The 77'' OLED is the only TV I'd buy at launch as the 77'' C9 now is £4999 and the 77'' CX at launch is £4999. They've changed the pricing based on yields.
Otherwise I'm inclined to agree.
-
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.
NVIDIA ‘Ampere’ 8nm Graphics Cards
- Thread starter LoadsaMoney
- Start date
The 77'' OLED is the only TV I'd buy at launch as the 77'' C9 now is £4999 and the 77'' CX at launch is £4999. They've changed the pricing based on yields.
Otherwise I'm inclined to agree.
The 77" OLED's are just insanity pricing to start with and from my perspective no way worth double the 65". Those are for the hardcore crowd who don't give a crap about cost/value.
Last edited:
If theoretically everyone in the entire world all of a sudden waited to buy a TV, stating the reason as launch TV's being too expensive, then next year TV's would obviously be cheaper to encourage people to start buying at launch again. Business basics.
However, as we all know that's not even remotely likely to happen.
Or they need to sell a certain percentage of them at the released price to make it a worthwhile endeavour. Or technology would progress slower.
They basically set new TV prices (like many electronics) to a specific profit margin which is the highest they think they can get away with while still maintaining high volume of sales. There is lots of wiggle room.
Anyway, back to the real world as it is today, the fact is under the current model it's better not to buy bleeding-edge TV's at launch unless you want to spalunk your money without caring about value.
Sure, but if everyone waited and bought them for half the price a year later the impact wouldn't be that they simply come down to that price. They need to sell a certain amount at a certain price otherwise they wouldn't bother. Lower prices later are also, I imagine, taken at near to no profit to clear decks as they release new models every year. It's not as basic as you suggest.
It's interesting in general how people are viewed who buy something they want when it is released. If there were no such people, I imagine technological progress would be much slower and some technologies would progress much slower towards being affordable for the average buyer. Like OLED for example.
Last edited:
I didn't say that they would come down to that price, I said they would make them cheaper to encourage people to buy at launch. That doesn't necessarily mean down to the sale price which is to clear to stock... but just a reduced price that would be more tempting to people at launch than the previous year when it was too expensive to tempt them.
Anyway lets just leave it there as the conversation is getting a bit silly now because in the real world everyone is not going to wait so it's a moot point.
Do you think the same people who wait a year would then buy on release instead? Unlikely. They would still wait unless the release price was close to the sale price. Why wouldn't you as you could still save some hundreds of pounds. It just wouldn't be half price. And my point still stands. Prices and technology would take longer to both progress and become affordable.
Hope the ampere refresh is like in days past where you only got a minor perf uplift that wasn't worth upgrading.
2070 to 2070S however was a big jump up.
I either sell my 2080S pre hard launch to recoup the most I can from it and then buy without benchmarks being out or wait for cards to be out then sell onward but get a bit less perhaps.
2070 to 2070S however was a big jump up.
I either sell my 2080S pre hard launch to recoup the most I can from it and then buy without benchmarks being out or wait for cards to be out then sell onward but get a bit less perhaps.
Lets agree to disagree rather than waste any more time and energy with that silly debate.
Ampere is meant to be a significant increase, around 40% overall performance.
I know most people here want OLED and wouldn't even consider the high end samsung qleds.
But if you want a massive screen then a year old top of the range full aray local dimming samsung qled 75" for about £2k in the sales. Less than half price.
They are amazing for gaming so many cool features like 7ms freesync input lag and do like 2000 nits hdr. 4k 120hz. motion plus is available in game mode at only 20ms input lag for perfect motion even in game mode. freesync works with both amd and Nvidia on the 20 series.
The qleds dont age either so 5 years later will still be just as good. Great if you play 10000 hours of gaming each year. I cooked my plasma from over use it's so dim now, less than half what it started at.
I want 3070 if it has plenty of vram. (backnon topic)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,983
Once there is a top-end AMD card able to run the AAA games at 60hz+ at 4k then I'm sure Samsung will gain traction with the 'big screen' PC brigade tbh. Shouldn't be too much of a wait now
I have tried going down the FALD route but they just have so many compromises in PQ.
If you get annoyed by halo effects, blooming, backlight banding, light shining through the black bars in HDR, elevated HDR brightness not what the director intended, blooming subtitles, the game-mode which gimps the dimming aglorithm making the PQ fall apart, the lack of certified gsync support...
Its just not very ideal IMO.
There are a few you-tubers who've extensively tested side by side the QLED to an OLED and its a bucket load of compromises.
I have a FALD and an OLED in the house and every time I look at the OLED, it makes me really regret dumping money into LCD.
If you're on a budget and don't care about having the perfect image, they're good bets but I'd rather opt for a Sony LCD at that point to get access to their best in class motion processing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmumkQqUZDI&t=239s
Thats the Q90R so the best QLED and it exhibits artifacts that the ZD9 and panasonic 902B don't.
Lets agree to disagree rather than waste any more time and energy with that silly debate.
Ampere is meant to be a significant increase, around 40% overall performance.
What I meant was MID ampere refresh
Soldato
No need if they give us the best chips to start with, unless they try milking it again.
Ahh yeah, that will likely not be so significant. 2070 to 2070 Super wasn't exactly huge https://www.notebookcheck.net/GeFor...70-Super-Mobile_9892_9281_10229.247598.0.html
Once there is a top-end AMD card able to run the AAA games at 60hz+ at 4k then I'm sure Samsung will gain traction with the 'big screen' PC brigade tbh. Shouldn't be too much of a wait now
FYI, you can now run the freesync on my tv and the other qleds with Nvidia graphics cards as long as its 20 series.
I can't do it on my gtx 1080 but if I update to a 2070s or the 3070s then I could enable gsync.
Nvidia done it in a silent update.
@aoaaron I wasn't meaning to say anything bad about the oleds, I have never even seen one in person.
Also the q90r is not the best qled seems they made stuff worse the last couple of years especially for games. Aparently they say my 2018 one and the other 2018 fald model are better at most stuff apart from side on viewing angles.
Also the over the top HDR is stunning on borderlands!!!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,983
Riiiiiight thanks, didn't know that. Don't suppose you happen to know which ones def work?
Check an OLED out!
I was very anti-OLED and pro-FALD because of the burn in issues but once I saw an OLED in person, I just had to admit defeat.
The brightness of HDR on QLEDs/FALDs is just a bit meh. Sure it gets bright but that brightness comes at a cost of running the backlight at 100% capacity which exposes all the flaws of LCD in terms of how it controls it backlight and black levels.
Amazing to hear that GSYNC works on Samsung TVs though as I had trouble with Gsync (flickering) on my CRG9 which is an actual PC monitor.