People, that have both gaming FALD 1000nits HDR monitor and the LG OLED at the same time, claim that OLED pales in comparison even with monitors with fewer zones. The 1400 should be mind blowing and also blinding.
Asus PA32UCG - 32" 4K 120Hz VRR HDR-1400
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
How so? LCD blacks will never get anywhere near OLED. OLED effectively has infinite zones due to per pixel illumination. I'm curious why some people are saying it "pales in comparison", and also, what monitor they're speaking to, considering the only one with 1000+ zones at present is the Asus ProArt, which isn't a gaming monitor. I have a 55" B9... for gaming there's just no way I'd opt for an LCD monitor... and certainly not a £3500 one.
if you're speaking to the FALD monitors that already exist (the 512-zone ones), they are fine, but having tried one, definitely would not say they are better than OLED, other than being more practical regards size.
They are better than OLEDs in HDR performance. That's what people say using them side by side. The FALD monitors that already exist and have 1000HDR rating. The models are PG35VQ or X27 - I don't remember now exactly. OLED is not as bright.
That makes little sense. HDR-1000 in itself doesn't mean THAT much. There's some pretty bad HDR-1000 monitors... in relation to OLED and their HDR performance. You don't even need FALD to achieve that rating. I would also argue that HDR cannot possibly be superior to OLED. Take a moon against a dark sky backdrop for example... it would be IMPOSSIBLE not to see blooming on a and LCD, yet for OLED there would be absolutely none. It's not even a contest. Granted, some LCD panels do a fine job with HDR in certain sequences, and can brighter than OLED, but the absolute blacks that OLED produces will always make it superior in that sense. Brightness alone doesn't make it better, and in fact a screen can very easily be TOO bright.
Your OLED is approximately HDR700 max without the contrast enhancer set to low. So, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. Also, there is a bunch of colors except black, that have to be displayed as well.
I'm not sure why you are putting so much importance on the brightness? I've seen top end LCDs and OLEDs... they can certainly trade blows up to a point. But when it comes to blacks and contrast, OLED just destroys LCD, to a point where it's not even a fair fight. The same cannot be said for colours or brightness the other way round. Yes, LCD can do better in this regard, but it's not so much to OLED's detriment as the lesser blacks are to LCD.
I would never recommend OLED as a dedicated monitor though, as it has other issues which makes it less than ideal for such a use case. But for movies and gaming, I'd take OLED any day. Size is another factor of course.
Last edited:
Yes, I use the oled as my daily PC monitor and I can tell you that the only difference between the OLED and a good quality IPS monitor (like the recent gaming 38" LG panels, for example) is the black color in SDR. For HDR - OLED wins every time until you add hdr1000 to the monitor via FALD or similar tech. This I have not seen myself, but I have read from the online forums by people who own both. Quite shattering, but this is the way it is.
Having tried OLED, text reproduction is also not so great. Better than the 43" BGR panels I've seen, but my 4K 32" LG IPS does a noticeably better job here. Also, the glossy coating on OLED is far from ideal in a desktop environment in a room with windows. As with anything, there's a lot of subjectivity here, and everyone will find their own set-up and use case suits a certain monitor (or OLED) over another.
HDR-1000 FALD is nice, but it's not enough. The MOMENT you see a scene with heavy use of dark tones and blacks, you realise how much better a job OLED does. So unless you are never going to be playing or watching content that benefits from this (which I'd say is extremely unlikely), this alone gives the win to OLED from a visual standpoint.
But that isn't the only consideration, given use case and the size factor also come in to play. There is a BIG difference between a 48" OLED and 32" monitor, both in terms of the space you are using it in, and what you're using it for. Mixed used on a typically sized desk makes OLED (at a minimum size of 48") extremely impractical for many people. At the same time, the extortionate price tag of these 32" 1152-zone monitors is hardly within reach for most, so it's understandable why LG's 48" OLED at less than half the price has the attention of PC gamers.
Also, haloing is still visible on the FALD HDR-1000 monitors in certain games... so it depends what you play. I've seen one of these and yes, it was very nice, as I'm sure the 32" 1152-zone monitors will be, but again, it comes back to individual set-up and use case.
The bottom line though is that there's just no parity between OLED and LCD for PC use right now, either in price or size. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I'm quite sure we'll see affordable smaller OLED panels before we see an affordable 1152-zone mini-LED monitor.
To add some anecdotal evidence, I have a Panasonic Pro 55” GZ2000 OLED TV which gave a measured brightness of around 870 nits in HDR mode during calibration and I have also owned a FALD 27” Acer Predator X27 IPS 4K monitor which is also rated HDR1000, but I never measured its actual max brightness. The OLED gives a much more impactful picture thanks to the immense contrast between inky blacks, very bright whites and spot on colours. The Acer also looked amazing and could probably had slightly higher bright whites in HDR mode, but there was some visible blooming that you notice on scenes with bright objects against dark backgrounds and it could not display the absolute inky blacks of OLED which becomes noticeable if you’re viewing in a dimly lit environment. These are limitations of the FALD IPS technology, not Acer’s fault.
I think both put out a lovely image that most people would be delighted with, but if you absolutely must compare them to each other, then OLED wins both objectively and subjectively. I sold the Acer because I couldn’t live with its fairly audible fan noise, but other than that, it was the best picture on a computer monitor I had seen so far. Price-wise, the TV was more expensive but then again, it was twice as large in terms of screen size.
I think both put out a lovely image that most people would be delighted with, but if you absolutely must compare them to each other, then OLED wins both objectively and subjectively. I sold the Acer because I couldn’t live with its fairly audible fan noise, but other than that, it was the best picture on a computer monitor I had seen so far. Price-wise, the TV was more expensive but then again, it was twice as large in terms of screen size.
Brightness doesn't mean as much as many people seem to think... contrast matters, as you've noticed. And that comes down to the back light. OLED has per pixel illumination, LCD does not, so OLED is always going to have that impact in visuals with opposing contrast visuals... star fields, sunsets etc. and the ability to achieve those inky blacks. The more back light zones on an LCD monitor, the better it will get at simulating this, but blooming is always going to be evident to some degree at times. Ambient lighting can also be a factor, which is why OLED is much better in a totally dark room vs LCD in such an environment. It will be interesting to see how well Mini-LED improves upon this, but it's still not going to challenge OLED in this aspect. And the price, clearly, is exorbitant. OLED is now very affordable, it's just lack of desktop size options which is the problem.
LCD has its own advantages though, namely text reproduction and the smaller more practical size for desktop use. 32" is ideal for many people, and obviously no OLED exists at that size, yet. It's just such a shame the price of this thing is TWICE what an OLED costs.
