Does this exist? 4K 240Hz OLED 43"-49" + Response Time upgrade question

[CatTNT]

I've asked ChatGPT about it and the closest thing seems to be the ASUS ROG Swift 32” 4K OLED (PG32UCDM). The biggest issue is size, I need a TV/monitor that's at least 42-43" and as big as 48-50" with a strict minimum of 40-41" and maximum of 50", ideally 43-46".

Also, I currently have an LG 49" IPS 120Hz TV, (should have a response time around 4-5ms) and wanted to upgrade. I was wondering since OLED's response time is sub 1ms, if going form a 120Hz LCD to a 120-144Hz OLED would be a noticeable increase in responsiveness, or I would need to get a display that is 240Hz and OLED notice significant upgrade. 

Ideal TV/Monitor: 
3840x2160 (4K) 16:9 ratio
OLED
240Hz

43-49" diagonal size

Is going from a 120Hz LCD to a 120Hz OLED enough of a upgrade in responsiveness to justify the upgrade?

[GuiltySpark_]

No, that combination does not exist.

 

4K OLED 240Hz 32" is the only thing you can do at that refresh rate. If you need something bigger it'll be an older panel and at most 138Hz. 

 

Play around with the filters: https://www.displayninja.com/oled-monitor-list/ 

[dizmo]

There's lots of 48" panels that fit the bill, but I don't think you'll find anything smaller than that within the sizes you want.

Below 48" you're next size is 42".

 

I can't believe people actually use ChatGPT like that..

[Doobeedoo]

Yeah so many posts I see lately people using AI to ask stuff and get wrong answers.

Anyway, that is more a TV territory size wise so linited specs. The response time metric means nothing, need to see reviews of the model etc. Going OLED would still be beneficial even if it's 120Hz as well, looks better for sure. 

It's expected new TVs to offer 4K 240Hz but have to wait for those and they will cost a ton.

[CatTNT]

10 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

The response time metric means nothing, need to see reviews of the model etc.

Are you sure about that? I don't have experiencing comparing them, nor am I an expert on anything with this, but I assume that a 120hz display (8.33ms between new frames) with a 4ms response time would be noticeably slower than a display with just 8.33ms between frames with virtually zero response time. This is probably wrong, but It would seem to me my display would have at least 12.3ms (8.33ms 120Hz frame time + 4ms TV response time) of lag, but an OLED would have just 8.4-9ms of lag @ 120hz. Theoretically, 30% less lag. 

[Doobeedoo]

1 hour ago, CatTNT said:

Are you sure about that? I don't have experiencing comparing them, nor am I an expert on anything with this, but I assume that a 120hz display (8.33ms between new frames) with a 4ms response time would be noticeably slower than a display with just 8.33ms between frames with virtually zero response time. This is probably wrong, but It would seem to me my display would have at least 12.3ms (8.33ms 120Hz frame time + 4ms TV response time) of lag, but an OLED would have just 8.4-9ms of lag @ 120hz. Theoretically, 30% less lag. 

Well thing is with LCDs they have very slow response time in general, yes there are fast ones and good panels, but advertised ms reponse times are no accurate, really they are well above what they actually achieve. The way they get those numbers is their "it's good enough" testing, they're not taking full 100% pixel response from 0-255 but like 80% which is far from real world.

Basically no LCD is possible even near any advertised response times. You'd see way back say a 60Hz monitor 4ms response and was oh that's good, but that is so wrong and misleading. Nowadays you see 1ms on LCDs but that is not possible, that would need to be 1000Hz monitor, but even then it's not possible as it's a slow LCD that can't transition as fast. OLED can achieve that.

So the way they advertise those response times is based on VESA GtG response standard that measures between 10%-80% point, which is far from ideal. If manufacturers measured properly full 0%-100% actual ms response times would be vastly different. Your display is probably even more slower, have to check reviews per model as far as LCD monitors goes. OLED pixels basically transition instantly so no blur. Also, one thing is pixel response time vs monitor input lag.

Really proper LCDs would adhere to true 0%-100% gtg measure, so they'd need a fast panel that can achieve that properly and that would be it's Hz in the end. So if a LCD monitor panel can transition pixels in that 4-ish ms it can be a proper 240Hz, 1000/4. So always with earlier faster Hz monitors they sucked, as they were overclocked panels not capable transitioning faster, but manufacturers wanted higher Hz. They produces higher Hz but blurrier each frame, so really worse.

Also note that some measure their LCD monitors with heavy overdriver, that is not good to get some measure they can slap on, or another thing, using strobing to achieve better response time. Which is fair, but most don't do that, let alone do it properly so, heavily depends.

Can check some extra info here: GtG versus MPRT: Frequently Asked Questions About Pixel Response On Displays | Blur Busters

[CatTNT]

3 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

, but advertised ms reponse times are no accurate, really they are well above what they actually achieve.
 

Basically no LCD is possible even near any advertised response times. You'd see way back say a 60Hz monitor 4ms response and was oh that's good, but that is so wrong and misleading. 
 

So the way they advertise those response times is based on VESA GtG response standard that measures between 10%-80% point, which is far from ideal. If manufacturers measured properly full 0%-100% actual ms response times would be vastly different. Your display is probably even more slower, have to check reviews per model as far as LCD monitors goes.

OLED pixels basically transition instantly so no blur.
 

So basically if I check to make sure that the display is good with a couple reviews, an OLED panel with the exact same refresh rate is going to make an even bigger difference than I predicted? I'll edit the OP, but my real question is will that difference be big enough to be worth the upgrade? 

[Doobeedoo]

23 minutes ago, CatTNT said:

So basically if I check to make sure that the display is good with a couple reviews, an OLED panel with the exact same refresh rate is going to make an even bigger difference than I predicted? I'll edit the OP, but my real question is will that difference be big enough to be worth the upgrade? 

Yes 120Hz OLED will look better then 120Hz LCD and especially a TV depending on a model, as TVs are not same as monitors. In general sense people like to compare them say 240Hz OLED looks as good as 480Hz LCD monitor. Which is all good to give an idea due to faster pixels compliance between frame transitions. Though for example in say competitive fps game at high framerate, one may prefer a good 480Hz LCD over 240Hz OLED even if they are comparable in a way. The OLED would show each frame clearer, but LCD one would show double the frames, even though they would be blurrier but fast at that Hz.

So depends what you do games wise and how sensitive you are to motion clarity. Best would be to be able to see in person as some things can't be 'shown' on paper or mere words, same for HDR can't show it through SDR monitor but have to see it in person.

 

Monitors are a different beast so for a larger size TV like can wait to see next year what may release. There are some shows of upcoming stuff like Samsung QN900D it's an LCD 8K that can do 4K 240Hz but it will cost many thousands so. 

 

You can check a review here, also for monitors they do:

Samsung QN900D 8k QLED Review (QN65QN900DFXZA, QN75QN900DFXZA, QN85QN900DFXZA) - RTINGS.com

 

For monitor reviews you can also check Monitors Unboxed if you wish to view on YT too.

[circeseye]

On 11/8/2024 at 8:33 PM, CatTNT said:

I've asked ChatGPT about it and the closest thing seems to be the ASUS ROG Swift 32” 4K OLED (PG32UCDM). The biggest issue is size, I need a TV/monitor that's at least 42-43" and as big as 48-50" with a strict minimum of 40-41" and maximum of 50", ideally 43-46".

Also, I currently have an LG 49" IPS 120Hz TV, (should have a response time around 4-5ms) and wanted to upgrade. I was wondering since OLED's response time is sub 1ms, if going form a 120Hz LCD to a 120-144Hz OLED would be a noticeable increase in responsiveness, or I would need to get a display that is 240Hz and OLED notice significant upgrade. 

Is going from a 120Hz LCD to a 120Hz OLED enough of a upgrade in responsiveness to justify the upgrade?

not sure price or if released yet but theres this
https://www.msi.com/Monitor/MPG-491CQPX-QD-OLED

240hz and oled

[CatTNT]

8 hours ago, circeseye said:

not sure price or if released yet but theres this
https://www.msi.com/Monitor/MPG-491CQPX-QD-OLED

240hz and oled

Sorry, forgot to mention that I'm only looking for 16:9 TVs/monitors, exactly 3840x2160, not ultrawide or 5K 

[Stahlmann]

A 120Hz OLED feels better than 160Hz IPS in my experience. Over 32" you're in TV territory. Some 138Hz monitor options exist, but they basically use 120Hz TV OLED panels that are slightly overclocked. 240Hz options don't yet exist in that size.

 

My recommendation would be the LG C4 42" model.

 

I've been using the C2 42" as my main monitor for over 2 years now and it's great.

[CatTNT]

On 11/12/2024 at 4:19 AM, Stahlmann said:

A 120Hz OLED feels better than 160Hz IPS in my experience. Over 32" you're in TV territory. Some 138Hz monitor options exist, but they basically use 120Hz TV OLED panels that are slightly overclocked. 240Hz options don't yet exist in that size.

 

My recommendation would be the LG C4 42" model.

 

I've been using the C2 42" as my main monitor for over 2 years now and it's great.

This sounds great if true, is there any possible chance you were using better NVIDIA settings or something in windows that could've made it feel faster without the OLED being the main difference? 

[Stahlmann]

13 hours ago, CatTNT said:

This sounds great if true, is there any possible chance you were using better NVIDIA settings or something in windows that could've made it feel faster without the OLED being the main difference? 

Nope. I started optimizing Nvidia settings only a few months after I started using the C2. And I was blown away even before. The optimized G-Sync settings only make it so you won't ever have to deal with unneccesary stuttering or tearing ever again.