LG's first 1440p OLED monitor (240hz, HDR, VRR)

[DODI3OG]

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-27gr95qe-b

 

I've been waiting on this. 240hz is overkill for most modern console applications since 120fps is only achievable on 1080p in current-gen consoles. But, if the bandwidth supports 120fps, VRR, and uncompressed HDR at the same time, then I'm certainly getting this someday.

 

Let's hope Sony and Microsoft continues the 60fps standard and implements them for next-gen fidelity mode, so performance junkies can enjoy at least 120fps as a standard.

[yoječ]

I don't think it will be able to do 4k 120Hz HDR10 uncompressed. I have a 5120x1440 display, and it tops at 120Hz 8bpp without compression (via DisplayPort 1.4a; apparently it goes to 144Hz via HDMI), or 60Hz 10bpp. To enable 240Hz 10bpp, a GPU with DSC support is required in my case. Unless this LG supports some new unannounced connection standard with higher bandwidth.

Edited November 21, 2022 by yoječ

[sivispacem]

1 hour ago, yoječ said:

I don't think it will be able to do 4k 120Hz HDR10 uncompressed. I have a 5120x1440 display, and it tops at 120Hz 8bpp without compression (via DisplayPort 1.4a; apparently it goes to 144Hz via HDMI), or 60Hz 10bpp. To enable 240Hz 10bpp, a GPU with DSC support is required in my case. Unless this LG supports some new unannounced connection standard with higher bandwidth.

It should do 144-165Hz HDR10 at 1440p. 

[yoječ]

My bad, for a moment I thought that LG was a 4k monitor, not 1440p.

Edited November 21, 2022 by yoječ

[DEALUX]

This is very tempting actually because I have yet to upgrade my PC to something that can do 4K but then again, those 4K OLED Samsung TV's absolutely kill everything in terms of color accuracy and other specs and they're functionally gaming monitors.

[DODI3OG]

18 hours ago, DEALUX said:

This is very tempting actually because I have yet to upgrade my PC to something that can do 4K but then again, those 4K OLED Samsung TV's absolutely kill everything in terms of color accuracy and other specs and they're functionally gaming monitors.

Word. I'm still on the fence whether to save for a 4k LG C2 42" or an equivalent monitor. I usually game on a table, so 42" is too large for me. Even 32" gets overwhelming for my FOV sometimes. I'm a console gamer, btw. Most of the time, I play narrative games. I used to play online a lot and I still have my k&m when I feel like it. So, 120fps and above is touching on the bare minimum on competitive games. The reason why I avoid "gaming monitors" is primarily due to the overhyped features that only wash out the color accuracy, particularly on the entry and mid-level ones.

 

You might already be more knowledgeable than me in this case, but since you mentioned color accuracy, which is also my bare-minimum; I'd love to suggest you look more into OLED with sufficiently beefy specs that don't compress HDR. This monitor may be for you.

 

 

 

 

 

4k TVs seem like the more future-proof option since 4k is the current HD standard for cinematic content, and 1440p/60fps minimum for gaming; it's logical that 4k would be the standard of next-gen gaming in about 5 years. 120hz is also a good maximum future-proof console gaming benchmark, but by the time gaming is at 4k/120fps, these TVs will long be outdated. These modern TVs can't even handle 4k/120hz without sacrificing HDR and vice-versa (Not even through an Xbox SX with higher HDMI bandwidth). Still 4k/120 is overkill even for the PS6/Xbox XXX. I'm betting 1440p/120 will be the 1080p/120 of next-gen.

 

I'm on console, so I mostly avoid gaming monitors. I think LG has a 1080p 144hz ips, but, I miss my 1080p OLED TV that my mom took back (she bought it ), and of course, 1080p 144hz doesn't sound well for future-proofing, esp. 1080p. As for this monitor, the QHD and OLED alone is a good selling point. Only select last-gen competitive games are optimized for 120fps. Although, if anything goes smooth this gen, 60fps should be the bare minimum next-gen.

 

Compared to Sony's Inzone options, this monitor seems to be more functional, and hopefully with better display (comparable to LG OLED TVs). Sony's Inzone M9 (4k, HDR, 144hz, ips) sells for $799 but nothing beats OLED and OLED+HDR is a chef's kiss. Inzone M3 on the other hand goes for roughly half the price of this LG option at $539, but it's 1080p 240hz HDR, but ips.

 

EDIT: Came to my mind that 240hz may not be that overkill for console gaming at all since the high refresh rate reduces input lag.

 

EDIT 2: 

I agree with this dude that 240hz may be overkill. But, as long as it reduces input lag (even though I game at 60fps), I wouldn't mind.

 

 

Questions:

1. Do you guys think it's possible to have uncompressed HDR with a high refresh rate or one has to go?
2. Can this monitor support 120hz mode on consoles, since it's advertised as 240hz?
3. Will I still have the same amount of input lag from 240hz if I turned on VRR and played at 60-120fps?

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by DODI3OG

[Mexicola9302]

I got a LG OLED55B9SLA (2019) 2160p/120HZ with G-Sync and HDR works perfectly normal in 4K with 120 HZ. but the "handshake" sometimes fails, so i have to do it again. That TV has low nits, so it's not very bright if there is much black on the screen, and it doesn't have HDR10+, but else it's a very good TV. I got it connected to a DENON x1700H DAB Dolby Atmos AV-reciever. But i don't use Atmos, i currently just use 7.1 surround, but with 2 subwoofers, 2 large speakers and 5 "normal" speakers but all can produce bass on their own, so no small satellite speakers that barely produce decent sound.

 

High Refresh Rate only reduces input lag, if you actually have the FPS at the refresh rate limit. You dont have lower input lag, if you only got 60 FPS playing on a 240 HZ monitor than on a 120 HZ monitor with the same FPS: It will feel the same on both monitors/TV's because you still got the same FPS.

 

So you also won't have lower input lag on a 240 HZ monitor if you play with 120 FPS on it. It will still feel like if you play on a 120 HZ monitor. Input lag wise, there will be no difference. You can really only future proof yourself with a 240 HZ monitor, if you play with consoles. But honestly it's unlikely that the next gen consoles so PS6 will support games with 240 FPS. I mean very very very unlikely. You can be happy if you have 120 FPS at 4K or 60 FPS at 8K, on consoles.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Mexicola9302

[Kris194]

On 11/21/2022 at 9:20 AM, sivispacem said:

It should do 144-165Hz HDR10 at 1440p. 

It will do 240 Hz just fine if it uses DP 2.0 or HDMI 2.1.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Kris194

[sivispacem]

12 minutes ago, Kris194 said:

It should do 240Hz at 1440p just fine, looks like some people don't know specs of Displayport 1.4.

DisplayPort 1.4 is HBR3, so 29.5GBit/S practical limit when accounting for the 20% bandwidth used for data encoding.

IIRC, 240Hz 1440p at 10bpc HDR10 is just under 31GBit/S uncompressed, and therefore exceeds the bandwidth of DP1.4 and 1.4a

 

It'll do 200Hz 1440p at 10bpc HDR10, but not the full 240Hz uncompressed. DSC would handle 240Hz fine and then some. 

"Looks like some people don't know the specs of DisplayPort 1.4" 

[Kris194]

Yeah, I know, I've already edited message. My bad

Edited November 22, 2022 by Kris194

[DODI3OG]

13 hours ago, Mexicola9302 said:

I got a LG OLED55B9SLA (2019) 2160p/120HZ with G-Sync and HDR works perfectly normal in 4K with 120 HZ. but the "handshake" sometimes fails, so i have to do it again. That TV has low nits, so it's not very bright if there is much black on the screen, and it doesn't have HDR10+, but else it's a very good TV. I got it connected to a DENON x1700H DAB Dolby Atmos AV-reciever. But i don't use Atmos, i currently just use 7.1 surround, but with 2 subwoofers, 2 large speakers and 5 "normal" speakers but all can produce bass on their own, so no small satellite speakers that barely produce decent sound.

 

High Refresh Rate only reduces input lag, if you actually have the FPS at the refresh rate limit. You dont have lower input lag, if you only got 60 FPS playing on a 240 HZ monitor than on a 120 HZ monitor with the same FPS: It will feel the same on both monitors/TV's because you still got the same FPS.

 

So you also won't have lower input lag on a 240 HZ monitor if you play with 120 FPS on it. It will still feel like if you play on a 120 HZ monitor. Input lag wise, there will be no difference. You can really only future proof yourself with a 240 HZ monitor, if you play with consoles. But honestly it's unlikely that the next gen consoles so PS6 will support games with 240 FPS. I mean very very very unlikely. You can be happy if you have 120 FPS at 4K or 60 FPS at 8K, on consoles.

Thanks a lot! I've been reading a lot on this since last night. Here's hoping LG comes up with a 32" 4k/120hz OLED someday (If they already have one, please inform me, preferably on the level of LG CX), but I'm guessing it'll be a bit more expensive than their current top 4k options. 

 

I think 4k/120 might be overkill for current-gen, but I think they'll be fully utilized next-gen or after since 120fps is standard for crossplay competitive games.

 

Judging by my measurements from the website below, I could play comfortably with 4k 32" and 27" on a table setting (25" and 21" away, respectively), compared to 1440p at 27", which I have to play more than a meter away to have the image be indistinguishable from 4k. To get more nerdy, that means 1440p 27" should be played/viewedfrom 116cm away to be indistinguishable from 4k monitors, whether said monitor is 27", 32" or 42".

 

The thing is that 42" is just excessive for me; the FOV it takes is too much up close and I don't like sitting farther, not to mention diminishing returns at a distance. I can game with 32" for up to 1 meter away with a controller, and for K&M 27" is enough for my needs. 4k will probably sit right on 32" and 27". I'll end up picking 32" for versatility.

https://www.designcompaniesranked.com/resources/is-this-retina/

[Mexicola9302]

I would also buy a 32" monitor, i currently got a 27" one, and i notice it's a tiny bit too small for me. But im in no rush to replace it, i wait until it's broken. I bought this Acer Predator XB270HAbprz 1080p, 144 HZ, G-Sync in 2015 for 459,33€, damn monitors were expensive back then. I am pretty sure now i could get a similar one for like only 150-250€.

 

From personal experience i would never buy a Samsung TV again (had a 60" Samsung TV that broke exactly one week after warranty expired) but maybe a Samsung monitor (my old one was a Samsung i gave to my neighbour and it lasted from 2009-2022), i would recommend LG TV's and ACER monitors. I never tried ASUS monitors, the ones sold in 2015 all had problems iirc, like broken pixels and stuff, that is why i bought an ACER back then. And i am still happy with it 7 years later it still works like day one, nothing burned in, no dead pixels or other weird things happened.

 

32" should be fine with 1440p and 144 HZ, i wouldn't want more tbh. 4K is only needed for larger monitors/TV's. But because you play on console you should go for 4K, for compatibility. If you were a PC player a 1440p monitor would be enough. But honestly i got no idea how that works on consoles, if you can just play a game in 1440p instead of 2160 without any problems. Yeah you should just get a 4K 120 HZ monitor with Freesync i guess, because consoles use AMD GPU's.

[DODI3OG]

8 hours ago, Mexicola9302 said:

I would also buy a 32" monitor, i currently got a 27" one, and i notice it's a tiny bit too small for me. But im in no rush to replace it, i wait until it's broken. I bought this Acer Predator XB270HAbprz 1080p, 144 HZ, G-Sync in 2015 for 459,33€, damn monitors were expensive back then. I am pretty sure now i could get a similar one for like only 150-250€.

 

From personal experience i would never buy a Samsung TV again (had a 60" Samsung TV that broke exactly one week after warranty expired) but maybe a Samsung monitor (my old one was a Samsung i gave to my neighbour and it lasted from 2009-2022), i would recommend LG TV's and ACER monitors. I never tried ASUS monitors, the ones sold in 2015 all had problems iirc, like broken pixels and stuff, that is why i bought an ACER back then. And i am still happy with it 7 years later it still works like day one, nothing burned in, no dead pixels or other weird things happened.

 

32" should be fine with 1440p and 144 HZ, i wouldn't want more tbh. 4K is only needed for larger monitors/TV's. But because you play on console you should go for 4K, for compatibility. If you were a PC player a 1440p monitor would be enough. But honestly i got no idea how that works on consoles, if you can just play a game in 1440p instead of 2160 without any problems. Yeah you should just get a 4K 120 HZ monitor with Freesync i guess, because consoles use AMD GPU's.

I just read this reply and made me think that probably 1440p is enough, preferrably at 32", they're basically almost indistinguishable with 4k at 1m (my distance for 32" displays).

 

I think 1440p is more than enough for current-gen since both PS and Xbox support that resolution @ 60fps. As for next-gen, here's hoping it's still supported like 1080p is nowadays. I guess I'll just wait for a cheaper 120hz option, if there's any. Otherwise, I might just end up with 4k someday.

Any of you guys tried 40fps/120hz? How good is it?

[Mexicola9302]

Why just why?

 

Normally i would ask you for things? But not now.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Mexicola9302

[Mexicola9302]

40FPS is garbage because it is 40FPS.

[DEALUX]

Both the Series X and PS5 can do 1440p now. I would wait for a RTINGS review on this monitor to see how it behaves with consoles. I'm not sure if 1440p 120Hz is supported on consoles. In theory it would be if it has HDMI 2.0 but it might be a bit more tricky.

Edited November 24, 2022 by DEALUX

[DODI3OG]

On 11/24/2022 at 2:11 AM, Mexicola9302 said:

Why just why?

 

Normally i would ask you for things? But not now.

Eeeeehh. 4k/120 will probably be enough for this gen or two. Our LG 32 Oled we got from 2013 for my PS3 is still working, albeit with several noticeable burn-ins since last year.

For my use, it'll probably last an entire decade at least without burn-in.