138
Are the prices coming down at all?
I've had my eye on a 240hz 1440p OLED. A while ago you could only find them around $1k, now I can find them starting at $700. Not sure if prices have dropped similarly for ones with other specs.
I picked up an AW3423DWF for $800, originally $1099 MSRP. No regrets, perfect price to performance ratio for me.
Prices usually go down as production increases, no? And it's not really about increased production, more about gaining experience in producing it.
I am waiting for a 4K monitor at least 120fps, that has proper DP 2.1 support. It is ridiculous that even today most of those monitors are coming with DP 1.4.
https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16824012082
You'll have to wait for a new generation of graphics cards to actually get 4k@240Hz without DSC, because while the monitor supports it, the only graphics cards that even have DP2.1 right now don't actually support the required UHBR20
Yes, I am aware of that limitation, but hopefully the new gen will have fully featured support for it.
What’s the big benefit to 2.1?
The DP1.4a supports maximum 4K at 120fps, everything above that is using DSC (display stream compression).and if I am not wrong adds a bit of latency and a bit of processing overhead, because your GPU has to compress the frames. Additionally the compression adds some loss to the equation, but according to reports it is very hard to distinguish it from the lossless picture.
It is not a big deal but it is nice to have support for DpP2.1. DP2.1 has more than double the bandwidth of DP1.4a, meaning that it supports 4K 240fps, introduces FEC (forward error correction) and improves the HDR quality.
The bottom line is that if I shed north of 1K I would like to get something which is future proof.
How dare they withhold the tech!
I like the contrast of OLEDs, but one caveat -- my understanding is that if one uses Freesync/Gsync/variable refresh rate/adaptive sync, they are very prone to brightness flickering.
That may or may not be a concern, but something to maybe keep an eye on if you're thinking about getting one and intend to use that feature.
Well, now I finally know why that's happening. Thanks
I'm so glad that we are moving away from screens that will last 20+ years to screens that will be in a landfill after 2 years because of burn in.
My TV is OLED and is five years old with zero burn in. It's much less common now unless you're a taxi driver.
Do you use your tv for work 8+ hours a day with static elements on the screen at all times?
My TV
- moves static pictures around a bit
- has an aggressive screen saver, then power down
- streaming devices are fairly aggressive about sleeping/ power down
- there’s only so many hours to watch TV
- most video has a lot of dark
Those are great features to combat burnin and save energy, and no big deal on my TV. However those would be aggravating on a monitor I’m trying to work at, plus most of the monitor is bright
Pixels are dying on my LG OLED TV in under 5 years, that's a common issue, i'm fine with it watching media, but desktop usage use the whole picture and that shit would be thrown out.
I couldn't have been better to the panel.
I've had mine for two years without burn ins
Yet*
Ever heard of screen savers?
How is a screen saver supposed to do anything to prevent burn in from games that have static images like the UI in an MMO or the scoreboard in a sports game?
Most OLEDs today ship with logo detection and will dampen the brightness on static elements automatically.
While it isn't a silver bullet, it does help reduce burn in since it is strongly linked to heat, and therefore to the pixel brightness. New blue PHOLEDs are expected to also cut burn in risk. Remember that LCDs also used to have burn in issues, as did CRTs.
And other means of preventing it like pixel shift and refresh. Time will tell how long the current generation lasts but it's only going to get more and more easily mitigated.
Ah sportsing!
I suppose you could make software that periodically screenshots the thing, generates an average of the screenshots, and then sets a screensaver image that's the inverse of that.
Yeah no I doubt it
I have burn in on mine but honestly I barely notice it and realized it's not as big of an issue for me haha.
On the one hand, I agree with you that the expected lifespan of current OLED tech doesn't align with my expectation of monitor life... But on the other hand, I tend to use my monitors until the backlight gives out or some layer or other in the panel stackup shits the bed, and I haven't yet had an LCD make it past the decade mark.
In my opinion OLED is just fine for phone displays and TVs, which aren't expected to be lit 24/7 and don't have lots of fixed UI elements. Between my WFH job and hobby use, though, my PC screens are on about 10 hours a day on average, with the screen displaying one of a handful of programs with fixed, high contrast user interfaces. That's gonna put an OLED panel through the wringer in quite a bit less time than I have become used to using my LCDs, and that's not acceptable to me.
I think a lot of modern OLED panels will do a pixel shift if they detect a static image for too long. I never notice it on my TV, but might be more noticable on a monitor that you are closer to.
Sure but this is one of the differences between tv and monitor.
- tv time is max a few hours, lots of dark, lots of movement, pixel shifting has no impact
- work monitor is 8+ hours, close work, high brightness/contrast. I don’t know if pixel shifting is noticeable but it’s more likely, plus there’s more static element, more bright, more contrast
RTings does a lot of long term OLED burn in tests usually displaying CNN since red tends to cause burn in better
Here is a pretty recent video on it including some monitors. It's interesting that ultra wide monitors have more problems than regular 16:9 ones.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Here is a pretty recent video on it including some monitors.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
New OLED screens are very resilient to burn-ins. You can check for yourself. And mind you, the majority of users won't have any problems with burn ins because of the way they are using those monitors, this test is far from how the majority of users will use their monitors. https://libreddit.oxymagnesium.com/r/hardware/comments/180cc44/rtings_10_month_update_permanent_burnin_oleds/
I don't like the fact that QDOLED seems to always have shiny panels. I get that it lets the colors pop more and whatever, but I'm not sitting in a dark room. It's usually well-lit, and no I don't want to change that. I enjoy the sun shining and I also enjoy some artificial lighting in the afternoon.
So it seems it's WOLED what I'm looking for, which seems to have matte/diffusing panels mostly.
Fullscreen brightness on either QDOLED or WOLED seems to be pretty meh at best though.
What I also don't like, even though this isn't exclusive to OLED monitors, is the missing continuity in resolution coming from a 27" 2560x1440 monitor, which has been a standard for many years. Most 4KUHD "gaming" displays are around 31.5" so if you'd want to get the same amount of real estate per physical inch you'd have to set scaling to 1.2-1.25x. Fractional scaling can already look bad at 1.5x, so this is a mess.
In an ideal world (or in my ideal world at least) there'd be "5K" (5120x2880) 27" panels as standard (I know they exist, but not as high refresh rate panels), so you could replace your 2560x1440 27", use non-fractional 2x scaling and have content at the exact same size as before. Larger panels could still exist, but they'd be closer to a "6K" resolution with the exact same pixel density.
5k makes no sense in a 27" monitor and no gpu would be able to actually drive that many pixels in a game at a high refresh rate.
It makes a lot of sense for non-gaming tasks. Text looks great and non-fractional scaling makes a big difference. Try it for yourself, there are several non-"gaming" (60 Hz) 27" 5KUHD monitors out there. And remember just because you can't notice a difference doesn't mean no one can.
And for gaming: most GPUs can't drive most games at native 4KUHD. Some form of temporal upscaling (DLSS, XeSS, FSR, TAA etc.) is usually required anyway, and whether you're upscaling to 4KUHD or 5KUHD from the same internal resolution doesn't have a big performance impact.
Text looks perfectly fine from a normal distance on a 27" 1440p monitor. And yeah, the pixel count IS significantly higher. It's about 16% more.
However, if you want higher power consumption and much lower fps for little to no gain, you do you brother.
Can someone with more brains than I have explain why my Pixel 7 gives me blurry vision, but my computer monitors and old Samsung do not?
Because if monitors are heading this way, I might have a problem.
Do you use it in dark mode with a completely black background and white text? You get pretty nasty retinal afterimages from closely clustered bright spots like that, and can make the center of your vision blurry/hazy for a few seconds to minutes. It's a harmless temporary effect, but can be a minor annoyance.
I use dark mode, but I turned on the night light feature and at some point, I think I adjusted the black down so it wasn't so black?
It's so bad that I can't use my phone for more than a few minutes at a time because I can't do anything else after that. My eyes are so blurry I don't feel safe driving.
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
138 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59259 readers
1467 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS