e22big

I'll say the only proper solution to that is to get yourself dual monitors. One OLED/mini-LED for gaming and media consumption and one cheap regular LCD or two. As per the latest Burn-in study by rting, I'll say any high HDR monitors are at risk of failing with heavy usage. OLED burnt-in and (mini-LED) LCD either straight up dying or suffer severe banding. After all, any display malfunctions if significant portions of their LEDs stop working, and mini-LED still has lot of LED even if not as many as OLED. In rting study, many of them failed just as fast as OLED (if not faster), if you can't take any failing risk, regular SDR LCD with traditional backlight is your answer (well, not even that but they should at least be more stable than HDR)

Late to the party but I think if it's just a micro scratch, then maybe just using a screen protector film would help, especially if you've already polished it to a mirror finish. It's a trick I used on a phone that can hide micro scratches and any imperfection very well, I imagine it would be available as car accessories or something.

It's the opposite actually, all signs point out to it having more burn-in potential than WRGB OLED (that and the general lack of burn-in warranty)

I am very sure that they are the same panel (nobody else made a 42 inch 4k OLED ), however, that doesn't mean they will deliver the same experiece. Asus 42 inch OLED use the same panel as LG C2 yet the experiece is a nightmare - at least for a year or so from what I've heard. LG also enjoy better app support, if you want to install a tool to make your TV wake up and sleep with your PC just like a real monitor, you will find a lot more instructions and option for LG than anything else.

My personal approach would be to have 2 separated monitor for gaming and productivity. If you really have to, you can stick to a midrange gaming monitor like Gigabyte M32U which is a pretty good conventional IPS gaming monitor but has no HDR so to speak of. As per the latest study by rting, every monitor, be it LCD and OLED, are at risk when used in a prolonged period of time which you might want to for productivity. OLED burn-in, and mini LED LCD give you a banding pattern or just flat out failed when used extensively. If you want the best of both world, I would get 42 inch LG OLED like C3 which can be have around 800 or less of you waited long enough. And another conventional 27 or 32 inches 4k 60hz for work.

TV is kind of not ideal as a monitor. It's basically never undergo any compatibility test (or undergo very little), even if you've went LG, it's never a guarantee that it will work well. LG just has more user base and we have better data to work with (but even then, most people only use 1 TV as a monitor replacement, so it's really an uncharted territory, unless you can find someone on the internet who managed to set it up.) 4k 120hz over DP 1.4 requires DSC to work, I suspect that might be the reason. It might not know how to run DSC with DP but not with HDMI 2.1 at the same time.

I ended up with Nuphy Air 75. It's not really competing with G915 when it comes to latency (the input delay is very noticeable coming from 915) but it's relatively cheap and excellently built. I am willing to compromise a little when I don't have to use a keybaord all the time. If you can, try going with the V2 version of it. The V1 (which I ended up with) has a critical flaw that is the battery life (so bad that I pretty much considered the RGB unusable.) It's also have some major quality of life improvements that are lack from V1 (i.e. actually have an adjustable stand, V1 has a detachable stand but it's not adjustable in anyway)

If you want it for colour work I would recommend against Neo G7. It's curved and it has very poor viewing angle which can interference with your work. If you don't plan to do any media consumption, looking for a regular IPS would have been better than both. If you don't want a larger screen, buy 2 of them. It would probably be cheaper still than both a single Neo G7 or OLED. If you want a single large screen. Samsung also have QN85B (or C) which is an IPS type TV. I think QN90C is also IPS at the 55 inches or larger so you definitely going to get a lot of space for that. The con is they only exist at 55 inches and larger (QN90C 43-50 inches are VA and is just as bad as Neo G7 for colour work)

Pretty much as good as an LCD can be. Samsung VA has the speed of an IPS but a contrast of VA and plenty of local dimming zones. It's still not going to be as good as OLED when it comes to HDR, particularly because it's tuned for blooming suppression first so you have relatively less real-world brightness than most HDR LCD and so it lose out to OLED by quite a bit in that regard. Pricing pretty much depends on your budget. If both of them are within your reach, then it's better to just consider your own expectation of these display before making the decision. G7 as an LCD should offer a more versatile HDR experience. It could be brighter but's still a much better option for daytime HDR scenes due to its colour volume. It's also much bigger and has higher pixel density due to its 4k resolution. And also curved which you may or may not prefer. OLED is going to be much, much better in darker HDR scenes, and at 240hz, they would be light years faster than an LCD of similar refresh rate due to its literal lightspeed response time and it would perform optimally across all of the refresh range while LCD typically only tuned for its max refresh and 60hz. If you mainly played a cinematic single-player game. G7 isn't a bad option (provided that it does not suffer from Samsung legendary poor QA), if you play a mix between single-player, multiplayer, and strategy or isometric type of game, OLED is a much better option (also provide that you don't mind its relatively small size)

It doesn't look that bad, if there's no hardware issue then it could be from the browser, maybe switching between Edge and Chrome and see how thing goes?

I would go for something big, 40-43 inches, I am a big racing gamer myself and bigger is better, especially in this genre. Either OLED or LCD would do. I used to play a lot of Forza on my FV43U LCD before I moved to OLED and both are great for this sort of game (just in different way)

Eh I am pretty sure they all use the same screen. And yeah, Ultra is just too big, I would rather get a laptop for something that size (which also has OLED and much, much more powerful)

So just to share a bit of my experience with an OLED on a tablet. I get my selt Samsung Galaxy Tab S9 just a few week ago, it has an OLED screen which is a huge selling point to me. But just right after I get my own hands with one, I've just realised how underwhelming they are. Just like their QD-OLED, Samsung tablet OLED lacks the polariser layer which mean just like their TV, black will look very grey in anything but a black out condition. Unlike their TV and monitor, you don't tend to use a tablet in a light control environment (that's kind of the reason you use a tablet), and worse, you also don't tend to view it straight on and the grey look so much worse when the screen sit flat on your lap and taking all the lighting in the world. Using this OLED during my commute feel like I am using an IPS with the worst backlight bleed possible because not only there's no black anywhere, the black bars also look uneven grey where some area looking darker than others. And it's not just the black bar, a lot of irl object like hair or eyes also look notieably grey. It's way, waaaaay worse than their smartphone. Actually, I think their great IPS from last year might even better than this shitty OLED. It even has black smearing in real life usage, the only real advantage is HDR which is still not super common. I just don't get why Samsung find it's acceptable to ship an OLED without a polarised layer even on a big mobile devide like this where it seriously impacted the user experience. My bet is it because all of the rushed Youtube review who never test the display image properly and just call it best thing since slice bread. So yeah, rant over. I wish I know better before getting myself into this. I mean I'll probably get it anyway but at least I'll go at it with a more realistic expectation.

1440p is always going to be better, even for a hardcore competitive title. Not only you tend to get a bigger screen, but the higher pixel density's also allow for a sharper image rendering which make something like aiming target at the distance easier.

Personally, I would start by trying to figure what kind of customer I have. There are always two type of people who build a PC - people who prioritise price to performance, and people who just want the best of the best of better brand integration of whatever. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of us is the former, and so I would focus my homework on how to cut corner, rather how to make it run as fast as possible. There are a lot of ways where your customer can save money without losing anything on their tech needs. If they want to game for example, they should absolutely spend as little as possible on the SSD, even something as cheap as DRAM-less SATA would have extremely marginal impact (if any) on their gaming experience (but there's probably no need to go that far anyway, as a lot of entry level NVME is cheap enough to be competitive even to SATA.) Or if they want to game at 4k, they probably don't need a top speed RAM for their use case. You should also be able to explain the part where they should never skimp on even if it doesn't have a direct impact on performance, PSU for example. Or one that many not have directly impact on the performance but can have a very substantial impact on the user experience like display. Most people probably don't need your help to recognise that they need a high-end GPU and CPU to have the fastest system possible. So, you should probably focus on the nuance knowledge that aren't super obvious but important to any PC builder. And please, for f sake, don't spread marketing bullshit that are obviously false (like 1ms LCD monitor)

You can, all you need is either a TV OS dongle (Apple TV, Chromecast, Firestick etc) or a TV box and then it's pretty much a TV (even have all of the picture processings)

You don't really need frame gen for 4k gaming, even just upscaling can get you through most (if not all) of the current titles

They didn't really use organic layer for colours, actually, they don't use any layer at all (especially for WRGB OLED), that's the reason why they are so excel at response time, you are looking the light source of the panel directly, which eliminate time gap between the solid layer and the backlight movement which typical of LCD. OLED got its name because the LED which formed the individual subpixel themselves are made from organic materials - of which known to most of us as plastic (some form of synthetic polymer.) It's pretty much a plastic or polymer LED that are more common during the last decade. There is a self-lid panel that doesn't use an organic LED, which is the Micro LED that has been anticipated for a long time as well. But they aren't available in number and those that do, were extremely expensive. But OLED atm is pretty much a term to distinguish it from that type of panel technology.

It honestly doesn't sound like a TV issue. I think you might want to try RMA if you can't get it to output 4k 120 HDR VRR with known good hardware, or contact Samsung support. I am using C2 OLED and don't have any issue but in theory, every high end TV should be capable of outputting 4k 120hz HDR with VRR. My friend have Q90A 50 inch and he doesn't have this issue either (but it took him a few try to find the HDMI 2.1 cable that work, just avoid all of the expensive certified one basically in his case, but I also found it to be the case on my end as well, for some reason the cheapo HDMI 2.1 just work without any issue while the expensive ones always run into something) And if it's not the cable, then something on your end might have been faulty, and it might cause you an issue anyway even with a new TV, I would check if your GPU HDMI 2.1 is working as intended.

He has issue with his current TV, he just want something that doesn't

I heard people calling 1080p 1k, never heard of 1.5k myself And yeah, 4k actually isn't that bad, it's everything below that is the problem. 1080p is the real 2k , 1440p is 2.5k and 2160p is 4k (which also include 4096 x 2160, the real 4k)

That is based on the assumption that you can still make a good chunk of money from it in the end, which we already know, they didn't. To play Devil advocate; Ford business model is also horribly outdated, if it's still hold true, every laptop would be a Dell Inspiron clone selling for 699 and everyone will be racing to the bottom to make up from the volume what they've lost in profit. Instead, the opposite is true, and everyone and their dogs have been trying to sell their product at the highest premium possible, even for absolutely no reason just to create the "brand perception" We are clearly living in the Jobs rather than Ford era of business mindset.

Depends on how hard it is to pick it up, and how busy I am atm. It's more like OT pay vs a whole month's salary with that level of disparity, and honestly, I would never OT if given a choice unless a huge sum of premium is involved. Would you sleep 2-3 hours less a day for 2-3 hours worth of pay?

Just watched some news today and holy heck, I kinda of expect AI to be at least 2-3 times more profitable to Nvidia than gaming, turns out it's 10k vs 20k - over 5 times on the AI side. Linus mentioned at some point that Nvidia should probably splinter their Geforce division out so that they can focus on gaming properly but with that level value differences, I don't know if they will ever care. Do you think they still have any reason to even do something about gaming business anymore? It would probably suck if AMD is the only viable gaming option all of a sudden (might not be even that, they would probably want something that can do AI too with that level of profit) 16:27 for the news in question

Dirty Screen Effect is the actual term for this issue, it can't be fixed, just a limitation of the panel technology, the only thing you can do is to do research in advance and pick a monitor with the least DSE reported Sadly it's probably too late for you now. But it's really not that easy to identify, absolutely any monitor can have DSE from LCD to OLED. Although LCD tends to be a bit worse in that regard.