Is OLED finally coming towards Desktop PC usage as a monitor in good volume? Well, Joled, a joint venture between Japan Display, Panasonic and Sony are showing OLED panels for monitors at a Japanese... JOLED shows three OLED panels for PC monitors
A first step in the good direction, but let's see how will they avoid OLED burn in. Frankly I hate the current crop of PC monitors right now, having high prices for not so many features. I can get a 40 inch 4k HDR TV for 300 euros right now, but I can only buy a 4k 28 inch TN monitor for the same price...
Buy a new Samsung tv, get free-sync. their 50" is sweet, well under $500...scaling works like a charm @ 125% and no "screen-door" effect, goes up to 100Hz.
from JOLED... you'll see some shortly from LG... in the meantime the "nano-ips" monitors from LG are very nice.
Watching the trends in pricing, I can tell only 1 thing: all these "nano" and "micro" in monitor production, as well as the co-called die-shrinking in CPU/GPU production are followed by MACRO $$ bills for the "end users". Meanwhile, not much, in terms of "real life" benefits is being achieved... One good example: take a 5-6 years old flagship Intel CPU, pair it with a 27'' - 32'' mainstream monitor from the same era, and you STILL have a competitive rig NOWADAYS. Companies are ROBBING us; the technology becoming more and more illusive with each "new" generation of hardware, where the slightest increases in benefit (0.5%) means tenfolds of $$ you've got to spit out!
My new 2700X is almost the same price I got my old i7 2600K for and it's in many workloads almost 2.5x the performance. (Intel) CPUs have stagnated because they had no competition, but things are getting better since AMD unveiled Ryzen. GPUs have also gotten a LOT more powerful. Until the RTX series of cards, they were still at a reasonable price. If I compare my old rig (2600K and 2x GTX 580) to what I currently use (R7 2700X and GTX 1080) they're not even slightly comparable
Absolutely if you still play at 1080p from 5 or 6 years ago. If you upgraded your other hardware, you'd still be limited to your old monitor. Now, you can play many titles at 4K at the same FPS. I do not get your argument. Yes, compared to 6 years ago, I'm running 4 times the resolution with the same frame rate.
Just got a NU7122, 40 inch Samsung HDR with great input lag. I don't have space for more on my one room home... But for the price I payed for it, there really wasn't any monitor alternative. Right now I believe that if you have the space for them, these Samsung VA TV's, Qleds are just amazing. They have everything, except G-sync, but who cares.
4 times the pixels is 4 times the resolution. Resolution refers to the number of pixels in an image. <--- definition of resolution This is likely the reason they didn't go with a standard of 2160p, and people would constantly say "well it's only double the resolution of 1080p", which in ever possible notion would be wrong.
hate to pick nits (monitor joke), but resolution is both vertical and horizontal. the number of pixels is not a 100% correlation to resolution - there is the matter of pitch - that is the actual size of the pixel. there are many displays with super-fine pitches that have the same resolution as other monitors, but they look better with less of a "screen-door" effect. for example an ultrawide is "higher resolution" than standard, even with the same vertical resolution you are pushing more pixels than 1920. but even more to the point is "native resolution" which is the maximum resolution vertically and horizontally. and believe it or not, there are monitors with higher pixel counts than the combination of vertical and horizontal resolution...at the top of the market, naturally.
Yes, imo, dot pitch is just as important today as it was 20 years ago, etc. A 50" 4k TV is going to have a lot more space between pixels than a 32" 4k RGB monitor, for instance. TV's are made to be seen at a distance; RGB monitors are made to use at very close distances. Sitting back several feet from the screen ameliorates the dot-pitch issue for large-screen TVs (but only with sufficient distance.) No one is going to want to put a 40"-50" TV on his desk, however, 18" from his face... Things would look pretty crappy, imo, and the large dot pitch differences would become painfully obvious. The ability to do close work without seeing pixels is what I much prefer about monitors over TVs. Also, a 32" monitor positioned ~18" from my face fills my view area much more fully and effectively than does my 50" television, which I watch from 12'-16' away--and the TV looks great.
