LG 48CX

Pastuch

Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
624
Idk if that C7 had the same kind of "clean" game mode without any processing that the modern gaming oriented LG OLEDs have in game mode set up properly. The older oleds had motion smoothing on by default I think which caused a smearing look that a lot of people online complained about back then.

I had like 860 hrs in V2 in 2018 alone. Loved that game. That it supported SLI that late into the life of my sli rig was the cherry on top.
Idk if that C7 had the same kind of "clean" game mode without any processing that the modern gaming oriented LG OLEDs have in game mode set up properly. The older oleds had motion smoothing on by default I think which caused a smearing look that a lot of people online complained about back then.

I had like 860 hrs in V2 in 2018 alone. Loved that game. That it supported SLI that late into the life of my sli rig was the cherry on top.
THe C7 is 60hz max... that's why motion looked terrible.
 

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
Idk if that C7 had the same kind of "clean" game mode without any processing that the modern gaming oriented LG OLEDs have in game mode set up properly. The older oleds had motion smoothing on by default I think which caused a smearing look that a lot of people online complained about back then.
Never heard about it. All enchantments are disabled and I don't run Game mode because its colors are off and I can't calibrate it. I run Expert dark instead, but there are no hidden enhancements enabled such as Motion Smoothing as far as I am aware.
I had like 860 hrs in V2 in 2018 alone. Loved that game. That it supported SLI that late into the life of my sli rig was the cherry on top.
1760 hours for me, in total though. 😁
But, I think it's ok to shove off couple hundreds hours, because the game often run in the background, even when I didn't play it, I switched between the game and other apps when using the PC. It just sat in the background quite often for a whole day.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
It would be interesting to see a ufotest with a pursuit camera of a LG CX/C1 compared to that acer predator x38p at 100fpsHz average and 120fpsHz solid/minimum. Most games aren't going to get much higher than that at 4k rez.

175fps at 175hz will reduce sample-and-hold blur some compared to 120fps at 120Hz but that's not going to be very common in demanding games. It's also not much more reduction in sample-and-hold blur really:

..Compared to a smearing blur baseline of 60fps solid at 60hz+, 120fps solid at 120Hz+ cuts the sample-and hold blur down 50% to more of a soften blur.

..240fps at 240Hz cuts the sample and hold blur of 120fps solid in half, and so is 25% of the blur (#of pixels of blur ~ blur "radius") of 60fps.

..175fps is near to 180fps which is like 1/8th less blur (120fps+60fps) than 120fps solid at 120hz. That's not a huge difference, if you can even achieve that kind of frame rate commonly in your frame rate average's graph. Considering OLED response time is much faster than LCD, your reported results are even more confusing. Something else has to be going on with the C7's tech or some configuration issue. I did notice you said 1080p which is non-native resolution and can be muddy looking. You'd have to be running it 1:1 pixel letterboxed in a frame on all 4 sides to compare it without upscaling... or compare it to a modern LG CX/C1 in game mode on named pc input with everything configured properly.
 
Last edited:

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
That predator has Gsync, the C7 does not.

Yes he said that in one of his replies. That would make it smoother with g-sync/VRR on the OLED but I don't think it would have that big of an effect on "smearing". VRR prevents tearing but that's mostly avoided by capping the frame rate 2 - 3 fps below the max Hz of the panel so without VRR you'd be getting stutter/judder. That is, unless you were using v-sync. If v-sync was reducing your frame rate you'd be seeing much worse sample and hold blur. Non-native rez scaled can look worse to start with anyway so it's not an apples to apples comparison to a modern "gaming" OLED TV in several of the facets.
 
Last edited:

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
I couldn't find any pursuit camera tests of the acer X38p but I looked up a few other 175hz screens.

Note that the pursuit camera tests of the simple bitmap ufo are at max frame rate just like running things on your desktop. In demanding games you'd usually be using VRR and running a roller coaster of frame rates above and below an average, especially at 4k native resolution or 3840x1600 letterboxed 1:1 px.

https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/asus_rog_swift_pg329q#Response-Times-and-Refresh-Rate

https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_38gl950g#Detailed-Response-Times

https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_cx_oled#Detailed-Response-Times


clarity_3.jpg
fast.jpg
pursuit_1.jpg
 

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
Predator's 120hz is significantly slower, can't compare it. I used 160hz refresh rate on the Predator (or 144hz, don't remember exactly. But definitely not 175hz nor 120hz) for gaming and that was much faster in terms of input lag and motion blur compared to the 120hz OLED. 1600p vs 1080p, as I had already mentioned, HW G-Sync vs No VRR...
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
Predator's 120hz is significantly slower, can't compare it. I used 160hz refresh rate on the Predator (or 144hz, don't remember exactly. But definitely not 175hz nor 120hz) for gaming and that was much faster in terms of input lag and motion blur compared to the 120hz OLED. 1600p vs 1080p, as I had already mentioned, HW G-Sync vs No VRR...

In case it was misunderstood... those three pursuit camera images, three ufo's high each against different background, are:

PG239Q 175fps at 175Hz

38gl950G 175fps at 175Hz

Lg CX 120fps at 120Hz (with 60fpsHz beside on the left of it)

Those are the motion blur results for those panels and the difference is neglible. It's measured plainly in the ufo motion pursuit cam tests I posted between two 175fps at 175Hz panels compared to a 120fps at 120Hz LG CX. All at native resolutions. VRR isn't a factor in theses tests because the pursuit tests are a simple ufo bitmap running way beyond whatever the max Hz of screens is.


------------------------

Input lag is a separate thing that we weren't talking about, but the input lag is best on the 120Hz OLEDs when using VRR at 100fps to 120fps.
As per the Rtings review:
4k @ 120Hz = 6.7 ms
4k with VRR = 5.9 ms

That is more than acceptable input lag imo, esp. considering the overall features.

-----------------------------

You are also getting side by side per pixel contrast and sbs per pixel color details in SDR and HDR 600 - 820, "infinite" black depth with a gaming OLED.

Some of the improvements of HDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_video
  • Highlights (i.e. the brightest parts of an image) can be brighter, more colorful, and more detailed.[2]
  • Shadows/lowlights (i.e. the darkest parts of an image) can be darker and more detailed.[2]
  • More realistic luminance variation between scenes (such as sunlit, indoor, and night scenes).[2]
  • Better surface material identification.[2]
  • Better in-depth perception, even with 2D imagery.[2]
-----------------------
 
Last edited:

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
Those are the motion blur results for those panels and the difference is neglible.
i think in real world gaming that difference is much more pronounced due to the hardware g-sync. Probably the reason why the Predator seemed so much more clear in motion than OLED even at locked 120 hz\fps.
Concerning input lag I see no point in comparing an OLED, that's not even in gaming mode vs a hardware g-sync'd gaming monitor.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
i think in real world gaming that difference is much more pronounced due to the hardware g-sync. Probably the reason why the Predator seemed so much more clear in motion than OLED even at locked 120 hz\fps.
Concerning input lag I see no point in comparing an OLED, that's not even in gaming mode vs a hardware g-sync'd gaming monitor.

Yeah I think part of the problem is you are referencing an older oled model. Those pursuit camera tests are showing full constant frame rate maximum with the pursuit cam ufo test. The pictures visibly show the % pixel blur and there is no aggressive smearing increase on the 120fps@120Hz LG CX. It's comparable to the 175fps at 175Hz pursuit camera tests on the other two 175Hz screens. At best mathmatically the extra 55hz would give under 1/8th more blur reduction, but the oled's response time is so fast that the cam tests show essentially zero difference.
You also have to keep the frame rate that high and most demanding games are not going to get their frame rate average to 160fps or more at ~4k resolution on a 175Hz screen to get a graph something like:
(130) 145fpsHz <--- 160fpsHz average ----> 173fpsHz (capped)
Non native res upscaled rather than 1:1 letterboxed can also be muddy to start with so is not an apples to apples comparision either.

i think in real world gaming that difference is much more pronounced due to the hardware g-sync. Probably the reason why the Predator seemed so much more clear in motion than OLED even at locked 120 hz\fps.

Hardware g-sync

The Nvidia module is the most effective one. One thing for sure, Nvidia hardware module starts synchronizing frames with 1fps, LG - with 28fps, below that you get the usual v-sync stutter.

The OLEDs are effectively hardware G-SYNC, just not made by NVIDIA. They need LG's custom controller to drive the individual pixels with G-SYNC certified VRR, unlike LCD monitors from manufacturers who make half-baked VRR firmware for existing controllers. NVIDIA's hardware G-SYNC module just standardizes them all.

As I remember it, the g--sync hardware module version starts doubling the frame rate at sub-30fps and even tripling it at extremely low frame rates, so when you dip that low it's still at or near 60fpsHz . While still technically smooth, it will be a slideshow at those rates, what I like to call "frozen" frames compared to higher frame rates comprrised of unique frames. Anyway that's how I remember is unless g-sync changed. Freesync does have a lower limit and some of the earlier ones were pretty bad at like 48hz on the low end. There are freesync premium screens that will duplicate frames at lower rates though so that confuses the whole freesync thing.

https://www.gpumag.com/freesync-premium-pro/
One of these innovations is low framerate compensation (LFC), which addresses the framerate dropping below the monitor’s range. For example, if the FPS drops below the monitor’s 30Hz range, LFC will increase the monitor’s refresh rate with a consistent ratio. So, if the game is at 25 FPS, LFC will set the refresh rate to 50Hz and that will still prevent the gamer from being affected by screen tearing.

-------------------------------------

Idk what you think g-sync is doing in regard to sample and hold blur. It doesn't magically remove sample-and-hold blur. It allows you to run a lower than peak Hz in frame rates without using v-sync. V-sync which could drop/cap your frame rate if you are unable to maintain enough fps. It's v-sync off essentially (especially if you cap your frame rate just beneath your max HZ), but without suffering jutter/stutter you'd normally suffer from uneven frame delivery vs static Hz. If v-sync made you run a lower frame rate or lower frame rate you capped manually, you would get more sample and hold blur just due to running a lower frame rate but that isn't really what we are talking about here.

For modern gaming OLEDs from LG...
====================================

The pursuit camera shots of 120fps at 120Hz LG CX OLED compared to two different 175fps at 175Hz gaming LCDs is a measurable display of what you can expect at high frame rates on any of the three sample-and-hold blur wise. The difference is negible. If they were formatted the same it would be hard to pick between the 120fpsHz and 175fpsHz images in a blind test. On paper it would be 1/8th less sample and hold blur than 120fpsHz but the oled response times are faster/sharper (overall and especially black to white and not grey to grey LCD spec measurements).

At 120hz 4k with no VRR you can expect 6.7ms input lag.
At 4k 120Hz peak with VRR you can expect 5.9ms input lag as you approach 120frames per second.
 
Last edited:

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
Idk what you think g-sync is doing in regard to sample and hold blur. It doesn't magically remove sample-and-hold blur.
My point is simple - I've seen the displays one next to another and the IPS with hardware gsync at 160hz (maybe 144hz) displays MUCH less smear than OLED at its max 120hz refresh rate. Albeit not at its native res, but at 1080p. Maybe this also plays a role since the resolution is not native. Doesn't matter. You may post all the benchmarks and measurements you want, and that's fine, but this is what I know from experience.
 

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
Games on the Predator X38P felt like moving a sheet of paper with your hand in front of you, that smooth, while the OLED felt like a pretty fast IPS.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
Yeh lets just say you are comparing a modern gen gaming monitor to a less gaming focused older gen C7 TV, which is kind of a moot point and can't really be used as a measurement of modern gaming OLED performance.

The measurements I posted are for a LG CX which LG worked with nvidia in order to produce. Until you see a CX/C1 in action, especially on hdmi 2.1 120hz VRR, you can't really make a comparison to a modern gaming OLED as being "smearing" compared to a modern gaming monitor at 175fpsHz. It would make no sense considering the pursuit camera pictures and the response time measurements.

You keep glamming on hardware g-sync as a premium in this thread too. It was... years ago compared to basic free-sync display capability hacked into existing monitor hardware/scalers of the time. With free-sync premium but especially with the good hdmi 2.1 VRR g-sync certified hardware in the LG CX/C1, nvidia brand hardware g-sync is not outstanding anymore feature wise other than the fact it can run on displayport for gpus and displays without hdmi 2.1. I always applauded nvidia for forcing variable refresh tech to the market and in a very well implemented fashion though, and I've owned hardware g-sync displays before my LG CX (pg278Q, LG GK850G). It took a long time after g-sync came to market outside of a kit ( ~ 2013) for hdmi 2.1 gpus and screens to hit the scene.
 
Last edited:

repoman0

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
1,265
One thing hardware G-sync still has going for it is that it implements frame rate dependent gamma curves. LCDs have the same low brightness flickering issue with VRR that the LG OLEDs have without hardware gsync. I’ve owned the GK850G and its freesync cousin and the flicker difference was very perceptible. That’s the one complaint I have about the OLED as well but it’s not a big deal compared to the other massive picture quality advantages.

re: motion clarity, blur, smoothness etc: the size of the OLED may exaggerate apparent smoothness differences. You’re sitting pretty close to a giant screen filling your field of view, so frame by frame differences are going to be more noticeable just because each frame jumps by a larger relative angle to your eyes. Adjust for making apparent FOV equal by moving the OLED back and I suspect the OLEG looks just as smooth or smoother than an LCD.
 

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
Yeh lets just say you are comparing a modern gen gaming monitor to a less gaming focused older gen C7 TV, which is kind of a moot point and can't really be used as a measurement of modern gaming OLED performance.

The measurements I posted are for a LG CX which LG worked with nvidia in order to produce. Until you see a CX/C1 in action, especially on hdmi 2.1 120hz VRR, you can't really make a comparison to a modern gaming OLED as being "smearing" compared to a modern gaming monitor at 175fpsHz. It would make no sense considering the pursuit camera pictures and the response time measurements.

You keep glamming on hardware g-sync as a premium in this thread too. It was... years ago compared to basic free-sync display capability hacked into existing monitor hardware/scalers of the time. With free-sync premium but especially with the good hdmi 2.1 VRR g-sync certified hardware in the LG CX/C1, nvidia brand hardware g-sync is not outstanding anymore feature wise other than the fact it can run on displayport for gpus and displays without hdmi 2.1. I always applauded nvidia for forcing variable refresh tech to the market and in a very well implemented fashion though, and I've owned hardware g-sync displays before my LG CX (pg278Q, LG GK850G). It took a long time after g-sync came to market outside of a kit ( ~ 2013) for hdmi 2.1 gpus and screens to hit the scene.
I can make whichever comparisons I find appropriate, also I always specify exactly in what circumstances the OLED smeared more than IPS and hide no facts. It shouldn't take you two pages of conversation to re-understand that the OLED is old and not run in its native resolution.
I hope that the new 42-48 OLEDs are just as fast as the Predator I've seen, because I'm planning to buy the 42" this year, probably the Asus version with DP. But the Predator X38P was so perfect in terms of image crispiness and input lag, as well as form factor, that I am still debating between the 42" OLED and the new Predator X38S. Even knowing I will lose the HDR side of the gaming if I go with the Predator, at least the high bar of HDR performance that I am used to since 2017.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
I would never sit closer than 60PPD , the pixels would be huge. Even at 60PPD the viewing angle is not optimal either.

Some of the issues with gamma are more apparent at low fps ranges, the farther away you dip/pothole away from 120fpsHz the farther way your curve roller coaster rides from the 120hz gamma point. With a 4k screen it's harder to drive at higher fps and people lean harder on VRR rather than running 100fps average or higher, especially with previous gen gpus.

Near black flashing is probably also from the WOLED array though so idk how much you can adjust for that. They've adjusted it in firmware a few times with dithering I think so they've made some attempts to minimize it.

I can make whichever comparisons I find appropriate, also I always specify exactly in what circumstances the OLED smeared more than IPS and hide no facts. It shouldn't take you two pages of conversation to re-understand that the OLED is old and not run in its native resolution.
I hope that the new 42-48 OLEDs are just as fast as the Predator I've seen, because I'm planning to buy the 42" this year, probably the Asus version with DP. But the Predator X38P was so perfect in terms of image crispiness and input lag, as well as form factor, that I am still debating between the 42" OLED and the new Predator X38S. Even knowing I will lose the HDR side of the gaming if I go with the Predator, at least the high bar of HDR performance that I am used to since 2017.

Yeah it just comes off bad in a modern gaming OLED thread. It seemed to insuinate that modern OLED tech is slower or has more sample and hold than a 175hz gaming LCD in the same neighborhood of frame rates and that's not true. It also seemed to insinuate that hardware g-sync reduces "smearing" or sample and hold blur somehow. I enjoyed looking up the review testing breakdowns of the actual numbers. It gives me a clearer picture of the capabilities of different monitor technologies when something makes me question something or wonder about details. It also tends to get other people to add info to the thread as above to give more details and clarify things more. I do it for myself as much as everyone else.
 
Last edited:

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
Yeah it just comes off bad in a modern gaming OLED thread. It seemed to insuinate that modern OLED tech is slower or has more sample and hold than a 175hz gaming LCD in the same neighborhood of frame rates and that's not true. It also seemed to insinuate that hardware g-sync reduces "smearing" or sample and hold blur somehow. I enjoyed looking up the review testing breakdowns of the actual numbers. It gives me a clearer picture of the capabilities of different monitor technologies when something makes me question something or wonder about details. It also tends to get other people to add info to the thread as above to give more details and clarify things more. I do it for myself as much as everyone else.
Well, the OLED tech in terms of motion blur hasn't changed since 2017 for what I know. The only excuse here can be the non-native resolution and the lack of VRR, that didn't make motion smooth enough compared to IPS.

From the other hand... Judging by the UFO images above - the IPS has less motion blur than the CX OLED. Just like my old OLED. lol. So yeah, IPS is actually better than modern OLEDs in terms of motion blur and input lag. (I should have examined those images you posted earlier)

IPS:
fast.jpg


OLED:
oled.jpg



If you think that those images above prove that OLED smears less, then you should really think about using glasses.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
Negligible difference peak fpshz on both 175fpshz screens vs 120fpsHz at the same image sizes/zoom , a soften blur. they'd both look like shit at 60fpsHz (smearing blur)which isn't shown on the 175fpsHz pursuit camera images.
 
Last edited:

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
It is not "negligible" even on those images. In real world gaming that difference is multiplied by at least x5, from what you perceive as negligible, if the modern OLEDs with VRR have the same motion blur performance as my C7. Which they apparently do, judging by that UFO test.

So, to conclude, you don't buy the OLED for ultimate motion smoothness and crispness, you buy the OLED for the incredible (imho - unbeatable) HDR content reproduction, perfect black color and for the good enough motion clearness and pretty low input lag.
For the ultimate image motion performance you want one of the LG' 37,5" panels. I think some of them have even better looking UFO test results than the GL with hardware g-sync displayed in this thread above. And if I am not mistaken, current Samsung VA are even better, although they have troubles with displaying HDR content properly.
/ the subject.
 
Last edited:

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
Disagree. It's negligible between all three cams at max fpsHz down to a soften blur and those results are only if getting 175fps on the 175Hz screens (and 120fps on the 120hz screen), and that on ~ 4k resolutions.

Mathematically using blurbusters law 180fps on a 180Hz screen would indeed be 1/8th less blur than 120fps on a 120Hz screen -just by nature of the frame rate and Hz increase- so 175fps at 175Hz is a little less than that improvement and that only if ignoring the near instant response time of the oled narrowing that gap.

I'm not arguing that higher frame rates that greatly surpass the fpsHz + response time factor of a 120fpsHz oled won't achieve less blur. That's obvious. Whether you can achieve those rates at very high plus to ultra settings on a 4k screen or without knocking your graphics settings down enough to make the blur difference worth it is another matter. 175fpshz isn't a big enough difference especially with the oled response time factor, and at the demands of 4k resolution 175fps isn't as achievable without knocking your graphics settings down which is an aesthetic trade off between the two.

  • 60 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 16.7ms persistence = 16.7 pixels of motion blur
  • 120 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 8.3ms persistence = 8.3 pixels of motion blur
  • 240 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 4.1ms persistence = 4.1 pixels of motion blur
  • 480 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 2.1ms persistence = 2.1 pixels of motion blur
  • 1000 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 1ms persistence = 1 pixels of motion blur
But you have to factor in response times in actual use so those number range higher on LCD transitions while oled's transitions are essentially instant.
Assumptions: The exact Blur Busters Law minimum is achieved only if pixel transitions are fully square-wave (0ms GtG) on fully-sharp sources (e.g. VR, computer graphics). Actual MPRT numbers can be higher. Slow GtG pixel response will increase numbers above the Blur Busters Law guaranteed minimum motion blur.
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,298
It is not "negligible" even on those images. In real world gaming that difference is multiplied by at least x5, from what you perceive as negligible, if the modern OLEDs with VRR have the same motion blur performance as my C7. Which they apparently do, judging by that UFO test.

So, to conclude, you don't buy the OLED for ultimate motion smoothness and crispness, you buy the OLED for the incredible (imho - unbeatable) HDR content reproduction, perfect black color and for the good enough motion clearness and pretty low input lag.
For the ultimate image motion performance you want one of the LG' 37,5" panels. I think some of them have even better looking UFO test results than the GL with hardware g-sync displayed in this thread above. And if I am not mistaken, current Samsung VA are even better, although they have troubles with displaying HDR content properly.
/ the subject.

If you are this sensitive that going from 120Hz to 160Hz or 175Hz feels like some huge day and night difference then why the hell are you not using one of those 360Hz or at least 240Hz monitors then? That must be absolutely life changing for you.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
Just for kicks I put the pursuit cam pics of both 175hz (at 175fps ;) ) monitors and the 120hz oled at 120fps up against each other, scaled down to the smallest of the three image's sizes for comparison's sake:


175fpsHz-and-120fpsHz_pursuit-cams-100percent-zoom_1.png


And here is that equally scaled version scaled up to 200%:

175fpsHz-and-120fpsHz_pursuit-cams-200percent-zoom_1.png


They are all in a pretty similar range imo and require 175fps and 120fps solid respectively to look like that. Some of the 175fpsHz ones on a particular 175hz monitor are actually worse than the oled even with the oled at 120fpsHz limit. E.g. not even showing the segmentation lines on the ufo's body, like missing a texture completely. There is a little overshoot effect on the right side of the oled within the bubble at the alien's control shaft. You can still see the lever though and the left side of the alien's capsule bubble maintains a more defined black outline on the oled where the 175fpsHz examples haze out that trailing edge. The leftmost 175fpsHz screen is a little tighter overall on things like the line of the mouth and no overshoot on the ears but the white dots are still all a mash of soften blur and the trailing left edge of the ufo is smeared, esp the bubble's edge is lost.

With ZERO g2g or practically instant response time of an oled, at 120fpsHz solid would be 8.3ms per frame and 8.3px of blur
With ZERO g2g ~ instant response time, a 175Hz screen at 175fps solid would be 5.7 ms per frame and 5.7px of blur.
A LCD doesn't have zero g2g/instant response time so it would be more than 5.7ms / 5.7px and would vary between different transitions. That's why they look so close. 175 isn't a big enough difference to distance itself from 120fpsHz solid due to the essentially instant response time of the oled and adding response time factor to the LCD.
If you disregard the response time adding to the lcd's results, the 175fpsHz would be 2.6ms less frame persistence and thus 2.6 less pixels of blur radius (at 175fps).

Based on this guy below, the differences at best aren't much. All a soften blur range and only at those results at 175fps on the 175hz screens which is pretty hard to achieve at 4k rez on demanding games without sacrificing the graphics quality end of the equation. Any time you move the viewport at speed the whole panel will do a soften blur like those above but on detailed objects, textures, and depth-via bump mapping rather than a simple cartoon ufo bitmap.

blurbusters-UFO-test-ufo_pristine-no-blur_1.png


It looks to me like the 175hz oleds at 175 fps are maybe within a pixel or so +/- of the oled blur wise according to those shots. At lower fps the frame persistence and pixels of blur would increase, so the 175Hz screen running the same game or the same ufo test at 120fps (or at the same ~120fps or less frame rate graph as the oled using VRR on a demanding game) would probably look worse than the oled instead of being the same ball park as above.
 
Last edited:

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
Even if you want to split hairs over refresh rates and response times, fast LCD panels are still going to be good enough for most users. Higher refresh rates tend to feel more responsive but I think 120 Hz is good enough for current products, especially considering how hard it's to consistently run at 4K in many games even on top tier GPUs. To me 30 -> 60 fps is massive and 60 -> 120 significant improvement but past that it's increasingly smaller improvements. 240 Hz feels a bit smoother/responsive than 120 Hz but that's about it.

I do wish display makers developed scalers that could run higher refresh rates at lower resolutions. That Zisworks scaler could do 4k@120Hz, 1080p@240Hz, 720p@300Hz, and 540p@480Hz on a LCD TV panel from a TV that just ran at 60 Hz with its original hardware. That kind of upgrade would be awesome for OLEDs.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,035
Even if you want to split hairs over refresh rates and response times, fast LCD panels are still going to be good enough for most users. Higher refresh rates tend to feel more responsive but I think 120 Hz is good enough for current products, especially considering how hard it's to consistently run at 4K in many games even on top tier GPUs. To me 30 -> 60 fps is massive and 60 -> 120 significant improvement but past that it's increasingly smaller improvements. 240 Hz feels a bit smoother/responsive than 120 Hz but that's about it.

I do wish display makers developed scalers that could run higher refresh rates at lower resolutions. That Zisworks scaler could do 4k@120Hz, 1080p@240Hz, 720p@300Hz, and 540p@480Hz on a LCD TV panel from a TV that just ran at 60 Hz with its original hardware. That kind of upgrade would be awesome for OLEDs.
4k120hz is the same bandwidth as 1080p480hz

OLED already has the response time, and they already have the bandwidth for it with HDMI 2.1, which has been a problem in the past. They just need to do the other stuff now.
 

Monstieur

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
428
Refresh rate increases smoothness independent of pixel response time. I use a G1 OLED as my primary desktop monitor. My 240 Hz TN monitor is way smoother than my G1 when just moving the cursor on the desktop. There is definitely more smearing between frames on the 240 Hz, but there are more frames clearly visible to the eye when objects are fast moving. The difference is even more apparent in FPS games where angular movement causes huge shifts in far away objects.

The moving squares test is a better representation of OLED response time, not the moving camera test. Here he compares multiple monitors to OLED.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579


curved 34" alienware with 175Hz QD blue oled g-sync ultimate
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
Refresh rate increases smoothness independent of pixel response time. I use a G1 OLED as my primary desktop monitor. My 240 Hz TN monitor is way smoother than my G1 when just moving the cursor on the desktop. There is definitely more smearing between frames on the 240 Hz, but there are more frames clearly visible to the eye when objects are fast moving. The difference is even more apparent in FPS games where angular movement causes huge shifts in far away objects.

The moving squares test is a better representation of OLED response time, not the moving camera test. Here he compares multiple monitors to OLED.


Sure.. the Desktop = max frame rate since it's 2d isn't demanding - so max fps vs the max Hz of the screen.
Higher fpsHz = less sample and hold blur so the higher you go from the peak fpsHz of the oled even with it's response time, the bigger the gain.

The linus vid on the CX showed exactly what you are talking about more frames wise, using testufo as a ribbon of frames that he took with 3000fps camera at timestamp 6:16 comparing the Lg CX 120hz at 120fps vs a 360fpsHz ips gaming monitor.




In practice, 4k on demanding games at very high plus to ultra settings won't be hitting 240fps without some major graphics settings/aesthetics compromises if it achieves 240fps at all, (let alone if you use RTX/raytracing to tank the frame rate more for some reason), even with quality dlss.
 
Last edited:

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
If you are this sensitive that going from 120Hz to 160Hz or 175Hz feels like some huge day and night difference then why the hell are you not using one of those 360Hz or at least 240Hz monitors then? That must be absolutely life changing for you.
Calm your tits. There is none in 38" or even 42" format with acceptable resolution and color reproduction. Or I would be running one already just like half of the forum and you'd be spending half your day in teh dedicated thread, ya?🤪
The moving squares test is a better representation of OLED response time, not the moving camera test. Here he compares multiple monitors to OLED.
I suppose those are just benchmarks that show the potential of the OLED. Real world gaming is a different story, where OLED is subpar compared to modern IPS and VA panels. At least until it is 120hz limited.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
The oled results in the tftcentral test look much tighter than the 120fpsHz examples on LCD below here. For LCD, overdrive implementations and response times vary though. I think the predator's overdrive at 175fpsHz in the three column view I posted earlier is very good compared to the LG 175fpsHz screen in the column next to it.

vnjGux7.png



Again, the OLED 120fpsHz pursuit cam images from the CX tftcentral review are tighter than the 120fpsHz example shown below. The CX oled pursuit camera pictures look a lot more solid and contained within the shadow mask of the ufo object where the example below looks a bit more like a shuddering image. The 60fpsHz example is horrible.

If you are this sensitive that going from 120Hz to 160Hz or 175Hz feels like some huge day and night difference then why the hell are you not using one of those 360Hz or at least 240Hz monitors then? That must be absolutely life changing for you.

I agree with MistaSparkul - the 240Hz -at 240 FPS- examples below at 4px of blur are where it really starts to get more appreciable and tighter motion clarity / blur reduction, but again we are comparing to 4k rez HDR screens often with demanding games at very high plus to ultra settings. GPUS are not going to be able to hit those kind of rates even now with 3000 series gpus on a lot of games. We need some kind of frame duplication tech in the future, especially as graphics ceiling increase and we get 8k resolutions eventually. Also in regard to using ray tracing. Quality DLSS isn't going to cover the gap enough.

KlIRG0B.png

Calm your tits. There is none in 38" or even 42" format with acceptable resolution and color reproduction. Or I would be running one already just like half of the forum and you'd be spending half your day in teh dedicated thread, ya?🤪

If you check out the linus video I linked about samsung monitors a few back, he mentions that he got to use a samsung 34" curved quantum dot filtered blue (higher output at lower energy) OLED at 175fpsHz so you could potentially get what you are looking for in 175fpsHz capability + all of the oled gaming features sometime in the future, even if you have to sit closer to get the same PPD and screen size in effect perceptually perspective-wise that a larger 4k screen would have.

Posting it here at the timestamp where he mentions it:

 
Last edited:

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
If you check out the linus video I linked about samsung monitors a few back, he mentions that he got to use a samsung 34" curved quantum dot blue (higher output at lower energy) OLED at 175fpsHz so you could potentially get what you are looking for in 175fpsHz capability + all of the oled gaming features sometime in the future.
The curved 34" doesn't appeal to me really, thanks.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,579
Wow.... that's a shock. I'm not a fan of the smaller size ~ 13" tall screens in general but damn, spec wise if you just sat closer for the size perspective it would do everything OLED and 25% brigthter HDR, less burn in chance most likely, and at the 175fpsHz peak you liked but at oled response time... and even with g-sync ultimate. I guess maybe you don't like the curve.. understandable if so. He did also mention that their QD blue OLED tv's would be capable of 144fpsHz 4k VRR.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,298
Calm your tits. There is none in 38" or even 42" format with acceptable resolution and color reproduction. Or I would be running one already just like half of the forum and you'd be spending half your day in teh dedicated thread, ya?🤪

I suppose those are just benchmarks that show the potential of the OLED. Real world gaming is a different story, where OLED is subpar compared to modern IPS and VA panels. At least until it is 120hz limited.

Ooo what do you know, turns out there's more important things than just straight up refresh rate after all eh? 🙄 Hence why we are all fine with current OLED's 120Hz limitation. The image quality is hard to beat. And it certainly won't be beat by some edge lit HDR400 nit ultrawide.
 

slackerjack

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
118
Looking at getting a 48CX for gaming. This thread has a lot of good info. Anyone finding the screen to be too large? Mine will be close to 24” back from where I’m sitting.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,189
Looking at getting a 48CX for gaming. This thread has a lot of good info. Anyone finding the screen to be too large? Mine will be close to 24” back from where I’m sitting.
For gaming I think a 48" monitor is perfectly fine. Even ideal at those distances. However, not everyone would necessarily agree with that. There are some people who think anything beyond a 27" is too much.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
Looking at getting a 48CX for gaming. This thread has a lot of good info. Anyone finding the screen to be too large? Mine will be close to 24” back from where I’m sitting.
That's nowhere even close to enough viewing distance. You want at minimum about 31.5" and preferably something like 39" or even more. Otherwise it will feel uncomfortably massive.
 

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
Ooo what do you know, turns out there's more important things than just straight up refresh rate after all eh? 🙄 Hence why we are all fine with current OLED's 120Hz limitation. The image quality is hard to beat. And it certainly won't be beat by some edge lit HDR400 nit ultrawide.
I never said it was all about maximum image smoothness. I merely mentioned the fact that IPS still has less motion blur. As well as the VA.
 
Top