I just don't get it

[Baddass]

Motion clarity of OLED isn't that much better than high refresh rate LCD's.

I'm talking about directly comparing two screens with the same refresh rate. A 240Hz OLED for instance will have better motion clarity than a 240Hz LCD. In fact the ratio is about 1.5:1 (or 3:2 if you prefer a proper ratio number!), so a 240Hz OLED will have the equivalent motion clarity of a 360Hz LCD. On top of that you don't need to worry at all about overshoot problems like you do on LCD, especially in VRR situations, or overdrive settings, a single overdrive mode experience etc.

With Nvidia's Gsync Pulsar coming out soon that advantage will be nullified.

Again, not a relevant comparison as you're adding an additional technology in to the mix. If you want a fair comparison then add BFI back in to the mix on the OLED, and the advantage reappears as before.

Mini LED gets close to the black levels of OLED.

It can in some cases yes, but not with per-pixel level dimming so blooming can be a problem in many cases, especially on IPS panels

LCD monitors and TV's have pretty good form factors. Not many people wishing their screens were even thinner.

Some people do though. what if they are wall or arm mounting them? what if they care about the aesthetic and their overall desk setup?

For most people viewing angles are a non issue when it comes to gaming monitors as most people sit right in front of them.

True, but again not everyone does. what if you've got multiple people viewing the screen or playing a game? what about if you move to a different viewing position to play a console or watch a movie? Not everyone is a PC gamer!

HDR on PC right now is a huge mess so anyone buying a monitor to experience it is likely in for a disappointment.

not really, i'm not sure what that's based on. what about people who want to use HDR gaming from a console? or from a streaming device or TV input?

I'm not saying OLED is better for everyone, clearly it isn't which is why i said it depends on your use cases

 

[lovelyhead]

Again, not a relevant comparison as you're adding an additional technology in to the mix. If you want a fair comparison then add BFI back in to the mix on the OLED, and the advantage reappears as before.

I don't think it is unfair to add Gsync Pulsar into a comparison. If there is a technology available to a monitor that improves the quality of the image why not use it? If it lives up to the promise, then Pulsar will effectively nullify the motion clarity advantage OLED has. Even if you were to limit a comparison to BFI only the OLED would be quite dim in comparison to an LCD.

It's always funny reading threads on forums or reddit where someone posts that they are not especially impressed with their new OLED as inevitably the first replies are current OLED owners saying you must have set it up wrong or something. Then it descends into arguments about black levels, motion clarity, burn in risk etc. The fact is screen technology has reached a point where there are only incremental improvements to be made, so moving from a high end LCD to an new OLED is only going to be a minor improvement at best. People stating OLED is vastly superior are overegging the pudding. It's a bit better. It's not OMG nothing will ever be the same again better.

 

[SpellowHouse]

OLED is completely overhyped. If you play dark games in a dark room then yes it is better. But anyone who buys an OLED thinking it is going to blow their socks off with how much better it is going to look is going to be disappointed.

I don't think it is at all.

I suppose it must be in the eyes of the beholder, but I have a £1100 QD-OLED sat next to a £1200 IPS monitor and the QD-OLED wipes the floor with the IPS.

The IPS is very good, but the QD-OLED is just better all round. The colours really pop, the contrast is, well, perfect. With the IPS, HDR just makes it brighter but the contrast suffers. The QD-OLED is faster too. There is a noticeable lag difference between the two of them.

OQ-OLED is "almost" perfect. But if the burn-in scares you, then don't get one!!

 

[Baddass]

I don't think it is unfair to add Gsync Pulsar into a comparison. If there is a technology available to a monitor that improves the quality of the image why not use it? If it lives up to the promise, then Pulsar will effectively nullify the motion clarity advantage OLED has. Even if you were to limit a comparison to BFI only the OLED would be quite dim in comparison to an LCD.

Ok but in a like for like comparison of the panel technologies, OLED has superior motion clarity. That was my point. Maybe i should have said "motion clarity without added flicker and strobing complications"

moving from a high end LCD to an new OLED is only going to be a minor improvement at best. People stating OLED is vastly superior are overegging the pudding. It's a bit better. It's not OMG nothing will ever be the same again better.

agreed, if you're coming from a top end Mini LED LCD. but if you're moving from a standard, non-HDR capable, mainstream LCD to OLED then there are obvious benefits.

 

[lovelyhead]

agreed, if you're coming from a top end Mini LED LCD. but if you're moving from a standard, non-HDR capable, mainstream LCD to OLED then there are obvious benefits.

I just assumed we were comparing top end LCD to top end OLED.

A lot of the OLED hype does come from people upgrading from basic LCD to OLED. The difference between top of the line OLED and LCD is minimal.

 

[Meddling-Monk]

I just assumed we were comparing top end LCD to top end OLED.

A lot of the OLED hype does come from people upgrading from basic LCD to OLED. The difference between top of the line OLED and LCD is minimal.

OP thus far has only told us they have a (refurbished) DWF. We have no idea on the exact model of the IPS display they have. Is it a top end LCD? Who knows? We certainly haven't been told and can look it up.

Hence, the questions to OP about if they've got everything right and correct setup for their comparison. Which is normal to bring up in case they missed something.

We don't know how they are running HDR content:
Is the cables used even able to transmit the signal? HDMI cables can still transmit the video signal, without the HDR aspect if it can't carry it as the cable was from a previous gen.
Are they viewing HDR content with a HDR capable player? Trying to watch the LG 2020 OLED Demo for example on Firefox won't work as HDR doesn't work on it. Edge however, will work. In a previous post of theirs, they inquired about using Chrome in full screen, but a quick search around suggests that Chrome doesn't support HDR playback.
Were they using the same adjusted display settings (in Windows) for their old display (IPS) for the new display (OLED) as well? As this would change how things look on the OLED compared to the IPS but they are both getting a modified display signal that's adjusted for the IPS. Or was it individually modified? If so, how was it modified?

The issue is, all of these things (and more) are something easy that could have been missed and could have impacted on how the display works and appears to show "no difference" to an IPS in OPs case. And OPs last post in this thread tells us they're not tech savvy. So I'm guessing there'll be no progress on this front.

The only thing we do know for certain, is that OP plays games, and does not do anything image related. Hence their comment on why the need for impressive colours for stuff in Doom. So we know that colour accuracy for things like video and photos is not their use case. From what they have posted previously, being able to see stuff on screen that would have been invisible on an IPS, is not a concern for them. Colours and brightness that pops from the screen appears to be what they were going for. Which means their existing (or future) display doesn't even need to be a high end IPS, since they have been adjusting the displays already. It just needs to be bright and pop. Which is not what any OLED is. So the punt they made for it (a previous post of theirs) for the refurbished DWF (unsure if from Alienware or from third party, this was never stated), would suggest it's just them having buyers remorse; which would have nothing to do with OLED itself as a technology not being better in any way than IPS.

 

[1Deep]

I've used pretty much every panel in existence through the years - CRT, VA, IPS, TN, mini LED VA (Samsung Neo G9). Have also got with me right now a Sony 65" Mini LED tv, also a Sony 77" OLED. An Epson projector also.

Best picture quality? Overall it depends, but for actual picture quality I'd give that to the OLED. For cinematic impact I'd go to the Epson projector. For daytime viewing it's a toss up between the Sony's, don't mind which one.

It's personal preference as to what features of a TV are most important to you. If you feel LCD/IPS is superior then go with that, it's a free world.

I wouldn't say OLED is overhyped but I'm not reading every thread or review on the internet where everything is prone to being overstated for clicks. Stick to the serious reviewers like Badass, HDTV Test etc. No rubbish superfluous info just facts, then base your decision on that.

 

[jaybee]

A good panel is a good panel. Simply that.
I have old LCD/LED TVs which still look great and have good blacks....compared to other LCD/LED TVs.
I have a phone with AMOLED which is by far the best screen I've ever had on a phone. My cheap work monitor is rubbish. My home Samsung Odyssey 49 inch G9 Ultra wide (non oled) is in my opinion amazing, but has it's limitations. I'm fine with it. The brand new OLED model is probably better but also has cons itself. My son's laptop has an OLED screen and it looks great.
There is no perfect panel and yes, we are reaching diminishing returns.

I am surprised to see a thread suggesting that OLED is overhyped. Such threads and opinions are actually quite rare. The vast majority of stuff you read about OLED screens (certainly with TV panels) are overwhelmingly positive. That's because OLED screens do pop nicely and solve the "problem" of having nice blacks.

 

[jaybee]

However, what I have noticed is that for example Samsung and their M phones with the AMOLED screens and 6Ah batteries never do that well in battery tests. That professional reviews of OLED laptops never get great battery life. And that whenever I go into a certain retail park box shifter and during my browse look at the OLED TVs, that they given out a lot of heat.

AMOLED and OLED are often praised for better power saving, not worse. When the screen displays dark/black images, it can turn its pixels off completely, thus saving power. They don't give out more heat either. Quite the opposite.

 

[lovelyhead]

I am surprised to see a thread suggesting that OLED is overhyped. Such threads and opinions are actually quite rare. The vast majority of stuff you read about OLED screens (certainly with TV panels) are overwhelmingly positive. That's because OLED screens do pop nicely and solve the "problem" of having nice blacks.

It's not that rare for people to think OLED is overrated. Type in OLED is overrated into Google and you get over 8000 results from Reddit alone.

 

[Metalface Mark]

Windows HDR is mostly rubbish as well, so it doesnt matter whether you have the snaziest of oled screens lots of game its inherently broken. Try something like Avatar frontiers of pandora, doom eternal or something of that quality to see what good hdr on pc looks like, otherwise decent hdr is few and far between.

 

[jaybee]

It's not that rare for people to think OLED is overrated. Type in OLED is overrated into Google and you get over 8000 results from Reddit alone.

People generally write about negative experiences. This is the first thread I've come across personally. Not saying there are not hundreds of either, just generally I see it swung massively in favour/praise of OLEDs in terms of representation.
People are entitled to their opinions of course but I think it is fashionable to knock things for the sake of it, when clearly OLED is a superior technology in many ways. If you can't see the difference from LCD/LED then I would say it would typically be due to a setup issue or the content being consumed is not one that would lend itself to being advantageous with OLED, i.e. fortnite style, bright, colourful games and such. There is a reason the go to for anyone spending top dollar on a panel these days tends to be to point people to have a look at OLED. That's not to say buying something else is wrong - I've done it myself - just that you should be asking why not OLED primarily. For monitor usage I would still have concerns about image retention for sure. For TVs, the only reason to not go OLED imo is if you have a specific usage requirement. Bright room for example. Cost. etc.

 

[KompuKare]

AMOLED and OLED are often praised for better power saving, not worse. When the screen displays dark/black images, it can turn its pixels off completely, thus saving power. They don't give out more heat either. Quite the opposite.

Well there is the thing with battery tests at least for phones and it is kind of what you would expect.
For web-browsing the battery life is worse, for movies it's mostly a tie.

Battery life tests - GSMArena.com

www.gsmarena.com

Note that sorting by web browsing brings mostly LCD to the top, sorting by video playback brings OLED/AMOLED up a lot.
That is, most web pages are on a bright backgrounds whereas movies may be darker. Obviously, if you only watch really dark movies then OLED is not more power efficient, but you also get OLED's excellent true black. Mixed use? That might well be different.

Phone-wise there aren't really that many direct or near direct comparisons, but the Xiaomi Redmi Note 11S 5G vs 11 is IPS vs AMOLED

Compare Xiaomi Redmi Note 11S 5G vs. Xiaomi Redmi Note 11 - GSMArena.com

www.gsmarena.com

And while the headline from there is similar at 131h vs 126h, that doesn't tell the true story:

So basically the browsing and video get reversed with IPS vs AMOLED.

Laptops? Similar, there is a reason why the NBC headlines their ThinkPad T14s review "OLED-instead-of-battery-life":

Energy management: OLED screen eats the battery

Power consumption​

Unsurprising, the idle power consumption of the Lenovo ThinkPad T14s G4 Intel is much higher compared with the predecessor, no matter if we compare it with the AMD or Intel model - the reviewed T14s Gen 4 contains a high res OLED screen. The comparison with the HP EliteBook 845 G10 and Dell Latitude 7440 is more equitable, as these at least contain high-res IPS 2.5K displays.
The maximum consumption of 64.3 W sits below the charger capacity of 65 W.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPad-T14s-G4-Intel-Laptop-Review-OLED-instead-of-battery-life.758333.0.html

Although in the end the difference isn't that big:

I'd still like an OLED display for some things just to experience it (outside of a phone - where the infinite blacks are great but the battery life is not - although I run in dark mode and seldom need any display to compete with sunlight; last AMOLED phone I had was a Galaxy S5 although my partner now has a Xiaomi Note 12), but the power consumption (especially considering the initial hype for OLED decades ago as it was coming out of R&D) is real.

And heat? Well, if you have nothing better to do and are passing a certain retail-park box-shifter, put your hands in front of their OLED TVs. You don't have to touch anything to feel the heat. Now, they are probably running their display models at a burn-in guaranteed brightness, but still.

 

[kute]

OP thus far has only told us they have a (refurbished) DWF. We have no idea on the exact model of the IPS display they have. Is it a top end LCD? Who knows? We certainly haven't been told and can look it up.

Hence, the questions to OP about if they've got everything right and correct setup for their comparison. Which is normal to bring up in case they missed something.

We don't know how they are running HDR content:
Is the cables used even able to transmit the signal? HDMI cables can still transmit the video signal, without the HDR aspect if it can't carry it as the cable was from a previous gen.
Are they viewing HDR content with a HDR capable player? Trying to watch the LG 2020 OLED Demo for example on Firefox won't work as HDR doesn't work on it. Edge however, will work. In a previous post of theirs, they inquired about using Chrome in full screen, but a quick search around suggests that Chrome doesn't support HDR playback.
Were they using the same adjusted display settings (in Windows) for their old display (IPS) for the new display (OLED) as well? As this would change how things look on the OLED compared to the IPS but they are both getting a modified display signal that's adjusted for the IPS. Or was it individually modified? If so, how was it modified?

The issue is, all of these things (and more) are something easy that could have been missed and could have impacted on how the display works and appears to show "no difference" to an IPS in OPs case. And OPs last post in this thread tells us they're not tech savvy. So I'm guessing there'll be no progress on this front.

The only thing we do know for certain, is that OP plays games, and does not do anything image related. Hence their comment on why the need for impressive colours for stuff in Doom. So we know that colour accuracy for things like video and photos is not their use case. From what they have posted previously, being able to see stuff on screen that would have been invisible on an IPS, is not a concern for them. Colours and brightness that pops from the screen appears to be what they were going for. Which means their existing (or future) display doesn't even need to be a high end IPS, since they have been adjusting the displays already. It just needs to be bright and pop. Which is not what any OLED is. So the punt they made for it (a previous post of theirs) for the refurbished DWF (unsure if from Alienware or from third party, this was never stated), would suggest it's just them having buyers remorse; which would have nothing to do with OLED itself as a technology not being better in any way than IPS.

It's the 240 hz(oc 280) alienware 27 inch 1440p ips

Chrome doesn't show HDR? The youtube videos let me pick the HDR option and they have the HDR icon while running? I would be pumped if this is the case, though I've downloaded all the like 40 gig HDR heavy hitting movies (blade runner 2049, interstellar, covenant etc) for VLC player and they are similarly unimposing. Interstellar looks rough in particular, though I don't think that's the screens. Covenant is the best looking movie I've ever seen, though Scott is a shell of himself at this point.

I'm running the DP 1.4 cables that came with it, though I've also tried hdmi 2.0, and replacement cables of both types that were the highest numbers amazon showed for sale. I'm not gonna turn the lights on and look closely at the wires, but they were the highest available numbered cables 8 months ago as I said, and this is at all manner of 8/10/12 bit and 60/100/165 hz.

I don't clone the screens, I just generally window-shift-arrow key them back and forth endlessly like a dunce, trying to convince myself it was worth not getting a brighter, larger 4k screen.

That LG oled 2020 video everyone posts looks just as black on this IPS with some crude 1970s flashlight backlighting as it does on the oled.

I'm not angry btw, I've wasted much more money than a dubious monitor decision, and it's not like it looks bad or anything, and it was dirt cheap(for an oled). Like I said, until this broken foot I was exclusively playing iracing in the quest anyways. Doom Eternal looks good on the glossy display, and I can still play which I was pleased with, I was worried I wouldn't have the muscle memory for PB swaps anymore but it's like riding a bike. I'd rather be playing it on the 280 hz than the oled though, but I have the IPS setup to the side so I can't really without re-doing my desk which I don't care enough to do.

edit: I just watched 10 minutes of spaceship nonsense again, it's the same thing. One is longer. It's the same damn thing