LCD monitors are the CRT monitors of the 90s. OLED is the new new and it's freaking amazing. EVERY cell phone company that wants a who's who of phones is making them. Every TV manufacturer out there is making them. Yet there are basically zero OLED monitors which is crap. This is an amazing technology that needs to completely replace LCD. LCD should be phased out entirely at this point. It's completely obsolete compared to OLED. So why the hell arnt we getting on the OLED train here?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Time to bring out the OLED monitors people!!! Come on get with the program!
- Thread starter SPL Tech
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2016
They do look great, however they are susceptible to screen burn more than other current screen technology. This isn’t much of a worry for phones as for the most part the image is changing often and people don’t leave phones say open for hours on the same page. However when it comes to TVs or screens then you leave them on for ages, often on the same page or with the same things on the page. Like the windows bar.
I know two people who have OLED TVs and both have screen burn after a year or so. Both do watch sports news a lot so they have banners running on the bottom and it has gone there. Until this is solved I don’t think I will adopt one as a screen.
That and the current price which is a little too much for me.
I know two people who have OLED TVs and both have screen burn after a year or so. Both do watch sports news a lot so they have banners running on the bottom and it has gone there. Until this is solved I don’t think I will adopt one as a screen.
That and the current price which is a little too much for me.
The problem right now is that you can get a 43" 4K TV for $250.... but OLEDs tend to be a lot more expensive and can be cost-prohibitive for a lot of people. It is awesome, we get it, but not everyone are ballers and can afford the premium technology. I'd imagine even in monitor sizes, they would be a lot more expensive than their LCD counterparts.
Do they make OLED in high refresh rates (does OLED even work that way?)?
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/oled-screen-burn-in-what-you-need-to-know-now/
I don't own one but know people who do... so far, all good for them...though admittedly I don't think they watch anything with tickers all day.
Good testing done here too: https://www.howtogeek.com/687180/oled-screen-burn-in-how-worried-should-you-be/
On a computer monitor may be a different ballgame.... windows bar sticks out as a potential problem....
Do they make OLED in high refresh rates (does OLED even work that way?)?
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/oled-screen-burn-in-what-you-need-to-know-now/
I don't own one but know people who do... so far, all good for them...though admittedly I don't think they watch anything with tickers all day.
Good testing done here too: https://www.howtogeek.com/687180/oled-screen-burn-in-how-worried-should-you-be/
On a computer monitor may be a different ballgame.... windows bar sticks out as a potential problem....
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
LG announced a 32'' oled monitor at ces just a couple days ago. They're also going to be making a a 42'' OLED tv which is more monitor sizes than 48+.
There's been several youtubers and such discussing how the 48'' tv works well as a monitor, but still has limitations (technical and usability).
There's been several youtubers and such discussing how the 48'' tv works well as a monitor, but still has limitations (technical and usability).
- Thread Starter
- #7
Lol what about the more than 100 models currently on the market that cost more than $1000 for like a 32" or smaller monitor? Those monitors are a lot more expensive than OLED monitors are. There are computer monitors that cost $4,000. So I dont buy that. Yes, there are 240 Hz OLED TVs. There are 120 Hz. OLED cell phones. The iPhone 13 will be 120 Hz. OLED. Also, the type of person looking to buy an OLED monitor is not the type of person interested in $250 monitors, so that doesent really fit regardless.
Buy what? The same goes for those monitors... few people own them. They are cost-prohibitive. I'll bet more spend $1000 on a TV than they would a monitor for a PC.
I'll give you that those looking for OLED monitors aren't in the $250 category, but I thought your point was to bring them out to the masses... which, the masses are in the sub-$250 range.
Bring it on! Absolutely, but the price is going to have to come down for the masses to afford them. And they will.
- Thread Starter
- #9
Buy what? The same goes for those monitors... few people own them. They are cost-prohibitive. I'll bet more spend $1000 on a TV than they would a monitor for a PC.
I'll give you that those looking for OLED monitors aren't in the $250 category, but I thought your point was to bring them out to the masses... which, the masses are in the sub-$250 range.
Bring it on! Absolutely, but the price is going to have to come down for the masses to afford them. And they will.
I am not asking them to be cheap, I am just asking them to exist. Of course they wont be cheap. Is a RTX 3090 cheap? A 9900k cheap? No one expects these things to be cheap--they are top of the line units. OLED is top of the line. Also, price scales with quantity. If Samsung were to say abandon LCD and make all of their displays OLED, then suddenly OLED wont be so expensive becasue they are making millions of panels. OLED will replace LCD entirely eventuality. LCD is the new CRT. OLED is especially useful for phones because the power draw is less.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
Does anyone know what OLED means? It stands for Organic Light Emitting Diode, with emphasis on Organic, meaning it decays, I have a MP3 player with a OLED display and it's all black now.
You asked "why aren't we getting on that train". So we answered....
Along with screen size for PC computing not being there yet, the price will be prohibitive for most. Capeci?
OLED tvs exist in the market at larger sizes andhave for years. Smaller panels won't drive the cost down "suddenly" (compared to other tvs) much as, again, it's existing technology. They will still be more expensive than most LCDs.
Also, most people don't have a 9900k or equivalent for a cpu and surely most dont have a 3090 (even if stock was there). Why? They are cost prohibitive.
Re: OLED life from above, LG (in 2017) claimed 100,000 hours on their units at 50% brightness. At 8 hours /day, that's 34 years. Or if left on 24/7, 11 years. 99.999999% of users buy new tvs within 11-34 years. Lifespan doesn't seem like an issue on TVs.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/led-lcd-vs-oled/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techradar.com/amp/news/what-is-oled
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #12
And yet they still exist... You're making my job easy by providing evidence against your own argument. There are people who are not concerned with price and are willing to pay the extra money. Like I said, monitors costing over $700 are very common. There are hundreds on the market and lots of people buy them. There are TVs that cost over $4,000. I can think of three model right off the top of my head and I dont know jack about TVs. You're argument that they would be too expensive isint valid with any of the other techs. A new iPhone is like $1500 and they fly off the shelf. There are hundreds of monitors that cost upwards of $1,000. There are hundreds of TVs that cost over $2,500. This is not stopping anyone from making them.Also, most people don't have a 9900k or equivalent for a cpu and surely most dont have a 3090 (even if stock was there). Why? They are cost prohibitive.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
Only just saw this thread. I currently own two OLED display devices in active regular use. Of course, burn in is a concern so how are they doing?
1, Pixel 3a, bought May 2019. No obvious degradation to display.
2, LG OLED 55" B9 TV. Bought 18 Jan 2020 so one day off from when I got it. No obvious degradation to display.
I went in knowing the tradeoffs. It wasn't cheap, but at the time cheaper than now current OLED offerings of comparable size. At the time only having HDMI 2.0 outputs on GPU meant I can only run either 120 Hz below 4k, or 4k60. Needs Ampere (or presumably big Navi if you don't care about G-sync) to output HDMI 2.1 and get 4k120.
Limited brightness also meant that HDR, while not having glow problems associated with local dimming zones of non-OLED displays, didn't have as much peak brightness. I don't view HDR content anyway so doesn't matter to me, and might save a bit on burn in. Brightness is fine for my indoor use, although I had to turn off the "smart" optimisation they put in which only seemed to randomly dim the display leading to odd views. I left the pixel shift feature on which aims to prevent burn in, but if you want 1:1 pixel mapping you'd have to turn that off. My main use case is gaming, so any pixel scaling related imperfections are not noticeable in use.
The LG 9 series features G-Sync Compatible. This works fine with Turing (20 series) cards, but there were reported problems with enabling it when Ampere launched. This is apparently a TV problem as the fix was in TV firmware, not GPU side. LG was reported to say they will issue a fix. However, while the newer CX series have got the update, I don't see anything listed for the '9 series. Even if I could get my hands on Ampere, it might not work correctly. Have been unable to find a definitive conclusion to this, but not been in a hurry as I don't have an Ampere card yet. I don't think LG are as up to speed on things like this.
1, Pixel 3a, bought May 2019. No obvious degradation to display.
2, LG OLED 55" B9 TV. Bought 18 Jan 2020 so one day off from when I got it. No obvious degradation to display.
I went in knowing the tradeoffs. It wasn't cheap, but at the time cheaper than now current OLED offerings of comparable size. At the time only having HDMI 2.0 outputs on GPU meant I can only run either 120 Hz below 4k, or 4k60. Needs Ampere (or presumably big Navi if you don't care about G-sync) to output HDMI 2.1 and get 4k120.
Limited brightness also meant that HDR, while not having glow problems associated with local dimming zones of non-OLED displays, didn't have as much peak brightness. I don't view HDR content anyway so doesn't matter to me, and might save a bit on burn in. Brightness is fine for my indoor use, although I had to turn off the "smart" optimisation they put in which only seemed to randomly dim the display leading to odd views. I left the pixel shift feature on which aims to prevent burn in, but if you want 1:1 pixel mapping you'd have to turn that off. My main use case is gaming, so any pixel scaling related imperfections are not noticeable in use.
The LG 9 series features G-Sync Compatible. This works fine with Turing (20 series) cards, but there were reported problems with enabling it when Ampere launched. This is apparently a TV problem as the fix was in TV firmware, not GPU side. LG was reported to say they will issue a fix. However, while the newer CX series have got the update, I don't see anything listed for the '9 series. Even if I could get my hands on Ampere, it might not work correctly. Have been unable to find a definitive conclusion to this, but not been in a hurry as I don't have an Ampere card yet. I don't think LG are as up to speed on things like this.
1 There are people who don't care about price... that is very few people, however.
2. Monitors over $700 are common? In what way? They exist... nobody is denying that. But few buy them... see #1. The meat of pc monitors is like $150...hell, my Acer predator is (was) a halo type product, but at $550 was Hella expensive.. people rock out of the box, missionary 1080p/60hz. That's literally an overwhelming majority on steam.
3. There are tvs that cost $4k too...again, few buy them. The meat of TV purchases are sub $1000 id imagine.
I'm just saying cost is one factor in why they aren't here. People will buy anything, you are right... but is that really the point here? Halo type products drive people to the brand.
Now, again, Id like to see it too, don't misunderstand me. I just feel it will be cost prohibitive for more users..... same point I made in post 4. The trend seems to be higher res with higher refresh rates. But I'd guess there is a market for oled(?) In the PC world?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Location
- Central FL
$1000 dollars for a monitor is plain crazy. I spent a little over $300 on my current one and thought that was silly. To be honest I think I am reaching my limits when it comes to PC tech prices. Good motherboards are easily $250+, CPU $250+, GPU $$$. Add cooling cost to it and I'm just not seeing the benefit for the money these days considering how little I get to play with it.
Then again I just spent $800+ on a GPU which if you asked me three or four years ago I would have thought was stupid by itself.
Then again I just spent $800+ on a GPU which if you asked me three or four years ago I would have thought was stupid by itself.
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
All things considered, if one launches with proper specs, size, and an acceptable price (with a warranty guarantee against burn in if it happens) I will consider one. But I'm not going to drop over 1000 on a monitor. Id very loosely consider a discounted 48'' CX but $1500 for it is too much in my opinion (especially when it is the same price as the 55')
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Location
- Oregon
Time to get a DLP. To hell with boxed in, limited feature set, no more updates for you, "screens".
A dlp just needs a white wall, or better yet, a da-light projector screen, and you can have a display that changes sizes depending on how big or small you want it (100 inches? no problem). Plus there are zero restrictions on connections or anything else for that matter. The only thing to burn out is an easily replaceable bulb. They are in the neighborhood of ~$3000 more or less but some require zero setup (you just set it near any wall), whereas others are the ceiling mount, run cables type. Some are so small you could throw it in a bag and take it with you and use it anywhere.
OLED TV's? NOPE. same for led tv's. Chasing the carrot on a stick. Once you catch it it eventually jumps in the garbage. My Vizio M49"? Picture still looks awesome after like 7yrs. Problem is I hardly turn it off anymore. I noticed that there is a dark area on the screen which just so happens to coincide with where all the connection ports are on the back. I'm seriously considering getting a small fan just to try and cool all those ports down but that's probably a lost cause. Once you 'cook' pixels there is no cool down (slow down maybe). It's only noticeable when the screen is all white. When watching movies or whatever you don't notice it at all.
Take roku which REQUIRES a CC just to get it to work regardless if you buy anything or not. I should easily be able to add newer aps to my smart tv but vizio stopped updating it years ago. Any newer aps such as Spectrum? NOPE. I have to use the hdmi cook your tv to death port to get spectrum. Obsolescence by design. Buy any 'smart'phone or 'smart'tv and you'll learn this the hard way.
Shoots, the reason why they push smartphones is because when google (pos) updates the android OS they PURPOSEFULLY make it so that the older phones WON'T work with the newer OS. Slick huh? More like sick. If you build a pc and compile a distro it compiles itself to work WITH the hardware. Android (smarttv), when installed is compiled to work with the device sold. Problem is they purposefully give only so many updates and then it's all downhill. In reality they could easily make it so that ANY new version would compile itself to work with your hardware but instead it's just slammed onto it and then people start getting screen issues and God knows what problems forcing them to toss good hardware just to buy a brand new one.
Save your money and get a dlp. If you do photoshop or are in the medical industry wherein you need super hires displays, great. You wanna spend thousands to play games? be my guest. For the average consumer who just watches tv and movies, browses the internet? A dlp is the ticket.
A dlp just needs a white wall, or better yet, a da-light projector screen, and you can have a display that changes sizes depending on how big or small you want it (100 inches? no problem). Plus there are zero restrictions on connections or anything else for that matter. The only thing to burn out is an easily replaceable bulb. They are in the neighborhood of ~$3000 more or less but some require zero setup (you just set it near any wall), whereas others are the ceiling mount, run cables type. Some are so small you could throw it in a bag and take it with you and use it anywhere.
OLED TV's? NOPE. same for led tv's. Chasing the carrot on a stick. Once you catch it it eventually jumps in the garbage. My Vizio M49"? Picture still looks awesome after like 7yrs. Problem is I hardly turn it off anymore. I noticed that there is a dark area on the screen which just so happens to coincide with where all the connection ports are on the back. I'm seriously considering getting a small fan just to try and cool all those ports down but that's probably a lost cause. Once you 'cook' pixels there is no cool down (slow down maybe). It's only noticeable when the screen is all white. When watching movies or whatever you don't notice it at all.
Take roku which REQUIRES a CC just to get it to work regardless if you buy anything or not. I should easily be able to add newer aps to my smart tv but vizio stopped updating it years ago. Any newer aps such as Spectrum? NOPE. I have to use the hdmi cook your tv to death port to get spectrum. Obsolescence by design. Buy any 'smart'phone or 'smart'tv and you'll learn this the hard way.
Shoots, the reason why they push smartphones is because when google (pos) updates the android OS they PURPOSEFULLY make it so that the older phones WON'T work with the newer OS. Slick huh? More like sick. If you build a pc and compile a distro it compiles itself to work WITH the hardware. Android (smarttv), when installed is compiled to work with the device sold. Problem is they purposefully give only so many updates and then it's all downhill. In reality they could easily make it so that ANY new version would compile itself to work with your hardware but instead it's just slammed onto it and then people start getting screen issues and God knows what problems forcing them to toss good hardware just to buy a brand new one.
Save your money and get a dlp. If you do photoshop or are in the medical industry wherein you need super hires displays, great. You wanna spend thousands to play games? be my guest. For the average consumer who just watches tv and movies, browses the internet? A dlp is the ticket.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 30, 2004
DLP appears to have been discontinued, like plasma was.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Location
- Oregon
Hardly. Digital refers to any light projector. Lasers are the latest fad. I guess I should have stated laser, digital light it is, as an option.
Here's one
https://www.anker.com/store/mars-ii-pro/D2323111
Laser that's really expensive
https://www.samsung.com/us/televisi...miere-4k-uhd-hdr-smart-tv-2020-sp-lsp9tfaxza/
Bulbs are still in style and sold. Lasers are very new but obvioysly can be much more money.
Here's one
https://www.anker.com/store/mars-ii-pro/D2323111
Laser that's really expensive
https://www.samsung.com/us/televisi...miere-4k-uhd-hdr-smart-tv-2020-sp-lsp9tfaxza/
Bulbs are still in style and sold. Lasers are very new but obvioysly can be much more money.
- Joined
- May 30, 2004
I was talking about DLP TVs. My experience with one, left a bad taste! The dreaded speckle-failure. (A DLP TV that I saw in 2015)
Similar threads
