Question Would you buy a OLED TV for a monitor? Which there of these would you prefer?

[MtSeldon]

I have an Asus MG278Q monitor right now. It’s ok. Very fast panel, Free sync is supported but color reproduction is poor. So, I’m looking for a new monitor. I did a little research, some are advising to look TV’s, specially OLED TV’s for this generation.
Min 120 hz and Freesync/Gsync support is must for me. So, I found these three candidates.

1. LG OLED48CXPUB

This one has a OLED panel and said to have the best color productions, specially blacks. But I never used a 48” TV as a monitor. Does anyone has a personal experience with these big panels? Isn’t it too big to put on a desk and use it at a desktop monitor distance (about 70cm)?
OLED’s are great for movies, games but how good are they for text related work? Like for Excel or Visual Studio?
I can see Ultrawide monitors being useful if you put two apps side by side but is 21:9 ratio at this size good for multitasking Office related work?

2. SAMSUNG 43-inch Class QLED Q60T Series
This one was advised as a cheaper alternative. Reviews seems ok but nothing very positive. 43” is more suitable for computer monitor, I think. But as far as I can see, It supports Freesync.

3. LG 38GL950G-B 38-inch Ultragear Nano IPS 1ms Curved Gaming Monitor with 144HZ Refresh Rate and NVIDIA G-SYNC
This is the monitor I’m thinking of buying If I don’t find other usable. But at 1800usd it’s more expensive than an OLED TV, makes me think it’s a reasonable price.

Do you have any experience with any of these? Which one would you go for?

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

That doesn't make much sense to me, an OLED is objectively better at BOTH movies and gaming, unless you're concerned about burn-in, I just don't see why you'd want an inferior panel.

If you're playing World of Warcraft, or similar games, for very long periods of time, I get that, you WILL get burn-in if you're playing WoW 18 hours a day. The static GUI elements are everywhere in that game and they tend to stay there the whole time (your abilities and toolbars, health, chat window, etc)

But with varied usage, 3-4 hour gaming session, 2 hour movie, couple hours of youtube, 3-4 hours of web browsing, etc. It's simply far too varied content, and you're not going to get burn-in even after a few years assuming you let it run it's compensation cycles.

What games don't have static elements? To me it just isn't worth the headache. Sure oled looks the best. But what good is that if I'm constantly having to be aware of what is playing on the screen and whether it's going to ruin my tv. Does oled have features like gsync? Does it have 144hz?

 

[mnewsham]

Not to mention that 3ft distance means that you either have an enormous desk or it's not touching the wall (like I suggested above). Either way, it's not for people with tight flats...

It's wall-mounted and the desk is about 8 inches from the wall, the panel itself is about 2 inches from the edge of the desk. The desk itself is ~29" deep. So total distance to the panel is right around 31", with about 4 inches of room to move it back, and a good 6-8" of play to move it forward, so I can easily move it back to accommodate a theoretical CX48" panel, or if I wanted it to take up more of my peripheral vision, I can move it closer.


Obviously, if you're space constrained, a 40" + panel to be used at a desktop just isn't gonna make much sense. But if you DO have space for it, looks great at this distance for gaming, movies, youtube, etc.




Also a 43" 4k panel is fully visible to your eyes (assuming an average 140 degree FOV) at just 2.2 feet distance, at 2.5-2.7 feet where I tend to use mine, it easily fits in your entire field of view without you having to dart your eyes around to see the edges, or move your head.

 

[mnewsham]

What games don't have static elements? To me it just isn't worth the headache. Sure oled looks the best. But what good is that if I'm constantly having to be aware of what is playing on the screen and whether it's going to ruin my tv. Does oled have features like gsync? Does it have 144hz?

It has Gysnc at 120hz. Though 4k120hz requires HDMI 2.1 GPUs, which aren't out. So you can only run it at 1440p120hz or 4k60hz for the time being.

And like I said, it's not for everyone, if you know you regularly have static elements onscreen for extended periods of time, OLED isn't for you. But for me at least, I play a game for 4-5 hours at a time at most, then I go off and do other things, watch youtube, watch a movie, etc. The rare day when I DO have a long extended 10+ hour gaming session where I've played the same game the whole time, simply wont impact the OLED panel heavily, it would only become a concern with regular repeated extended periods of static elements, an occasional long gaming session wont be an issue.

 

[piokos]

It's wall-mounted and the desk is about 8 inches from the wall, the panel itself is about 2 inches from the edge of the desk. The desk itself is ~29" deep. So total distance to the panel is right around 31", with about 4 inches of room to move it back, and a good 6-8" of play to move it forward, so I can easily move it back to accommodate a theoretical CX48" panel, or if I wanted it to take up more of my peripheral vision, I can move it closer.

Well, this is the part I don't get.
You bought a large panel and moved your desk back from the wall. Now you're thinking about an even larger one and pushing the desk even further. Why? What's wrong with a monitor - offering the same resolution and angle of view?

And once you start moving the desk front and back depending on what you're doing on your PC, I'm completely lost.
Wouldn't it be easier to use an adjustable wall mount, so that you could move the panel, not the desk?

But if you DO have space for it, looks great at this distance for gaming, movies, youtube, etc.

I'm sure a more distant TV is great for movies and gaming (=>consoles).
And other things? Reading text?
I only have experience with TVs / projectors from office and it's a little weird. I feel detached.

Also, monitors come with a matte or anti-glare surface. TVs generally don't, so sunlight and other light sources are problematic.

In the end, it seems like getting a TV instead of a monitor costs more, creates many issues and probably only makes sense if the PC is mostly used for gaming and movies.

 

[mnewsham]

Now you're thinking about an even larger one and pushing the desk even further.

I'm not at all, you're not understanding, the WALL mount is what i'd move back for a larger panel, I wouldn't have to move my desk at all. I have my 43" on a wall mount this is extended by ~6-8" already from the wall. I would just move that back ~4" or so for a larger panel.


Also, this isn't a TV, this is a 43" monitor, it has DisplayPort, USB, KVM functions, etc.

 

[killster1]

Well, this is the part I don't get.
You bought a large panel and moved your desk back from the wall. Now you're thinking about an even larger one and pushing the desk even further. Why? What's wrong with a monitor - offering the same resolution and angle of view?

And once you start moving the desk front and back depending on what you're doing on your PC, I'm completely lost.
Wouldn't it be easier to use an adjustable wall mount, so that you could move the panel, not the desk?

I'm sure a more distant TV is great for movies and gaming (=>consoles).
And other things? Reading text?
I only have experience with TVs / projectors from office and it's a little weird. I feel detached.

Also, monitors come with a matte or anti-glare surface. TVs generally don't, so sunlight and other light sources are problematic.

In the end, it seems like getting a TV instead of a monitor costs more, creates many issues and probably only makes sense if the PC is mostly used for gaming and movies.

thats cool that you like monitors better but i guess the reason most people use tv's is that most like, i guess most of the time if someone says they dont want to use a tv its because they live in a studio apartment and have no space or can not wall mount.

 

[MtSeldon]

...
In the end, it seems like getting a TV instead of a monitor costs more, creates many issues and probably only makes sense if the PC is mostly used for gaming and movies.

These are all fair points and that's why I never bought a TV as a monitor before.

But, TV technologies advance every year and priced fairly. They have solved much of the issues that made them unsuitable for a monitor. On the other hand, a Gaming monitor that's very questionable in quality doesn't offer much besides higher refresh rates. It isn't OLED or Qdot panel, which is the most important spec of a panel. And that gaming monitor may cost as much as an OLED TV. Monitors have a very little market share, producers don't care much.

Is there any info about the power consumption of that 48" OLED LG? Since I'm going to connect it to a UPS it's important that is doesn't have very high peak consumption. Some sources say OLED's consume less power, while others totally contradict that.

Glare screens of TV's are another matter. I've seen TVs, panels that act as a mirror even in a dark room. Its own light may be enough to reflect a user that is sitting 2-3 feet proximity to the screen.

 

[piokos]

Glare screens of TV's are another matter. I've seen TVs, panels that act as a mirror even in a dark room. Its own light may be enough to reflect a user that is sitting 2-3 feet proximity to the screen.

I have a 55" TV standing 2m from the sofa and I try not to watch TV in bright shirts. It is that bad.
Maybe there are some that don't reflect as much, but walking around a TV store, it does feel like being surrounded by mirrors.

Also, I just checked LG site and they're actually marketing these screens for gamers.

https://www.lg.com/ca_en/images/tvs/md06245597/gallery/zoom-12.jpg

We've discussed ergonomics a bit here, so maybe it's worth noting that pretty much everything is wrong in the setup they're showing.
I'm surprised some health&safety organization hasn't asked them to modify these pictures...

I don't want to sound like a 60-year-old guy - especially since I'm 30 and likely spend more time in front of a monitor than most forum members - but do people really game like that?
I hope they see well enough to find their way to the orthopedist...

 

[mnewsham]

I have a 55" TV standing 2m from the sofa and I try not to watch TV in bright shirts. It is that bad.
Maybe there are some that don't reflect as much, but walking around a TV store, it does feel like being surrounded by mirrors.

Also, I just checked LG site and they're actually marketing these screens for gamers.

https://www.lg.com/ca_en/images/tvs/md06245597/gallery/zoom-12.jpg

We've discussed ergonomics a bit here, so maybe it's worth noting that pretty much everything is wrong in the setup they're showing.
I'm surprised some health&safety organization hasn't asked them to modify these pictures...

I don't want to sound like a 60-year-old guy - especially since I'm 30 and likely spend more time in front of a monitor than most forum members - but do people really game like that?
I hope they see well enough to find their way to the orthopedist...

I think you might be basing your knowledge off older screen tech at much lower resolutions/pixel densities.

I've been using a 43" 4k monitor for 2 full years of daily use and it isn't damaging to my health and safety, and it's quite ergonomic for me and how i use it.

I personally think in the marketing picture he's sitting slightly too close, but not by much. I'd personally probably want it another 6-8" further back.

The idea of sitting too close to a screen causing eye problems is just silly, people have been using VR headsets for years now without issue and that's a screen literally centimeters from your eyes.

 

[piokos]

I think you might be basing your knowledge off older screen tech at much lower resolutions/pixel densities.

High resolution makes it even worse because of small details (tiny pixel pitch), but that mostly concerns people working with text or productivity apps.
It doesn't concern games - at least as long as all the elements scale properly and aren't too small.

For most of the factors I'm mentioning (e.g. reflections, intense light, bad posture caused by large panels) resolution isn't even a variable.

I personally think in the marketing picture he's sitting slightly too close, but not by much. I'd personally probably want it another 6-8" further back.

The TV is too close and too high (forcing to look up a lot), his elbows are too low, his carpal bones are put on the edge of the desk.
It just isn't a healthy way to sit in front of a PC. And at least some of the issues are caused by the screen.
But he looks relaxed and cool. And it makes people want the TV. Obvious.

The idea of sitting too close to a screen causing eye problems is just silly, people have been using VR headsets for years now without issue and that's a screen literally centimeters from your eyes.

Screens aren't damaging your eyes because they are near your face.
There are 3 main sources of eye strain when using a monitor:
1) high light emission - to provide contrast against ambient light,
2) constant short focus distance - not something our eyes are used to (but give them another million years of evolution...)
3) too small details - as mentioned above

A big 4K TV standing 60cm from your face is a fairly hardcore scenario.

And the surprising part: VR headsets are healthier than monitors.
They cut other light sources off, so the contrast can be great despite low emissions.
And the focusing distance is usually around 2m (i.e. as if you were looking at a screen 2m away).

 

[killster1]

High resolution makes it even worse because of small details (tiny pixel pitch), but that mostly concerns people working with text or productivity apps.
It doesn't concern games - at least as long as all the elements scale properly and aren't too small.

For most of the factors I'm mentioning (e.g. reflections, intense light, bad posture caused by large panels) resolution isn't even a variable.

The TV is too close and too high (forcing to look up a lot), his elbows are too low, his carpal bones are put on the edge of the desk.
It just isn't a healthy way to sit in front of a PC. And at least some of the issues are caused by the screen.
But he looks relaxed and cool. And it makes people want the TV. Obvious.

Screens aren't damaging your eyes because they are near your face.
There are 3 main sources of eye strain when using a monitor:
1) high light emission - to provide contrast against ambient light,
2) constant short focus distance - not something our eyes are used to (but give them another million years of evolution...)
3) too small details - as mentioned above

A big 4K TV standing 60cm from your face is a fairly hardcore scenario.

And the surprising part: VR headsets are healthier than monitors.
They cut other light sources off, so the contrast can be great despite low emissions.
And the focusing distance is usually around 2m (i.e. as if you were looking at a screen 2m away).

maybe you should get blackout curtains for your tv room. yes it does sound like you are hyper critical of any setup that is not your own. the photo looks fine to me yea his wrists are close to the edge but they dont have to be. if anything the monitor looks a little to low. how close is bad for you? i seriously use a 65" nu8000 and i do find if i sit close i have to move my eyes around the screen a little but it doesnt strain me at all.

 

[piokos]

maybe you should get blackout curtains for your tv room.

You may have misunderstood. I don't have any issues with sun coming through the window (I mean: I'm working during the day anyway).
The TV emits a lot of light and that's what reflects from me, the sofa, the books behind me etc. Blackout curtains won't help.

TV panels are generally extremely glossy, while PC monitors are generally matte or at least have some anti-glare coating. It's a key differentiating factor.
Of course this won't be a big issue in gaming or movies, but if you buy a TV instead of a monitor, you'll be forced to use it for other tasks.

the photo looks fine to me yea his wrists are close to the edge but they dont have to be. if anything the monitor looks a little to low. how close is bad for you? i seriously use a 65" nu8000 and i do find if i sit close i have to move my eyes around the screen a little but it doesnt strain me at all.

It's not like I made up that comment. It's well known how a healthy PC posture looks. If you're skeptical, you can look into it - there are medical explanations for every aspect.

Monitor too low? That guy's eyes are almost in the middle of the monitor. They should be near the top edge. Human head and spine are optimized for looking down, not up.
Again, this may be OK-ish for gaming (since most of the stuff is happening in the lower half of the screen).
Most other PC use cases are actually the opposite: you're using the top half of the screen a lot more often - especially the top edge (menus, toolboxes, tabs).

 

[MtSeldon]

There is a review on Ratings and it shows the has a good quality anti-glare coating. At least this is not a concern.

LG CX OLED Review (OLED48CXPUB, OLED55CXPUA, OLED65CXPUA, OLED77CXPUA)

The LG CX OLED is an excellent high-end TV. It's part of LG's popular OLED lineup, sitting behind the LG GX OLED, and it delivers the same exceptional picture qu...

www.rtings.com

Burn-in still seems to be a problem, no info if it's improved over the previous generation.

 

[Muadib]

There is a review on Ratings and it shows the has a good quality anti-glare coating. At least this is not a concern.

LG CX OLED Review (OLED48CXPUB, OLED55CXPUA, OLED65CXPUA, OLED77CXPUA)

The LG CX OLED is an excellent high-end TV. It's part of LG's popular OLED lineup, sitting behind the LG GX OLED, and it delivers the same exceptional picture qu...

www.rtings.com

Burn-in still seems to be a problem, no info if it's improved over the previous generation.

LG has added screen savers to help with burn in, but sadly it's still an issue.

 

[mnewsham]

LG has added screen savers to help with burn in, but sadly it's still an issue.

Yes it's an inherent issue with the current state of OLEDs. With proper consumer awareness and mitigation techniques, it's easily avoidable for most users and the vast majority of people would never end up with screen burn-in if they follow the basic mitigation strategies.

However, if you just want a monitor that you can do whatever you want with it, including leaving it on for 20+ hours a day every day playing CNN or the exact same web page day after day, then yea, OLED simply isn't for you.

 

[loki1944]

this new model has GSync support, HDMI 2.1 and faster response time. Therefor said to be more suitable to use with PCs. Though I don't see much info if there have been improvements about the burn-in problem. Some sources say it's no longer a problem, but this video shows (though not a real-life scenario and using a previous generation panel ) burn in still happens.

This video claims it's not a problem anymore.

Yup, other than price, that would be a major concern for me as a pc monitor; reminds me of the old plasmas.

 

[Majcric]

The burn in would scare me away as a monitor. Now I would love for Sony to sell me one of their 900 series FALD sets at 32”.

49” is just way too much for my use.

 

[killster1]

The burn in would scare me away as a monitor. Now I would love for Sony to sell me one of their 900 series FALD sets at 32”.

49” is just way too much for my use.

49" is perfect although I'm not a programmer staring at the monitor all day long. Nothing scares me except my kids breaking the screen. As soon as 3000 series nvidia comes out with hdmi2.1 im buying one of these. Burn in is very easy to avoid like others said turn down brightness and don't watch CNN all day and it eill be fine. Ur not planning on using it for 15 years right?

 

[Majcric]

I was watching a youtube reviewer, and he was insisting that PC users should prefer TVs over monitors since monitors use older technologies and overpriced. His first choice was LG 48CX, and the second choice was SAMSUNG 43-inch Class QLED Q60T Series.

Is there any reason no one chose Samsung Q60T? is it really very inferior to OLED? If 48" is found to be too big, this is 43".

Tough in this video, even the 43" monitor looks unergonomic on desktop.

I can agree to this to some extent. Monitors still have their strengths though especially for competitive gaming.

 

[Majcric]

These are all fair points and that's why I never bought a TV as a monitor before.

But, TV technologies advance every year and priced fairly. They have solved much of the issues that made them unsuitable for a monitor. On the other hand, a Gaming monitor that's very questionable in quality doesn't offer much besides higher refresh rates. It isn't OLED or Qdot panel, which is the most important spec of a panel. And that gaming monitor may cost as much as an OLED TV. Monitors have a very little market share, producers don't care much.

Is there any info about the power consumption of that 48" OLED LG? Since I'm going to connect it to a UPS it's important that is doesn't have very high peak consumption. Some sources say OLED's consume less power, while others totally contradict that.

Glare screens of TV's are another matter. I've seen TVs, panels that act as a mirror even in a dark room. Its own light may be enough to reflect a user that is sitting 2-3 feet proximity to the screen.

You sir have made some very valid points.

 

[Muadib]

This review says that LG lowered the bandwidth on the HDMI 2.1 ports on the CX to 40Gbps, instead of the 48Gbps the HDMI 2.1 spec calls for. That makes no sense to me since this was not the case with the C9. Jump to 14.00 on the video:

 

[mnewsham]

This review says that LG lowered the bandwidth on the HDMI 2.1 ports on the CX to 40Gbps, instead of the 48Gbps the HDMI 2.1 spec calls for. That makes no sense to me since this was not the case with the C9. Jump to 14.00 on the video:

Who cares?

It's a 10 bit panel, the only thing 48gbps would add is 12-bit 4k 4:4:4 support, and again, since it's a 10-bit panel, that seems pretty much pointless.

 

[Muadib]

Who cares?

It's a 10 bit panel, the only thing 48gbps would add is 12-bit 4k 4:4:4 support, and again, since it's a 10-bit panel, that seems pretty much pointless.

Where did you see that the panel is just 10 bit? I don't recall seeing that on LG's site. If you are right though, then I guess I understand.

 

[mnewsham]

Where did you see that the panel is just 10 bit? I don't recall seeing that on LG's site. If you are right though, then I guess I understand.

All LG OLEDs are 10-bit and have been since at least 2016.

 

[Muadib]

All LG OLEDs are 10-bit and have been since at least 2016.
View attachment 22065

Ok, I'll take your word for it. So then it seems to me that a CX is a downgrade from the C9. Unless you are looking for the 48", I see no reason to get a CX. Care to disagree?