6 ms·

...and I’d opt for the spatial resolution, completing the trifecta! Thankfully, we can just have all three :)

by hyko 6y ago

formerly_proven 6y ago
> Thankfully, we can just have all three :) Not at this time. There are some hypothetical options like the LG 27GN950, but it has poor contrast and uses Displayport 1.4 compression, which is only supported in the latest graphics cards. VESA and friends really made DisplayPort 1.4 as close as they possibly could to false advertising without actually committing it (because the only relevant new thing in DP 1.4 -- DSC, display stream compression -- is technically optional and no one claimed they'd support DSC while saying they support DP 1.4, which is pretty much the same as supporting DP 1.3, since nothing of note changed). And now we're looking at DisplayPort 2.0 which can already barely support uncompressed 8K at 60 Hz and is basically maxed out by 5K/6K 120/144 Hz. And it's unclear if the presently introduced generation of GPUs even supports it, or if we're going to use effectively-2013-Displayport until ~2022. Note how the marketing material only talks about HDMI 2.1; DisplayPort isn't mentioned once.
- tormeh 6y ago
  I think DisplayPort is not mentioned because Nvidia hasn't upgraded their cards to 2.0. Super disappointing. 4k/144Hz/HDR is enough for now, to be honest, but DP2 can do 84/144Hz/HDR as long as it has DSC, 244Hz with subsampling. The slow pace of development and deployment has hurt everyone for sure, but I don't think the standard is bad in itself - just a bit late.
- hyko 6y ago
  Yeah, good points–it seems even armed with a 3090 we'll be limited to 8K/120hz/12 bit over HDMI 2.1...we'll have to wait a while before we're actually driving 8K at higher refresh rates.
Scene_Cast2 6y ago
This is why I'm personally looking at the LG CX 48" - low latency, 120Hz, 4k, wide gamut, HDR.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  OLED TVs are in a much better space than PC LCDs, where no really good options exist. Either IPS, which has poor contrast, bleed and doesn't do HDR, or VA, which has good contrast, but also doesn't really do HDR, and VA generally has poor uniformity (nitpick) and viewing angles. Some VA are pretty smeary, but that seems to have cleaned up in the latest generation. TN panels are much better than they used to be in the color department, but it doesn't have the contrast of VA, and even poorer viewing angles than VA. OLED is clearly the way forward - accurate colors, excellent contrast, no bleeding, no uniformity issues, proper HDR, excellent response time. Except OLED doesn't come to PCs.
  - Scene_Cast2 6y ago
    Yep, agreed. I mentioned the CX 48 because it's the first one that can somewhat reasonably be used as a monitor. MicroLED is another promising tech that has a lot of OLED upsides, but no burn-in issues.
  - namibj 6y ago
    Iiyama's MVA3 displays are, to my knowledge, significantly in front of other LCD styles (e.g. TN, IPS) as far as contrast, especially from an angle, is concerned. Unfortunately my desk's dear centerpiece, https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-x4071uhsu-b1/ https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-x4071uhsu-b1/ , has been EOL'd about 2 years ago, because I have been unable to find a replacement that's not worse, while staying in the 40~50" range. Any concrete suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    Burning out is still big problem on OLED for PC monitor. PC monitors should be used more years than smartphone and tend to display same content.
    - zmix 6y ago
      Some things could be counter acted with software (make desktop taskbar only visible when mouse reaches bottom of screen, etc.), but I would be interested in some real life data as to how long it would take for even burn out over the whole screen, till it drops as much, that the quality degrades to TFT level. (there is a guy on Youtube who installed an OLED TV as his main monitor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXKhYH3BaIA&t=36s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXKhYH3BaIA&t=36s)

...and I’d opt for the spatial resolution, completing the trifecta! Thankfully, we can just have all three :)

by hyko 6y ago

...and I’d opt for the spatial resolution, completing the trifecta! Thankfully, we can just have all three :)

> Thankfully, we can just have all three :) Not at this time. There are some hypothetical options like the LG 27GN950, but it has poor contrast and uses Displayport 1.4 compression, which is only supported in the latest graphics cards. VESA and friends really made DisplayPort 1.4 as close as they possibly could to false advertising without actually committing it (because the only relevant new thing in DP 1.4 -- DSC, display stream compression -- is technically optional and no one claimed they'd support DSC while saying they support DP 1.4, which is pretty much the same as supporting DP 1.3, since nothing of note changed). And now we're looking at DisplayPort 2.0 which can already barely support uncompressed 8K at 60 Hz and is basically maxed out by 5K/6K 120/144 Hz. And it's unclear if the presently introduced generation of GPUs even supports it, or if we're going to use effectively-2013-Displayport until ~2022. Note how the marketing material only talks about HDMI 2.1; DisplayPort isn't mentioned once.

tormeh 6y ago
I think DisplayPort is not mentioned because Nvidia hasn't upgraded their cards to 2.0. Super disappointing. 4k/144Hz/HDR is enough for now, to be honest, but DP2 can do 84/144Hz/HDR as long as it has DSC, 244Hz with subsampling. The slow pace of development and deployment has hurt everyone for sure, but I don't think the standard is bad in itself - just a bit late.
hyko 6y ago
Yeah, good points–it seems even armed with a 3090 we'll be limited to 8K/120hz/12 bit over HDMI 2.1...we'll have to wait a while before we're actually driving 8K at higher refresh rates.

Scene_Cast2 6y ago

This is why I'm personally looking at the LG CX 48" - low latency, 120Hz, 4k, wide gamut, HDR.

formerly_proven 6y ago
OLED TVs are in a much better space than PC LCDs, where no really good options exist. Either IPS, which has poor contrast, bleed and doesn't do HDR, or VA, which has good contrast, but also doesn't really do HDR, and VA generally has poor uniformity (nitpick) and viewing angles. Some VA are pretty smeary, but that seems to have cleaned up in the latest generation. TN panels are much better than they used to be in the color department, but it doesn't have the contrast of VA, and even poorer viewing angles than VA. OLED is clearly the way forward - accurate colors, excellent contrast, no bleeding, no uniformity issues, proper HDR, excellent response time. Except OLED doesn't come to PCs.
- Scene_Cast2 6y ago
  Yep, agreed. I mentioned the CX 48 because it's the first one that can somewhat reasonably be used as a monitor. MicroLED is another promising tech that has a lot of OLED upsides, but no burn-in issues.
- namibj 6y ago
  Iiyama's MVA3 displays are, to my knowledge, significantly in front of other LCD styles (e.g. TN, IPS) as far as contrast, especially from an angle, is concerned. Unfortunately my desk's dear centerpiece, https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-x4071uhsu-b1/ https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-x4071uhsu-b1/ , has been EOL'd about 2 years ago, because I have been unable to find a replacement that's not worse, while staying in the 40~50" range. Any concrete suggestion would be greatly appreciated.
- fomine3 6y ago
  Burning out is still big problem on OLED for PC monitor. PC monitors should be used more years than smartphone and tend to display same content.
  - zmix 6y ago
    Some things could be counter acted with software (make desktop taskbar only visible when mouse reaches bottom of screen, etc.), but I would be interested in some real life data as to how long it would take for even burn out over the whole screen, till it drops as much, that the quality degrades to TFT level. (there is a guy on Youtube who installed an OLED TV as his main monitor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXKhYH3BaIA&t=36s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXKhYH3BaIA&t=36s)