• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Vs. Nvidia Image Quality - Old man yells at cloud

Last edited:
A TV has multiple inputs that add lag, remember the cheap fast OC'd HZ (Catleap etc) Korean LCD's we had before the big brands coined in?

Well the fastest of them had a single connection only, I think its called a multiplier that add more connections and lag.
 
b00merang69 said:
A TV has multiple inputs that add lag, remember the cheap fast OC'd HZ (Catleap etc) Korean LCD's we had before the big brands coined in?

Well the fastest of them had a single connection only, I think its called a multiplier that add more connections and lag.
Click to expand...

Only one connection is active at a time though. So makes no difference. My gaming monitor is 4ms and has one of each type.

You get some OUTPUT lag from the GPU when using multiple displays.
 
Nasher said:
You mean like this one: https://www.oled-info.com/asus-starts-shipping-its-216-4k-oled-monitor-us-3950

With it's significantly faster panel than any TV ever?

Until OLED monitors are affordable there won't be many monitors. Because PC gamers won't buy a screen with a **** response time. It costs much more to make fast panels.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point, there's no OLED monitors available consumer side, that "portable" Asus one is neither here nor there given its price point.

I'm all for sitting in front of my 34" 144HZ Ultrawide but the IQ's miles away from my 4K OLED's and that is disappointing.

Hell my Xperia 1 phone produces better IQ than my 34" monitor.
 
Nasher said:
Only one connection is active at a time though. So makes no difference. My gaming monitor is 4ms and has one of each type.

You get some OUTPUT lag from the GPU when using multiple displays.
Click to expand...

AFAIK it does make a difference that is why they only had a single connection on those monitors and it cost more than the DP+HDMI models in same range and who is going to have two inputs both active at same time on same monitor it is kinda dumb and would not do anything/work.

TV's has a Game Mode to lower it but I bet if it physically only had 1 single DP connection it would be faster.
 
What on earth are you on about nasher, OLEDs pixel response time is superior to LCD so motion clarity on OLED is superior to any LCD, it is hard to describe just how much better the motion is on OLED, when you look at sites like this and go through the different tests, there is just no comparison, LCD, even high refresh rate screens have this horrible smearing/trailing/ghosting:

https://www.testufo.com/ghosting

Input lag is on par with most gaming monitors with the exception of a few.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/b9-oled#page-test-results

SpfiQld.png


And input lag:

Vu6eYxp.png


b00merang69 said:
A TV has multiple inputs that add lag, remember the cheap fast OC'd HZ (Catleap etc) Korean LCD's we had before the big brands coined in?

Well the fastest of them had a single connection only, I think its called a multiplier that add more connections and lag.
Click to expand...

Somewhat true, more so in the past now though, it is more the post processing effects that TVs add to "improve" image quality (they really don't though and all should be disabled anyway). Game mode on most TVs is just simply a preset that has all these post processing effects disabled, with some TVs if you change the label to "PC", it will actually enable a "PC" mode, which acts like game mode i.e. disables and greys out the post processing options.

EDIT:

Also, have fun comparing an OLED TV to an OLED monitor, when OLED monitors properly arrive, no doubt they will still be behind TVs and cost a **** ton more than TVs...... How much have the last few OLED monitors cost 32"/21" for £4000+ iirc, meanwhile, can get the 55" b9 for £1000 when sales are on....
 
Last edited:
Nexus18 said:
No TV can do 4k at 120HZ (afaik) but you can do 1080/1440 @ 120hz. EDIT: Actually iirc, some TVs can but we need to wait for the GPUs to get the new HDMI first...

Personally I have a hard time telling the difference between 1440 and 4k especially with radeon image sharpening, only in the last year or so are "some" games starting to use "true" HD/4k textures, particles etc.

Another massive pro of TVs, playing at anything other than native res. doesn't look like complete trash unlike with monitors, you really have to use the native res. as anything else looks terrible.
Click to expand...
Mine can, just need to wait for Nvidia pull the finger out and release the 3000 series which will no doubt have HDMI 2.1 ;)
 
Yes i know TV's are getting better in that regard but Game Mode disabled all that and is nothing new.

A CRT/Plasma/OLED panel (for want of a better word esp CRT) is fast where as LCD is slow but its is the control/processing side that comes after it that is the bit to add more lag.

Some vendors were far better at this control/processing side than others like Pioneer and Panasonic vs LG's plasmas and even today (I think it is) Panasonic using LG's OLED panel is a better TV.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
???

Those are high input lag times...

7ms for 1080 120hz is rubbish. There is no other word for it lol
Click to expand...
Does not bother me, I would take image quality over 1ms or whatever the ****, as I don’t play online or do any twitch gaming :D
 
Martini1991 said:
That's exactly the point, there's no OLED monitors available consumer side, that "portable" Asus one is neither here nor there given its price point.

I'm all for sitting in front of my 34" 144HZ Ultrawide but the IQ's miles away from my 4K OLED's and that is disappointing.

Hell my Xperia 1 phone produces better IQ than my 34" monitor.
Click to expand...

It's because of the 643 ppi or Retina panel. No monitor has a "retina" screen, except maybe if you find a 15" 4K notebook screen but even then, it isn't guaranteed, in no way.

Every modern smartphone with PPI over 400 will produce better image quality than the available monitors, the larger they are, the worse.


Even my old Sony Xperia S (2012) with 342 ppi beats every single monitor available on the market.
 
Yes and PPI is much more important than the resolution. E.g. A 60" 4k screen has the same PPI as a 30" 1080 one.

The bigger the screen the higher res you need for it to look sharp. But that makes it slower and dimmer.
 
I think the dell OLED was meant to be full retail but it was late (year or more) and full of QA issues (same as current LCD then :p) and only 60HZ when many had moved to 120-144HZ.
 
Nasher said:
Yes and PPI is much more important than the resolution. E.g. A 60" 4k screen has the same PPI as a 30" 1080 one.
Click to expand...
But you need to understand distance is also a factor. You won’t be sitting at the same distance from a 60” TV as you would a 30” monitor. So the comparison is flawed.

PPI is important yes, but keep distance you sit in mind also.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Distance doesn't add detail nor quality of colours reproduction - distance simply masks all the defects in the image.
Click to expand...
Thought you had me on block? I am disappointed... You can’t resist reading my comments can you? :p:D

I never claimed that distance added detail? I am one of the first people on this forum who have been using 4K since 2014 actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom