LG Flex LX3 4K 42″ Bendable OLED 120Hz

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
A lot of games are 65, 85, 110 fps now at 4k. Maybe 80, 115, 125fps tweaked/dialed down from ultra to "VeryHigh+" custom.

I doubt you'd need raytracing to be 150fps average and less on the most demanding, long view distance + animated objects in the distance type games of now and whatever demands/graphics ceilings in the next few years of games.

So sure depending on the game and settings you'd get some benefit rather than being capped at ~ 117fps . . even at 144Hz or 165Hz capability . . if some of your games are in that range but you will likely still be a good stretch away from 200fps+ to 240fpsHz peaks.


I've heard the 200% performance increase claims before. It ended up being like 25 - 30 fps better at 4k in some games with the 3000 series' top cards vs 2080/2080ti. I'd expect around the same so in my example above using a conservative estimate of 25+ fps increase:

65, 85, 110, 115fps now on ultra ---> 90, 110, 135, 140 average or so.
80,115, 125, 130fps now (dialed setting down from ultra) ------> 105, 140, 150, 155 or so.

I'd say most of the better well performing games on that list were at:
100, 110 fps on ultra now ----> 125+, 135+ fps
115, 125 fps dialed down now ---> 140, 150 fps

The more demanding and yet good number of very popular games were at around:

60, 68, 80 on ultra now ---> 85, 93, 105+ fps
75, 83, 95 dialed down now --> 100, 108, 120fps average



If feeling generous, add +5 fps to those guestimates on the right side of the equation. And do you think you are getting a Ti version right out of the gate? The 3090 came out sept 2 years ago (if you could get one). The 3090ti came out almost 2 years after the 3090 ~ april 2022 (well, 1y 6mo.?) and relatively shortly before buzz of the next gen drop.

I'd gladly be wrong about the 4000 series' 4k performance though. Will have to see some real world game benchmarks at 4k. :D
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
A lot of games are 65, 85, 110 fps now at 4k. Maybe 80, 115, 125fps tweaked/dialed down from ultra to "VeryHigh+" custom.

I doubt you'd need raytracing to be 150fps average and less on the most demanding, long view distance + animated objects in the distance type games of now and whatever demands/graphics ceilings in the next few years of games.

So sure depending on the game and settings you'd get some benefit rather than being capped at ~ 117fps . . even at 144Hz or 165Hz capability . . if some of your games are in that range but you will likely still be a good stretch away from 200fps+ to 240fpsHz peaks.


I've heard the 200% performance increase claims before. It ended up being like 25 - 30 fps better at 4k in some games with the 3000 series' top cards vs 2080ti. I'd expect around the same so in my example above using a conservative estimate of 25+ fps increase:

65, 85, 110, 115fps now on ultra ---> 90, 110, 135, 140 average or so.
80,115, 125, 130fps now (dialed setting down from ultra) ------> 105, 140, 150, 155 or so.

I'd say most of the better well performing games on that list were at:
100, 110 fps on ultra ----> 125+, 135+ fps
115, 125 fps dialed down ---> 140, 150 fps

The more demanding and yet good number of very popular games were at around:

60, 68, 80 on ultra ---> 85, 93, 105+ fps
75, 83, 95 dialed down --> 100, 108, 120fps average



If feeling generous, add +5 fps to those guestimates. And do you think you are getting a Ti version right out of the gate? The 3090 came out sept 2 years ago (if you could get one). The 3090ti came out almost 2 years after the 3090 ~ april 2022 (well, 1y 6mo.?).

I'd gladly be wrong about the 4000 series' 4k performance though. Will have to see some real world game benchmarks. :D

Ampere is probably the worst generational leap there was in terms of performance uplift along with Turing. Nowhere near nvidia's claims of 2x performance. Going to Maxwell -> Pascal was around 60-70% more performance when you compare a the top dog dies GM200 to GP102. And we don't really need a 4090 Ti as that would only be 10% faster at best anyways, a regular 4090 would be close enough in performance. Saying that we're only going to go from 110fps to 135fps or 125fps to 150fps is almost a little bit TOO conservative. That's even worst than Pascal -> Turing performance uplift. You seriously think we are only going to get a 25% performance increase while juicing up the next gen cards to 500+ watts? Lol...

Here are my estimates for next gen performance uplift (not accounting for possible CPU bottlenecks with the current gen CPUs).


65, 85, 110, 115fps now on ultra ---> 110, 145, 187, 195 average or so.
80,115, 125, 130fps now (dialed setting down from ultra) ------> 136, 187, 212, 221 or so.

I'd say most of the better well performing games on that list were at:
100, 110 fps on ultra now ----> 170+, 187+
115, 125 fps dialed down now ---> 187+, 212+


I don't believe nvidia will double performance in a single generation, but I do think it's possible for them to deliver another Maxwell -> Pascal performance uplift but this time at the expense of way way higher power consumption.
 
Last edited:

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
I said 25+ fps diff at 4k, 30 if feeling generous. I'd gladly be wrong. :D

Show me what you got.

rickandmorty-showme.gif
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
Yeh 24Hz which stutters on OLED where it's not masked by bad lcd response time mush. So pure, please don't ever increase. (n)

SwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.gif

. . .

rumor has it if you go over 240hz your eyes burst into flames.

Some of us like sample and hold water goggles blurring everything we see every time we turn our head. 👓
1000fpsHz would do nothing.


img_2331.jpg


. . . . .
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
Fresh rumor regarding next gen gpu performance:

https://videocardz.com/newz/alleged...-3-0-ghz-scores-20k-points-in-timespy-extreme

Obviously should be taken with a grain of salt. I myself still don't buy the whole "double performance" in one generation thing but I still think a 60-70% uplift from a 3090 to 4090 isn't impossible. There's still time for LG to up the refresh rate on this thing before it launches because a 4090 will be good for more than 120fps in a lot of games at 4K, maybe not at native res and ultra settings + RT on max but definitely with DLSS, optimized settings, and either dialed back RT or no RT. Even a modest bump from 120Hz to 160Hz would be an excellent pairing with a 4090.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
You can run an ultrawide resolution on a 42" or 48" 16:9 4k oled though and it will still be a large ultrawide in effect.

The viewable height on a 48" 16:9 in 21:10 uw rez of 3840x1600 ends up having about a 17.5" tall viewable screen resolution.

A 42" 16:9 is around 36.7" wide so maybe 36" viewable width (not diagonal). At 21:9 it would be ~ 15.5 inch viewable height and ~39.x " diagonal. .
so at 21:10 a 42" diagonal 16:9 screen in 3840x1600 uw resolution might be more like ~ 39.5" uw diagonal with a ~ 16" tall viewable.

The black bars on oleds are the emitters off entirely so it's ultra/"infinite" black and down the pixel display area wise so no glow/dim halos on the edges. If you put some black soundproofing tiles or tapestry behind there (don't let tapestries hang so low that they are over electric plugs and power units though) - then you'd be black on black. Also just in general if you are viewing in dim to dark theater like viewing conditions for HDR, the ambient lighting would be quite dark. You won't really be noticing the inf black bars and you'd be getting a much larger uw viewable screen compared to some of the shorter height models. Even viewing material with ultra black oled bars and not taking any other steps with the area behind the screen - it's not a big deal on OLEDS imo, for example on a big OLED tv in a living room running a movie with some letterboxing. Also you can swap back to 4k 16:9 for videos and certain games that might benefit from 16:9 more like rts overhead maps and maybe some platformers and other overhead games.
 
Last edited:

ssj3rd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
169
What price do you suspect guys?

I’m hoping 1500$, but I believe it will be around 2000-2500$, unfortunately.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
What price do you suspect guys?

I’m hoping 1500$, but I believe it will be around 2000-2500$, unfortunately.
I totally expect this will be a halo product selling at over $2000. Motorized stand and all that. I expect they are making these only to gauge interest in curved, large OLEDs and are going to make a fixed curve, cheaper model next year for the C3 lineup considering there doesn't seem to be all that much they can do to improve other areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
The 55" 4k fixed 1000R samsung Ark is a larger screen but without the added cost of the big motorized curve automation. Supposedly the ARK's release price is going to be $3500. Not saying that's what this 42" bendable would cost but might be of some use as a comparison. The first 34" ultrawides cost a lot more at release than they did a year or two down the road though, as well as the 48CX being ~ $1500 and later being had for $750 - $800, and larger 77" screens going from $4500 to $3000 - $3200 etc.. just like anything else.. so there are early adoption costs.

42" 4k
900R: 70PPD "fixed" focal point = 35.4" view distance (900mm)
1000R: 77PPD "fixed" focal point = 39.4" view distance (1000mm)

55" 4k
1000R: ~ 61 PPD fixed focal point = 39.4" view distance (1000mm)


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.

Like sphinx99 suggested, I think I'm now leaning more toward hope for a very well performing heatsink on a brighter-at-lower-energy states QD-OLED at some point in the future - for longer sustained brightness at different %'s of the screen in HDR / less ABL trigger, etc. if I had to choose between curve and heatsink.
 
Last edited:

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
Sept 2nd , 2022:

https://www.techadvisor.com/article...urns-bendy-tv-gimmick-into-genius-gadget.html

I do have concerns about the longevity of the screen. We’ve seen issues with foldable phones and although this is a much simpler, more subtle, bend and won’t be moved half as often, I do wonder what it’ll be like after a year or two of use.
I’m mostly saying this as the main unit LG was demoing on the IFA show floor was definitely not completely flat when in that position. The arm of the left side seemingly couldn’t get the display all the way back, leaving a very slight bend in it – sadly this is near impossible to take a photo of to show you.
For now, I’ll give LG the benefit of the doubt here as it’s likely an early model that has been abused by constantly showing people what the device can do – a la Homer Simpson style.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
https://tftcentral.co.uk/news/lg-announce-oled-flex-lx3-with-42-bendable-oled-panel-4k-and-120hz

So basically the same as the Corsair bendable OLED except without the crappy pixel density and 21:9 aspect ratio.

crappy pixel density

You have to go by PPD not just the raw PPI but yes you are right the corsair's perceived pixel density is low at the higher curve amount's radii. The 42" bendable LG 4k screen has a much higher PPD than the 45" 21:9uw 3440x1440 corsair bendable. If you use the corsair at 1000R ~ 39.4" view distance the PPD will approach a servicable 60 PPD but the screen will have shrunk physically to your perspective slightly.

without the <......> 21:9 aspect ratio.

You can use the 42" 4k curved screen (or any other 16:9 screen that is large enough with fair enough PPD) in a 21:9, or better yet 21:10uw 3840x1600 resolution. So if anything it's the other way around. The corsair lacks the rez to do 4k 16:9 content but the 42" 4k has the rez to do better than 3440x1440 at 3840x1600uw.

The exception to this is the Neo G9 which has 5120×1440 rez so it's extra wide rez of +640px added to each side of 3840 breaks that scenario. A 3840px wide 4k screen can't do 5120px wide obviously, and the 1440px high Neo G9 can't do 2160p high for 1:1px 4k content.

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

For comparison:

800R Curved 45"uw 3440x1400: 800mm radius of curve's focal point = 31.4" view distance = ~ 51.4 PPD
900R Curved 45"uw 3440x1400: 900mm radius of curve's focal point = 35.4" view distance = ~ 56.6 PPD
1000R Curved45"uw3440x1440: 1000mm radius of the curve's focal point = 39.4" view distance = ~ 62 PPD <---- near to what I consider minimum 60 PPD for heavily massaged text sub-sampling and aggressive AA to compensate enough

42" 4k flat: 68deg viewing angle = 29" view distance = 60 PPD
42" 4k flat: 55deg viewing angle = 35" view distance = 70 PPD
42" 4k flat: 48 deg viewing angle = ~ 41" view distance = 80 PPD <----- view distance makes an equilateral triangle pyramid/cone viewing angle so you can see the bulk of the screen surface better

48" 4k flat: 64 deg viewing angle = 33.5" view distance = 60 PPD
48" 4k flat: 55 deg viewing angle = ~ 40" view distance = 70 PPD
48" 4k flat: 48 deg viewing angle = 47" view distance = 80 PPD <----- view distance makes an equilateral triangle pyramid/cone viewing angle so you can see the bulk of the screen surface better

900R Curved 42" 4k: 900mm radius of curve's focal point = 35.4" view distance = ~ 70 PPD
1000R Curved 42" 4k:1000mm radius of curve's focal point= 39.4" view distance = ~ 77 PPD

1000R Curved 49"uw 5120x1440: 1000mm radius of curve's focal point = ~ 83 PPD <---- you are squashing + 1680px more of vertical pixel columns into a similar physical width as the 3440px wide corsair 48"uw, but in a narrower "belt" width to height ratio.

1000R Curved 55" 4k = 1000mm fixed curve's focal point or radius = 39.4" view distance = ~ 61 PPD <---- at/just over to what I consider minimum PPD for heavily massaged text sub-sampling and aggressive AA to compensate enough

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


You can't really sit farther away to increase the PPD (pixels per degree, "perceived pixel density") when a screen is curved because you'd then be outside of it's radius. The surface of the screen won't be equidistant from you anymore and you'll make the screen more and more like an alcove inside of your human viewing angle.

Sitting too near vs the radius or focal point of the curve is bad too:

When you sit closer you are driving the perceived pixel density down and doing what is linked in the pictures below.

The solid blue is the correct 1000mm distance for the curved screen's radius.

The light blue is the human viewing angle when sitting too close. It gets pushed past the curved screen.

0UhdIIr.png


The light blue is the human viewing angle when sitting even nearer than the previous example. It pushes even more grossly past the curved screen.

q03mqmG.png
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
1663687072079.png


Obviously the 2-4X is from nvidia themselves so should be taken with a grain of salt. But something like 70% over a 3090 should easily be realistic. Who else thinks we don't need 4k 240Hz monitors yet? :D
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581
View attachment 511857

Obviously the 2-4X is from nvidia themselves so should be taken with a grain of salt. But something like 70% over a 3090 should easily be realistic. Who else thinks we don't need 4k 240Hz monitors yet? :D

Again I hope you are right. Even at 165fps+ if that were the case, on the most demanding 4k games near ultra we'd get some benefit out of a 240hz peak though. A number of very popular games really don't get high fps at 4k currently, at/near ultra settings at least. Some popular ones at ~ 50, 65, 73, 77, 83, 94 fps so some of them have a long way to go. Especially games with very far view distances with animated objects in the distance in large game worlds as opposed to corridor shooters or games in arenas that usually curtail the view distance with walls, etc. Also, historically when the gpu power increases, more modern game releases push the graphics ceiling up again to sell those next next gen graphics.

I'm all for progress but I'm suspicious of claims until I see actual game benchmarks (especially of the more demanding games).
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
Again I hope you are right. Even at 165fps+ if that were the case, on the most demanding 4k games near ultra we'd get some benefit out of a 240hz peak though. A number of very popular games really don't get high fps at 4k currently, at/near ultra settings at least. Some popular ones at ~ 50, 65, 73, 77, 83, 94 fps so some of them have a long way to go. Especially games with very far view distances with animated objects in the distance in large game worlds as opposed to corridor shooters or games in arenas that usually curtail the view distance with walls, etc. Also, historically when the gpu power increases, more modern game releases push the graphics ceiling up again to sell those next next gen graphics.

I'm all for progress but I'm suspicious of claims until I see actual game benchmarks (especially of the more demanding games).

Obviously not every single game is going to run in excess of 120fps averages on an RTX 4090 especially if you go full ham on the ray tracing effects, but many games will and you can always fine tune your graphics settings/turn RT off/Use DLSS 3.0 to squeeze more performance. As for seeing more games that push the graphics ceiling, there are games coming out this year and next year that are still targeting last gen hardware (ps4, xbox one). I say we won't see a major uplift in graphics fidelity that will tank GPU performance until game devs completely drop last gen out of the picture which might happen sometime in 2024, which is also the year an RTX 5090 would probably come out. Look I just want LG to slap DP 2.0 on a 4K OLED and give us 240Hz already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,581

D2bzK6LXQAEa3uw?format=jpg&name=small.jpg



:ROFLMAO:

MistaSparkul

realizes that is all marketing and that the actual % is likely less like it always is. We are just wondering (or debating, optimistic vs pessimistic) by how much less, what the real world benchmarks will be once some good review sites put some of the higher end gpus through their paces (at 4k resolution with very high+/ultra minus to full ultra settings and on known very demanding games).

There's always hope though. Hope it's a lot more performance jump than I am thinking in the most demanding titles with large view distances.
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
View attachment 511965


:ROFLMAO:

MistaSparkul

realizes that is all marketing and that the actual % is likely less like it always is. We are just wondering (or debating, optimistic vs pessimistic) by how much less, what the real world benchmarks will be once some good review sites put some of the higher end gpus through their paces (at 4k resolution with very high+ to ultra settings and on known very demanding games)

Nvidia has made so many bogus claims of doubling performance that I don't know who still buys any of it at this point. There is no way the 4090 is 2x a 3090 Ti but I'm gonna stick to 1.7x over a 3090 being possible. Not sure how much faster that makes it over the 3090 Ti. Probably just under 60%. DLSS 3.0 is sure to widen that gap though.
 

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,087
Yeah I think in traditional raster the 4090 will land around 50-60% faster on average. Still though considering a 3090 Ti averages like 93FPS at 4K across 2 dozen titles without DLSS means 4K 120hz gaming is basically a lock if you buy a 4090.

The fact that the 4080 16Gb will only be like 25-30% faster than a 3080 Ti is sad.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
No I'd rather come to a conclusion off of Nvidia's own charts which are always extremely generous to begin with.

1663714038868.png


1663714066209.png



:ROFLMAO: With nvidia saying the 4090 is 2x a 3090 Ti I think it's safe to say the fastest it will be is 1.6-1.7x over a 3090 non Ti
 

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,087
I would have bought this over my C2 for a $500 premium. It would make productivity/gaming awesome having the edges closer to my eyes but for more than 3x the price is just makes no sense.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
I would have bought this over my C2 for a $500 premium. It would make productivity/gaming awesome having the edges closer to my eyes but for more than 3x the price is just makes no sense.
Exactly. I hope next year they just make a fixed 1000R version for much less money.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
Exactly. I hope next year they just make a fixed 1000R version for much less money.

I just want them to give us a decent bump in refresh rate. For the past few years the only reason why anyone would even buy the newer OLED model is to get a smaller size. People upgraded to the CX to get the 48 inch and then upgraded to the C2 again to go down to 42. If the C3 comes out and doesn't offer a smaller size or higher refresh rate over the C2 then there's pretty much zero reason to get it over a heavily discounted C2. Surely LG knows this and if they won't/can't release a smaller size then the only way to get people to upgrade to the latest model is to bump up the refresh rate or else people will just settle for last years at a lower price. I don't think they'll be getting many people to upgrade with just a new alpha processor or w/e.
 

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,087
I hope they increase refresh rate too but I don't think it will be a huge bump. Possibly 144hz with PC like the QN90B. Panel refresh rate is driven from the top down so if they don't see the demand for it from the 55+ sizes that the 42 shared hardware with, no reason to implement it.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,802
I hope they increase refresh rate too but I don't think it will be a huge bump. Possibly 144hz with PC like the QN90B. Panel refresh rate is driven from the top down so if they don't see the demand for it from the 55+ sizes that the 42 shared hardware with, no reason to implement it.
Refresh rate could be a marketing point improvement that might be easier to achieve than e.g higher brightness. I'm hoping for a bump to 144 Hz at least but even higher would be appreciated.

It's funny how we have gone from "120 Hz is good enough" to "You know what, I could use some more!" in only a month. I'm planning to buy a 4090 if I can find one for a "sensible" price, as in for around 2000 euros rather than 2300e.

For me 42" size with a fixed curve at a not too much higher price than the C2 on release would be great.

Meanwhile I'd love to see Samsung do something better with the ARK concept as an alternative. Shrink it down to 40-43", make it lighter, add picture by picture support.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,302
Refresh rate could be a marketing point improvement that might be easier to achieve than e.g higher brightness. I'm hoping for a bump to 144 Hz at least but even higher would be appreciated.

It's funny how we have gone from "120 Hz is good enough" to "You know what, I could use some more!" in only a month. I'm planning to buy a 4090 if I can find one for a "sensible" price, as in for around 2000 euros rather than 2300e.

For me 42" size with a fixed curve at a not too much higher price than the C2 on release would be great.

Meanwhile I'd love to see Samsung do something better with the ARK concept as an alternative. Shrink it down to 40-43", make it lighter, add picture by picture support.

120Hz was good enough during the C9 era where the fastest GPU and CPU was the 2080 Ti and 9900k. We've now gone 4 generations (C9, CX, C1, C2) without a single increase in refresh rate so I think it's about time we start upping it especially given how capable the latest PC hardware is at 4k. I would happily take a 42C3 at 144Hz to start.
 

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,087
I flip flop between my G8 and C2. 120hz definitely isn't enough. At a 117hz frame cap my 4090 is drawing 180w in some games like Uncharted, Scorn, etc. If I still had a 3090 then yeah, I would consider 120hz a healthy refresh rate but the 4090 bumped up my frame rate by 50-60FPS per game. On the other end though a 4090 allows you to push resolution scale or use DLDSR indiscriminately with a 120hz display and it still is great for super heavy RT + DLSS3 like Cyberpunk 2077.

Here is an example of what's to come in UE5 where 120hz is okay but higher always = more flexibility:

 

sphinx99

Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
981
Top