42" OLED MASTER THREAD

I've been holding off on a display purchase for over a year. Tried the 48" OLED, but just too big. 40" - 43" is the sweet spot, IMO. The Samsung Q90A 43" looked promising, but it's only 60Hz. Let's hope this 42" OLED delivers.
 
Asus 42 inch OLED apparently comes with a heatsink. This should be the go-to display for PC users since heatsink also helps with image retention.
Furthermore, Asus has worked to improve heat dissipation by adding a special heat sink so it does not cap brightness unnecessarily. These keep operating temperatures below 50˚ C (up to 16% lower than competitor models) and still reach a peak brightness of 900 nits.
Click to expand...

https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/news/9c90705

 
Last edited:
Blackstone said:
Alienware has an ultrawide QD-OLED in the works as well aparently.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/start-drooling-now-alienware-shows-first-quantum-dot-oled-gaming-monitor?utm_campaign=trueAnthem: Manual&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3bXS_hfKRGcmLooTNf-dqWUK4foWjowh_VFaONk96B3qxAWlJiYUzmS4c
Click to expand...

I still have the old Philips 40" 4k 60hz monitor,which I gave to my son. I now have the Alienware 3420DW 34" curved Ultrawide 120hz. monitor. Yeah between the two, the tech in the Alienware is obviously significantly better no question, but as far as gaming immersion and sucking you in, and just more of a wow factor, no comparison the larger flat 40" 4k monitor is way cooler.

The issues with the 34' Ultrawide is, so much of the top and bottom of the screen seems missing, compared to a large flat 40+ monitor. If your looking for a display to pull you inside your game, for sure a 42" flat 4k over any Ultrawide.
 
Zorachus said:
I still have the old Philips 40" 4k 60hz monitor,which I gave to my son. I now have the Alienware 3420DW 34" curved Ultrawide 120hz. monitor. Yeah between the two, the tech in the Alienware is obviously significantly better no question, but as far as gaming immersion and sucking you in, and just more of a wow factor, no comparison the larger flat 40" 4k monitor is way cooler.

The issues with the 34' Ultrawide is, so much of the top and bottom of the screen seems missing, compared to a large flat 40+ monitor. If your looking for a display to pull you inside your game, for sure a 42" flat 4k over any Ultrawide.
Click to expand...
I've been using 40" - 43" 4K TVs as my monitor since 2016. I bought the 38" Alienware curved gaming monitor, but returned it in less than a week. Loved the curved widescreen. Hated losing so much vertical space.
 
I think the Asus 42"/48" model may very well out-beat the LG 42"/48" C2 model unlike the trainwreck of the Gigabyte 55" model in 2021:

-Additional DisplayPort
-Less reflective screen (can be a pro or con - probably a con for me)
-Bigger heatsink & cooling which they're advertising 900 nits (3% window)
-Different stand (can be a pro or con - probably a con for me)

If you read the 42/48" C2 preliminary info, it has an evo panel but still doesn't get as bright as the 55"+ C2 or any of the G2 series (yes I know, you can somewhat firmware hack it probably). Thus the 42/48" C2 may still be stuck in the ~700 nit peak brightness territory while the Asus may be in the ~900 nit territory.
 
What about burn in using as a PC monitor? Does Windows OS stuff get burned into these displays?
 
Seyumi said:
I think the Asus 42"/48" model may very well out-beat the LG 42"/48" C2 model unlike the trainwreck of the Gigabyte 55" model in 2021:

-Additional DisplayPort
-Less reflective screen (can be a pro or con - probably a con for me)
-Bigger heatsink & cooling which they're advertising 900 nits (3% window)
-Different stand (can be a pro or con - probably a con for me)

If you read the 42/48" C2 preliminary info, it has an evo panel but still doesn't get as bright as the 55"+ C2 or any of the G2 series (yes I know, you can somewhat firmware hack it probably). Thus the 42/48" C2 may still be stuck in the ~700 nit peak brightness territory while the Asus may be in the ~900 nit territory.
Click to expand...
The antiglare coating on the ASUS and the USB hub are terrific additions. If the price is close to the LG C2 42 inch I'll buy one.

Edit: A KVM switch in the Asus would be amazing... maybe next year.
 
Last edited:
Pastuch said:
The antiglare coating on the ASUS and the USB hub are terrific additions. If the price is close to the LG C2 42 inch I'll buy one.

Edit: A KVM switch in the Asus would be amazing... maybe next year.
Click to expand...

Yes, the anti-glare coating on the ASUS is the reason I'd only get the ASUS 42" OLED out of all the models. Glossy reflections on a dimmer display like an OLED is crap if you have light in your room. Some of like to use our PC's outside of a cave environment.
 
Wonder what the peak brightness will be on one of these 42" oled?

I went from a CX48, to a Neo G9 and loved the increased immersive horizontal real estate, and better brightness compared to the CX48.

Contrary to all the mixed view on the Neo G9, I really love mine. But I wouldn't mind gaining a bit more vertical space at the cost of some horizontal, if I were to trade my Neo G9 in for a 42" Oled.
 
Seyumi said:
If you read the 42/48" C2 preliminary info, it has an evo panel but still doesn't get as bright as the 55"+ C2 or any of the G2 series (yes I know, you can somewhat firmware hack it probably). Thus the 42/48" C2 may still be stuck in the ~700 nit peak brightness territory while the Asus may be in the ~900 nit territory.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it will be in the 900 nit territory? I think I read that they will only be HDR400 rating monitors, i.e. 400 nits peak brightness.
 
shadow2761 said:
Are you sure it will be in the 900 nit territory? I think I read that they will only be HDR400 rating monitors, i.e. 400 nits peak brightness.
Click to expand...
Asus said it in the product video about a dozen posts up. ~900 nit brightness (@ 3% window). For comparision, the LG C1 48" gets around 790 nits at around 2~10% window.

Unlike the Gigabyte model, I actually trust Asus to push these specs since they are not shy from putting beefy heatsinks on everything. The LG OLED C1 is paper thin in the back which is retarded and is completely form over function. I see no reason why the Asus version of the same exact panel can't push 900 nits (or higher) when not using <1mm thin backing on the panel. It's proven that TV's with beefier heatsinks and/or better cooling can push higher HDR #'s (especially sustained).

Screenshot 2022-01-04 210405.jpg
Screenshot 2022-01-04 210525.jpg
 
All - Please note that there's also a new Acer 48" OLED which is probably another clone of the LG/Asus 2022 OLED's, but check out the price & release date.....:

  • The Predator CG48 gaming monitor will be available in North America in Q3 2022 starting at USD 2,499; in EMEA in Q3 2022 starting at EUR 2,199; and in China in Q2 2022 starting at RMB 14,999.
https://www.techpowerup.com/290551/...h-powerful-new-predator-desktops-and-monitors

Not good news w/ the Asus, considering they're usually more expensive and slower to release products usually....
 
Seyumi said:
All - Please note that there's also a new Acer 48" OLED which is probably another clone of the LG/Asus 2022 OLED's, but check out the price & release date.....:

  • The Predator CG48 gaming monitor will be available in North America in Q3 2022 starting at USD 2,499; in EMEA in Q3 2022 starting at EUR 2,199; and in China in Q2 2022 starting at RMB 14,999.
https://www.techpowerup.com/290551/...h-powerful-new-predator-desktops-and-monitors

Not good news w/ the Asus, considering they're usually more expensive and slower to release products usually....
Click to expand...
My guess on the Asus 42" price is $1499 at launch.
 
rinaldo00 said:
Anything with the word 'gaming' in the title will cost twice as much as the 'TV' equivalent.
Click to expand...
That's sort of true with Asus ROG products but the Asus TUF product pricing is actually very reasonable. For instance, the IPS Asus 280hz Tuf monitor I have was a banger of a deal and it's an excellent display.
 
OK, but these monitors have “ROG Swift” branding and probably won’t be a “banger of a deal”.
 
While LGs 42" news is exciting, all this QD-OLED information and demos is making me think maybe I'll hold off for another year...

Probably not though...
 
Is the interest in brightness about performance in bright rooms, or is a C1 seriously not bright enough. My CX puts out enough brightness to practically blind me. What is the real world usefulness of this particular spec. Better dynamic range? Is the peak brightness really an issue on any of these new displays?
 
Blackstone said:
Is the interest in brightness about performance in bright rooms, or is a C1 seriously not bright enough. My CX puts out enough brightness to practically blind me. What is the real world usefulness of this particular spec. Better dynamic range? Is the peak brightness really an issue on any of these new displays?
Click to expand...

I mean like refresh rate Hz, more is always going to be better but there is a satisfactory level for everyone. Many are happy enough with the brightness levels of current OLEDs while others think anything less than a million nits is too dim.
 
They really need to make a 38" Ultrawide 21:9 size monitor like the LG38GL950, but with a min. HDR1000, and OLED/miniLED tech.

Enough of the standard sizes thats been done countless times. The 38" ultrawide was the sweetspot imo
 
Blackstone said:
Is the interest in brightness about performance in bright rooms, or is a C1 seriously not bright enough. My CX puts out enough brightness to practically blind me. What is the real world usefulness of this particular spec. Better dynamic range? Is the peak brightness really an issue on any of these new displays?
Click to expand...
I'm with you 100%, I don't care about the brightness chase at all. When I had my C7 on my desk I had OLEd light at 30, anything more was blinding
 
Last edited:
NukeDukem said:
I'll never need to upgrade my CX for lack of brightness.... but a 240Hz panel would be epic!
Click to expand...
At 4K, it will be awhile before you can really take advantage of a 240Hz panel without cutting your graphics back to potato mode. That sort of defeats the purpose of going with a 4K display.
 
MistaSparkul said:
I mean like refresh rate Hz, more is always going to be better but there is a satisfactory level for everyone. Many are happy enough with the brightness levels of current OLEDs while others think anything less than a million nits is too dim.
Click to expand...
I'm one of those who thinks the 700'ish nits of current OLED displays is plenty bright enough. I sometimes get annoyed by my PG27UQ these days with how bright it can get, especially when a white screen pops up.
 
Dan_D said:
At 4K, it will be awhile before you can really take advantage of a 240Hz panel without cutting your graphics back to potato mode. That sort of defeats the purpose of going with a 4K display.
Click to expand...
Dan_D said:
At 4K, it will be awhile before you can really take advantage of a 240Hz panel without cutting your graphics back to potato mode. That sort of defeats the purpose of going with a 4K display.
Click to expand...
Many of the best FPS titles can do 240hz at 4k native and the ones that can't you just lower the render resolution. Counter Strike, Overwatch, Valorant and R6 Siege can all do it. Warzone, Apex and Fortnite can too by lowering render resolution in the game to 1440p (or lower). Every single game I just listed most people play on low graphics settings any way. Potato graphics are how competitive FPS is played.

Check out the new 27inch 1440p mini leds with 300hz.... pretty slick.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/new-g-sync-monitors-announced-2022/

I'll almost definitely buy a C2 42 inch but if it lowers my Warzone stats I'll be returning it and getting a 27 inch 1440p 300hz MiniLED. Then I'll probably need to upgrade my 5600x to a 13th gen Intel or Ryzen 7000. Warzone is CPU limited like crazy, I only get around 170 to 260 FPS in Warzone right now which is less than ideal.
 
Dan_D said:
At 4K, it will be awhile before you can really take advantage of a 240Hz panel without cutting your graphics back to potato mode. That sort of defeats the purpose of going with a 4K display.
Click to expand...

Sort of true for casual gaming, but not really for competitive.

When I play competitive games I find higher resolution helps, even if the graphics are set to potato mode. If you're aiming at something far away or small you have 4 times as many pixels to see on that object at 4k versus 1080p resolution. So you can more easily pick out the head on a character from far away even though it's an ugly head.

And a lot of competitive games are older and even maxed out can run at 240 fps with 4k resolution on current hardware. So the only thing you can graphically improve in them is resolution and refresh rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top