The 240Hz OLED Gaming Displays Are Coming (theverge.com) 97
An anonymous reader shares a report: CES 2023 is now just days away, and there's already a standout category that we're particularly excited about: 240Hz OLED gaming monitors. Generally speaking, OLED panels can achieve better picture quality and a faster response time than their LED or IPS equivalents but have historically lacked the ability to match them in providing high-refresh rates. There have been some exceptions -- such as the Alienware AW3423DW, a QD-OLED running at 175Hz -- but now, OLED gaming displays have finally achieved the optimal 240Hz refresh rate prized by gamers who specialize in eSports and FPS titles. There are several 240Hz OLED displays (that we're aware of) being showcased at the CES 2023 conference. One of the more innovative offerings is the Corsair Xeneon Flex, a 45-inch OLED with a customizable curvature and a $1,999 price tag. By squeezing the screen together, you can switch between flat and 800R curved display modes, making it ideal for both work and play.
Re: (Score:1)
Take a look at this current option:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09R... [amazon.com] :Large format (50-86")
120hz
MicroLED QNED
NO INPUT LAG
65" and lower are below the 4 digit mark.
I'm still a year or so out from my next monitor refresh cycle. Or I'd snap one up right now.
A year will just cause the price to drop into TOTALLY affordable range.
Re: Too they'll be that expansive... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
May as well say you need a VGA port to be a monitor.
The distinction (such as there is) between a modern monitor and a TV basically come down to:
- subpixel arrangement (many TVs, especially OLEDs, have non-rectilinear subpixel arrangements that don't play well with a GUI's sharp edges and subpixel font smoothing.)
- backlight frequency, or flicker-freeness (which is much less of an issue for TV usage)
- input lag (which only matters to gamers)
- and "extra features" that some monitor users care about, such as v
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly.
And the monitor is VERY sharp.
Again, no discernible input lag.
And in general, the panel is awesome as a monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you're preaching to the converted. I've had a low end 43" TCL 400-series for a few years now - an incredible monitor for the price ($200 at the time, it's actually gone up since). Something like 15ms of lag, so not the greatest for competitive gaming, but the price for a 4K with good reviews as a monitor was good enough to lure me away from my ~20 year old 37" Samsung. (which also had much worse lag at a much higher price, but *so* much screen real estate)
My biggest (heh) concern would be the size. I
Re: (Score:1)
Why would I need DisplayPort?
Mind you, I'm currently running DP on my triple monitor setup now.
If I buy one, HDMI is sufficient.
I've also got USB available too.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just an LCD TV with a fancy LED backlight. Of course, LG's marketing department would really like people to think it's an OLED display, but it's not.
Nice but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nice but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The price tag of two grand is too much for casual game or home use. I saw an OLED display for the first time a while back and wow, they really are crisp and I do want one, but it looks like I'll need to wait a while for the price of them to come down (along with a video card to power it).
Most top of the line gaming hardware is outside the range of casual gamers. Like most high end anything is outside the price range of casual hobbyists. If they are $2k right now, we're likely a decade away from them being mainstream at least. But if they can get down to $1200 or so in a few years I could see them being quite popular with enthusiasts.
Re:Nice but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This stuff is not "top of the line". The correct term is "gold plated", i.e. it has features that are expensive but have no real benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
OLED monitors and higher refresh rate monitors absolutely do have real benefits. If those benefits are worth the cost to any given person is totally subjective, but the benefits are significant.
Re: (Score:2)
OLED depends, but higher refresh rate, nope. A lot of clueless people believe the marketing lies though and even come up with more fantasy arguments themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
OLED depends, but higher refresh rate, nope.
There are several reasons why higher refresh rates are beneficial. The whole idea that we can't see anything that happens faster than 60Hz is based solely on that being the speed at which video looks smooth. It's not a rational basis, nor in fact is it factual. Higher refresh rates reduce motion blur and input lag, and on an OLED display you can actually benefit from them because there's no LCD ghosting.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It actually does not. What reduced motion blur is better coding. Seriously. As to input lag, it _cannot_ do that to any meaningful degree. You cannot react to faster things you cannot perceive. Also it is quite factual that you cannot see things at 60Hz. The limit is somewhere around 30Hz. Above that you can detect flicker for a bit, but you can already not tell which frame was earlier when shown two in succession. The flicker is the only reason it goes up to 60Hz or 75Hz.
Get some actual knowledge.
Re: (Score:1)
What reduced motion blur is better coding.
motion blur is a compound effect between refresh rate and underlying display tech.
give a CRT and an OLED the same exact source, at the same Hz, and the CRT will produce significantly less motion blur.
rtings.com has demonstration images.
Also it is quite factual that you cannot see things at 60Hz. The limit is somewhere around 30Hz.
are you referring to individual frames? because human sight/visual perception is not so basic.
in gaming, the difference between 30fps and 60fps feels massive, and is felt almost universally.
if you dont play video games, but have a fairly modern tv, take a 30fps youtube vi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Most people can't see any difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz.
No one can see the difference between 120 Hz and 240 Hz.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You can recognize the difference from indirect effects, but you cannot use it.
Re: Nice but... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can recognize the difference from indirect effects, but you cannot use it. You wasted your money.
Re: Nice but... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. But the relevant effects of self-delusion (which is what you are under) are well known.
Re: Nice but... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people can't see any difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz.
No one can see the difference between 120 Hz and 240 Hz.
Indeed. And when they say "see" the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz, they do not see frames coming faster. They just see more frames mashed together or interference effects like moving a mouse and the pointer being on more frames in more positions. At 60 Hz nobody can tell which of two frames was shown to them earlier though. The human eye just cannot do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the upcoming 27" 1440p 240Hz OLED monitors have an MSRP of $1000. Dough's one using the same panel has a $650 pre-order price. Dell's 34" 175Hz ultrawide QD-OLED monitors start at $1100. You can get a 42" 4K 120Hz OLED TV (the LG 42C2) for $900 at BestBuy and use it as a monitor.
Who is waiting a few years? There are many gaming-class OLED displays on or entering the market below your $1200 pricepoint.
Re: (Score:2)
And even the QNED MicroLED options are pretty damn impressive.
You can hit 65" without crossing the 4-digit price barrier.
120hz
Optimized for use as a computer monitor.
I still wish I could get 16:10 for something like that.
But that large, at that price point, I can compromise.
It'll still be superior to my 3x27" 4K LED setup on my system now.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm looking forward to getting one for CAD and software development. My fantasy display would be 28" 16:10.
Now laptops are offering 16:10 again, I'm hoping that desktop monitors do too.
Re: (Score:3)
The 45" flexible one is $2K. The 27" 240Hz ones are $1K.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like we're back to the early 90s, baby! Soon enough a halfway-decent gaming computer will cost five grand again.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be over 10 grand in today's dollars...
We've got a way to go yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm holding out for the year of the Linux HDR Desktop.
(Ha, ha, only serious.)
Technical limitations? (Score:1)
Can anyone enlighten me to the point of having a display that refreshes four times faster than your best graphics card output? Maybe you'll say something like,"Helps eliminate ghosting," but... I'm dubious.
Even with CRT's, I hated 60Hz. 75 was the sweet-spot. I couldn't differentiate between 75 and 85Hz. 240Hz? Nope.
Re:Technical limitations? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Technical limitations? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
a latency difference of 2ms will not be noticeable for even the very best gamers. Human reaction time of the very best gamer is above 100ms.
If you don't think that hitting 2% more of the snap shots you make is noticeable then you're probably not in the target market
Re: (Score:1)
You can run Team Fortress 2 on Linux with commodity hardware at over 320FPS.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, just try your computer screen in 30 vs 60 hz and move your mouse around. It's definitely bad at 30.
Re: (Score:2)
That is because of jitter and you _can_ see flicker between 30Hz and around 50Hz. But you cannot tell which ow two frames was shown to you earlier. Moving the mouse is an _interference_ effect and has nothing to with what you can actually see. It also does not make you more precise or faster to aim, that is just a psychological effect. It could be simulated on 30Hz displays and you would notice nothing. As it does bring no advantages, nobody does that.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, every time my monitor switches to 60 Hz, I can immediately tell because the mouse cursor movement is visibly choppier. I started up a game today with a 60 Hz cap in place by mistake and could immediately tell that something was wrong because it had a ton of input lag and I needed to fix it. It's a game of diminishing returns, and for me the point past where I can't notice is probably in the 90-120 Hz range, but to say that people can't see past 20 Hz is absurd. Every single person that you sit down i
Re: (Score:2)
You are just one more person that does not know what interference is. And that vastly overestimates his own perception. No surprise. Nothing of what you claim is actually, physically true. It is a psychological effect where you assure yourself your hardware is great and that you did not overpay for it. And no, you cannot see past around 20Hz. You can use interference effects to detect higher frequencies, and between 30Hz and 50Hz or so you can still perceive flicker, but that is it. And then the fantasy of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Technical limitations? (Score:1)
Human eyes are on average already maxed out around 20Hz, and only some rare people can go up to something like 30Hz.
Dumb followed by wrong. You might want to think about getting your own latency measured.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, no. But you may want to have your ego checked. Hint: It is a lot larger than your intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
I had one of the early 4K monitors for a short while. One of the ones that only did 30 Hz @ 4k. While it wasn't a big deal for the kind of stuff I was working on, the fact it was a 30 Hz display was absolutely noticeable.
I'd probably say above 75-85 Hz is where any faster is not perceivable except maybe a contrived scenario. I could see 120 Hz being useful because you can display 24, 30, and 60 Hz video content natively without interpolating frames. I really don't see much use for faster than that.
Re: Technical limitations? (Score:1)
Old florescent tube lights supposedly ran at 120hz
60hz, here in the States. That's why they flickered.
Re: Technical limitations? (Score:1)
Re: Technical limitations? (Score:2)
Re: Technical limitations? (Score:1)
and it probably uses much more battery
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Technical limitations? (Score:2)
what's the point of a laptop if you're not mobile?
Re: Technical limitations? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone enlighten me to the point of having a display that refreshes four times faster than your best graphics card output? Maybe you'll say something like,"Helps eliminate ghosting," but... I'm dubious.
Even with CRT's, I hated 60Hz. 75 was the sweet-spot. I couldn't differentiate between 75 and 85Hz. 240Hz? Nope.
There is no point to this except to sell units to morons. It's just the same old shit we saw for decades in HiFi - on-paper specs that one-up the competition or the old model but in reality have no noticeable effect.
It's pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to game on anything less than 480hz. 240 is way too slow, I can feel it. But my 480hz monitor is great.
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to game on anything less than 480hz. 240 is way too slow, I can feel it. But my 480hz monitor is great.
I demand a monitor with the same clock rate as my PC. That's the only way to be sure that your vsync is exactly right!
Who cares (Score:1, Interesting)
The only way to even notice a display is above 60Hz or 75Hz for a human is interference tricks (moving the mouse in a circle, sweeping your eyes across the monitor fast) or measurement instruments. Human eyes do not have the capability of noticing anything directly and hence there is no difference outside of said tricks. It will not make anything "smoother", it will not give you any "advantage" in a shooter and it certainly will not be worth the money.
However this kind of fetishism like stupidity runs deep
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
You are objectively wrong. Not only have blind tests shown improved performance at higher refresh rates (with diminishing returns the higher you go, obviously), the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz rendering in games is very obvious. Especially the difference in input lag.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell should input be tied to refresh rate? Obviously, if you have some piss-poor lazy programmers it would be, but a competent programmer should have the game engine input queue independent of the frame output.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell should input be tied to refresh rate?
If you have a higher refresh rate, and especially if you have a higher refresh rate plus one of the refresh sync technologies, then you get the frame closer to when it is rendered, and not some variable amount of time further from that. But some games do in fact have a relationship between these things. The returns diminish as the refresh rate increases.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans reaction time to visual stimuli tops out at around 200ms. Now compare that with 60Hz, i.e. one frame every 17ms. Notice something?
Re: (Score:2)
The latency threshold beyond which people start experiencing diminished presence and additional simulator sickness in VR is considered to be as low as 20ms. Even if you can't verbalize why something feels more or less comfortable, the effects of higher latency in such scenarios can definitely be identified (taken to an extreme, if forced to continue playing, did you throw up or not). In practice, having something on-screen delayed from your inputs by 200ms feels incredibly laggy.
The difference in latency in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Who cares (Score:1)
...the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz rendering in games is very obvious.
He obviously has terrible eyesight.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The "higher performance" at higher refresh rates is a psychological effect and it is temporary. You can notice a display is faster indirectly up to a degree, but it does not affect possible performance. It does, very temporary. affect the performance people think that is expected of them and they try harder. The difference in input lag between 60Hz and 120Hz is wayy beyond what humans can perceive or use.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference in input lag between 60Hz and 120Hz is wayy
beyond what humans can perceive or use.
Citation?
But of course, blowhards like you don't need actual evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
And this all assumes that the monitor does not have some internal processing which increases the latency. Some (especially TVs) do. In fact, the sellers should advertise the low latency and
Re: (Score:2)
Those 4% are not going to make a difference. Not even if you have perfectly trained reflexes. Which almost nobody has.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are not talking 4% of overall here. Anyways, nobody of the posers here that claim to have an advantage from this tech falls under "highly trained individuals".
Re: (Score:2)
However this kind of fetishism like stupidity runs
deep in some people
Yeah, like those loonies who believe there is something
extra-corporeal about human consciousness.
Oh wait, that's you!
Looking for smaller monitors and bigger laptops (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a bunch of 27" 1440p 240 Hz OLED monitors about to hit the market for $1,000 (or less for pre-orders).
Re: (Score:1)
My next screen is probably going away from multi-monitor (since multi-monitor is broke as fuck on Wintel).|
I'm looking to replace my 3x 27" 4K monitors with a 50" 4K MiniLED QNED running 120hz.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09R... [amazon.com]
If I can justify the price bump, I might go to 55". Beyond that I have to get too far back from the monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Density is expensive. The high-res market is flooded with big cheap screens. Finding a good smallish high-res screen for a good price can be a chore.
Still, 8K 240Hz HDR 38" screens are all I've wanted since the mid-90's and they're almost here.
At that point I'll probably never care about upgrading again. Not bad.
CES should give them a prize (Score:1)
Why are so many self-proclaimed Nerds here falling for this nonsense?
I dunno, some of the 120hz LED are attractive (Score:1)
LG has a line of 120hz 4K televisions that come in between 50 and 86 inches.
And they're friggin' IMMACULATE.
Input lag is non-existent.
And pricing is quite affordable.
Sure, OLED is the "gold standard".
But when the "runner up" tech is this good, WHO THE HELL CARES?
And all the people saying "I can see 120hz flicker"
Only if you have some interfering light source or your monitor dropped to 60hz.
Beyond that, only MAYBE one in ten million could ever discern even a minor case of visible flicker with just the Mark
Re: (Score:2)
TVs and monitors usually don't flicker anymore. Some gaming monitors have an optional strobing feature to minimize motion blur from eye movements, giving a sharper CRT-like motion experience. Flickering just the right way makes a big difference to motion clarity, but at the expense of long-term viewing comfort.
Also 120Hz can totally be visible, even much higher frequencies are under many circumstances. The most obvious example I see almost daily is in the rain or snow with headlamp PWM turning motion blur
High refresh isn't just about your retina (Score:2)
Bought IPS, Instead (Score:2)
Speaking of high refresh rates... (Score:1)
Now that monitors with refresh rates of 120 Hz, 144 Hz, and higher are becoming commonplace, it would be nice if the bare minimum was something greater than 60 Hz. Even 75 Hz shows a noticeable improvement with scrolling and pointer movement.
I still 60-75hz with VGA & DVI connections! (Score:2)
I'm still using my OmniCube KVM from Y2K for VGA & PS/2. I finally went HD for my TV and monitors back in the end of 2014.