation flip book and the pages flipping faster.
. . . . .
For all practical purposes, BFI (black frame insertion) is incompatible with HDR for the forseeable future since it cuts the brightness down by around 1/2. So it's not the best for the HDR era as it stands now, and it has some other tradeoffs. So the only way to reduce blur otherwise is by utilizing higher and higher fpsHz.
High fpsHz cuts motion blur down appreciably.
60fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs almost 17 pixels wide.
120fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs around 8 pixels wide.
165fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs around 6 pixels wide.
240fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs around 4 pixels wide.
480fpsHz solid when moving the viewport at 1000pixels/second blurs around 2 pixels wide.
https://www.blurbusters.com/blur-bu...000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
![]()
. . . .
That blur amount varies +/- by how fast you are moving the viewport (e.g. 2000px/sec = double that, 500px/sec halves the listed # of pixels, no movement = zero) . . but it affects the entire viewport during mouse-looking, movement-keying, controller panning. Everything. Texture detail, depth via bump mapping, objects, architectures, lights, text and even in game lettering/signage, etc.
So there are huge aesthetic (beauty, art, visual excellence) aspects to higher and higher fpsHz. In the future we'll probably hit 1000fpsHz someyear using frame amplification technologies.
. . . . .
Motion definition aspect.
I'd guess that somewhere after 200fpsHz or so (solid or minimum, not average) the motion definition aspect of higher fpsHz probably has diminishing returns.
what I was getting at is when comparing to 120Hz gaming(optimally 120fpsHz). Your twitch human reaction is 150 - 180ms later than a stimulus on pc, so if that ms the say 180ms reaction time ends at hits on the boost frame when playing a 60fpsHz limitation game boosted to 120Hz I can see how it could happen faster than if you had to instead wait for the full or bulk of 16.7 ms remaining even if being delivered the same 8.3m + 8.3ms frame with no changes.
However on the beginning end of the equation, you won't see the thing to react to in the first place 8.3ms sooner (e.g. a 60fpsHz at 120fpsHz via boost/dupe/120hz refreshing'container') since you are seeing the same frame 2x essentially (8.3ms + the same 8.3ms frame) compared to someone who sees a new, unique frame every one of the "2nd" 8.3ms frames that follow at that 120fpsHz (solid, for example purposes). So, theoretically, you could both react to the same thing that happened but the 120fpsHz person could have seen it 8.3ms sooner than you did. Your inputs could take the exact same time to resolve from the time they were initiated - but even though you can use foresight and intuition, knowledge of how things pans out in games, etc. - typically you can't react to what you haven't seen yet so visually you wouldn't be able to start to react until 8.3ms later since you haven't seen the new unique frame state yet.
Like I said though, ping times and online server's interpolation dynamics will muddy how often you see a new frame in online games to begin with and server's results have their own coding biases. Local gaming would prob have more measurable gain/loss.
Doubling the frame in effect can look a little smoother but without a new unique frame (even an in-between one manufactured using AI frame generation) - it's not adding any motion definition smoothness wise. It's the same state of a running cell animation twice where 120fpsHz sees the runner in a state between that and the 3rd frame. So the 120fpsHz view is much smoother, twice as articulated, twice as many dots per dotted line path/curve so to speak where 60fpsHz has half of the plot points.
60fpsHz at 120 would still cut the sample and hold blur by half though too, and might help cut down on the variance from 120hz gamma state vrr black flicker on some games.
So all things considered it seems like a good improvement for 60fpsHz capped games, but when comparing input lag vs 120fpsHz performance wise - even if the time after you initiated your input is the same length, I think the ongoing 8.3ms sooner look at how the world looks or changed might come into play in how fast you are able to react in the first place overall (at least for local games).
It has the lowest lag ratings of all TVs and gamer-centric features like VRR, BFI and Black Equalizer at a reasonable screen size and price. All that while delivering exceptional picture quality, good sound, and SmartTV features.I had an LG C2 oled it doesn't help your gaming performance. If you're good you can perform just as good on 144 as 240.
The QN90B is jaw dropping gorgeous. Brilliant HDR and outstanding brightness. I had an LG C2 oled it doesn't help your gaming performance. If you're good you can perform just as good on 144 as 240. A better player will not lose to a worse player because of 144 vs 240. Skill is the difference. Visually the oled looks worse for me. The dim colors are unacceptable for me. It lacks the big bold beautiful punch i need in a big gaming display. I want to be blown out of the water with brightness and color, not a dim display that will burn if I max out the brightness and then suffer from burn in and not even be bright enough maxed out lol. When they fix the brightness and burn in I will get one again. Until then the mini led QN90B is still the king of large gaming displays in my opinion.
It has the lowest lag ratings of all TVs and gamer-centric features like VRR, BFI and Black Equalizer at a reasonable screen size and price. All that while delivering exceptional picture quality, good sound, and SmartTV features.
The C2 may not be the best performer, but a product is more than the sum of its parts.
They gave the nod to the OLED. Part of the reason they give points to the QLED FALD for bright room performance is because you need brighter to compensate just to get back to square one so that it will look how screens look in a dimmer / home theater environment."The LG C2 OLED is better overall than the Samsung QN90B QLED, but choosing one over the other also depends on your viewing conditions. The LG is a better choice for a dim or dark room, as it has much better contrast and no blooming around bright objects in dark scenes. On the other hand, the Samsung TV is a better choice for a bright room, as it gets significantly brighter.
I read the Rtings reviews front to back about the FALD and OLED reviews they published so I am familiar with all of the trade offs. The importance of the trade-offs to each person is what makes a difference. The criticisms of QN90B are basically nitpicking that it isn't perfect. Which is fine because no display is "perfect". The LG oleds I've seen and used have been dim. That is not a nitpick, that's a massive deal breaker. The QN90B is fast enough and looks good enough to our average enthusiasts don't nit pick because it truly is more than good enough in every way. The Oleds are not bright enough and that totally takes it out of the running unless it's always dark in the room, that's ridiculous and unacceptable. Another thing that is unacceptable is how fast they burn in. I've seen reviews online of burning in just a couple of months. Not interested in any of that, at all lol.He's comparing it to a FALD. They both (OLED and FALD gaming tvs) have major tradeoffs so that's beating a dead horse sort-of. I did consider the QN90B for my living room back when I was shopping for one but I decided to go with a 77" C1 OLED for some of the reasons below. I'm not saying it's a bad TV, and it scored really high on RTings too, just showing here that the QN90B has major tradeoffs which made me decide against it. In addition to these, the larger versions of it have a bad AG layer that causes a rainbow effect.
. . . .
qn90B Rtings:
"There isn't too much blooming around bright objects in dark scenes, like subtitles, but it's still there with the local dimming feature enabled."
"This TV has amazing black uniformity with Local Dimming on 'High'. It displays deep blacks, but there's still some blooming around bright objects on dark backgrounds."
"The transition between dimming zones is decent, but it isn't as good as you'd expect from a high-end TV. The local dimming algorithm can't keep up well with fast-moving objects transitioning between dimming zones. While this isn't noticeable with most content, it can get distracting with fast-moving objects on dark backgrounds, as the leading edge is darker and the trailing edge has a bit of a halo effect."
"Unfortunately, like most Samsung TVs, the local dimming feature in Game Mode seems to be spreading highlights out over a greater number of zones, so there's a bit more noticeable blooming compared to outside of Game Mode. The processing is also slightly slower, so zone transitions are more noticeable. However, it's mainly due to the increased blooming."
. . . . . .
HDR on the QN90B has very good brightness, especially compared to an oled but the Q90B has aggressive ABL even though it's not OLED, probably because it goes so bright
HDR outside of game mode:
"The Samsung QN90B is exceptionally bright in HDR. Small specular highlights are incredibly bright, so fine details stand out in any scene. Large, bright scenes are significantly dimmer because of the somewhat aggressive Automatic Brightness Limiter (ABL), but they're still bright enough for a good HDR experience. The display's brightness doesn't fade the longer highlights stay on the screen, which is great."
HDR in game mode:
"The HDR brightness in Game Mode is fantastic. While it doesn't get as bright as outside of it, it's still bright enough to make highlights pop in HDR for a satisfying HDR experience."
. . . .
"The Samsung QN90B has an excellent pixel response time. Most transitions are extremely quick, resulting in a short blur trail behind fast-moving objects. There's still some noticeable persistence blur, and there's overshoot in some dark transitions. This causes some inverse ghosting, but it isn't very noticeable."
. . .
"This TV uses pulse width modulation (PWM) to dim its backlight, and the flicker frequency varies between picture modes and with certain settings. In 'Movie' mode, with the backlight set between '46' and the max of '50', the backlight flickers at 120Hz. However, it increases to 960Hz with a backlight setting below '46'. The flicker frequency drops to 120Hz in the 'Dynamic', 'Natural', 'Standard', and 'Filmmaker' Picture Modes, or if you enable the Game Mode or Picture Clarity settings. This low flicker frequency can cause headaches if you're sensitive to flicker, and it also causes image duplications with 60Hz content."
. . .
"The Samsung QN90B Neo QLED has an optional backlight strobing feature, commonly known as BFI. This feature reduces persistence blur caused by the TV's fast response time. It works at both 60Hz and 120Hz, but the timing is a bit off, causing a duplicated image."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
RTINGs compared the LG C2 OLD to the QN90B...
They gave the nod to the OLED. Part of the reason they give points to the QLED FALD for bright room performance is because you need brighter to compensate just to get back to square one so that it will look how screens look in a dimmer / home theater environment.
FALD will always be non-uniform due to the nature of the tech and the size and # of the backlights, plus they are slower than oleds which is related to some of the tradeoffs above.
I don't feel right unless BRAZZERS is burnt into an oled.As someone who has been searching for a new monitor to buy I don't care what a monitor is made from but considering screen burn in, why would anyone spend money on oled?
As someone who has been searching for a new monitor to buy I don't care what a monitor is made from but considering screen burn in, why would anyone spend money on oled?