Where'd all the "TV size" monitors go?

Last time I went shopping for a screen was in late 2023 and there were ~42-43" TV sized 4k monitors all over the place. I could just walk into Microcenter and they had a half dozen options. Now they're almost just gone? Nobody even takes a TV panel and makes a monitor out of it?

Back in 2023 I bought one, took it back, then bought a different one that I still have. The first one was a Samsung Odessey Neo G7 43". That thing was trash. Bad VA color shifting, didn't wake up from sleep connected to a 3090, HDR colors were terrible, text looked worse than the LG WOLED that replaced it, etc. So that went back and I bought an LG OLED for gaming and plopped my 43" 4k Dell P4317Q 60Hz IPS screen back into my work setup. I was thinking maybe the Samsung could serve as both a work monitor and a gaming screen, but no. I like a big monitor for work. I write code for a living and my standards for a work screen are basically "how much text can I fit on it and is text clearly readable?"

Fast forward to today and my Dell P4317Q just died. Power cycle everything, jiggle the cables, etc. It's apparently dead. My gaming rig and my work Mac don't see it at all. The power button lights up when it's plugged in, but doesn't respond. No video, can't get the menus to come up, etc. Normally I could push the power button and it would turn off and the light would go out. Now the power button light is stuck on and the monitor doesn't light up. At least it made it 8 years. I kinda thought maybe it was on its way out. Last few months the backlight has been flickering for a bit after startup. It wasn't too bad & went away after it got warmed up.

Am I the only one who likes this sort of screen? Or are people just buying TVs instead and there's no demand for TV size 4k monitors? I'd think there'd at least be someone trying to market a big 240Hz 4k 16:9 OLED, but no. Didn't see any.

people just bought tvs.

get another dell?
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/del...3qe/apd/210-bfpo/monitors-monitor-accessories

Gaming tvs have good enough gaming metrics for most people, and gaming tv's hdr color range and brightness, overall PQ is usually superior to desktop HDR gaming monitors, greatly suprior to the OLED gaming *monitors* I've looked at.

I agree that there aren't huge gaming monitors lately, likely because they'd charge 2.5x to 3x what a gaming tv of the same size would be, (and the tv might have a better picture overall besides, depending), so not worth it if essentially the same format flat screen.

There was the 1000R ark, and there was the 57" 5120x2160 samsung 32:9, and there have been 45" 5120x2160 screens.

==========================


I think the gap (between Higher Hz smaller gaming monitors and what Hz gaming TVs get) might be until hdmi 2.2 hits some-year. Even if nvidia doesn't get on board with hdmi 2.2 on their gpus until sometime after hdmi 2.2 hits, a dp 80 to hdmi 2.2 (96) adapter would probably work pretty well (when those adapters come out).

Personally, I'm hoping samsung's work on glasses free 3d tandem stack OLED will eventually make it to some large flagship *monitors* in the vein of their 57" 32:9 and their 55" 16:9 1000 R ark, and/or a 45" 21:9 5120x2160 (though those are "only" similar height to a 36" 16:9 screen).

Either way it'll probably be two years or more from now, so I'm going to get a 165Hz gaming tv by the end of this year to use for a few years.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. The Input Latency Penalty (+4.25ms)
Input latency is the time between physical mouse movement and the game engine processing that movement.

• At 500 FPS Uncapped: The engine generates a frame every 2.00 milliseconds. Your input is never more than 2.00ms old when a frame is built.
• At 160 FPS Capped: The engine is slowed down to match your monitor, generating a frame every 6.25 milliseconds.
• The Harm: You add an automatic mathematical delay of 4.25ms to every single action you take before it even leaves your computer.

2. Missed Server Tick Entries (The Registration Delay)
Online servers look for player data at fixed intervals called "ticks."

• On a 128-Tick Server (Valorant, CS2 Premier): The server updates every 7.81 milliseconds.
• On a 64-Tick Server (Apex Legends, Matchmaking): The server updates every 15.62 milliseconds.

Because your computer and the game server are not perfectly synchronized, their schedules overlap randomly.

• 500 FPS Engine: [2ms][2ms][2ms][2ms] <-- 4 chances to capture the absolute latest input
• 128-Tick Server: --------[7.81ms]--------
• 160 FPS Engine: [ 6.25ms ][ 6.25ms ] <-- Only 1 chance; input is older
• The 500 FPS Advantage: At 2ms per frame, your PC inputs data roughly 4 times during a single 128-tick server cycle. The packet sent to the server contains an input that is practically brand new.
• The 160 FPS Penalty: At 6.25ms per frame, your PC only inputs data once per server tick. If your mouse click happens right after a frame is captured, it must wait nearly a full 6.25ms for the next frame, causing it to miss the current server tick entirely. Your action is delayed to the next packet, adding up to 14+ milliseconds of total delay before the server registers your shot.

Is the Harm Noticeable?

Metric	500 FPS Uncapped	160 FPS Capped (No Tearing)	The Penalty
Frame Time / Local Input Lag	2.00ms	6.25ms	+4.25ms slower
Inputs Per 128-Tick Cycle	~4 inputs	~1 input	3 missed optimization windows
Max Potential Server Delay	Very Low (High precision)	Moderate (Higher risk of desync)	Missed tick registration

In high-stakes tactical shooters, this variance is the difference between your bullet registering first or the enemy killing you around a corner.

Click to expand...

. . . .

. . . .

At 500 FPS, screen tearing on a 165Hz OLED TV is virtually invisible to the naked eye, meaning it will not noticeably harm your performance compared to playing on a 500Hz OLED display.
While a 500Hz OLED still provides a concrete, measurable edge in motion clarity and system latency, the high frame rate alters how tearing behaves on the 165Hz display, rendering the artifact negligible.


1. Visibility of Screen Tearing at 500 FPS
Screen tearing occurs when your GPU sends a new frame to the display mid-refresh, splitting the screen between old and new frame data. At an uncapped 500 FPS, the spatial footprint of this artifact changes drastically:

• Microscopic Splits: Because the GPU generates a new frame every 2 milliseconds (1000ms / 500fps), the physical layout change between consecutive frames is tiny.
• Stacked Tear Lines: A 165Hz monitor takes roughly 6.06 milliseconds to scan the display from top to bottom (1000ms / 165Hz). Since 500 / 165 ≈ 3.03, the GPU injects exactly 3 different frames into a single scan cycle.
• The OLED Sharpness Factor: Premium OLED panels feature instant pixel response times (~0.03ms). This lacks the natural ghosting/blur of older displays that used to smear tear lines. However, because the step-difference between your 2ms frames is so small, you won't see a harsh, jagged "crack." Instead, it registers as a subtle, faint jitter that most players do not perceive during fast-paced play.

2. Competitive Comparison: 165Hz vs. 500Hz
When both systems run Nvidia Reflex Uncapped, Reflex optimizes the CPU-to-GPU render pipeline to keep input lag at its absolute minimum. Despite having the same input latency, the 500Hz OLED holds clear advantages:

Competitive Metric	165Hz OLED @ 500 FPS	500Hz OLED @ 500 FPS	Winner & Competitive Impact
Input Latency	Ultra-low (Driven by 500 FPS + Reflex)	Ultra-low (Driven by 500 FPS + Reflex)	Tie. Input lag is dictated by engine framerate, not display refresh rate.
Visual Latency (Display Lag)	6.06 ms scanout cycle	2.00 ms scanout cycle	500Hz OLED. The 500Hz screen updates information* 4.06 ms faster visually. (Includes Local interpolated/faked/guessed frames past 128fpsHz vs 128 tick)
Motion Blur (Clarity)	Minor persistence blur (sample-and-hold)	Near-zero persistence blur	500Hz OLED. Objects tracking* across the screen remain perfectly sharp. (*Includes Local interpolated/faked/guessed frames past 128fpsHz vs 128 tick)
Tearing Artifacts	3 thin, tightly spaced tear lines per scan	Perfect sync (1 frame per refresh cycle)	500Hz OLED. Zero tearing, though 165Hz tearing is barely perceptible.

3. The Core Bottleneck: Visual Tracking
The true competitive disparity between these two setups is motion clarity, not the distraction of screen tearing.
Because modern flat panels use a "sample-and-hold" tracking mechanism, an image stays static on the screen for the duration of the refresh cycle before shifting. On a 165Hz display, an enemy dashing across your screen will naturally trigger eye-tracking motion blur, causing the target to look slightly fuzzy. At 500Hz, the image updates fast enough to track human eye movements, keeping the enemy target perfectly crisp and enabling faster tracking adjustment.

Click to expand...

. . . .

. . . .

So for extremist first person shooter players, it's still doable on a 165Hz screen, along with the con of some micro shimmering.

For non-professional game playing online, I'd probably just cap it few below 165fpsHz personally, getting no tearing and still get 6.06 ms frame rendering latency (instead of 2ms). It would still be keeping pace with a 128 tick server's tick arrivals to your 10% lows of your ~ 160 fps average frame rate's graph. You would potentially be 4.3ms "behind" the 500fps player's most recent reaction (~ 6ms vs 2ms) when the next tick is captured, where he'd have 4 input ops vs your 2 input ops, but not behind in how soon you see new tick states generally, overall. So the amount that is an advantage might be pretty negligible throughout, especially if not a professional player. The main difference compared to a very high Hz screen is that 165 fpsHz doesn't reduce the FoV movement blur like 500fps on a 500Hz display would .

Playing online at 500fps on a 500Hz screen, all of those fpsHz above the 128tick will be your local machine showing you what it is interpolating/guessing ahead of the server's next tick, that tick when it arrives corrects you to the "true reality" as necessary. Still, that tick frame won't be (as) blurry, and the guessed frames might not always be that far off of a guess, so it could help with targeting a bit.

For single player games, I'd try to get 140fps (7.14ms) to 160fps(6.25ms) of frame render latency, post dlss upscale ... (no framegen, at least until if/when I get a 360hz - 500hz screen some year).
120fps is 8.3 which isn't horrible, either flat out.. 140 to 160 for using framegen imo, though. So 165 hz is fine for non-framegen, but 500hz would be nice to reduce the sample and hold blur ~ 3x more when using 165 with framegen x3 (165fps x3 = 495 fps).


.

elvn said:

Gaming tvs have good enough gaming metrics for most people

Click to expand...

thats all ya needed to say

The 52" 21:9 LG 52g930b has the same screen height as a 42" 16:9 , but it's an edge lit va and it's not cheap , so not really a great option imo. I was also disappointed in the overall PQ of the LG 45" 21:9, 5120x2160 gx950a (around the height of a 36" 16:9). To me, a lot of the more current larger gaming monitor options seem nerfed versions of what they should be, in the picture quality deparment, (especially HDR).


https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-52g930b-b-gaming-monitor

. .

The LG UltraGear evo 52-inch G9 (52G930B-B) is a massive, highly immersive display. However, its sheer size, aspect ratio, and panel type (VA) give it distinct disadvantages against smaller OLEDs or dedicated high-end productivity monitors.

1. Cons vs. High-End Gaming Monitors

• Aggressive GPU Demands: Pushing the monitor’s native 5K2K resolution (5120 × 2160) at its high refresh rate requires an elite graphics card (like an RTX 4090 or newer). Pushing lower-end GPUs will result in severe performance bottlenecks.
• No Local Dimming/OLED Contrast: Despite being an extreme gaming display, it relies on a VA panel rather than OLED. While its static contrast is excellent (~4000:1), it lacks the infinite contrast and pixel-perfect black levels found on OLED alternatives (such as LG’s OLED models).
• Heavy and Bulky: The monitor is physically massive and heavy. Users on forums like Reddit point out that unboxing and mounting it requires significant desk space and can be challenging to set up.

2. Cons vs. High-End Productivity Monitors

• Missing Built-in Productivity Features: It lacks convenient utilities standard on premium office and ultra-wide productivity screens, such as a built-in KVM switch (to easily swap between PC and work laptop) or integrated webcams.
• Pixel Density Limitations: Across a 52-inch footprint, the pixel density is more stretched out compared to a 4K 32-inch or 27-inch monitor. On Reddit, some users find text rendering less crisp for daily reading unless viewed from 3 to 4 feet away.
• No Smart Features: Unlike smart-enabled ultra-wide monitors (like Samsung's G9 variants), the LG UltraGear doesn’t have a built-in OS for streaming apps (Netflix, YouTube) without an active PC attached.

Click to expand...

. . .

"Gaming tvs have good enough gaming metrics for most people"

Note that for text/work, more OLED gaming tvs are going to start using subpixel structures more aligned with PC OS' text sub sampling method, but you have to look for that specifically if it's important to you.

Personally, I never found text on my 48" 16:9 4k OLED with the additonal white subpixel to be fringe-y looking on my oled TV, but I set it far enough back on it's own stand where the perceived pixel density, pixels-per-degree, was over 60 PPD, usually around 70 PPD at ~40" viewing distance. The closer you choose to sit, or are forced to sit due to circumstances, the larger the pixels will look so the more the pixel grid masking method not matching will matter. People sitting closer probably saw it as something more worth complaining about (and people using 1440p oleds, whose pixel grid was larger to start with).

.

The other thing about older large format LCD based monitors vs OLED gaming TV options is OLED screen dimming, many people "choosing" to using dark themes, avoiding static content when possible, etc. You can run a lower SDR brightness picture mode for doing desk/apps though, which should limit the impact of abl , (though asbl, slow step by step dimming on long static content, is not defeat-able on some modern OLED TVs). There are some pretty big LCD monitors available however, and some FALD LCD gaming TVs whose ABL shouldn't be kicking in if using lower SDR brightness levels for desktop/apps.

elvn said:

The 52" 21:9 LG 52g930b has the same screen height as a 42" 16:9 , but it's an edge lit va and it's not cheap , so not really a great option imo. I was also disappointed in the overall PQ of the LG 45" 21:9, 5120x2160 gx950a (around the height of a 36" 16:9). To me, a lot of the more current larger gaming monitor options seem nerfed versions of what they should be, in the picture quality deparment, (especially HDR).

Click to expand...

I ordered something similar to that as a replacement after looking around. Dell U5226KW. 51.5" 6144x2560 120Hz IPS. It'll be my work screen. I have a 48" 4k 16:9 138Hz LG WOLED I got in 2023 for gaming. This thing has all the bells and whistles. ThunderBolt4 with power delivery, USB and even a 2.5Gb ethernet port so I can 1-cable my work Mac to the monitor. I'm also a big fan of the size. My now dead 43" 4k IPS Dell P4317Q was at the upper limit on height, but I wouldn't have minded it being a bit wider. The U5226KW is slightly shorter but 10" wider. I'll mostly be using it for programming work and general non-gaming use, so I'm much more concerned about real estate, text quality and eye strain than HDR, black levels, color or response time.

elvn said:

Personally, I never found text on my 48" 16:9 4k OLED with the additonal white subpixel to be fringe-y looking on my oled TV, but I set it far enough back on it's own stand where the perceived pixel density, pixels-per-degree, was over 60 PPD, usually around 70 PPD at ~40" viewing distance. The closer you choose to sit, or are forced to sit due to circumstances, the larger the pixels will look so the more the pixel grid masking method not matching will matter. People sitting closer probably saw it as something more worth complaining about (and people using 1440p oleds, whose pixel grid was larger to start with).

Click to expand...

The text on my 48" WOLED really isn't too bad. It's better than that Samsung Neo G7 43" 4k VA screen I had briefly and returned right before I bought the WOLED. Still bugs my eyes a bit using it all day, and it's definitely too tall for work. I went big for gaming for the immersive experience. I'll hopefully just be using it for work for a couple days while I wait for the replacement work screen to arrive.

The thing that annoys me about the TV sized monitors going away is losing monitor features. DisplayPort is probably #1. TVs don't have it and vid cards tend to have 1 HDMI and multiple DP connectors.

zandor said:

Fast forward to today and my Dell P4317Q just died. Power cycle everything, jiggle the cables, etc. It's apparently dead. My gaming rig and my work Mac don't see it at all. The power button lights up when it's plugged in, but doesn't respond. No video, can't get the menus to come up, etc. Normally I could push the power button and it would turn off and the light would go out. Now the power button light is stuck on and the monitor doesn't light up. At least it made it 8 years. I kinda thought maybe it was on its way out. Last few months the backlight has been flickering for a bit after startup. It wasn't too bad & went away after it got warmed up.

Am I the only one who likes this sort of screen? Or are people just buying TVs instead and there's no demand for TV size 4k monitors? I'd think there'd at least be someone trying to market a big 240Hz 4k 16:9 OLED, but no. Didn't see any.

Click to expand...

I replied to your other recent thread but might as well add this.

I LOVE my Dell P4317Q. Mine is 10 years old and bought it very shortly after it came out. I remember back then the first 43" class monitors (and/or TVs) were only 30 Hz at 4k that that was a no-go. Or some BS there you connected two display cables to get 4k/60Hz so something like that. The 4317Q was the first actual decent IPS monitor that was 4k and 60 Hz and no added BS to get it to work.

I did have some amusing trouble with my Dell monitor.

I did have an issue recently getting my monitor to come up because it was "stuck in DP" mode but I had to connect it via HDMI because my EVGA Titan card died so had to use mobo video. It was probably me just being stoopid. I'd try connecting to a different port if you haven't already. Sorry not much help. But you got a new baddie 6k2.5k monitor coming anyways.

zandor said:

The thing that annoys me about the TV sized monitors going away is losing monitor features. DisplayPort is probably #1. TVs don't have it and vid cards tend to have 1 HDMI and multiple DP connectors.

Click to expand...

If not using for gaming, dp isn't an issue really, and there are adapters if you need to run a hdmi screen off of a dp output. (Most laptops have usb-c or hdmi outputs as well, rather than dp , if ever connecting one of those, or adapter the usb-c to hdmi/dp). I use a dp to hdmi adapter off of my nvidia gpu's dp outs on my side 4k screens.

. . .

quoting a snippet from my earlier comment

elvn said:

I think the gap (between Higher Hz smaller gaming monitors and what Hz gaming TVs get) might be until hdmi 2.2 hits some-year. Even if nvidia doesn't get on board with hdmi 2.2 on their gpus until sometime after hdmi 2.2 hits, a dp 80 to hdmi 2.2 (96) adapter would probably work pretty well (when those adapters come out).

Click to expand...

=============================


google blurbs, take the timeframe with a grain of salt. Seems overly optomistic on the timeline. The first ones, on more exclusive/high end models, might be a year later than this more realistically, will have to see.

Gaming TVs: 2027 (Premium Models)

• The Reality: Major TV manufacturers (such as LG, Samsung, and Sony) finalized their 2026 TV lineups without HDMI 2.2 support. Instead, chip manufacturers are just beginning to sample the required FRL2 (Fixed Rate Link) silicon chips.
• What to Expect: According to the HDMI Licensing Administrator, the very first commercial TVs with HDMI 2.2 are expected to launch in 2027. It will likely debut exclusively on flagship 8K sets and top-tier 4K OLEDs before trickling down to mid-range TVs years later.
• The Catalyst: Massive TV adoption will likely remain stagnant until next-generation consoles (like a hypothetical PlayStation 6) launch with the port.

Gaming Monitors: Late 2026 to 2027

• The Reality: Display technology usually implements new bandwidth standards slightly faster than TVs due to the aggressive nature of the PC gaming market. However, monitors are completely dependent on graphics cards. Current-generation desktop GPUs do not feature HDMI 2.2 ports.
• What to Expect: You might see niche, ultra-premium gaming monitors announced at CES in early 2027. These will likely target extreme display formats like 4K at 480Hz or massive ultrawide/8K resolutions.

Click to expand...

.

Feature	HDMI 2.1 (Current)	HDMI 2.2 (Future)
Max Bandwidth	48 Gbps	96 Gbps
4K Capabilities	Up to 4K @ 144Hz (Native) / 240Hz (via DSC)	4K @ 480Hz (Native)
5K Capabilities	5K @ 60Hz (Native) / Up to 165Hz (via DSC)	5K @ 240Hz (Native/DSC)
6K Capabilities	6K @ 60Hz (Native) / Up to 120Hz (via DSC)	6K @ 165Hz (Native/DSC)
8K Capabilities	8K @ 60Hz	8K @ 240Hz
Key Audio/Video Tech	eARC, VRR, ALLM	LIP (Latency Indication Protocol)

Because current HDMI 2.1 displays already utilize DSC to effortlessly achieve 4K at 240Hz, HDMI 2.2 hardware is primarily required if you are trying to drive refresh rates upward of 480Hz or uncompressed 8K/12K video setups

. .

HDMI 2.2 provides a massive 96 Gbps max bandwidth. When utilizing a standard DSC 3:1 compression ratio, the bandwidth requirements for ultra-high refresh rates at 5K fit well within this limit:

• 5K @ 240Hz (10-bit Color): Requires ~117 Gbps natively, but DSC compresses this down to ~39 Gbps, leaving plenty of headroom.
• 5K @ 360Hz (10-bit Color): Compresses down to ~58 Gbps, which easily fits within the 96 Gbps ceiling.
• 5K @ 480Hz (10-bit Color): Compresses down to ~78 Gbps, pushing close to the practical limits of the interface but remaining mathematically viable.

. .
### 6K Resolution on HDMI 2.2: Refresh Rates & DSC Bandwidth

HDMI 2.2 provides a massive **96 Gbps max bandwidth**. Here is how different refresh rates at **6K (6144 × 3456) with 10-bit color** scale using a standard Display Stream Compression (DSC) 3:1 ratio:

| Refresh Rate | Native Data Rate | Compressed (DSC 3:1) | HDMI 2.2 Status (96 Gbps Cap) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **6K @ 120Hz** | ~82.6 Gbps | **~27.5 Gbps** | [PASSED] Fully Supported with high headroom |
| **6K @ 240Hz** | ~165.1 Gbps | **~55.0 Gbps** | [PASSED] Fully Supported (Optimal target) |
| **6K @ 360Hz** | ~247.7 Gbps | **~82.6 Gbps** | [MAX CEILING] Theoretical limit for 10-bit |
| **6K @ 480Hz** | ~330.2 Gbps | **~110.1 Gbps** | [FAILED] Exceeds physical bandwidth |

* **Max Practical Target:** 240Hz will likely be the real-world limit for monitor manufacturers due to controller stability and keeping headroom for audio/metadata.
* **Absolute Ceiling:** 360Hz is the mathematical limit for 6K 10-bit over HDMI 2.2 before completely saturating the link.

Click to expand...

==================================

Hdmi 2.2 will be good for 4k 360hz or 4k 480hz, and higher than 4k screens getting high hz, but unless you have a 5000 series gpu (which has flip metering, or future gens of gpu) and are getting (140) ~ 160fps base, post dlss quality upscale, on a particular game, - then multiFrameGen is going to be a poor option imo. 140fps is doable on some games with a 5090, but often requiring disabling path tracing/ray tracing for some of the most demanding games. 160 - 200 fps would be decent for mFG x 3 , 160fps x3 = 480fpsHz. Future generations of high end gpus will have more powerful hardware, more advanced ai chips, and other frame gen enhancing hardware/software most likely though, and maybe path tracing optimization gains.

There are always some simpler to render games that can hit higher fps natively though, of course, like simple to render competitive "mall arena" shooters (not bf6 though) - but then you'd be aiming for 300fps to 500fps. You can still run 500fps on a 144hz, 165hz, or 240hz 4k screen with some advantages though, you'd just have a little micro tearing "shimmer" which isn't bad.

The main thing you'd lose when lower than 360fpsHz to 480fpsHz+, is the FoV movement blur reduction of that higher fpsHz.


.

Latency Comparison Table - 5090 using mFrameGen x3
..FPS headings are post dlss quality upscale
..120 fps mFGx3 = 360 fpsHz , 140 fps mFGx3 = 420 fpsHz , 160fps mFGx3 = 480 fpsHz , 200 fps mFGx3 = 600 fpsHz


When using G-SYNC (Variable Refresh Rate), the display refresh rate dynamically matches the game's actual generated output frame rate. Because Frame Generation x2 doubles the base frame rate and Frame Generation x3 triples it, the display scan-out time changes based on the final frame rate delivered to the panel.

Click to expand...

Latency Component	120 FPS Heading	140 FPS Heading	160 FPS Heading	200 FPS Heading	Notes / Component Details
Base Game Processing	8.33 ms	7.14 ms	6.25 ms	5.00 ms	Render time for the base frame rate
MFG x2 Interpolation Penalty	8.33 ms	7.14 ms	6.25 ms	5.00 ms	Required delay to hold and generate 1 fake frame
MFG x3 Interpolation Penalty	8.33 ms	7.14 ms	6.25 ms	5.00 ms	Required delay to hold and build 2 fake frames
PC & DLSS 4 Overhead	4.00 ms	4.00 me	4.00 ms	4.00 ms	AI processing on Blackwell 5th Gen Tensor Cores
Display Scan-out (FG x2 VRR)	4.17 ms	3.57 ms	3.13 ms	2.50 ms	Scan-out dynamically adjusts to 2x base FPS
Display Scan-out (FG x3 VRR)	2.78 ms	2.38 ms	2.08 ms	1.67 ms	Scan-out dynamically adjusts to 3x base FPS
Nvidia Reflex Mitigation	(Subtracted)	(Subtracted)	(Subtracted)	(Subtracted)	Dynamically removes engine queue overhead
Total End-to-End Lag (FG x2)	24 - 25 ms	21 - 22 ms	19 - 20 ms	16 - 17 ms	Sum of Base + x2 Penalty + Overhead + x2 Scan-out
Total End-to-End Lag (FG x3)	23 - 24 ms	20 - 21 ms	18 - 19 ms	15 - 16 ms	Sum of Base + x3 Penalty + Overhead + x3 Scan-out

Click to expand...

. .

Why the Lag is Surprisingly Low (200fps example below, but those in that chart, especially 140 , 160, are still relatively "low" for single player games)

1. The 200 FPS Base Savior: Frame generation lag scales directly with your base framerate. If you were using 3x or 4x MFG from a low 30 fps base, the lag would be a horrific 100+ ms. Because your base data is refreshed every 5 ms, the mathematical "holding delay" required to interpolate frames is negligible.
2. Blackwell Flip Metering: The RTX 5090 architecture includes dedicated hardware-level flip metering. This allows DLSS 4 to space out the 3x generated frames smoothly across the 600 Hz refresh cycle without choking the engine or backing up the CPU queue.
3. 600 Hz Pixel Pacing: At 600 Hz, the display lag itself is virtually non-existent (~1.6 ms scan-out). The game will feel incredibly fluid, mirroring the input responsiveness of native 200 fps while looking like a crystal-clear 600 fps presentation

Click to expand...

. .

DP just seems to be a more robust connector in general, is easier (for me at least) to connect, and almost all cables have a latching mechanism (which imo improves robustness). The connector shells do tend to be a bit long, probably due to the latch, but I still generally prefer them.

I've been using dp to hdmi adapters on the back of my gpu for years now, no problem. And since they are "DP" at the gpu, they are robust and latched on that end .

Hdmi plugs on my gaming tv screens are solid, too, even on their own, but especially since I use black velcro stripping in places on longer runs, from a thin roll of velcro stripping.

.

DP just provides more bandwidth , for now anyway. HDMI 2.2 will have 96 Gpbs and dp2.1 will be 80 (if end to end UHBR20 devices and capable cables) until dp is updated later.

• UHBR10: 40 Gbps maximum bandwidth
• UHBR13.5: 54 Gbps maximum bandwidth
• UHBR20: 80 Gbps maximum bandwidth (This is the highest tier and the standard on newer GPUs like the Nvidia RTX 50 series

.

HDMI always feels like it will just fall out to me, and often (I guess because of the stupid shape some have) they don't seem to fully engage in the jack. But anyway, that's just my preference. I agree it isn't really a big deal most of the time.

elvn said:

If not using for gaming, dp isn't an issue really, and there are adapters if you need to run a hdmi screen off of a dp output. (Most laptops have usb-c or hdmi outputs as well, rather than dp , if ever connecting one of those, or adapter the usb-c to hdmi/dp). I use a dp to hdmi adapter off of my nvidia gpu's dp outs on my side 4k screens.

. . .

quoting a snippet from my earlier comment



=============================


google blurbs, take the timeframe with a grain of salt. Seems overly optomistic on the timeline. The first ones, on more exclusive/high end models, might be a year later than this more realistically, will have to see.


.







==================================

Hdmi 2.2 will be good for 4k 360hz or 4k 480hz, and higher than 4k screens getting high hz, but unless you have a 5000 series gpu (which has flip metering, or future gens of gpu) and are getting (140) ~ 160fps base, post dlss quality upscale, on a particular game, - then multiFrameGen is going to be a poor option imo. 140fps is doable on some games with a 5090, but often requiring disabling path tracing/ray tracing for some of the most demanding games. 160 - 200 fps would be decent for mFG x 3 , 160fps x3 = 480fpsHz. Future generations of high end gpus will have more powerful hardware, more advanced ai chips, and other frame gen enhancing hardware/software most likely though, and maybe path tracing optimization gains.

There are always some simpler to render games that can hit higher fps natively though, of course, like simple to render competitive "mall arena" shooters (not bf6 though) - but then you'd be aiming for 300fps to 500fps. You can still run 500fps on a 144hz, 165hz, or 240hz 4k screen with some advantages though, you'd just have a little micro tearing "shimmer" which isn't bad.

The main thing you'd lose when lower than 360fpsHz to 480fpsHz+, is the FoV movement blur reduction of that higher fpsHz.


.




. .




. .

Click to expand...

"just use an adapter" is all you needed...

(Unverified) Some interesting info looking ahead :
. . .

feel free to fill in any blanks. I'd love to see any corrections.

pendragon1 said:

unverified ai slop? were are you coming up with all this?

Click to expand...

https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/h...th-specs-and-all-the-parts-they-dont-tell-you

we dont need the walls of copy/paste crap thats off topic.

Mostly gemini with sources in tabs. I try to double check vs a site source, it but I'll say if I didn't

It's on topic to dp vs hdmi imo, and gaming tvs vs giant gaming monitors. At least to my wants for what is and isn't available, and my desire to know.

I've used this tool in the past, I just didn't feel like plugging all the numbers in manually :

https://linustechtips.com/topic/729232-guide-to-display-cables-adapters-v2/

It's on topic to me in regard to what gaming tvs and potential large "tv" like monitors are or aren't available, and vs port limits or lack of different types, upcoming types, etc.

elvn said:

It's on topic to me in regard to what gaming tvs and potential large "tv" like monitors are or aren't available, and vs port limits or lack of different types, upcoming types, etc.

Click to expand...

make your own thread ffs.

fair enough. I enjoyed seeing the numbers though, and appreciate Zandor spurring me on to more reading materials.

Big monitors only made sense when TVs had lag and other limitations like 4:2:2 color subsampling. Or perhaps HDMI has limitations not allowing sufficient bandwidth for specific supported video mode e.g. HDMI 2.0 could only do 4K 120Hz with 4:2:0 subsampling but DP at the time could do it at full quality, etc.

Otherwise TVs got so good they are pretty much like monitors. Lag is almost as low with only single millisecond or two of difference between TVs gaming mode and gaming monitors. Especially making big monitors out of TVs there isn't even massive refresh rate advantage to cut down lag further.

Also TVs have not only all the smart TV features but even while in game mode might have more features allowing image calibration - and which is especially important because default calibration is usually bad.
HDR is often badly calibrated and might need some tweaking. Also TVs usually support better standards for HDR and are much brighter in general. Especially OLED monitors in SDR were rather pathetic.
Also monitors rarely get the same level of effort from community to e.g. disable ABL and such.

ps. I also don't like random off-topic AI generated slop about video bandwidth in every thread. I can ask google to make video bandwidth analysis and while at it hit some nails in the head

It's a shame really because I'd love one of those TV panels with all the image processing features they offer, but without the smart TV crap and the terrible streaming service like UIs that they've devolved into.

But IMO the 42" LG OLEDs pretty much killed the large monitor when they launched.

kasakka said:

It's a shame really because I'd love one of those TV panels with all the image processing features they offer, but without the smart TV crap and the terrible streaming service like UIs that they've devolved into.

But IMO the 42" LG OLEDs pretty much killed the large monitor when they launched.

Click to expand...

I use an external box on my living room tv, so I bypass all of that stuff and use android apps, including ones not available in walled gardens like apple and smart tV stuff. My 48" cx at my pc turns on right to the pc input, so I never see that stuff there, either.

Agree the large monitor thing when even 48" 120Hz gaming tvs came out practically (especially once hdmi 2.1 gpus were avaialble). Plus the 55" samsung ark was problematic on what it delivered in reality, and at what price point, so was probably another nail in the coffin for large screens. Plus samsung's 8k offerings were very expensive, very large, and they were not even able to compete with the PQ of 4k flagships screens that were $1000 or more cheaper.

.

elvn said:

Agree the large monitor thing when even 48" 120Hz gaming tvs came out practically (especially once hdmi 2.1 gpus were avaialble). Plus the 55" samsung ark was problematic on what it delivered in reality, and at what price point, so was probably another nail in the coffin for large screens. Plus samsung's 8k offerings were very expensive, very large, and they were not even able to compete with the PQ of 4k flagships screens that were $1000 or more cheaper.

Click to expand...

My gaming monitor is a 48" 138Hz 4k LG WOLED I picked up in late 2023. It has a TV panel, but without any of the "Smart TV" stuff or a tuner, and it has a DP input. The remote is pretty clunky looking and the menus just scream "gamer" (surprised they're not RGB animated TBH), but it's functional and works pretty well. Before that I briefly had a 43" Samsung Neo G7 43" 4k VA screen. Returned it. That thing was awful. DP wouldn't wake up from sleep, HDMI kept glitching (same certified cable works fine on the LG), color shifting and HDR colors were ridiculous, and to top it all off they loaded it up with all the smart TV crap and made the menus a mess. Want to change a display setting? Boom. Ads. WTF?

I suspect cost is a big part of what killed off TV size monitors. That 48" LG WOLED I have was a few hundred $ more than a TV with similar specs at the time. Big monitors are lower volume than TVs so they end up costing more. I was willing to pay a bit more to get a DP input and get rid of the Smart TV shit, and I got a few more Hz (138 vs. 120 for a TV), but I think most people will just go for a bit cheaper. There are still a few TV sized monitors around. That nasty Samsung is still hanging on somehow, and Dell has a nice 43" 4k Office monitor. Couple others. The Dell one isn't cheap, $1200. OLED? Nah, 60Hz IPS. It's an office monitor. Also has USB-C input with 90W power delivery, 2x HDMI, 2xDP, an ethernet port, an integrated KVM, and a bunch of other USB ports. I thought about buying one, then decided to go big.

Wait until 5K/6K/8K monitors become more the norm I think - I'm on a 27 inch 4K monitor right now and I forgot what it was like to have such high PPI/sharpness that you can barely make out pixels even putting your nose to the screen

6K @ 43 inch would be similar PPI

kram182 said:

Wait until 5K/6K/8K monitors become more the norm I think - I'm on a 27 inch 4K monitor right now and I forgot what it was like to have such high PPI/sharpness that you can barely make out pixels even putting your nose to the screen

6K @ 43 inch would be similar PPI

Click to expand...

im surprised to here that 5k/6k/8K is still gonna be a thing. I thought that the ultra resolutions were being shunned by general consumers

stashinsome said:

im surprised to here that 5k/6k/8K is still gonna be a thing. I thought that the ultra resolutions were being shunned by general consumers

Click to expand...

Without guessing 'on what timescale' - it's not like 4K resolution will be the last resolution ever (5K/6K are being pushed in the monitor space rather than the TV space ATM). 8K flopped in the TV consumer space this gen cause no content for it - with computers/monitors (and specifically gaming but also video editing/text/etc) you generate the resolution/content - so 'at least something' is there of use, content wise. Difficulty there is getting a GPU to push all those pixels for gaming with or especially without GPU AI upscaling methods.

kram182 said:

Without guessing 'on what timescale' - it's not like 4K resolution will be the last resolution ever (5K/6K are being pushed in the monitor space rather than the TV space ATM). 8K flopped in the TV consumer space this gen cause no content for it - with computers/monitors (and specifically gaming but also video editing/text/etc) you generate the resolution/content - so 'at least something' is there of use, content wise. Difficulty there is getting a GPU to push all those pixels for gaming with or especially without GPU AI upscaling methods.

Click to expand...

the content situation makes sense, but i still just dont understand the need for resolutions that massive. I dont think i would ever go past 34 inch ultrawide monitor. And at 1440p im pretty happy with the picture. More so im just hoping we dont see a forceful push of regular sized monitors only only coming in 4k and higher.

stashinsome said:

the content situation makes sense, but i still just dont understand the need for resolutions that massive. I dont think i would ever go past 34 inch ultrawide monitor. And at 1440p im pretty happy with the picture. More so im just hoping we dont see a forceful push of regular sized monitors only only coming in 4k and higher.

Click to expand...

Resolutions above 4K can/do serve a bunch of purposes outside of just super large TVs - as mentioned in video editing, being able to edit 6K/8K footage even if to frame/crop/cut down to 4K for example or have cleaner lines for green screen outlining - virtual reality displays super close to the eyes - medical imaging being able to see super sharp and fine details on medical scans - coders/3D artists for larger but still detailed workspaces as well

If you are 'pushed' to it cause factories stop producing 'older' lower res screens/panels, it won't be for a long while still - 1080p monitors are still big on the market today and that's 'last gen' by about a decade at this point, with no signs of them going away anytime soon.

If LG put a DP on their C range, they’d probably take even more of the large monitor market.

kram182 said:

Resolutions above 4K can/do serve a bunch of purposes outside of just super large TVs - as mentioned in video editing, being able to edit 6K/8K footage even if to frame/crop/cut down to 4K for example or have cleaner lines for green screen outlining - virtual reality displays super close to the eyes - medical imaging being able to see super sharp and fine details on medical scans - coders/3D artists for larger but still detailed workspaces as well

If you are 'pushed' to it cause factories stop producing 'older' lower res screens/panels, it won't be for a long while still - 1080p monitors are still big on the market today and that's 'last gen' by about a decade at this point, with no signs of them going away anytime soon.

Click to expand...

I guess it make sense 1080 will still be viable for years to come. I know plenty of friends that still prefer 19 to 21 inch monitors

kram182 said:

Without guessing 'on what timescale' - it's not like 4K resolution will be the last resolution ever (5K/6K are being pushed in the monitor space rather than the TV space ATM). 8K flopped in the TV consumer space this gen cause no content for it - with computers/monitors (and specifically gaming but also video editing/text/etc) you generate the resolution/content - so 'at least something' is there of use, content wise. Difficulty there is getting a GPU to push all those pixels for gaming with or especially without GPU AI upscaling methods.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was a failure in the TV space only because there wasn't 8k content for it. Several manufacturers ditched 8k tvs in part due to stronger power restrictions in several countries. Samsung was doing AI upscaling to 8k, which ended up somewhere between "4k plus" and "8k minus" when pixel peeping, and that tech could have gotten much better over time (machine learning/AI upscaling). I think the bigger issues were that people typically don't have 100" and larger tvs, and watch the tv sizes they have from farther away at narrower than a ~ 60 deg viewing angle. . so they are already at a "8k-like" PPD , pixels per degree. That is, their perceived pixel density was already much higher than a 4k screen anywhere near a desktop PC, due to typical tv room/living room viewing distances.. Combine that with the huge price premium for an 8k tv, and the fact that their PictureQuality overall , regardless of their detail levels, was still inferior to a high end 4k TV, and you would be paying considerably more overall for no real-world improvement. In fact, it would be somewhat of a downgrade in PQ.

A person viewing a (4k) computer screen in their 60 to 50 degree human central viewing angle, fills their entire cetral viewing angle without the sides of the screen being pushed into the periphery where the pixels on the ends would grow progressively more off-axis from the viewer the farther away they were. That scenario, whether a desktop monitor , or a gaming tv set back far enough on it's own mount/stand .. would give you 64 PPD to 77 PPD. A 8k in that same scenario, at those distances/viewing angles) it would double that at around 128 PPD to 154 PPD. A person watching a 65" 4k tv in a living room from 8 feet away is already getting ~ 117 PPD, nearly double the perceived pixel density to their perspective that a 4k user viewing any 4k screen at a 60 deg viewing angle gets.. and they aren't typically losing any "desktop/app real estate" in tv watching at 4k, so it's not as big of a difference or worth the money, let alone if the PQ isn't as good or better than high end 4k tvs. (I view the 77" 4k in my living room at around 9' to 9.5' away and that's ~ 109 PPD to 117 PPD for my setup).

.

elvn said:

I don't think it was a failure in the TV space only because there wasn't 8k content for it. Several manufacturers ditched 8k tvs in part due to stronger power restrictions in several countries. Samsung was doing AI upscaling to 8k, which ended up somewhere between "4k plus" and "8k minus" when pixel peeping, and that tech could have gotten much better over time (machine learning/AI upscaling). I think the bigger issues were that people watch tvs from farther away at narrower than a ~ 60 deg viewing angle .. so they are already at a "8k-like" PPD , pixels per degree. That is, their perceived pixel density was already much higher than a 4k screen anywhere near a desktop PC, due to typical tv room/living room viewing distances.. Combine that with the huge price premium for an 8k tv, and the fact that their PictureQuality overall , regardless of their detail levels, was still inferior to a high end 4k TV, and you would be paying considerably more overall for no real-world improvement. In fact, it would be somewhat of a downgrade in PQ.

A person viewing a (4k) computer screen in their 60 to 50 degree human central viewing angle, fills their entire cetral viewing angle without the sides of the screen being pushed into the periphery where the pixels on the ends would grow progressively more off-axis from the viewer the farther away they were. That scenario, whether a desktop monitor , or a gaming tv set back far enough on it's own mount/stand .. would give you 64 PPD to 77 PPD. A 8k in that same scenario, at those distances/viewing angles) it would double that at around 128 PPD to 154 PPD. A person watching a 65" tv in a living room from 8 feet away is already getting ~ 117 PPD, nearly double the perceived pixel density to their perspective that a 4k user viewing any 4k screen at a 60 deg viewing angle gets.. and they aren't typically losing any "desktop/app real estate" in tv watching at 4k, so it's not as big of a difference or worth the money, let alone if the PQ isn't as good or better than high end 4k tvs. (I view the 77" 4k in my living room at around 9' to 9.5' away and that's ~ 109 PPD to 117 PPD for my setup).

Click to expand...

Sure that was all a problem of 8K and still will be whenever 8K comes about again - but if there was 8K content out when they first tried you would have had a larger (sub)set of people who would have bought them than did - to watch their content, without compromise/downscaling etc, regardless of if noticeable or not from their viewing area over 4K. But even those (more) potential buyers couldn't exist cause there just was no content.

As said - it's not like 4K is going to be the last ever TV resolution for all time, no matter how long it sticks around and stays as the pinnacle. Tech, like time, always marches forward. Always has to be a new gimmick to sell.

I get that but I still say the much higher PPD of a 4k screen in a living room viewing distance vs screen size scenario where people already get ~117 PPD on their 4k TV for media would make a lot of people scratch their heads at what improvement the should be seeing from a screen costing $1000 or $1000s more than it's 4k counterparts. Even if it's AI upscaling (or their slim library of 8k movies on their service) was adding a bit more detail when up close pixel peeping, when they sat back on the couch the increase over say 117 PPD would not be anything compared to the effect of doubling the resolution on the PC screen. The 8k tvs that came out actually scored worse in several categories/metrics than their 4k counterparts for overall picture quality, so you were seeing a worse picture if you bought one. Not exactly strong selling points , all around (including the ones you mentioned).

A computer monitor viewing scenario could going from 60 - 77 PPD to 120 to 154 PPD, which is a much bigger discernable difference. Plus PCs can gain more in desktop/app real-estate, where that doesn't really apply to media typically. Media is 4:2:0 chroma too, where pc's benefit a lot more as compared to how effective and how much more necessary heavy anti-aliasing and text subsampling is to make the perceived pixel sizes at lower PPD look less aliased. Everything on the desktop and in games is much more detailed overall pre and post "edge masking" the higher the PPI -> PPD.
. . . . . . . . . . . .

kram182 said:

it's not like 4K is going to be the last ever TV resolution for all time, no matter how long it sticks around and stays as the pinnacle. Tech, like time, always marches forward. Always has to be a new gimmick to sell.

Click to expand...

I'm curious what samsung is going to be able to do with glasses-free 3d once they bring it to QD OLED, and hopefully larger format flagship gaming screens some-year.

I'm also looking forward to when XR/MR glasses get out of their baby steps and into 4k and higher microOLED screens that can compare to watching a real 4k or 4k+ ultrwide format screen, but a virtual one (possibly with eye tracking and foveated rendering at some point). With separate screens per eye, like VR, XR/MR glasses can provide a "holographic" 3D viewing environment / gaming / virtual screen contents , too.
. . .

=============================

kram182 said:

Resolutions above 4K can/do serve a bunch of purposes outside of just super large TVs - as mentioned in video editing, being able to edit 6K/8K footage even if to frame/crop/cut down to 4K for example or have cleaner lines for green screen outlining - virtual reality displays super close to the eyes - medical imaging being able to see super sharp and fine details on medical scans - coders/3D artists for larger but still detailed workspaces as well

Click to expand...

For step-down from extremely pricey mastering and production monitors ( ~ $25k + ) , Asus is making a ProArt 32" 8k desktop productivity /"step-down mastering" monitor, and some other company called Lilluput is making one with less specs for under $3,000. The joke about the asus 8k professional monitor was that it's 8k for $8k (usd) , actually listed at $8800 usd on their site right now ... so that's not worth it for most enthusiasts unless you are making money off of using it for you job I'd think. Asus and others are making 5k and 6k ones, too, and apple still has a 5k one. Those aren't for gaming though.

Samsung, Asus, and LG do make some 27" 5k (165Hz - 180Hz) gaming monitors, samsung makes a 32" 6k (165Hz) desktop sized gaming monitor, and there will probably be more 5k and 6k screens with gaming capability coming out over time. Those ones I listed are around $700 - $1200 - $1600 usd I think. *Important to differentiate 5k 16:9 from 21:9 ultrawides at 5120x2160 "5k", however.

. . . .

I'd like a 6k or 8k screen space, or similar high resolution ultrawide for more desktop real estate, while still giving a PPD increase, but on a large format screen A screen with an aggressive enough curve would allow you to sit near enough that the ends of the screen remain on-axis all the way to the ends, pointed directly at you. That would be more desireable to me.


800R(adius) = 800mm = ~ 32 inches to the center of curvature (failry large screen for 32 inch view distance)

1000R(adius) = 1000mm = ~ 39 inches to the center of curvature (larger screen for 39 inch view distance)

.

A 6k (6016 x 3384) 35" 16:9 screen at 800mm, 32" away would get 118 PPD
... a 45" 21:9 would have similar to a 35" central 16:9 portion, for example, which would make the total of such a hypothetical screen 8064x3456

A 6k (6016 x 3384) 16:9 55" screen at 1000mm, 39" away would get 95.3 PPD
... maybe something like the samsung ark but in QD-OLED and with appreciably more PPD than the 4k ark, and no breakout box b.s. or other cons.

. . .

A 8k (7680x4320) 35" 16:9 screen at 800mm, 32" away would get ~ 151 PPD

A 8k (7680x4320) 55" 16:9 portion of a screen at 1000mm, 39" away would get 122 PPD

. .

8k could use interger scaling of 4k (4k fps after DLSS quality upscaling for example) to 8k on the screen end, 1:4 , theoretically, where a 4k rez on a 6k screen isn't a clean multiple so might be a little fuzzy, at least outside of whatever DLSS could do for them on the PC end. (That's if 8k gaming screens offered did interger scaling properly).

elvn said:

I get that but I still say the much higher PPD of a 4k screen in a living room viewing distance vs screen size scenario where people already get ~117 PPD on their 4k TV for media would make a lot of people scratch their heads at what improvement the should be seeing from a screen costing $1000 or $1000s more than it's 4k counterparts. Even if it's AI upscaling (or their slim library of 8k movies on their service) was adding a bit more detail when up close pixel peeping, when they sat back on the couch the increase over say 117 PPD would not be anything compared to the effect of doubling the resolution on the PC screen. The 8k tvs that came out actually scored worse in several categories/metrics than their 4k counterparts for overall picture quality, so you were seeing a worse picture if you bought one. Not exactly strong selling points , all around (including the ones you mentioned).

Click to expand...

People (normies) already scratch their heads with resolution alone for 4K vs 1080p - they still easily notice and upgrade for HDR/Dolby Vision mainly - it's gonna depend what the 'other features' are of an 8K video format whenever they 'relaunch' it. Could be glasses-free 3D as you mentioned, as 8K can/would help with that - could be that and/or something else - have to wait and see

Edit: And apparently VVC/H.266 has baked in + enhanced features for stereoscopic frame packing and multi-layer + multiview coding in regards to glasses-free 3D

kram182 said:

People (normies) already scratch their heads with resolution alone for 4K vs 1080p - they still easily notice and upgrade for HDR/Dolby Vision mainly - it's gonna depend what the 'other features' are of an 8K video format whenever they 'relaunch' it. Could be glasses-free 3D as you mentioned, as 8K can/would help with that - could be that and/or something else - have to wait and see

Click to expand...

Yep. I got my parents an OLED for Christmas. I don't think mom noticed 1080p->4k. She definitely noticed the HDR. 10+yo Visio LCD -> current Samsung OLED as of December 2025. 42" so it's a WOLED, but it had to fit in her 20yo quarter sawn oak TV cabinent. 42" barely fits. We had to use a heavy duty monitor arm and drill a hole in the shelf inside the cabinet to mount it. Thing was meant for a CRT. We'll see another bump in TV resolution, but it has to get cheap enough first. 8k content needs the mass market. The mass market isn't going to buy 8k TVs for what they've been going for.

My gut feeling on >4k TVs is computer monitors are going back to leading TVs in resolution for a while. As best I can tell TV resolution tends to change in big jumps since it involves a content resolution change, while computer monitors aren't locked to TV content and can slowly creep up in resolution. Like in the US TVs basically went from NTSC (480 lines) to 720/1080 to 4k. This whole 4k TV, most monitors are less than 4k seems like an aberration. Usually PC monitor resolution has been higher than TV resolution at least since the late 1980s when PC class electronics got good enough. You could get a higher res workstation well before that, but those were $$$$$$. Now it's backwards but TVs are stalled and PC monitors are slowly creeping upwards. I think your average new PC monitor will be 4k+ before we see the next big jump in TVs.

Don't forget that people mostly watch streaming services on tvs now as well, which are lower bitrate "4k" and dynamically compress even lower besides (kind of like a not so awesome frame rate on a game VRR'ing lower throughout a graph, but compression-wise instead). Youtube compresses outright to start with, and dynamically as well. (Those being lossy compression, not "lossless" like FLAC audio tracks are, losses which can cause macroblocking, banding, crushed blacks and other visual downgrades). Console games also use dynamic resolution typically. Live game streaming on sites like twitch only recently started doing 1440p (as an option, and only some fraction of streamers choose to utilize it due to requiring increased bandwidth/processing). A lot of old shows, and some movies, never re-mastered or re-released at 4k either, so when people watch them on a 4k display, they are being upscaled.

Many people aren't even seeing full fidelity 4k , so 8k on the media side of things, in addition to a lot of the other stuff we all mentioned in this thread, seems a stretch. I'd guess that's likely to remain the norm for media viewing even after hdmi 2.2 hits. Compression tech might get way better though, I suppose, and AI upscaling, at some point.

.

PC resolution for sure , already at 5k 180Hz and 6k 165Hz with some gaming models as I mentioned (though small for my taste) , and some ultrawides based on a central 4k screen space (or height anyway) with more resolution width.