Current TV models suitable for retro gaming

[RocketKnight]

My Sony KDL-55W905A quit its service and unfortunately cannot be repaired.

I already searched the Internet for some useful reviews of current TV models containing information about input lag and 240p/480i scaling qualities, but I couldn't find anything.

Does anyone here know a good site that fits my needs? Or maybe can recommend certain TV models because of personal experience?

I would be very grateful for any kind of help.

[Dochartaigh]

My Sony KDL-55W905A quit its service and unfortunately cannot be repaired.

I already searched the Internet for some useful reviews of current TV models containing information about input lag and 240p/480i scaling qualities, but I couldn't find anything.

Does anyone here know a good site that fits my needs? Or maybe can recommend certain TV models because of personal experience?

I would be very grateful for any kind of help.

Wait... I started writing a long reply all about the best CRT TV to get since you specifically mentioned 240p/480i scaling... but then I googled your Sony KDL-55W905A TV model and it's a LED??!?!??!

In a nutshell, no LED/LCD/QLED/OLED/etc. modern TV has good scaling built-in, especially for 240p. You need a dedicated upscaler like the OSSC or Framemeister to upscale the lower resolution signal form older video game consoles to a modern 1080p/4K TV. 480i could be handled decently (all things considered) by your modern TV, but it's still going to look pretty bad no matter what (including even through the best scalers it still looks subpar to my eyes). This is most likely why you didn't see any modern TV reviews talk about 240p/480i (which I'm kinda surprised you didn't come across any articles on upscalers as those are generally thought of as the solution for retro gaming on a modern TV).

Anyway, there's a couple topics on this on the forum. Many like TCL's offerings, or if you want to spend the big bucks an OLED (which are dropping in price thankfully).

[Guspaz]

Yeah, don't bother with 240p scaling on the TV. Get a RetroTINK or OSSC and pick a TV that will scale 480p content well. Bonus points for a good deinterlacer on the TV for when you'd rather accept a few frames of extra lag for better de-interlacing than the bob you'll get from retro scalers.

[kilauea]

Just done this. My 25" Trinitron died on me. I have a 14" set and a N.O.S 15" CRT stashed away, but needed a bigger screen for my game room. I ended up biting the bullet and getting a LCD screen rather than dropping good money on another old tv that could go kaput. On advice on this site I got a Viewsonic 3211-mh and using it with a retrotink2x scart, with PS1/PS2, Saturn and Dreamcast sources. Plus a Pi4 lakka.

To be honest, I think it's good enough. I'm still enjoying the games, some look better than others. I have an OSSC in the post, so will have a tinker with that. I look forward to doing 480p bypass for PS2/DC games that support it. The OSSC Pro may give more gains down the line when it arrives. But in the now, I am not disappointed with the image quality and the convenience is a boon. I hooked up some logitech PC speakers with a sub, for that boomy arcade sound (the built in speakers are gash as you would expect).

The bob de-interlace looks fine on this screen for me and I've had no pixel persistence issues (brightness is down in a pretty dark room). I have a Samsung 65" 4k and 43" 1080p plus a Sony 32" 720p screen - all VA panels I think. Also an LG 27" 4k IPS monitor. The 27" IPS does suffer from persistence quickly and overall the upscale from 480p is blurry, especially so for 480i content with more flicker too. The older Sony set actually looks pretty good via component for 480i, but there is some lag. The Samsungs don't handle it too well, either themselves or via the Retrotink. I think a smaller screen helps the Viewsonic also and I'm sat about 4 feet from it. The image is about 1.5" taller than on the 25" 4:3 CRT.

It's subjective. I loved the CRT. But I'm not mourning it and still enjoying the games. In fact I've played more as I want to see what a lot of old favourites look like on the new screen. And it works nicely with Lakka and I can dig the x360 out too (HDMI switch needed as it only has one port).

I'm happy. YMMV.

[Taiyaki]

In my opinion if you don't want to go crt and need an lcd for whatever reason, the best compromise is to get a 4:3 LCD monitor. Playing on 1080p/4k tv's isn't ideal in any way for classic games.

[bobrocks95]

In my opinion if you don't want to go crt and need an lcd for whatever reason, the best compromise is to get a 4:3 LCD monitor. Playing on 1080p/4k tv's isn't ideal in any way for classic games.

4:3 LCDs are old, laggy, slow, and generally are going to look bad. Have you not used an OSSC on a modern display to see the results?

[kamiboy]

Do new low/mid range TV’s even still come with analog inputs? High end flagships such as LG OLEDs and derivatives certainly haven’t for a long time.

As such without an upscaler newer TV’s can’t even be connected to older systems. So currently I’d say an OLED paired with a good hassle free upscaler is the best modern combo.

But I cannot vouch for it since I use CRTs and leave my OLED for modern systems Exclusively.

[Taiyaki]

In my opinion if you don't want to go crt and need an lcd for whatever reason, the best compromise is to get a 4:3 LCD monitor. Playing on 1080p/4k tv's isn't ideal in any way for classic games.

4:3 LCDs are old, laggy, slow, and generally are going to look bad. Have you not used an OSSC on a modern display to see the results?

Not all of them, you're thinking of the Samsung and Dell ones which were sort of budget monitors with lower contrast and colors. Any of the high end 4:3 LCD's such as the Eizo and NEC ones are as good as any great 1080p LCD's out there (great contrast/colors and even response times are good). I personally stick to CRT's for classic consoles but I can't imagine anyone being disappointed running consoles on those monitors.

[TooBeaucoup]

Do new low/mid range TV’s even still come with analog inputs? High end flagships such as LG OLEDs and derivatives certainly haven’t for a long time.

As such without an upscaler newer TV’s can’t even be connected to older systems. So currently I’d say an OLED paired with a good hassle free upscaler is the best modern combo.

But I cannot vouch for it since I use CRTs and leave my OLED for modern systems Exclusively.

The best you will likely get on the newest of TVs, even cheap ones, is a single component/composite shared input and that's if you're lucky. My high end 4k LG came with an adapter that takes yellow, red and white and plugs them into the TV for just composite, basically, a 3.5mm jack. Just stupid. I use an OSSC and Framemeister so it doesn't matter but when you're paying $2,000 for a TV, you think they could give you at least a single component input.

[Kez]

In my opinion if you don't want to go crt and need an lcd for whatever reason, the best compromise is to get a 4:3 LCD monitor. Playing on 1080p/4k tv's isn't ideal in any way for classic games.

4:3 LCDs are old, laggy, slow, and generally are going to look bad. Have you not used an OSSC on a modern display to see the results?

Not all of them, you're thinking of the Samsung and Dell ones which were sort of budget monitors with lower contrast and colors. Any of the high end 4:3 LCD's such as the Eizo and NEC ones are as good as any great 1080p LCD's out there (great contrast/colors and even response times are good). I personally stick to CRT's for classic consoles but I can't imagine anyone being disappointed running consoles on those monitors.

They may have been good for the time but flat panel TVs and monitors have continued to evolve since then (unlike CRT). Unless you absolutely cannot stand black bars, there is barely any reason at all to look for old flat panel monitors.

[XtraSmiley]

I vote for an LG B or C 9 OLED with OSSC. It's almost 2 years old, but better for modern gaming than the replacement B/C X and with those silky smooth blacks, looks great for retro.

Also, since it's old, I've seen the 55" and 65" being blown out right now. I'm grabbing a 65" for $1500 next week.

[Guspaz]

I don't think any 4:3 LCD is going to have pixel response times or input lag anywhere near as good as modern gaming display or one of the better modern TVs (like the LG OLEDs). I can't see any advantage at all to a 4:3 LCD. The pillaboxing is irrelevant: only the actual size of the image matters.

[RocketKnight]

Thanks for your replies.

Well, I actually own a 20" BVM. But I don't play that much anymore and for my taste its scanlines are too dark, anyway. I think I will try to sell it in the near future. I also thought about buying an OSSC for quite a long time. But playing something every now and then doesn't justify that purchase. The Sony W's comparatively fair upscaling capabilities did the job for me.

So it would be nice if there was an affordable TV set (up to 800 €) with 240/288p compatibility and at least similar input lag and scaling quality.

[XtraSmiley]

Thanks for your replies.

Well, I actually own a 20" BVM. But I don't play that much anymore and for my taste its scanlines are too dark, anyway. I think I will try to sell it in the near future. I also thought about buying an OSSC for quite a long time. But playing something every now and then doesn't justify that purchase. The Sony W's comparatively fair upscaling capabilities did the job for me.

So it would be nice if there was an affordable TV set (up to 800 €) with 240/288p compatibility and at least similar input lag and scaling quality.

I'm not sure what it costs now, but the 48" LG CX OLED will probably be under 800 € in the next 6 months. Also, in that same time frame, the new OSSC Pro should be ready to come out.

[Taiyaki]

They may have been good for the time but flat panel TVs and monitors have continued to evolve since then (unlike CRT). Unless you absolutely cannot stand black bars, there is barely any reason at all to look for old flat panel monitors.

You'd think so, but when it comes to computer monitors (unlike tv's sets that now run 4K, HDR etc), I have found that age does not matter much. I use two PC setups both with a 4:3 as a secondary monitor (Eizo/NEC) for work and for occasional pc gaming, and eventhough I just replaced my primary 16:9 on my newer PC with a newer monitor, both colors and contrast are still slightly better on the 4:3 secondary (older) Eizo (from around 2013). I used to use the Samsung and Dell 4:3 monitors back in the day, and while they did well, those sure did age, looking at the Dell one now, colors are somewhat dull, and contrast levels look dated, it's like night and day.

The 1600x1200 NEC and Eizo cost far more than your standard monitor however, at 21 inches the Eizo retails for around $1000, they can be acquired used for less however, but it's a gamer's paradise for anything that requires scaling and 4:3 content. I never tried consoles on it since I favor using a crt for them, but if anyone asks what LCD to go to I would whole heatedly recommend the Eizo S2133 or the NEC P212.

[Guspaz]

Old or new, how good the colour on an LCD display is simply a matter of the technology and target market. A new TN panel will have worse colour than an old IPS panel. An old IPS panel with a CFL backlight might have better colour than a non-quantum-dot modern IPS panel. You can't just say "old 4:3 monitors have better colour" because you can certainly find a modern display that matches or surpasses them.

The problem is pixel response times. Eizu still makes some 4:3 displays, like their S2133, which has a 6ms g2g response time. The input lag probably isn't amazing, it's not a gaming display. But be it new or old, 4:3 monitors don't have any advantages over good current displays, and older ones won't have good response times. The Eizo L997 from 2005 has a 30ms pixel response time, for example, though that's a particularly extreme case even for that time period. It can't properly display 60Hz signals.

The point is that you can get modern 16:9 displays in large sizes with low response times, low input lag, and good colour. There's no reason to seek out a 4:3 LCD.

[thebigcheese]

I will also suggest an LG OLED, though that probably only makes sense price-wise if you'll be using it for other things, too. I have a C9 and it is a truly exceptional TV with unbeatable pixel response times, though sometimes I wish the response time was a little slower because now I want more than 60 FPS when I game...

For a smaller, dedicated display, a monitor is probably your best bet. Regardless of what you go with, you'll want to pair it with an upscaler. The RetroTink is relatively cheap, especially when the new one comes out (if you don't ever think you'll bother with component) and very easy to use. An OSSC will look better, but at this point I'd wait for the Pro if you're considering one.

[ldeveraux]

Is the C9 a class of TV or a model number offered one year? I assumed they still make them. Recommendations for a ~50" C9?

[XtraSmiley]

Is the C9 a class of TV or a model number offered one year? I assumed they still make them. Recommendations for a ~50" C9?

LG does their models by letter, B, C, E, etc. The lower the letter the more features, but panel is the same. B is least expensive.

The number is the year it was made, 2018, 8; 2019, 9; 2020, X; etc.

The 9 and X are functionally the same, with the X having a more modern picture processing chip. They no longer produce the prior years panel when the new one arrives.

Discount and clearance is the best way to find a 9. I just ordered one for $1k OFF the retail price. Last one though!

At this point, I would wait until the 2021 model comes out and get a X super cheap or see if the features of the 2021 entice you over the older model.

Also, Vizio has announced their OLED panels for release at the end of the year, might be a look to save some money, as the panels are from LG (all OLED panels are).

[Taiyaki]

Old or new, how good the colour on an LCD display is simply a matter of the technology and target market. A new TN panel will have worse colour than an old IPS panel. An old IPS panel with a CFL backlight might have better colour than a non-quantum-dot modern IPS panel. You can't just say "old 4:3 monitors have better colour" because you can certainly find a modern display that matches or surpasses them.

The problem is pixel response times. Eizu still makes some 4:3 displays, like their S2133, which has a 6ms g2g response time. The input lag probably isn't amazing, it's not a gaming display. But be it new or old, 4:3 monitors don't have any advantages over good current displays, and older ones won't have good response times. The Eizo L997 from 2005 has a 30ms pixel response time, for example, though that's a particularly extreme case even for that time period. It can't properly display 60Hz signals.

The point is that you can get modern 16:9 displays in large sizes with low response times, low input lag, and good colour. There's no reason to seek out a 4:3 LCD.

I agree on that principle, but in practice manufactures cheapen out with computer monitors. I see newer Dell monitors with worse corner flashlighting than their models form a few years ago, and I only look at the higher end range. In terms of colors what I mean isn't that the new monitor's colors aren't gorgeous, but they're not as accurate and I can't get the purple hue to be as accurate as on the Eizo. You get what you pay for I guess. The Eizo retails for twice the price of my other newer monitor, and even contrast levels are stronger on the older monitor despite what the specs said on paper.

There is still very much room for a higher end 4:3 monitors for pre widescreen era games, you can get the best of all worlds on it, full size with no stretching, great scaling options, and of course good picture in terms of brightness, contrast, colors, (6ms is decent as well). Alternatively you could get a high end 16:10 monitor that has a vertical resolution of 1200 and also scale things nicely, although then you do end up with black bars, and if the contrast isn't amazing it might be distracting. Of course as I said above I'd still favor a consumer grade crt for consoles though, no question about it.

[Fudoh]

the X's poor HDMI 2.1 features

don't reiterate any nonsense you pick up.

[Taiyaki]

Old or new, how good the colour on an LCD display is simply a matter of the technology and target market. A new TN panel will have worse colour than an old IPS panel. An old IPS panel with a CFL backlight might have better colour than a non-quantum-dot modern IPS panel. You can't just say "old 4:3 monitors have better colour" because you can certainly find a modern display that matches or surpasses them.

The problem is pixel response times. Eizu still makes some 4:3 displays, like their S2133, which has a 6ms g2g response time. The input lag probably isn't amazing, it's not a gaming display. But be it new or old, 4:3 monitors don't have any advantages over good current displays, and older ones won't have good response times. The Eizo L997 from 2005 has a 30ms pixel response time, for example, though that's a particularly extreme case even for that time period. It can't properly display 60Hz signals.

The point is that you can get modern 16:9 displays in large sizes with low response times, low input lag, and good colour. There's no reason to seek out a 4:3 LCD.

I agree on that principle, but in practice manufactures cheapen out with computer monitors. I see newer Dell monitors with worse corner flashlighting than their models form a few years ago, and I only look at the higher end range. In terms of colors what I mean isn't that the new monitor's colors aren't gorgeous, but they're not as accurate and I can't get the purple hue to be as accurate as on the Eizo. You get what you pay for I guess. The Eizo retails for twice the price of my other newer monitor, and even contrast levels are stronger on the older monitor despite what the specs said on paper.

There is still very much room for a higher end 4:3 monitors for pre widescreen era games, you can get the best of all worlds on it, full size with no stretching, great scaling options, and of course good picture in terms of brightness, contrast, colors, (6ms is decent as well). Alternatively you could get a high end 16:10 monitor that has a vertical resolution of 1200 and also scale things nicely, although then you do end up with black bars, and if the contrast isn't amazing it might be distracting. Of course as I said above I'd still favor a consumer grade crt for consoles though, no question about it.

Considering OP is asking about TVs, I'm not sure why you seem to be ruling them out entirely.

The two monitors you mentioned have a listed contrast ratio of 1500:1 which doesn't come close to the performance of modern LCD TVs, even budget models, or the perfect black levels of OLED. No BFI on your 4:3 LCDs to improve motion blur due to sample-and-hold, inferior pixel response times and they're of no use with HD/UHD content.

I really see no reason why you'd recommend them in 2020.

I think new TV's using LCD's are just insanely good on the tv market, they push the technology further than I ever thought would be possible, and probably why OLED isn't fully dominating the market yet. I just personally haven't had good experience running classic consoles on modern tv's (just my opinion), so I put out monitors as an option that I would personally recommend in this case scenario (although again my top choice is still to go to consumer crt's). If the display is to be used for other things than just running old consoles then for sure go with a great TV like the Sony X900F or even the A8 OLED if price isn't an issue.

I don't see how the year 2020 matters in this since we're talking about what is suitable to run consoles from the 80's and 90's. If older tech is suitable for this application, it's worth mentioning as well. Modern LCD's have far better contrast but they also employ local dimming, which depending on the tv's local dimming zones doesn't always handle black bars too well in the dark. Lastly when dealing with a 4:3 monitor less contrast is far less noticeable in my experience than with black bars on a 16:9/16:10 screen, again just my opinion.

[XtraSmiley]

the X's poor HDMI 2.1 features

don't reiterate any nonsense you pick up.

Can you elaborate? I don't own an X, but the reviews I've seen indicate the 9 is a more feature rich version of HDMI 2.1 and on the X LG took a step back, removing some features.

I'm not locked into that belief, so I would love to hear your thoughts, even though I have already ordered a 9 due to price and wouldn't get the X (strictly due to price) anyway.

[Fudoh]

shouldn't you elaborate, if you make such a claim?

In short: the CX adds 4K120Hz support over the C9, while cutting down the HDMI 2.1 bandwith from 48 to 40gbps, which is a total non-issue, since it's simply not relevant to any available or upcoming sources.

[RocketKnight]

Again, thanks for the replies.

The TV will not be used primarily for gaming, but playing games still should be possible in quite a fair manner. Also, because of my living room configuration I would not like to take a significantly smaller screen than the Sony's 55 inch.

An OLED TV would be nice, but they still are at least 1,100 € which exceeds my budget. Since wide viewing angles are important to me, I suppose it would be the best to stick with an IPS again.

I discovered this website: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag. Some of the LG IPS models seem quite interesting to me, but I'm unsure because of allegedly heavy PWM backlight flickering. Does anyone here know these displays well enough to be able to estimate that?

[Magicalbottle]

shouldn't you elaborate, if you make such a claim?

In short: the CX adds 4K120Hz support over the C9, while cutting down the HDMI 2.1 bandwith from 48 to 40gbps, which is a total non-issue, since it's simply not relevant to any available or upcoming sources.

Hi Fudoh, as an expert on the subject, which LG series 65inch OLED would you recommend I get for current and next gen gaming?

[Taiyaki]

Again, thanks for the replies.

The TV will not be used primarily for gaming, but playing games still should be possible in quite a fair manner. Also, because of my living room configuration I would not like to take a significantly smaller screen than the Sony's 55 inch.

An OLED TV would be nice, but they still are at least 1,100 € which exceeds my budget. Since wide viewing angles are important to me, I suppose it would be the best to stick with an IPS again.

I discovered this website (https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag) which does not list any new Samsung IPS TVs at all. Aren't there any? Some of the LG IPS models seem quite interesting to me, but I'm unsure because of allegedly heavy PWM backlight flickering. Does anyone here know these displays well enough to be able to estimate that?

If 55 inch is a must, and you don't want overly expensive, then my recommendation goes to the Sony XBR-55X900F. That lineup has some of the best SDR picture quality I've seen from a non OLED. The HDR is impressive as well if you ever decide to watch some films or run newer consoles on it.

[XtraSmiley]

shouldn't you elaborate, if you make such a claim?

In short: the CX adds 4K120Hz support over the C9, while cutting down the HDMI 2.1 bandwith from 48 to 40gbps, which is a total non-issue, since it's simply not relevant to any available or upcoming sources.

I'm just asking a question, not doubting you, but I will elaborate since you asked. According to LG the 2019 9 series provides full 48Gbps on the 4 HDMI 2.1 ports (at 4K120Hz) while the 2020 X series dropped these down to 40Gbps.

"The 48Gbps rate is required to handle uncompressed 12-bit 4K at 120Hz with RGB 4:4:4 chroma sampling.
While all the HDMIs on its premium 2019 TVs were indeed full 48Gbps examples, all four HDMIs on the WX, GX and CX OLED TVs will instead handle 10-bit (rather than 12-bit) 4K at 120Hz with RGB 4:4:4 chroma sampling. This implies a likely 40Gbps data rate."

Now whether this is a total non-issue is not my point, I think it is a non-issue since the screen itself is 10 bit, but:

My point was that for about 30-50% off, it is a much better financial decision to purchase a new LG 9 series versus an X series. Not only will you save money, but the X series has CUT some features from their HDMI 2.1 ports. These features may be pointless anyway, but they are cut none-the less.

Instead of "poor HDMI" I should have just left it at, they cut features from 2019, so I deleted that line.

[Fudoh]

Price is a fair point of course. The C9 is a great television. The new features on the CX aren't bad either though: 120Hz for 4K (nice if you have a beefy PC) and better black frame insertion (variable darkening intervalls) might be reasons for some people to get the CX instead. A reduced input bandwith of 40 vs 48gbps shouldn't influence anyone's decision though.

[bobrocks95]

Price is a fair point of course. The C9 is a great television. The new features on the CX aren't bad either though: 120Hz for 4K (nice if you have a beefy PC) and better black frame insertion (variable darkening intervalls) might be reasons for some people to get the CX instead. A reduced input bandwith of 40 vs 48gbps shouldn't influence anyone's decision though.

Since when is the 9 series not capable of 4K 120Hz? The bandwidth is of course there.