The World's BIGGEST Gaming Monitor

[nicklmg]

 

Buy Alienware 55 OLED
On Amazon: https://lmg.gg/8KV1j
Find a reseller on Dell.com: https://lmg.gg/8KV1T

[SolarNova]

2 hours ago, nicklmg said:

 

Buy Alienware 55 OLED
On Amazon: https://lmg.gg/8KV1j
Find a reseller on Dell.com: https://lmg.gg/8KV1T

 

OMG i just started watching but i have to comment.

 

I mentioned this damn display in my comment to the previous film hahaha. OK i might have to retract some of my comments on the other film ..we shall see

__________________________________________________________

EDIT: ok edit instead of another post.

 

So ..yea you know what i agree with everything you said. ..Amazing i know

 

I will add im surprised you didnt mention 'burn-in' considering in every other display vid you have made when ever u mention OLED for gaming or PC use, u talk about 'burn-in'. And tbh while i still believe people , ur selves included, have made to much of the issue, you should have maybe added a warning on this vid, something simple like " this is an OLED, so its longer term viability due to 'potential' burn-in needs to be tested",

 

Ill also add that yea, this screen is to big for the desktop or even media station, and to small for a main front room display.

For example I sit behind a 42" Plasma, and i sit far enough away to have my legs up on my recliner, mouse and keyboard on my lap ,, eyes essentially about 4-5 feet away from the screen. 55" is to big for that, i would have to position myself even further back, a good 1 to 2 feet more, that becomes problematic for keyboard and mouse cable length and simply room space.

Not to mention PPI of a 55" 4k display isnt exactly great at only 80, a mere 28 more than my current 1080p 42".

 

So while that is most certainly the best display, imo,currently available for PC use, it still has some flaws. If you have £3000 to spend on a display for PC gaming and movie use, this is it. Its a damn shame it doesnt have HDR, its very odd imo as the panel itself is capable of HDR. Wish it was smaller also.

 

EDIT2:

I have read another overview review of this display stating they measured around 30ms input latency. That seem high for this panel, i was expecting closer to 15ms similar to LG's OLED's, .. not great. it was also mentioned that a 10 hour burn in test of the windows desktop resulted in the task bar burning in, the 'pixel refresh' tool didnt work but the 'panel refresh' tool, which takes an hour or so to complete, did fix it. Take form that what u will.

[Dissitesuxba11s]

Lol banana for scale 

[TempestCatto]

They had to use a banana for scale because if they used Linus' massive schlong they'd get demonetized.

[minibois]

Linus at 8:50 "Yea, we gonna play some Juiced 2!!"

@9:00 *definitely playing Dirt 3*

You're not fooling anyone here!!!

/s

 

Dirt 3 definitely is a top-notch racing game though. Love that track they racing on too! 

(By the way, in my over 100 hours in that game, I never had it crash on my once)

[mynameisjuan]

Lack of HDR on OLED is not as dramatic as LCD and least of the concerns

[BNordhaug]

Isn't something like 40 inches or 45 inches maybe more suitable for a big monitor? at 55 you would need to sit back pretty far in plenty of games

[TechyBen]

31 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Lack of HDR on OLED is not as dramatic as LCD and least of the concerns

Wait... what?

OLED at this point should be able to do HDR... that's cheaping out on the bit depth in the controller.

[SolarNova]

59 minutes ago, BNordhaug said:

Isn't something like 40 inches or 45 inches maybe more suitable for a big monitor? at 55 you would need to sit back pretty far in plenty of games

Yes but these BFGD are being built use pre existing panels.

This particular one for example uses one of LG 55" OLEDs. And Lg doesnt make OLED any smaller ...yet. 48" is apparently coming next year. Still not small enough imo but still, better than 55".

 

The smaller the display the higher the PPI, the higher the PPI the harder it is to manufacturer without flaws. The more flaws, the more wasted panels .. the higher the produciton cost. .the lower the profits. Money money money

[Taf the Ghost]

Good video, but I had this suspicion as we got through the video this was really a "our nanny is sick today" video. 

[Norton0108]

Gotta say I really don't see the appeal here.

Now that the C9 OLED from LG supports Freesync (and therefore G-Sync as a byproduct), what is the point in either the BFGD OR this Alienware? They're both SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive than even the 65" OLED65C9P which is $2499 at most retailers.

I mean, the BFGD is $5000! For that price you could purchase TWO 65" C9 OLEDs! While they're 120hz instead of 144hz, they still include a digital tuner (nice to have an OTA Antenna for those of us who cut cable), have FAR better contrast, and still support Freesync (and therefore G-Sync). Even the Samsung QN65Q90R sounds like a more compelling option for the price:

 

• 480 zones of local-dimming vs 384 on the BFGD
• Samsung's new 'X-Wide' viewing angle screen which competes with OLED level viewing angles
• Freesync support. I'm unsure if this has been updated to support G-Sync as well but it's supposedly in the works
• Significantly higher peak brightness for better HDR performance

The Alienware 55" is just an LG OLED panel with the HDR carved out and a whole lot of markup shoved into it's place. While the input latency is impressive, you can get the 55" LG C9 OLED for $1599 as opposed to Alienware's $3800 asking price. I'd take that trade for all the benefits already mentioned.

[Skyyblaze]

Linus just a heads-up if you ever see this comment: Test Super Mario World on this monitor again running it through Retroarch with integer-scaling and CRT Royale as a shader. Then activate run-ahead and VRR support in Retroarch and enjoy the game almost like it was meant to be with less input-lag and looking more closer to what you remembered from a CRT!

[Enderman]

16 hours ago, BNordhaug said:

Isn't something like 40 inches or 45 inches maybe more suitable for a big monitor? at 55 you would need to sit back pretty far in plenty of games

Why would you want to sit back?

Sitting farther away from a display makes it take up less of your FOV.

The entire point of having a large display like this is to fill more of your FOV for more immersion, like multi-monitor.

A 55" screen is basically just 4x27" monitors with the bezels removed. Or an ultrawide monitor with more vertical realestate.

 

The only issue @LinusTech mentioned was in fast paced fps, but the nausea goes away after a few days of playing, you just need to get used to it.

I played on a 55" tv for years, recently upgraded to 58" 4k.

[UnicornsOnLSD]

Linus, have you tried RetroArch runahead to help with Super Mario World input lag?

 

https://docs.libretro.com/guides/runahead/

[SolarNova]

33 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Why would you want to sit back?

Sitting farther away from a display makes it take up less of your FOV.

The entire point of having a large display like this is to fill more of your FOV for more immersion, like multi-monitor.

A 55" screen is basically just 4x27" monitors with the bezels removed. Or an ultrawide monitor with more vertical realestate.

 

The only issue @LinusTech mentioned was in fast paced fps, but the nausea goes away after a few days of playing, you just need to get used to it.

I played on a 55" tv for years, recently upgraded to 58" 4k.

PPI.

At 55" 4k is only 80 PPI. So sitting close isnt a good choice from that point of view. Perhaps in the future when we can easily run 8k, then sitting close to a 8k 55" display would be ok, but not at 4k.

 

An ultra wide of similar width, like the LG 49WL95C-W , has a PPI of 109, as such its fine to sit closer. though even thats 'only' 1440p.  2x  27" 4k displays next to each other are also similar in width but have a much higher PPi at ~160. So again thats ok to sit near.

 

A 4k display at 55" is the same, as you right said, as 4x 27" displays, BUT those displays are 1080p. And dont think anyone here would argue that today, 1080p at 27" isnt great when you have 1440p and 4k options.

 

Anyway not saying the display is bad, 4k 55" is fine ..but not at desktop close view distance.

[Enderman]

1 hour ago, SolarNova said:

PPI.

At 55" 4k is only 80 PPI. So sitting close isnt a good choice from that point of view. Perhaps in the future when we can easily run 8k, then sitting close to a 8k 55" display would be ok, but not at 4k.

 

An ultra wide of similar width, like the LG 49WL95C-W , has a PPI of 109, as such its fine to sit closer. though even thats 'only' 1440p.  2x  27" 4k displays next to each other are also similar in width but have a much higher PPi at ~160. So again thats ok to sit near.

 

A 4k display at 55" is the same, as you right said, as 4x 27" displays, BUT those displays are 1080p. And dont think anyone here would argue that today, 1080p at 27" isnt great when you have 1440p and 4k options.

 

Anyway not saying the display is bad, 4k 55" is fine ..but not at desktop close view distance.

99% of people are still using 1080p displays, and have been for years.

1080p on a 27" display is the same as 4k on 55", and no it's not that bad especially for gaming because with moving images you can't see the pixels.

For text it is still very usable.

I'm only 2-3 feet away from my 58" screen and it's perfectly fine.

 

Most people agree that 4k on 24 or 27" is pointless because it barely makes things any sharper than 1440p at the cost of a lot more power.

That's why people buy 32", 36" ultrawides, and 40" 4k monitors like the wasabi mango and others.

That's when 4k actually starts to be worth it because you don't need to use scaling, which  means you can actually use more screen realestate.

A 4k display at 200% scaling (as you would need to do on something as tiny as 24" or 27") gives you the same realestate as a 1080p display, just with some stuff sharper (and some stuff blurrier since windows scaling is crap)

[YellowJersey]

I've found that the extra horizontal screen real estate is more important and useful than extra vertical screen real estate.

[Enderman]

13 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

I've found that the extra horizontal screen real estate is more important and useful than extra vertical screen real estate.

Gaming, content consumption, video editing, photo editing, programming, etc. all benefit from having a screen that doesn't have the top and bottom chopped off like an ultrawide.

Why do you think so many devices are going back to using 16:10 or 4:3 screens...

[YellowJersey]

On 10/4/2019 at 11:18 AM, Enderman said:

Gaming, content consumption, video editing, photo editing, programming, etc. all benefit from having a screen that doesn't have the top and bottom chopped off like an ultrawide.

Why do you think so many devices are going back to using 16:10 or 4:3 screens...

*shrugs* I like the extra horizontal screen real estate over more vertical.

[Enderman]

52 minutes ago, YellowJersey said:

*shrugs* I like the extra horizontal screen real estate over more vertical.

It's not extra horizontal, it's less vertical.

A 36" ultrawide is basically a 40" 16:9 screen with the top and bottom chopped off, so you end up with less space.

 

Not to mention that 99% of content is 16:9, which means your 36" ultrawide ends up becoming a regular 27" monitor with black bars...

[Madoc]

I signed up for the forum to ask one question. What is that thing of beauty behind Linus, that wall case.

I loved the idea of wall mount cases but always worried about airflow because they are not sealed. This solves that.

The window is a bit dark but I'm hoping thats just the lighting in the room.

 

[Call Me Snek]

Super Mario World is actually one of the few SNES games with more than 1 frame of inherent input lag (2, specifically), which makes it perhaps not the best game to test input lag with. As others have mentioned though, you can use RetroArch's input lag reduction feature "Run-Ahead", which basically uses save states to send your input back in time, making input handling update in sync with the graphics and sound.

 

Incidentally, PS1 era games often have something like 3-6 frames of input lag. I'd say 2 frames is where it starts to be definitely noticeable in tight platformers. It's an absolute game-changer; what all these years felt like built-in inertia was actually just sluggish input lag. Crazy.

[RagingCain]

Got the AW55020QF on sale and it is a fantastic display.

Liked the video but it appears factually inaccurate with HDR (or I feel like the video either cut out "setting" up HDR). You can't just turn on "HDR" and see a difference. For Windows, you have to first enable the monitor's 1 of 3 HDR settings (on the device) which I think Linus did in the video. Desktop/Gaming/Movie HDR are the options. Once "On", Windows Display Setting (so in the OS) needs to enable HDR on that display (before starting any game). At this time - based on my build of Windows 10 - Windows didn't show an HDR option (live detection) over DisplayPort at first. I probably could have disconnected the Display but decided to just reboot the machine once. After restart, as suspected, options were properly in Windows Display Settings and then I was able to enable it in Windows. You then have to enable it in your title - which can only be done if it detects HDR support.

I confirmed with my PS4 Pro, Windows desktop, and in Resident Evil 3/Modern Warfare, that there is HDR. It is, in fact, on - and it was incredibly noticeable in games (i.e. I could see a difference with On vs. Off - there is no other indicator it is actually on :()

[LinusTech]

9 hours ago, RagingCain said:

Got the AW55020QF on sale and it is a fantastic display.

Liked the video but it appears factually inaccurate with HDR (or I feel like the video either cut out "setting" up HDR). You can't just turn on "HDR" and see a difference. For Windows, you have to first enable the monitor's 1 of 3 HDR settings (on the device) which I think Linus did in the video. Desktop/Gaming/Movie HDR are the options. Once "On", Windows Display Setting (so in the OS) needs to enable HDR on that display (before starting any game). At this time - based on my build of Windows 10 - Windows didn't show an HDR option (live detection) over DisplayPort at first. I probably could have disconnected the Display but decided to just reboot the machine once. After restart, as suspected, options were properly in Windows Display Settings and then I was able to enable it in Windows. You then have to enable it in your title - which can only be done if it detects HDR support.

I confirmed with my PS4 Pro, Windows desktop, and in Resident Evil 3/Modern Warfare, that there is HDR. It is, in fact, on - and it was incredibly noticeable in games (i.e. I could see a difference with On vs. Off - there is no other indicator it is actually on :()

Are you sure it wasn't added later?

[RagingCain]

On 4/8/2020 at 6:29 PM, LinusTech said:

Are you sure it wasn't added later?

That's a very valid point. I dont know if the firmware versions were different for your test. It's the same physical model though so it's not a new version of monitor as far as I can tell. It's still called Smart HDR.

 

Do you have a rep you could ask?

 

Firmware version: M2B102