New 2024 OLEDs

[tacoguy64]

I know there's been a couple of OLED threads in the past, but I think we are finally to the point where things are starting to get a bit more interesting this year. Dell has already launched their new 32 inch 4k model, using the latest QD-OLED panel. That one is curved but there should be plenty of straight panels as well. Most of these 32 inch models will have many similarities between them with a few differences. The main things are 4k resolution, 240hz refresh rates, either QD-OLED or WOLED panel using MLA, and the 32 inch size which has been absent for the most part until now. I will link a video with an overview of all of these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJf6iBDIyOc

I'm think i'm leaning more towards Asus and their dual sync panel which can do the standard 4k/240hz and 1080p/480hz. Seeing as this is mainly a retro gaming forum, I would also be interested in how well they pair with upscalers like the tink 4k.

[fernan1234]

Sadly the dual mode monitor uses WOLED which, even with MLA, is still not worth considering when QD-OLED is a far better option.

It's also unfortunate that some of these monitors will have a matte finish which pretty much ruins them, but there should be enough glossy options.

Lastly, none of them seem to have any BFI options. Any of these that supported adjustable BFI down to at least ~60Hz would be an instant buy for me, but this may never happen as no one cares about persistence blur on non-high frame rate stuff.

[tongshadow]

Sadly the dual mode monitor uses WOLED which, even with MLA, is still not worth considering when QD-OLED is a far better option.

What makes QD-OLEDs so much better?

[spmbx]

Does BFI matter if the new retroscalers can add it?
(other than the situation where you don't want to buy or connect an extra device)

[bobrocks95]

Sadly the dual mode monitor uses WOLED which, even with MLA, is still not worth considering when QD-OLED is a far better option.

What makes QD-OLEDs so much better?

Better color volume/saturation at high brightnesses.

However, HDR remains kind of poorly supported for PC usage so I don't know how important that ends up being ultimately. I still only have a dozen or so HDR games in my large Steam library, and a number of them have broken HDR modes anyways. I guess if you're a SpecialK super-user you might have a fair bit more.

There are downsides as well- the subpixel structure doesn't work with cleartype at all and can cause colored lines on the edges of things which would probably drive me crazy for PC monitor usage. Rtings burn-in testing shows that QD-OLED seems to be much more prone to it as well, though to be fair non-LG WOLEDs also have problems.

[tongshadow]

Sadly the dual mode monitor uses WOLED which, even with MLA, is still not worth considering when QD-OLED is a far better option.

What makes QD-OLEDs so much better?

Better color volume/saturation at high brightnesses.

It's one advantage due to not having an RWBG layout, but is this difference significant enough? Was he talking about something that can only be noticed by professionals calibrators? Because in my experience, it's not a noticeable gap at all.
Whatever the choice, you cant go wrong with OLEDs now, so pick whatever is cheaper or has the specs you're looking for.
Really, shouldnt the 480hz WOLED be considered just because QD-OLED *MAY* have slightly better color saturation?

[Guspaz]

WOLED panels currently get brighter than QDOLED panels for white highlights (and in HDR images, white is often the primary colour that gets really bright anyway). QD-OLED panels get brighter for colours. In practice, if we compare an LG G3 to a Samsung S95C, this amounts to a difference in 1,000 nit Rec 2020 coverage of 88.8% versus 97.3%.

QD-OLED monitors also have two negatives compared to WOLED monitors: worse text rendering (when compared to the new RGWB subpixel structure used in upcoming WOLED monitors) and much higher black levels due to the lack of a polarizer. There's also more burn-in issues with QD-OLED monitors, and some people might argue this is due to differences in burn-in mitigation functionality in the firmware, but *why* the QD-OLED monitors are more prone to burn-in than WOLED is irrelevant.

I own (and am currently typing on) a QD-OLED monitor. If I had to buy a new monitor, I would buy a RGWB 31.5" 4K WOLED monitor (due in Q2 or Q3 2024). It's worth noting that the 34" ultrawide WOLED monitors due in Q3 are *not* using the new RGWB subpixel layout, they're still RWBG, so they will be worse for text/fringing. You can see this video for more about the roadmap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L_OtIQEXOk

It may also be worth noting that LG's considering (but has not yet committed to) producing panels without a white subpixel in late 2025. It seems like they feel that they'll have improved panel brightness enough by that point to be able to get away without it.

[BazookaBen]

I own (and am currently typing on) a QD-OLED monitor. If I had to buy a new monitor, I would buy a RGWB 31.5" 4K WOLED monitor (due in Q2 or Q3 2024).

That's interesting. Have you ever owned a WOLED TV/monitor?

Because I have a Gigabyte OLED (rebrand of the LG CX) and I noticed that some colors aren't quite as rich as my Diamondtron CRT. Like a pure, bright green on leaves on a sunny day looks a little desaturated on the OLED compared to my CRT.

Like, overall it gets way brighter and has better perceived contrast, but I noticed it isn't quite as life-like when dealing with certain bright colors. I imagine that's due to the "white-subpixel dillution" as Vincent from HDTV Test calls it.

[tongshadow]

WOLED panels currently get brighter than QDOLED panels for white highlights (and in HDR images, white is often the primary colour that gets really bright anyway). QD-OLED panels get brighter for colours. In practice, if we compare an LG G3 to a Samsung S95C, this amounts to a difference in 1,000 nit Rec 2020 coverage of 88.8% versus 97.3%.

QD-OLED monitors also have two negatives compared to WOLED monitors: worse text rendering (when compared to the new RGWB subpixel structure used in upcoming WOLED monitors) and much higher black levels due to the lack of a polarizer. There's also more burn-in issues with QD-OLED monitors, and some people might argue this is due to differences in burn-in mitigation functionality in the firmware, but *why* the QD-OLED monitors are more prone to burn-in than WOLED is irrelevant.

I own (and am currently typing on) a QD-OLED monitor. If I had to buy a new monitor, I would buy a RGWB 31.5" 4K WOLED monitor (due in Q2 or Q3 2024). It's worth noting that the 34" ultrawide WOLED monitors due in Q3 are *not* using the new RGWB subpixel layout, they're still RWBG, so they will be worse for text/fringing. You can see this video for more about the roadmap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L_OtIQEXOk

It may also be worth noting that LG's considering (but has not yet committed to) producing panels without a white subpixel in late 2025. It seems like they feel that they'll have improved panel brightness enough by that point to be able to get away without it.

You might want to give the 4k 240hz QD-OLED another chance, it has a new pixel arrangement and due higher PPI text will look much better than early gen models.

[Guspaz]

I own (and am currently typing on) a QD-OLED monitor. If I had to buy a new monitor, I would buy a RGWB 31.5" 4K WOLED monitor (due in Q2 or Q3 2024).

That's interesting. Have you ever owned a WOLED TV/monitor?

I have an LG C1 WOLED TV and a Dell AW3423DW QD-OLED monitor. I haven't particularly found the QD-OLED HDR experience to be notably better than the WOLED HDR experience, but I've not done a side-by-side comparison. The QD-OLED black levels, on the other hand, are significantly worse, due to how it turns gray as ambient light increases.

[tacoguy64]

Sadly the dual mode monitor uses WOLED which, even with MLA, is still not worth considering when QD-OLED is a far better option.

It's also unfortunate that some of these monitors will have a matte finish which pretty much ruins them, but there should be enough glossy options.

Lastly, none of them seem to have any BFI options. Any of these that supported adjustable BFI down to at least ~60Hz would be an instant buy for me, but this may never happen as no one cares about persistence blur on non-high frame rate stuff.

I wouldn't completely be down on the the matte coating since the QD-OLEDs glossy coating does take a big impact on black levels in any sort of ambient lighting. Even to the point of having worse blacks than some LCD monitors. Of course, if you have full control of the lighting in your room, its probably better to go with the glossy panel.

I am fairly certain hearing about a couple of models that will be including some sort of BFI capability. Not sure what the extent of that will be, but would be nice to see BFI in the 240hz to 480hz range for the monitors that have that capability.

I haven't seen QD-OLEDs in person, but yes they do have better colors than WOLEDs. Im currently rocking the LG CX 48 inch panel as my multi media/ PC monitor. Its great when I use it to play card games or any sort of game with static screens. Most other games just find it too large to play, at the distance im sitting, especially FPS. So i been looking forward to seeing these things go down in size. I am curious about seeing QD OLEDs so it will be a tough choice to see which one will be the one i'm getting. Right now, I am leaning towards Asus for its high refresh rate capability and MLA panel/ heat sink for even higher brightness.

[bobrocks95]

Is the new pixel arrangement for QD-OLED still a triangle or did they go radically different?

FWIW I haven't felt any bright, rich color in HDR or SDR on my LG B9 OLED ever looked washed out or dull. I have not seen a QD-OLED in person though. On the TV front losing Dolby Vision on the Samsung is another knock against it, though the burn-in risk is my biggest concern when I'll be dropping $2k on my next TV and want it to last a very long time.

[tacoguy64]

Is the new pixel arrangement for QD-OLED still a triangle or did they go radically different?

FWIW I haven't felt any bright, rich color in HDR or SDR on my LG B9 OLED ever looked washed out or dull. I have not seen a QD-OLED in person though. On the TV front losing Dolby Vision on the Samsung is another knock against it, though the burn-in risk is my biggest concern when I'll be dropping $2k on my next TV and want it to last a very long time.

I also share the same concern with burn in with OLED. Tho, so far my experience with the LG CX has been great when it comes to that. I have been a bit careless with my display for all this time but so far no burn in. And with the added heatsink on the Asus, I know it will be less of an issue with that one. With QD OLEDs, i know their first gen panels had a bigger chance of burn in, and they been improving on that end with their 2nd gen panel. So I imagine that these 3rd gen panels should be improving things further. Even then, it is highly recommended to get something like best buy insurance to give a little peace of mind.

Not sure about the pixel arrangement on the new QD OLEDs. I think i remember hearing that yes, but will have to dig to find out for sure.

HDR is kinda of a mess on PC at this time. Especially on windows which does not do a good job of calibrating for HDR. The few games i tried using it, i couldn't tell if i had set up correctly or not. This is one of the big features I would like to see implement more.

[Guspaz]

I wouldn't completely be down on the the matte coating since the QD-OLEDs glossy coating does take a big impact on black levels in any sort of ambient lighting. Even to the point of having worse blacks than some LCD monitors. Of course, if you have full control of the lighting in your room, its probably better to go with the glossy panel.

QD-OLED's black levels has nothing to do with the surface coating, it has to do with them lacking a polarization layer like LCDs and WOLEDs have.

I haven't seen QD-OLEDs in person, but yes they do have better colors than WOLEDs.

Using the AW3423DW and PG27AQDM as our points of comparison, the colour volume of WOLED and QD-OLED is identical for SDR sRGB (which is going to be like 99% of content you encounter), 100.0% coverage and volume. Adobe RGB coverage isn't substantially different either, maybe 3% more for coverage and volume. It's only when you get into HDR content that you see any significant difference. For coverage/volume of Rec. 2020, the WOLED is 61.5%/71.4% while the QD-OLED is 78.7%/78.9%. The difference is bigger in volume than coverage since that's really where the brighter primaries comes in. However, most highlights tend to be near-white anyway, so the colour volume alone isn't really an accurate measure of how bright it feels. They have pretty similar peak brightness in HDR.

QD-OLED has an advantage on paper and in technical benchmarks, but that doesn't directly translate to an advantage in real life. And in fact, in RTINGS "real scene" HDR brightness measurement, the WOLED panel was substantially brighter. To be blunt, if you're admitting that you've never seen one in person, I don't think that looking at the raw test numbers is a good way to judge the difference in the real world.

Is the new pixel arrangement for QD-OLED still a triangle or did they go radically different?

It's the same basic pixel arrangement (triangular), but they've changed the shape of the subpixels, the first gen panels were somewhat diamond-shaped subpixels, and the second and third gen panels have rectangular subpixels. They also have higher coverage. This helps a bit with text clarity, but not nearly as much as the increased pixel density of the 4K 31.5" panels. LG's move from RWBG to RGWB (in a stripe arrangement) will make a much bigger difference (and be more compatible with ClearType since it'll now be RGB stripe, with a gap), but there too the increasing panel density will do a lot of heavy lifting.

By late 2025, we're going to see 27" 4K panels (and their equivalent ultrawides, 34" 5120x2160), and at that point the pixel densities are high enough that subpixel structure is irrelevant.

[fernan1234]

QD-OLED has an advantage on paper and in technical benchmarks, but that doesn't directly translate to an advantage in real life. And in fact, in RTINGS "real scene" HDR brightness measurement, the WOLED panel was substantially brighter. To be blunt, if you're admitting that you've never seen one in person, I don't think that looking at the raw test numbers is a good way to judge the difference in the real world.

Everyone who has seen in person the newest WOLEDs vs the newest QD-OLEDs agrees, unless they're trying to sell you the former, that the latter is much better. WOLED is a turd and you can only polish it so much with MLA and "peak brightness" and what not, which is why LG is finally planning to abandon it after a real better alternative gave it competition in the OLED space.

QD-OLED's black levels has nothing to do with the surface coating, it has to do with them lacking a polarization layer like LCDs and WOLEDs have.

You're right about the lack of polarizer, but reporting like this seems to show that some of the new matte coating does help with keeping blacks lower compared to the default semi-glossy finish

https://youtu.be/hthn_ADJjwM?si=fIRgcYzizgSg0iCB

The pixel structure thing is a problem for both options though, especially as pixel density remains rather high on the larger displays/TVs.

IMO it's still all not worth bothering with, OLED is a dead end technology. I'll just wait until a good enough miniLED which seems to be around the corner, until QNEL or whatever they're calling it now arrives.

[Rastan78]

IMO it's still all not worth bothering with, OLED is a dead end technology. I'll just wait until a good enough miniLED which seems to be around the corner, until QNEL or whatever they're calling it now arrives.

What marginally better (and not marginally more expensive) tech will be just around the corner by then though?

[Guspaz]

OLED will be replaced by microLED (not to be confused with miniLED, which is in most ways a downgrade), and microLED will be replaced by QDEL. microLED is already a thing in production and we're just waiting for new manufacturing techniques to enable consumer-level costs, while QDEL has only been recently seen outside the lab, with Sharp showing off a very small and quite dim QDEL prototype at CES 2024.

For those confused about the names:

OLED: Organic LED. Every subpixel is a self-emissive organic LED diode. Downside: they wear out, getting dimmer over time the more power you shove through them.

WOLED: A type of OLED display made by LG where every subpixel consists of a white OLED with an LCD-style colour filter on top of it, except for a fourth white subpixel that is unfiltered. These types of displays lose a lot of light to the colour filters, but are much easier to make than true RGB OLEDs like you'd find in your phone.

QD-OLED: A type of OLED display made by Samsung where every subpixel consists of a blue OLED with a quantum dot layer on top of the red and green subpixels. Quantum dots are tiny little particles that have the unusual property where if you hit them with any colour of light, they glow with a different colour of light, depending on the size of the quantum dot. They do this with very little energy loss, unlike a filter which simply blocks all but a certain wavelength of light. The blue subpixel is left as-is. The upside of this is that they're theoretically simpler to make than WOLEDs and more efficient, the downside is that it's a less mature technology than WOLED and hasn't quite caught up in terms of longevity and (due to lacking a polarization layer) black levels.

miniLED: A traditional LCD panel where the backlight is made up of a large number of small white LEDs, allowing for local dimming. Differentiated from traditional full-array local dimming by the number of zones, miniLED typically requires there to be thousands of zones, with some newer panels featuring tens of thousands of zones.

microLED: Every subpixel is a tiny non-organic (read: "traditional") LED. Advantages over OLED are brightness and longevity, downsides are very high manufacturing costs due to having to individually place large numbers of LEDs, a problem which nobody has quite cracked yet. We're expecting to see the first very small consumer microled displays (smart watch sized) within 2-3 years.

QDEL: What if you took quantum dots, but instead of making them light up by using an OLED to shine light on them, you directly zapped them with electricity, cutting out the middle man? In theory, you'd get extremely easy/cheap to manufacture displays with extreme efficiency and longevity. But the material science isn't advanced enough yet, so until a few days ago, this existed only in the lab, and even now, there's a ton of R&D left before these are practical.

[Rastan78]

@Guspaz very informative post, thanks

[tacoguy64]

QD-OLED's black levels has nothing to do with the surface coating, it has to do with them lacking a polarization layer like LCDs and WOLEDs have.

You are correct here but a matte coating should still be able to help when it comes to both reflections and help it retain its black level in bright rooms right?

Using the AW3423DW and PG27AQDM as our points of comparison, the colour volume of WOLED and QD-OLED is identical for SDR sRGB (which is going to be like 99% of content you encounter), 100.0% coverage and volume. Adobe RGB coverage isn't substantially different either, maybe 3% more for coverage and volume. It's only when you get into HDR content that you see any significant difference. For coverage/volume of Rec. 2020, the WOLED is 61.5%/71.4% while the QD-OLED is 78.7%/78.9%. The difference is bigger in volume than coverage since that's really where the brighter primaries comes in. However, most highlights tend to be near-white anyway, so the colour volume alone isn't really an accurate measure of how bright it feels. They have pretty similar peak brightness in HDR.

QD-OLED has an advantage on paper and in technical benchmarks, but that doesn't directly translate to an advantage in real life. And in fact, in RTINGS "real scene" HDR brightness measurement, the WOLED panel was substantially brighter. To be blunt, if you're admitting that you've never seen one in person, I don't think that looking at the raw test numbers is a good way to judge the difference in the real world.

I wish I could see both side by side with HDR content that highlights the difference you are talking about in person. Especially since all of these panels are gonna be more than $1,000. But the difference you outline does make it sound like the QD-OLED stomps over WOLED in HDR. And while yes, most content out there is going to be SDR, having the edge in HDR should count for a lot. Is there a game or movie you use to highlight the difference when comparing your two monitors?

[tacoguy64]

IMO it's still all not worth bothering with, OLED is a dead end technology. I'll just wait until a good enough miniLED which seems to be around the corner, until QNEL or whatever they're calling it now arrives.

Highly disagree, lots of great pro's to OLEDs at this time. While yes, the technology is a "dead end", the same way plasma TVs were, I think people might be missing out on some nice displays if they decide to wait for the next big thing. Also there is no telling how long it will be till the next great tech becomes affordable to the masses. It feels like we have come a long ways since the last days of the CRTs, but we all know, modern displays still have a ways to go before they can even match CRTs in certain areas.

[fernan1234]

Highly disagree, lots of great pro's to OLEDs at this time. While yes, the technology is a "dead end", the same way plasma TVs were, I think people might be missing out on some nice displays if they decide to wait for the next big thing. Also there is no telling how long it will be till the next great tech becomes affordable to the masses. It feels like we have come a long ways since the last days of the CRTs, but we all know, modern displays still have a ways to go before they can even match CRTs in certain areas.

I mean, I agree in the sense that if I were in the market for a new display right now it would almost certainly have to be one of these upcoming QD-OLEDs. They should be a decent value. But there's also a strong argument for miniLEDs in the near future with so many dimming zones relative to the screen size that the blooming issues that distinguish them from OLEDs become insignificant, while preserving many of the advantages they have over OLED (except refresh rates, where OLEDs will likely stay ahead for a good while).

As for microLED vs QDEL viability, some people are arguing that QDEL may be scalable into existing production lines much more quickly, while microLED may get stuck in scalability hell for much longer even though it's more far along at this point. I guess we'll see what makes it sooner.

[tongshadow]

Local dimming still wont fix the inherent slow pixel response times, poor viewing angles, poor uniformity, and the slow/laggy algorythms. So in the end miniLED will just be a cheaper option rather than competing directly against OLED.

[bobrocks95]

MicroLED has been talked about being "just around the corner" for 5+ years at this point. And like everything else it will start off still very expensive even when it hits consumer levels and probably have major flaws the first couple generations, in the same way early OLEDs from LG and now early QD-OLEDs from Samsung had/have burn-in issues.

I'm getting a G3 when they go on clearance (G4 doesn't seem like a huge improvement and will probably cost $1.5k+ more at launch compared to sale G3's) and maybe in a few years re-evaluate. Even my B9 still looks wonderful but it lacks a little punch these days.

[BazookaBen]

Even my B9 still looks wonderful but it lacks a little punch these days.

Doesn't the B9 have 120hz BFI? I know the C9 does.

I'd hate to give that up. LG got rid of it in the C1 series and haven't brought it back

[kamiboy]

I have a GX and barely ever use the BFI functionality. While the GX is an excellent display, the lack of luminosity is quite a problem, especially during summers. During sunlight the display is virtually useless unless I turn down all the blinds and darken the room, I basically cannot make out anything on the screen even at the highest brightness on HDR picture mode.

The higher advertised lumens of the latest generation sure has me tempted to justify a very pricey upgrade, the loss of BFI be damned, the ability to use it during sunlight hours would more than make up for it.

[ZellSF]

Does BFI matter if the new retroscalers can add it?
(other than the situation where you don't want to buy or connect an extra device)

Retro scalers are limited in terms of how they can add BFI. For BFI you need 2x refresh rate output, so while a RetroTink4K can do 4K60, it cannot also add BFI at the same time. So you need to choose between BFI and scaling quality.

[Josh128]

IMO it's still all not worth bothering with, OLED is a dead end technology. I'll just wait until a good enough miniLED which seems to be around the corner, until QNEL or whatever they're calling it now arrives.

Highly disagree, lots of great pro's to OLEDs at this time. While yes, the technology is a "dead end", the same way plasma TVs were, I think people might be missing out on some nice displays if they decide to wait for the next big thing. Also there is no telling how long it will be till the next great tech becomes affordable to the masses. It feels like we have come a long ways since the last days of the CRTs, but we all know, modern displays still have a ways to go before they can even match CRTs in certain areas.

This is precisely correct. A lot of people think we have come a long way since plasma production ceased, but we really havent. Just recently, I have been watching some football and a few movies on my bedroom 2014 Samsung 60" plasma in the late evenings and the picture quality still blows me away-- even with the pentile matrix subpixels and 1080p res. In a controlled lighting room this "old tech" is still absolutely amazing due to the combination of color reproduction, motion clarity, and per-pixel lighting / contrast.

WOLED and QD-OLEDs have made great strides at 4K, but if a "theoretical" 1080p or 1440p Micro-LED could be more easily produced, I would buy one in an instant. It seems that at this point, they could quite easily produce up to 60" 1080p MicroLEDs, but never will because "4K!!". Rather, they will hold back the tech until 4K is within reach and then milk the hell out of it.

[Guspaz]

They can't any more easily make a 1080p microled than a 4K. Either way it's millions of LEDs that they need to place, and yields suck right now. That's part of why most microLED displays today are made up of small modules (with seams visible close up).

[bobrocks95]

Even my B9 still looks wonderful but it lacks a little punch these days.

Doesn't the B9 have 120hz BFI? I know the C9 does.

I'd hate to give that up. LG got rid of it in the C1 series and haven't brought it back

I'm very sensitive to flicker and have never found 60Hz BFI to be usable for me. VR headsets like the Rift S and Quest 2 which I'm pretty sure have built-in BFI feel like someone has set the back of my eyeballs on fire. So I've never bothered trying 120Hz, though I wouldn't be surprised if it's locked out on the B9 because of the lower-tier processor.

[Josh128]

They can't any more easily make a 1080p microled than a 4K. Either way it's millions of LEDs that they need to place, and yields suck right now. That's part of why most microLED displays today are made up of small modules (with seams visible close up).

If they would make the subpanels less dense, I dont see how that doesnt reduce the manufacturing complexity. Samsung has an 89" and is/was planning a 76" as of last year. Im guessing these are 4K. In any case, yeah, its a pipe dream and wont happen, just thinking out loud.


https://www.tomsguide.com/news/samsung- ... ne-problem