LG Flex LX3 4K 42″ Bendable OLED 120Hz

cvinh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
2,003
I don't expect this to be under $2000 so it's going to be a hard sell vs a flat screen like the PG42UQ or C2. I don't think I care enough about a bendy screen to pay the premium.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
Users can quickly adjust the LX3’s curvature to one of two available presets using the dedicated button on the remote control or manually change the degree of curvature in five percent increments over 20 different levels.

Two presets is a bit too little but I guess once you figure out how you want to setup it will suffice. Note that this thing is motorized unlike the Corsair.

I'm thinking the stand does not sit low enough. When I had the CX 48" mounted on a floor stand, I had its bottom edge level with my desk and felt that was comfortable for its size.

Similarly since the stand seems to house all electronics this is probably not VESA mountable and because it pokes out quite a bit you most likely have similar issues to the CX stands where you could not get it very close to a wall.

I like it but I expect it will be too expensive for what is essentially a bendable C2 42". I wish they had been a bit less ambitious here and offered this either with a reasonable preset curve somewhere around 1500-1000R or skipped the motorized part for the Corsair style manual bending since the mechanism looks similar.

But I do really want to try it to see how it works in practice.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
Hope you don't mind me cross posting our discussion here since it probably should have been in this thread to start with rather than the generic 42" oled one:

Ok this sounds great. When I used the CX 48", a big issue with its size is that the closer it is the more awkward it gets to look at the corners. So even if you were ok with looking at the center, the edges would not be nice. Bringing them closer with a curve should fix that right up and make the 42" size more usable.

But with a motorized bending system I expect this will be just way too expensive. I'd rather take the manual bending system Corsair has. I just don't see a reason to be bending the display more than a few times during initial setup as you figure out how you want to set it up.

. . . . . . . . . .

Bringing them closer with a curve should fix that right up and make the 42" size more usable.

You are thinking that pulling the corners and far edges inward could help you not have to rely on using quite as narrow of viewing angle as you might have to on a flat screen (for information, huds, etc at the periphery). It would mainly be more immersive I'd think but it might be a little more comfortable.

the closer it is the more awkward it gets to look at the corners

Each curve amount still has a fixed focal point where you are equidistant from all points of the screen so it's not like you would be sitting closer than that fixed point when viewed properly. At 900R and 1000R you are at the same distances that you'd be for 50 - 55 deg viewing angle on a flat screen. The optimal viewing angle for a flat screen is usually considered around 45 - 55 deg to start with. I think a lot of people are just sitting too close to large OLED screens in the first place.


Note that the 60PPD point on a flat 4k screen is actually too close to the screen viewing angle wise. 60PPD 4k is 68 degrees specifically. That's not great and pushes the extents of the screen out a bit too far but it's high enough ppd for aggressive AA and text subsampling to work well enough pixel grid wise so some people will choose suffer the viewing angle in order to be able to sit closer to a big screen (due to constraints of space, desk, mounts, and cost of upgrading setup around the screen size otherwise usually). When you approach 70 - 80 PPD on a 4k flat screen you are in the sweet spot of 55deg to 45deg. Your best viewing angle on a flat 4k is already at the 900R and 1000R distances .


42" 4k
======

4k flat: 60PPD 68deg viewing angle = 29" view distance
4k flat: 70PPD 55deg viewing angle = 35" view distance
900R: 70PPD fixed focal point = 35.4" view distance (900mm)
1000R: 77PPD fixed focal point = 39.4" view distance (1000mm)
4k flat: 80PPD 48deg view angle = 41.1" view distance



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


a motorized bending system I expect this will be just way too expensive. I'd rather take the manual bending system Corsair has.

Yes I think it's going to be quite expensive (prob not worth it for most that could pick up a ~$750 to $1000 42" to 48" oled). It's also more things that could break. It does look huge too. It would likely require a separate stand to get to the focal point of the curves and like a few other models would almost certainly have no vesa mounting option with that huge machine/motor on the back of it. So on it's own pillar stand of some sort or separate bench desk.


I just don't see a reason to be bending the display more than a few times during initial setup

I disagree here. Some media and types of games are better flat. Also if you are watching the screen from farther away or sidelong for media or whatever any time during it's lifespan you wouldn't be at the focal point of the curve. Some games and especially running ultrawide resolutions benefit more from curve while top down games, rts, some arcade/indie stuff, etc might look better flat. The benefit of having bendable is that you don't have to decide on one set screen orientation of flat or curved being baked in. While you could settle on a single curve like you are suggesting, it would have tradeoffs. I'm 100% with you on going with manual though.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
Users can quickly adjust the LX3’s curvature to one of two available presets using the dedicated button on the remote control or manually change the degree of curvature in five percent increments over 20 different levels.

Two presets is a bit too little but I guess once you figure out how you want to setup it will suffice. Note that this thing is motorized unlike the Corsair.

I'm thinking the stand does not sit low enough. When I had the CX 48" mounted on a floor stand, I had its bottom edge level with my desk and felt that was comfortable for its size.

Similarly since the stand seems to house all electronics this is probably not VESA mountable and because it pokes out quite a bit you most likely have similar issues to the CX stands where you could not get it very close to a wall.

I like it but I expect it will be too expensive for what is essentially a bendable C2 42". I wish they had been a bit less ambitious here and offered this either with a reasonable preset curve somewhere around 1500-1000R or skipped the motorized part for the Corsair style manual bending since the mechanism looks similar.

But I do really want to try it to see how it works in practice.

Really weird that LG decided to make this 42" adjustable while leaving their 45" inch ultrawide with a fixed curve. Wouldn't they would wanna use a similar motorized system for both monitors and have both their new monitors bendable.
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,382
Finally something to combine with my bubble memory and my RCA video disk player. Now I just need a good Motorola CPU and I'll be ready to rock and roll.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
Yes I think it's going to be quite expensive (prob not worth it for most that could pick up a ~$750 to $1000 42" to 48" oled). It's also more things that could break. It does look huge too. It would likely require a separate stand to get to the focal point of the curves and like a few other models would almost certainly have no vesa mounting option with that huge machine/motor on the back of it. So on it's own pillar stand of some sort or separate bench desk.




I disagree here. Some media and types of games are better flat. Also if you are watching the screen from farther away or sidelong for media or whatever any time during it's lifespan you wouldn't be at the focal point of the curve. Some games and especially running ultrawide resolutions benefit more from curve while top down games, rts, some arcade/indie stuff, etc might look better flat. The benefit of having bendable is that you don't have to decide on one set screen orientation of flat or curved being baked in. While you could settle on a single curve like you are suggesting, it would have tradeoffs. I'm 100% with you on going with manual though.
I have really no aversion to curved displays and similary don't care about flat vs curved for viewing any content. I've done everything from watching movies to gaming to UI design on a curved monitor and have not felt it was an issue. You get so used to it that the curvature disappears, to the point that flat screens start to look convex.

I know that for me the adjustability would be largely pointless. I just mounted my current monitor on a new VESA monitor arm (Arctic X1-3D, pretty solid option for a budget arm for lighter displays) and I'll tweak its position a few times and call it a day. It most likely will stay in that position for a few years unless I want to change things up, need to swap cables etc. Similarly changing from curved to flat, even motorized, would be something I know I won't be using but would just settle on a comfortable option for everyday use.

I guess my interest in the curved option would be largely for something like running 100% scaling on the display and if that could be made to work because you can bring it closer and curve it. On my CX 48" it's been a situation where I don't really want to do it because of the viewing distance required for the display but at 42" and curved, maybe it would be an option.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
I have really no aversion to curved displays and similary don't care about flat vs curved for viewing any content. I've done everything from watching movies to gaming to UI design on a curved monitor and have not felt it was an issue. You get so used to it that the curvature disappears, to the point that flat screens start to look convex.

I know that for me the adjustability would be largely pointless. I just mounted my current monitor on a new VESA monitor arm (Arctic X1-3D, pretty solid option for a budget arm for lighter displays) and I'll tweak its position a few times and call it a day. It most likely will stay in that position for a few years unless I want to change things up, need to swap cables etc. Similarly changing from curved to flat, even motorized, would be something I know I won't be using but would just settle on a comfortable option for everyday use.

I guess my interest in the curved option would be largely for something like running 100% scaling on the display and if that could be made to work because you can bring it closer and curve it. On my CX 48" it's been a situation where I don't really want to do it because of the viewing distance required for the display but at 42" and curved, maybe it would be an option.


I'm fine with flat but for me curved would be neat for uw resolutions on a few games immersion wise, especially racing/driving games and flying games. Not everyone would agree with you on the curved media and flat plains thing but I get the preference aspect.

because you can bring it closer and curve it.

As I outlined, the curve isn't really about saving distance. It's designed to be seated at the focal point of the curvature like a lens.

*note the human field of view.

722354_RNngvaI.jpg


The current ones are at around 900R and 1000R at the nearest end at good PPD. That 900mm - 1000mm = 35.4" to 39.4" viewing distance. So you aren't saving view distance compared to a flat 4k oled of the same size at similar PPD. If you sit inside of (short of) the 900mm to 1000mm curve's focal point not only is your PPD is going to be lower - you won't be equidistant from the screen anymore so the viewing angles will be off and thus push the screen outside of your human field of view. (And if you instead used a 700mm to 800mm curve on some other screen you'd end up with too low of a PPD).

Long story short: the viewing angle improvement only works up to the focal point of the curve.

42" 4k
======

4k flat: 60PPD 68deg viewing angle = 29" view distance
4k flat: 70PPD 55deg viewing angle = 35" view distance
900R: 70PPD fixed focal point = 35.4" view distance (900mm)
1000R: 77PPD fixed focal point = 39.4" view distance (1000mm)
4k flat: 80PPD 48deg view angle = 41.1" view distance

For flat screens, a 45deg - 55 deg viewing angle is generally best to see the extents of the screen comfortably. Sitting at a distance nearing the screen's diagonal measurement forms an equilateral pyramid or cone viewing angle with the screen size. With this screen at 900R you would still get 70PPD at it's "fixed" 900mm minimum focal point. 900mm = 35.4" view distance. The idea is that the bend of the screen fills your perspective for immersion. Once you sit closer than the focal point of the "lens", you've just zoomed the extents of the screen off of the page (your human FoV) so to speak.

Edit: made this as an example of what I was saying:

Once you sit closer than the focal point of the "lens", you've just zoomed the extents of the screen off of the page (your human FoV) so to speak.

monitor-curve-radus-_small-schematic_1a.png
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
I am super stoked for the curve but if the price is 2x that of the C2 42 it's going to be a tough sell especially since it's still 120Hz.
 

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,087
Reflections are a way bigger issue on a curved display vs flat.
 

sphinx99

Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
981
I'm a bit mixed on this; an emerging trend in OLED at the moment is greater heat sinking to support higher brightness, less aggressive ABLs and more quickly dissipate temporary burn-in artifacts. I suspect that a flexible display will be at odds with this trend. Right now, ABL is a bigger issue for me on my OLED than the absence of a curve.
 
Last edited:

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
Here's some more info about the display from HDTVTest:



I kinda like that screen resize feature. I'm guessing it just resizes the display without changing the resolution the game is running at so it will act sort of like running at a smaller res but upscaled. Does the regular C2 have this too?

The multi-view feature seems like a pile of crap though. The options seem to be HDMI input + built in smart TV app, TV signal or screen share wirelessly. IMO all poor compared to proper picture by picture modes.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
7,020
Shame it's only 120 Hz. LG really needs to start upping their game on refresh.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
Shame it's only 120 Hz. LG really needs to start upping their game on refresh.

They went announced a 240Hz OLED but then kept it at 3440x1440 resolution and now this 4K one gets capped to 120Hz. Guess we can't have it all at once just yet...pretty sure we'll start seeing 4K 240Hz OLED's within a few years though. Then they'll just find some other way to screw it up by making that 4K 240Hz display a 27 inch monitor that's too small or a 55 inch that's too big.
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,382
Me, imagining the sheer amount of monitors sold today that can't even do 120Hz. And knowing that a high percentage of those went to "gamers". Not disagreeing, but some are going to laugh at folks that don't have a 3090Ti. So, I think there's "time" here.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,036
The problem is 4k resolution is bandwidth limited for higher refresh rates, it can't handle 240hz. It would be amazing if they let you choose to run 1080p at 500hz or 4k 138hz though.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
The problem is 4k resolution is bandwidth limited for higher refresh rates, it can't handle 240hz. It would be amazing if they let you choose to run 1080p at 500hz or 4k 138hz though.
With DSC it should be possible. I'm guessing the 138 Hz limitation is just a limitation with LG's panel or controller for it. In a few years I expect we will see those usual 165 Hz or 180 Hz options come along if they don't jump straight to 240 Hz. I wish they pushed for 8K at smaller sizes instead.

Displayport 2.0 should bring us uncompressed 4K 240 Hz with 10-bit color and I hope we will also start to see some progress in the above 4K category.
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,626
Reflections are a way bigger issue on a curved display vs flat.
But physics is physics, and anything that blurs reflections, will also blur refractions: AKA the display output. And anything that diffuses incoming light, will also diffuse outgoing light, AKA Black levels.

This is physics, and is not up for debate: Matte coatings wash out blacks and blur details. Some to a lesser extent, some to a larger, but they all do.

So when you spend a lot of money on a screen specifically for high resolution (detail) and perfect blacks, and spend that money understanding that the screen is not bright and should not be in a bright environment IE, literally every OLED in the universe, a matte coating is worse than useless: it makes it worse.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
7,020
They went announced a 240Hz OLED but then kept it at 3440x1440 resolution and now this 4K one gets capped to 120Hz. Guess we can't have it all at once just yet...pretty sure we'll start seeing 4K 240Hz OLED's within a few years though. Then they'll just find some other way to screw it up by making that 4K 240Hz display a 27 inch monitor that's too small or a 55 inch that's too big.

Ya the holy grail monitor is still out of reach. I can't do 1440p anymore, it's just terrible for a monitor I use on desktop in addition to gaming. I'll keep my 42C2 until 4K 240 Hz comes out in OLED. Nothing begs for high refresh rates more than super fast OLED panels.

The problem is 4k resolution is bandwidth limited for higher refresh rates, it can't handle 240hz. It would be amazing if they let you choose to run 1080p at 500hz or 4k 138hz though.

DSC can do 4K/240 Hz over both DP 1.4 and HDMI 2.1.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,036
Ya the holy grail monitor is still out of reach. I can't do 1440p anymore, it's just terrible for a monitor I use on desktop in addition to gaming. I'll keep my 42C2 until 4K 240 Hz comes out in OLED. Nothing begs for high refresh rates more than super fast OLED panels.



DSC can do 4K/240 Hz over both DP 1.4 and HDMI 2.1.

I think we'll see one next year then. We have had an explosion of new OLED monitors recently adding all sorts of monitor specific features and that first 4k240hz monitor just came out a few months ago.
It will probably be my next upgrade too.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
The motion clarity on this monitor is going to be absolutely amazing. Keeping 240fps at 3440x1440 should be possible with next gen parts like an RTX 4090 and Zen 4X3D.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220905-123307_YouTube.jpg
    Screenshot_20220905-123307_YouTube.jpg
    180.3 KB · Views: 0

Drags

Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
1,001
The motion clarity on this monitor is going to be absolutely amazing. Keeping 240fps at 3440x1440 should be possible with next gen parts like an RTX 4090 and Zen 4X3D.
Yeah 240Hz looks like it could be amazing on OLED as I’m sure most people expected. Source of the above photos here

240Hz OLED monitor?! - Hands on with the Corsair Xeneon Flex 45WQHD240 BENDABLE OLED monitor
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
I think we'll see one next year then. We have had an explosion of new OLED monitors recently adding all sorts of monitor specific features and that first 4k240hz monitor just came out a few months ago.
It will probably be my next upgrade too.


GPU power should increase over time as well. 4k with all the bells and whistles is still pretty hard to render on some of the most demanding games (especially large worlds rather than corridor shooters). Not that you can't dial them in (down) a bit from ultra and get a little more gain in motion clarity. Motion definition has diminishing gains but clarity/blur reduction at very high fpsHz doesn't really.

Typically a game's fps average with VRR varies +/-15 fps from the average a lot and up to +/-30 fps. There also might be a few spikes and potholes. It also varies by where you are in a game of course (narrow caverns vs. massive outdoor world locations for example) and what's going on (plain travelling vs massive firefights full of onscreen entitites and spells/effects). Until a demanding game at 4k resolution surpasses around 105 fps average or better you won't be at and above (capped optimally) 120fpsHz range enough to make higher than 120hz Hz screen that meaningful imo. And you'd still be at 75 to 90 fps on the low end of the 105 average graph. Until then the better the minimum frame rate the better though. Obviously some games are much easier to render so they would benefit from higher than 120fpsHz range more.

Using VRR,

To live at 240fpsHz only at the top 1/3 of your graph you'd have to be around 210fps - 225fps average, with the low end still around ~ 200fps (+ a few occasional potholes).

To live with the top 2/3 of your graph at ~240fpsHz you'd have to be near to 240fps average, with the low end still at 210fps - 225fps + a few potholes.

To live at 240fps at the low end in a game, at least for the most part, you'd probably have to be around 270fps depending on the game. Maybe more if you want to avoid all frame rate potholes.

Personally I'm not chomping at the bit to upgrade to 240hz currently but next time I upgrade I will definitely be looking at that factor, especially if gpus available are much more powerful by the time I upgrade. Then game complexity usually ramps up too. Some games even now can have their frame rates crashed into the ground with very high detail mods, extreme view distances + animated objects viewable in the distance, and of course - ray tracing if you kick that on.

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


Oldie but a goodie from Mark R. of blurbusters.com below. Note all frame rates referenced are solid frame rates (minimums), not variable rates/averages which would dip around 15 to 30fps lower.

240fpsHz is definitely a big improvement, half again as much blur vs 120fpsHz solid and rather than a single cell shaded styled bitmap ufo, instead on a full screen of high detail geometry and textures (and depth via bump mapping etc) potentially, when the whole viewport is moving at speed during mouse looking/controller panning.



It would be great if someone like nvidia developed some very low latency and relatively artifact-free interpolation tech to essentially multiply frames for the motion clarity increase without having to push the gpu that hard. E.g. 100fps minimum x3 interpolation cloned = 300fps.
 
Last edited:

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
3,036
GPU power should increase over time as well. 4k with all the bells and whistles is still pretty hard to render on some of the most demanding games (especially large worlds rather than corridor shooters). Not that you can't dial them in (down) a bit from ultra and get a little more gain in motion clarity. Motion definition has diminishing gains but clarity/blur reduction at very high fpsHz doesn't really.

Typically a game's fps average with VRR varies +/-15 fps from the average a lot and up to +/-30 fps. There also might be a few spikes and potholes. It also varies by where you are in a game of course (narrow caverns vs. massive outdoor world locations for example) and what's going on (plain travelling vs massive firefights full of onscreen entitites and spells/effects). Until a demanding game at 4k resolution surpasses around 105 fps average or better you won't be at and above (capped optimally) 120fpsHz range enough to make higher than 120hz Hz screen that meaningful imo. And you'd still be at 75 to 90 fps on the low end of the 105 average graph. Until then the better the minimum frame rate the better though. Obviously some games are much easier to render so they would benefit from higher than 120fpsHz range more.

Using VRR,

To live at 240fpsHz only at the top 1/3 of your graph you'd have to be around 210fps - 225fps average, with the low end still around ~ 200fps (+ a few occasional potholes).

To live with the top 2/3 of your graph at ~240fpsHz you'd have to be near to 240fps average, with the low end still at 210fps - 225fps + a few potholes.

To live at 240fps at the low end in a game, at least for the most part, you'd probably have to be around 270fps depending on the game. Maybe more if you want to avoid all frame rate potholes.

Personally I'm not chomping at the bit to upgrade to 240hz currently but next time I upgrade I will definitely be looking at that factor, especially if gpus available are much more powerful by the time I upgrade. Then game complexity usually ramps up too. Some games even now can have their frame rates crashed into the ground with very high detail mods, extreme view distances + animated objects viewable in the distance, and of course - ray tracing if you kick that on.

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


Oldie but a goodie from Mark R. of blurbusters.com below. Note all frame rates referenced are solid frame rates (minimums), not variable rates/averages which would dip around 15 to 30fps lower.

240fpsHz is definitely a big improvement, half again as much blur vs 120fpsHz solid and rather than a single cell shaded styled bitmap ufo, instead on a full screen of high detail geometry and textures (and depth via bump mapping etc) potentially, when the whole viewport is moving at speed during mouse looking/controller panning.




It would be great if someone like nvidia developed some very low latency and relatively artifact-free interpolation tech to essentially multiply frames for the motion clarity increase without having to push the gpu that hard. E.g. 100fps minimum x3 interpolation cloned = 300fps.
If a screen can take 240hz 4k you can use gpu scaling and send it 1080p 240hz if you want and have your choice of higher fps or higher quality. Also I mostly play old games that I could actually run at 4k 200+ fps. And for competitive games I prioritize high fps and high resolution for maximum clarity over higher details that don't have any actual benefits to competitive play.

It would be cool if there was latency free frame interpolation. It would probably be better built in to the TV because of bandwidth limitations though.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
I want higher fpsHz at higher quality 😁

Not a fan of upscaling games personally.

I play a lot of large world adventure games. I appreciate the glassy movement of high fps and it's blur reduction even way back when I played things like witcher 3 in 1080ti SLI for 90fps to 105fps+ average at 1440p. (though the combat was kinda clunky in that game, even after they patched it).

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

Witcher3 along with few more modern examples at 4k, from

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/msi-geforce-rtx-3090-ti-suprim-x/5.html

All at 4k with ultra settings.


Witcher3 without any extra/extreme graphics mods (which would prob reduce the frame rate more)
the-witcher-3-3840-2160.png



Cyberpunk: released December 2020

cyberpunk-2077-3840-2160.png



Elden Ring: released late feb almost march 2022 (High Hz unlock and widescreen capable via mod/patch)

I've seen up to 80fps at 4k tweaked even off of my laptop's 3070 so if you dial it down a some you can get more performance than this, and depending what area you are in. (I have a 3090 on my desktop though so get a better performance balance there).
elden-ring-3840-2160.png



Another fairly modern (Nov 2020) large world adventure game with very long view distances. Can tweak more performance but gives a rough idea what you are working with.

assassins-creed-valhalla-3840-2160.png


Far Cry 6, released about a year ago:

far-cry-6-3840-2160.png


Resident Evil Village: released May 2021

resident-evil-village-3840-2160.png



Sekiro: release date march 2019: (unlockable to higher Hz and even widescreen resolutions using 3rd party mod/patch)

sekiro-3840-2160.png


Red Dead 2 : 2019

red-dead-redemption-2-3840-2160.png


Death Stranding (2020):

death-stranding-3840-2160.png


Days Gone: (2021)

days-gone-3840-2160.png



A fun/"competitive" shooter from 2018:

battlefield-5-3840-2160.png



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

So for my purposes, I'm not seeing that I'm going way over 120 - 140fps average at 4k rez any time soon on a 3090. Several of the games are at 50 to 68fps on ultra with a 3090, with the better performing ones doing 115 to 132 fps average on ultra. Even knocking it down to "High+" custom settings wouldn't push me into 180 - 240fps ranges at 4k on the better performing titles, and would be lucky to hit 100fps average or so on the poorer performing/more demanding ones.

Until I get a card that is pushing modern-ish high detail games at closer to 200fps+ average at 4k native I just don't feel the urgency to get a 240hz screen sooner than later but that's me.

It would probably be better built in to the TV because of bandwidth limitations though.

Good point. 🤔 At least on hdmi 2.1 for now. Again to my feeling overall, putting the cart before the horse here.
 
Last edited:

ssj3rd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
169
So for my purposes, I'm not seeing that I'm going way over 120 - 140fps average at 4k rez any time soon on a 3090.
Patience young Padawan, the 4090 is literally weeks away.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
I want higher fpsHz at higher quality 😁

Not a fan of upscaling games personally.

I play a lot of large world adventure games. I appreciate the glassy movement of high fps and it's blur reduction even way back when I played things like witcher 3 in 1080ti SLI for 90fps to 105fps+ average at 1440p. (though the combat was kinda clunky in that game, even after they patched it).

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

So for my purposes, I'm not seeing that I'm going way over 120 - 140fps average at 4k rez any time soon on a 3090. Several of the games are at 50 to 68fps on ultra with a 3090, with the better performing ones doing 115 to 132 fps average on ultra. Even knocking it down to "High+" custom settings wouldn't push me into 180 - 240fps ranges at 4k on the better performing titles, and would be lucky to hit 100fps average or so on the poorer performing/more demanding ones.

Until I get a card that is pushing modern-ish high detail games at closer to 200fps+ average at 4k native I just don't feel the urgency to get a 240hz screen sooner than later but that's me.
I think tech like DLSS 2.x is so good now that just looking at 4K native performance doesn't give the real story. I really like how stable the image becomes with it in terms of aliasing and how there's no noticeable degradation in image quality to me when actually playing the game. If DLSS is available, I always use it and run it at Balanced or Quality mode.

But it is still unfortunately not a given as games like Elden Ring just don't support any of that stuff, don't have graphics settings that do anything for performance so you can't really eke out more performance out of it other than running at lower res or a more powerful GPU. And even then if you want above 60 fps you have to mod the damn game!

Realistically with my current 3700X + 2080 Ti, I'm gaming at 4K 60 fps in most games (similar to what you play), with only some really well made ones like Doom Eternal being at 90-120 fps average.

So for me above 120 Hz at this point is nice to have just for desktop use or as future headroom. 240 Hz would be great for this but I don't see myself utilizing it in the games I play. I would be happy with upping the max refresh rate to 144 Hz.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
Patience young Padawan, the 4090 is literally weeks away.

I know it's figurative but I was in my young 20's when Doom 2 was released. 😉 I'm more like a slightly older QuiGon, a little older than Neeson was when he did that movie (and incidentally never with a man-bun or pony tail). Not to the obi wan new hope elderly stage yet by a long shot but my young padawan days are long over. Lol. More like somewhere between aragorn+ and Theoden-. For reference, one of my first "real" gpus was a Diamond Edge 3D with glide/openGL translated pass-through card in 1995, on my first pentium (90). It would smooth shade poly's on quake and tomb raider which at the time was mindblowing compared to grainy pixels in software mode.

Holding off on the 4000 series at least for awhile. I sometimes skip a whole gen but your point still stands for consideration capability wise. Will have to see but I still don't think it's going to break the kind of thresholds I was talking about on said games and games similar to them. Probably more like pushing the higher performing ones up to where 144hz, (maybe even 165Hz depending) would help more like kasakka said, and for many of the more demanding ones on that list it would still barely deliver over 100 from their current 60 - 80ish I'd suspect. Still not where 240fps at 240Hz would cut the blur again by 1/2 compared to 120fpsHz solid ranges. I won't rule out a 4000 series gpu depending on the models, prices and performance but I could more likely end up waiting and ending up with a 5000 series and a higher hz, maybe even bendable oled (or one with a good heatsink) someday. The older I get the faster gpu cycles seem to go. Big screen advancements seem to take a lot longer to roll out historically. Still reading all of these threads to learn all of the features and ins and outs, pros and cons for now.
 
Last edited:

Zahua

n00b
Joined
Jun 6, 2022
Messages
57
I don't mind a light curve on displays over 32". For example, I would put this at a 2300R and be content.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
That's not how the curves are supposed to work. R is the radius of the curve. 2300R sounds like a curvature for sitting farther away from a big TV at a couch. 2300mm is 90.5 inch focal point or radius.

You are supposed to be sitting at the focal point of the curve so that you are equidistant from all points of the screen viewing angle wise. And if you sit closer than that on a screen with a good curve on it you push your human FoV past the screen's extents.

TPor1oE.png



42" 4k
======
4k flat: 60PPD 68deg viewing angle = 29" view distance
4k flat: 70PPD 55deg viewing angle = 35" view distance
900R: 70PPD fixed focal point = 35.4" view distance (900mm)
1000R: 77PPD fixed focal point = 39.4" view distance (1000mm)
4k flat: 80PPD 48deg view angle = 41.1" view distance

1500R: 111 PPD fixed focal point =~ 59 inch view distance (1500mm)

For flat screens, a 45deg - 55 deg viewing angle is generally best to see the extents of the screen comfortably. Sitting at a distance nearing the screen's diagonal measurement forms an equilateral pyramid or cone viewing angle with the screen size. With this screen at 900R you would still get 70PPD at it's "fixed" 900mm minimum focal point. 900mm = 35.4" view distance. The idea is that the bend of the screen fills your perspective for immersion.

Once you sit closer than the focal point of the "lens", you've just zoomed the extents of the screen off of the page (your human FoV) so to speak.

Sitting past the fixed curve of a screen's focal point:

722976_monitor-curve-radus-_small-schematic_1a.png



Sitting past the human viewing angle vs. a flat screen
(and wayyy past it on a curved screen)

724204_monitor-curve-radus-_small-schematic_nearer-A_1.png


. . . . . . .

Old picture of a curved OLED concept showcased at CES years ago in 2014. It's taken this long to get some curved OLEDs from the concept phase to production I guess.


549378_417264_IlB5Ect.png



14-lg-display-ces-2016.jpg
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
I think tech like DLSS 2.x is so good now that just looking at 4K native performance doesn't give the real story. I really like how stable the image becomes with it in terms of aliasing and how there's no noticeable degradation in image quality to me when actually playing the game. If DLSS is available, I always use it and run it at Balanced or Quality mode.

But it is still unfortunately not a given as games like Elden Ring just don't support any of that stuff, don't have graphics settings that do anything for performance so you can't really eke out more performance out of it other than running at lower res or a more powerful GPU. And even then if you want above 60 fps you have to mod the damn game!

Realistically with my current 3700X + 2080 Ti, I'm gaming at 4K 60 fps in most games (similar to what you play), with only some really well made ones like Doom Eternal being at 90-120 fps average.

So for me above 120 Hz at this point is nice to have just for desktop use or as future headroom. 240 Hz would be great for this but I don't see myself utilizing it in the games I play. I would be happy with upping the max refresh rate to 144 Hz.
According to Techpowerup, the 3090 Ti is already good for average triple digit frame rates at 4K across a variety of games. Lovelace is rumored to be twice as fast as Ampere but I don't believe that so let's say it more like 60-70% faster than Ampere and then factor in DLSS that will be more widely adopted in future games and we're looking at performance that should well exceed 120fps at 4K in many titles. Yes there will be the occasional Cyberpunk 2077/AC Valhalla that just doesn't run very well even on the highest end hardware but IMO there will be plenty of games that will run fast enough on a 4090 Ti especially when using DLSS and optimized settings to justify the existence of 4K 240Hz monitors. But if you're the type of person who likes to cut frame rates in half by using ray tracing then I guess you can stick to 120Hz lol.

1662486912925.png
 
Top