The 32 inch 4k IPS 144hz's...(Update - this party is started) (wait for it...)

I liked my PG32UQX more than my PG27UQ. Side by side the 32 was clearly better.
 
kramnelis said:
OLED doesn't even has that many chances jumping to the actual HDR. It will stay in SDR range for a long time.
Click to expand...
OLED does HDR fine thanks to its infinite contrast. Also don't pretend that 400+ nits aren't enough for HDR.
 
dgrdsv said:
OLED does HDR fine thanks to its infinite contrast. Also don't pretend that 400+ nits aren't enough for HDR.
Click to expand...
OLED only does SDR fine. A 400nits sun is a ping-pong ball. It's not much of a sun compared to 2000 nits
It is a paradox. It can hardly get any brighter. Once it gets a little brighter it flickers even harder.
And SDR can have infinite contrast too. Just like the image below.
Low APL inifinite contrast.png

Low_APL_infinite_Contrast_4 (1).png


What is more interesting is the image has actually "colorful" RGB with 20 shades against 0nit on the edge to have infinite contrast.

This is why OLED is in SDR tier. It won't show that much color. It only shows SDR.

It cannot show 2000nits 10bit or 12bit color.
HDR + WCG Image Viewer 1_20_2023 2_34_58 AM.png
 
kramnelis said:
Marketing materials. Only 10% highlights. They are not even monitors.

Better qualify VESA Display HDR 600 first.

It looks like another 5 years to wait on a possible 32" true HDR.
Click to expand...
Why do you hate oled so much? I see you crusading for months in every imaginable thread about them. Just curious.
 
jt39 said:
Maybe he just isn't susceptible to marketing, hype and hope.
Click to expand...
Or maybe he is, cause I don't know many people who thought that "OLED can't do HDR" when actually seeing how they can themselves. That quote is pure marketing.
 
jt39 said:
Maybe he just isn't susceptible to marketing, hype and hope.
Click to expand...
Seems he instead puts all eggs in one basket and considers displays on a single metric, HDR. On that the PG32UQX he favors will win, even if you sacrifice motion performance, input options etc compared to other mini-LED or OLED displays. That's one approach but not one that works for me.

The PG32UQX is still 3499 euros here in Finland. That buys you almost four LG C2 42" OLED tvs at their current price, or 2-3 Samsung Neo G7/G8 models depending on pricing. While all of those have different compromises, most people would buy just one and save big time. In a few years they could upgrade to whatever is the hot new thing and still have spent less than a single UQX. Or they could buy the best performing QD-OLED TV on the market, use that for any HDR needs and use something else on the desktop, still coming ahead.

Unfortunately the 32" 4K high refresh rate HDR display market is still pretty crap. We can buy a number of well performing 4K 144 Hz IPS displays like the Gigabyte M32U etc for fair prices but those are just plain bad for HDR. If you want that, but with good HDR the number of options goes down to next to nothing. The overpriced PG32UQX or the problematic, weirdly curved Samsung Neo G7/G8, maybe one of those 576-zone IPS panels that are coming which again will be overpriced for what they are on release. Or you just get a mini-LED or OLED TV for HDR.

I'm on a 399 euro 28" 4K 144 Hz IPS Samsung G70A due to lack of good options and considering moving to the 57" Samsung superultrawide because it would meet a lot of my needs (enough resolution and desktop space for work, ultrawide 4K gaming, probably does alright in HDR), even though I fear it will have a pile of issues of its own and is likely to cost at least 2500-3000e.
 
kasakka said:
Seems he instead puts all eggs in one basket and considers displays on a single metric, HDR. On that the PG32UQX he favors will win, even if you sacrifice motion performance, input options etc compared to other mini-LED or OLED displays. That's one approach but not one that works for me.

The PG32UQX is still 3499 euros here in Finland. That buys you almost four LG C2 42" OLED tvs at their current price, or 2-3 Samsung Neo G7/G8 models depending on pricing. While all of those have different compromises, most people would buy just one and save big time. In a few years they could upgrade to whatever is the hot new thing and still have spent less than a single UQX. Or they could buy the best performing QD-OLED TV on the market, use that for any HDR needs and use something else on the desktop, still coming ahead.

Unfortunately the 32" 4K high refresh rate HDR display market is still pretty crap. We can buy a number of well performing 4K 144 Hz IPS displays like the Gigabyte M32U etc for fair prices but those are just plain bad for HDR. If you want that, but with good HDR the number of options goes down to next to nothing. The overpriced PG32UQX or the problematic, weirdly curved Samsung Neo G7/G8, maybe one of those 576-zone IPS panels that are coming which again will be overpriced for what they are on release. Or you just get a mini-LED or OLED TV for HDR.

I'm on a 399 euro 28" 4K 144 Hz IPS Samsung G70A due to lack of good options and considering moving to the 57" Samsung superultrawide because it would meet a lot of my needs (enough resolution and desktop space for work, ultrawide 4K gaming, probably does alright in HDR), even though I fear it will have a pile of issues of its own and is likely to cost at least 2500-3000e.
Click to expand...
Because whatever the current top-tier OLED monitor looks like crap compared the HDR monitors from 4 years ago.

OLED doesn't show HDR, it can show a little. What you can see is in fact SDR at 400nits. What you can see on OLED is very limited.

Talking about price all you want, the peak engineering has the highest price, you can always try but nobody else can make it.

You circlejerk all you want but when putting whatever OLED you got next to a real HDR monitor, it will be destroyed.

It look like this every single time. You will wait for more than a decade for the OLED to do 800nits fullfield with 0 flickers plus enough color.

PG35VQ vs AW3423DW
52143870853_b8e77d4373_o_d.png
 
kasakka said:
Seems he instead puts all eggs in one basket and considers displays on a single metric, HDR. On that the PG32UQX he favors will win, even if you sacrifice motion performance, input options etc compared to other mini-LED or OLED displays. That's one approach but not one that works for me.

The PG32UQX is still 3499 euros here in Finland. That buys you almost four LG C2 42" OLED tvs at their current price, or 2-3 Samsung Neo G7/G8 models depending on pricing. While all of those have different compromises, most people would buy just one and save big time. In a few years they could upgrade to whatever is the hot new thing and still have spent less than a single UQX. Or they could buy the best performing QD-OLED TV on the market, use that for any HDR needs and use something else on the desktop, still coming ahead.

Unfortunately the 32" 4K high refresh rate HDR display market is still pretty crap. We can buy a number of well performing 4K 144 Hz IPS displays like the Gigabyte M32U etc for fair prices but those are just plain bad for HDR. If you want that, but with good HDR the number of options goes down to next to nothing. The overpriced PG32UQX or the problematic, weirdly curved Samsung Neo G7/G8, maybe one of those 576-zone IPS panels that are coming which again will be overpriced for what they are on release. Or you just get a mini-LED or OLED TV for HDR.

I'm on a 399 euro 28" 4K 144 Hz IPS Samsung G70A due to lack of good options and considering moving to the 57" Samsung superultrawide because it would meet a lot of my needs (enough resolution and desktop space for work, ultrawide 4K gaming, probably does alright in HDR), even though I fear it will have a pile of issues of its own and is likely to cost at least 2500-3000e.
Click to expand...

That INNOCN monitor really has the potential to change all that. Here's a review of the 27 inch version in Japanese: https://chimolog.co/bto-gaming-monitor-innocn-27m2v/

TDLR: It strikes a good balance between speed with it's fast IPS panel, HDR performance with 1152 dimming zones, and price that looks like it will land under $999. Some caveats is that it uses a 38KHz PWM,VRR only works up to 144Hz instead of the full 160Hz, and brightness is locked in HDR mode. Otherwise if the 32 inch performs similarly and is also aggressively priced then we FINALLY have a 32 inch monitor that can deliver a good balance at an affordable price.
 
MistaSparkul said:
That INNOCN monitor really has the potential to change all that. Here's a review of the 27 inch version in Japanese: https://chimolog.co/bto-gaming-monitor-innocn-27m2v/

TDLR: It strikes a good balance between speed with it's fast IPS panel, HDR performance with 1152 dimming zones, and price that looks like it will land under $999. Some caveats is that it uses a 38KHz PWM,VRR only works up to 144Hz instead of the full 160Hz, and brightness is locked in HDR mode. Otherwise if the 32 inch performs similarly and is also aggressively priced then we FINALLY have a 32 inch monitor that can deliver a good balance at an affordable price.
Click to expand...
That does sound good. Brightness being locked in HDR is not too bad as you want to use it at 100% anyway. With HDR now easy to toggle in Windows 11 with Win+Alt+B it's less of a chore to swap between the two modes.
 
Yeah I ordered it. $899 vs $1799 for an AOC PD32M or $2500 for a PG32UQX/XG321UG.

It will probably be rough around the edges but at the price who cares especially when $1399 gets you the X32 FP at half the zone count.
 
Speaking like this only reveals that you don't know how important backlight is.

You will have more issues dialing a bunch of cheap-made 3rd party LEDs and called it 1152-zone.
 
kramnelis said:
Speaking like this only reveals that you don't know how important backlight is.

You will have more issues dialing a bunch of cheap-made 3rd party LEDs and called it 1152-zone.
Click to expand...
Yeah thats why it's almost 1/4 the launch price of a PG32UQX. I know how important price is. Move along.
 
SoCali said:
Yeah thats why it's almost 1/4 the launch price of a PG32UQX. I know how important price is. Move along.
Click to expand...
You buy a monitor to see better images. What is the point of buying a cutdown version to see worse images for the sake of saturating the market.
A 4-wheel-drive Prius won't outperform a 2-wheel-drive Ferrari.
The X32FP with original 512-zone AUO backlight can outperform the cheap 1152-zone backlight of AOC PD32M.
How many chances this small factory made 3MV2 can get away with a open cell?
 
GoldenTiger said:
Why do you hate oled so much? I see you crusading for months in every imaginable thread about them. Just curious.
Click to expand...
There are too many shills have never seen better images while too many craps like these happening all the time. Every single OLED you get belongs to one of these under the hood.
What's more you can say? Asking this question only means every now and then It's necessary to remind you how limited OLED is.




dgrdsv said:
Or maybe he is, cause I don't know many people who thought that "OLED can't do HDR" when actually seeing how they can themselves. That quote is pure marketing.
Click to expand...
Remember I'm being moderate saying OLED can do SDR fine. OLED can only do fine in SDR sRGB 80nits.
OLED cannot even display 400nits Adobe SDR while its 200nits ABL HDR can get recked by the 400nits SDR.
Guys should've seen better images.

PG35VQ SDR 400 vs AW3423DW HDR
52158965466_b88f1065bf_o_d.png

52159156749_5198a10405_o_d.png
 
dgrdsv said:
HDR is not about how bright a screen can be, and it's not even about full screen brightness.
Click to expand...
HDR is about infinite contrast huh?
Adobe Premiere Pro 2022 - Y__Adobe Temp_Black & White.prproj _ 9_23_2022 7_49_45 PM.png

Low_APL_infinite_Contrast_4 (1).png


You don't have brightness, you don't even have color. That's why OLED get recked with a true HDR monitor side by side.
Speaking like this only reveals you've never seen better.
 
dgrdsv said:
What does the word "dynamic" in HDR tell you?
Click to expand...
You only know contrast that also applies to SDR.

Dynamic means both range of color and contrast.

OLED has the contrast but only 200nits APL. It doesn't have color. There is little color you can see when cramping 10bit color into 200nits. OLED can only show a pathetic iceberg of HDR. It never looks realistic. It looks like a paper. Or it looks "arty".

In the meanwhile, FALD IPS has tons more color lit by 2000nits backlight. It can look like a window. This is the HDR close to real life. Don't forget the current roof of HDR has color lit with 10,000nits .

OLED gets destroyed every single time when you put it next to a true HDR monitor.
52142854682_e08c494fdf_o_d.png
 
kramnelis said:
There are too many shills have never seen better images while too many craps like these happening all the time. Every single OLED you get belongs to one of these under the hood.
What's more you can say? Asking this question only means every now and then It's necessary to remind you how limited OLED is.
Click to expand...
You are the only one pushing this "OLED shills" narrative. The rest of us appreciate OLED for what it can do as an overall technology.
  • Motion clarity is superior to LCDs thanks to real sub-1ms pixel response times. Most mini-LED LCDs are unfortunately performing worse for this than edge lit LCDs that have gotten good enough.
  • Viewing angles are far better.
  • OLED TVs are some of the few options for 4K + high refresh rate + HDR at a size palatable for use as desktop display too.
  • Per pixel local dimming.
  • HDR is good enough. It can get reasonably bright to represent HDR games, movies and TV in an impactful way. If I launch a HDR game on my edge lit, <400 nit LCD I am always left wanting, but with my OLED TV I enjoy the picture quality it is capable of delivering.
OLED is a compromise that works well enough as an overall package when the alternatives are extremely pricy mini-LEDs, bad options for moderately priced mini-LEDs or terrible edge lit LCDs.

Yet I am looking at a mini-LED superultrawide display for my next desktop monitor because there are no OLED options that do it for me. LG C2/C3 is no better than my 2.5 years old LG CX 48", QD-OLED is not an option because it's too low res to combat its text fringing issues for desktop use.

The display industry moves at the same time really slowly in regards to real improvement but at the same time enough that any display you buy today at full retail price is most likely not going to sell well in 3-5 years when we finally get some relevant upgrade and you want to swap. You get better value for your money buying the "not too expensive", "good enough" solution now for 1/3 the cost of the "top tier but flawed" solution and upgrading every few years for the next iterative improvement.

I'd honestly love to buy a PG32UQX if ASUS were to release an improved version with motion performance similar to my cheap Samsung G70A, with HDMI 2.1 support and retaining the UQX HDR performance. But that has not happened and the cost of that display has not come down much in the past ~2 years it's been on the market. I would not buy my G70A at its full ~750 euro price, but at 399 euros it was a good buy for a 4K 144 Hz IPS SDR gaming/work display. If the PG32UQX was a good chunk cheaper, it would also be a "it has compromises but at this price, fine" purchase.

We are in this "can't I just have this cheap 4K 27-32" LCD's pixel response/refresh rate/input options, but with HDR" limbo where you have to pick great performance in one category and need to heavily compromise in the other. Which just leads me back to a 4K OLED TV as a compromise of motion performance, good enough HDR and a reasonable price.

You are welcome to disagree and pick something else based on what you consider more important, but just stop this "OLED shill" stuff. You don't see others calling you a "mini-LED shill" when you appear in almost every thread railing against OLEDs.
 
kasakka said:
any display you buy today at full retail price is most likely not going to sell well in 3-5 years when we finally get some relevant upgrade and you want to swap
Click to expand...
I like how you always bring price as an argument while not knowing how the market works. You only pay cheap for the low-tier monitors that won't look anywhere as good as the top-tier. A better looking monitor has a higher price.

FALD LCD has the color, brightness, moderate contrast, moderate response time while OLED has the contrast, response time, flickering, miserable brightness and miserable color. The overall dynamic range of FALD LCD is tons of higher than OLED. And you keep wondering why delivering HDR is so important because it's a better image. That's what a monitor should do in the first place.

Any actual top-tier monitor has the highest price. It will hold the value because nobody else can make it. You always pay the cheap compromised stuff of course it won't stand against time. And you won't see better images. All you can do is keep wondering why you are always in the need to swap every year, in the need for pure endless imagination. Even you pay enough for the top, it cannot cover everything. The best thing doesn't exist. That's why there are multi-monitors for different purposes.
 
kramnelis said:
Only the people who haven't known better images call it trolling. They are afraid to know better images.
Click to expand...
You Sir are just an OLED Hater, like a fanatic.
It’s almost scary how dictated you are in your Hate.
And it never stops with you, you just keep going on and on and on and on… like a booking record,

I think you are rotten black inside at this point, you are basically the pure definition of a hating troll on the net, a living cliché.
 
Last edited:
ssj3rd said:
You Sir are just an OLED Hater, like a fanatic.
It’s almost scary how dictated you are in your Hate.
And it never stops with you, you just keep going on and on and on and on… like a booking record,

I think you are rotten black inside at this point, you are basically the pure definition of a hating troll on the net.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely not an OLED fanboy. I don't choose OLED for reasons as it simply doesn't show better images.
Imagine tolerating pathetic ABL and flickering to see inferior images that's in SDR range.
There is little HDR an OLED can display. It get destroyed every time with real HDR images.
 
kramnelis said:
I like how you always bring price as an argument while not knowing how the market works. You only pay cheap for the low-tier monitors that won't look anywhere as good as the top-tier. A better looking monitor has a higher price.
Click to expand...

A display can be:
  • Priced high and provide a value for that extra cost. My LG CX 48" was a higher priced product at around 1400 euros when released. 2.5 years later it has proven to be good value for its cost.
  • Priced high and not provide a value that matches the price. I'm not keen to buy say a 5K or 6K Apple display when it means 60 Hz, single input, no HDR (or already dated 576-zone backlight), ridiculous stand options etc for extremely high 2000-6000 euro price tags.
  • Priced cheap (or on sale) and provide a value appropriate to that price. The G70A I mentioned falls into this category. At full 750 euro it's a bad purchase, at 399 euros a fair price, fully knowing the pitfalls it has.
  • Priced cheap and be bad for what you get. These are usually the displays that were really cheap to begin with and are just plain not worth buying.
I buy what I consider a good value for money, knowing that in a few years it will most likely be replaced by something better.

I was very much looking forward to the PG32UQX when it was announced as it ticks a lot of boxes on paper, but in reviews I did not find it worth the cost. You may disagree, but I think it should be better. If it was say 2000 euros? Then I would be more interested. But 3499 euros (or about 4000 at release)? I could buy a fantastic TV and a good monitor for that instead.
 
ssj3rd said:
Nope, you are an OLED Hater, is that really better?
Click to expand...
Funny you talk like a fanboy yourself while I provide the facts and comparisons.
OLED doesn't even have the full range of SDR images or I would've used it already.
Even it appears to have a slightly better range in the future I doubt I will use it as it is flickering even harder.

kasakka said:
  • Priced high and provide a value for that extra cost. My LG CX 48" was a higher priced product at around 1400 euros when released. 2.5 years later it has proven to be good value for its cost.
  • Priced high and not provide a value that matches the price. I'm not keen to buy say a 5K or 6K Apple display when it means 60 Hz, single input, no HDR (or already dated 576-zone backlight), ridiculous stand options etc for extremely high 2000-6000 euro price tags.
  • Priced cheap (or on sale) and provide a value appropriate to that price. The G70A I mentioned falls into this category. At full 750 euro it's a bad purchase, at 399 euros a fair price, fully knowing the pitfalls it has.
  • Priced cheap and be bad for what you get. These are usually the displays that were really cheap to begin with and are just plain not worth buying.
Click to expand...
No doubt all you can do is wait and wait for the similar something cost $2000 in 2018 to drop $1000 in 2023 while the thing cost $2000 in 2023 drops another $1000 in 2028. So you are always half a decade late to see better images. In the meanwhile, you feed all these imagination in your head with these "trusty" reviewers without actually seeing anything better. If you want to see better images, the price is always there.
 
Every time I see a bunch of new posts on this thread, I think it’s exciting 32” 4K high refresh IPS news. Gods know, we need them.

Instead it’s some stupid OLED argument. There are tradeoffs. We are nerds. We know! Nobody gives a shit.
 
People call themselves nerds but still don't know the cycle of panel roadmaps such as AUO lasts at least 3 years.

The top-tier AUO panel 32" IPS 1152-zone 144Hz HDR 1400 already happened 2 years ago. The new monitors with its variations you can buy this year are all cutdown versions to saturate the market. Is this exciting?

FALD IPS is meant for HDR with both range of color and contrast. You won't get anything better when buying a cutdown IPS for something else like response time.

You can always try other panels such as Samsung VA or LG IPS with more issues. You can always try OLED such as 32EP950 or PA32DC. See what kind of images HDR/SDR 400 can give you compared to HDR 1400.
 
SoCali said:
Yeah I ordered it. $899 vs $1799 for an AOC PD32M or $2500 for a PG32UQX/XG321UG.

It will probably be rough around the edges but at the price who cares especially when $1399 gets you the X32 FP at half the zone count.
Click to expand...
I really look forward to hearing how it works!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top