deskthority

I don't care about gaming but I do care about photo editing. For this OLED is a game changer as it allows a wider color gamut than anything else out there.

XMIT wrote: I don't care about gaming but I do care about photo editing. For this OLED is a game changer as it allows a wider color gamut than anything else out there.

OLED does not have a larger color gamut, it has higher CONTRAST only.

Most LCDs actually produce wider gamut than current OLED.. reason? Blue OLED crystals still sux0rz

OLED is not a game changer for photo editing. It just looks more vibrant for Still frames and slow pans..

andrewjoy wrote: is ULMB that good ? Is it worth giving up adaptive refresh from something like g-gync ?

For me frame rate is very important , i even feel 60htz is a bit low

According to this Reddit thread, it seems that both G-Sync and ULMB offer the same thing. The main difference between the two is that ULMB offers smoother performance at high frame-rates/refresh-rates while G-Sync offers smoother performance at lower frame-rates/refresh-rates. Mind you, in this case "lower" isn't all that low, being around 40-70 fps. "Higher" is really high, being 80 fps+.

https://m.reddit.com/r/Monitors/comment ... c_vs_ulmb/

ULMB is really a mixed bag in my opinion. Flashing the backlight rapidly is not great no matter if you call it ULMB or LightBoost. Yes it allows faster more fluid movements because the pixels are turned off and on all the time. It has a lot of drawbacks.

If you are sensitive to PWM flicker, ULMB does the same thing. Even if you can't see it directly you can feel the difference within the first few minutes, it's just a flickering monitor which is undesirable, no matter how fast or "indistinguishable" the flickering occurs.

It kills the brightness (because the pixels are off half of the time), which forces you to play in the dark, even worse for your eyesight and circadian rhythm.

In my experience, a fast 144hz monitor, with excellent overdrive, is preferable to moderately fast 144hz monitors which lack a proper overdrive but offer ULMB/Lightboost instead.

Playing at high brightness is important especially in dark areas or games where you need to be able to identify the enemy instantly (Counter-Strike). It's no use to have the pixels move faster if you can't even make out if someone is hiding in a dark alleyway.

Just my 2 Eurocents.

shreebles wrote: In my experience, a fast 144hz monitor, with excellent overdrive, is preferable to moderately fast 144hz monitors which lack a proper overdrive but offer ULMB/Lightboost instead.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I haven't tried ULMB, so I can't say for sure. Still, 144hz panels have major drawbacks of their own.

The first problem is that they're TN. Although any gamers that are extremely competitive will always side with TN, anyone who's even remotely casual won't. ISP looks too much better, and I personally like the contrast of VA even more. Unfortunately, IPS panels don't have those higher refresh rates.

Besides that, we're entering the age of 4K gaming, and pushing 4K graphics at 120fps+ is next to impossible. This means that if you want to play at 4K, those fast TN panels will become useless since you won't be able to take advantage of those higher refresh rates.

All in all, I'll just wait for a faster IPS display. Or maybe a lower latency VA.

There are 144htz IPS but they are super expensive. I would take 1440p ( or better yet 1600p) at 144htz over 4k at 60

Ace wrote: The first problem is that they're TN. Although any gamers that are extremely competitive will always side with TN, anyone who's even remotely casual won't. ISP looks too much better, and I personally like the contrast of VA even more. Unfortunately, IPS panels don't have those higher refresh rates.

Besides that, we're entering the age of 4K gaming, and pushing 4K graphics at 120fps+ is next to impossible. This means that if you want to play at 4K, those fast TN panels will become useless since you won't be able to take advantage of those higher refresh rates.

All in all, I'll just wait for a faster IPS display. Or maybe a lower latency VA.

I'm with you on that last bit 100%, we all want faster IPSs and I would even prefer VA.

But as for the rest, I think that is purely down to personal preference and budget, manufacturers are trying to push us into buying useless shit for 4k while the performance isn't there yet.
What use is a 4k monitor if you can't game without turning everything into a 30fps slideshow?
Conclusion: Play older games or spend more on a graphics card. But even a single GTX1080 will have trouble maxing out newer games at 4k with decent performance, and that is a graphics card for the top 1% of gamers.
We are far from 4k for the masses.
And again that personal preference, I like 4k but I like fast fluid gameplay on high refresh rate monitors more. And I'm happy to drop 300€ on a GTX980 that gives me some performance for the money but not 450€ or more just to get into the high tier. And that 200-300€ price point is where most GPUs are sold.

I've seen IPS and I've seen VA and while I appreciate their image quality, as a gamer that has played on 144hz I will prefer that, and for sure I'm not the only one. I'm a "casual" gamer, I game for fun, but I consider seeing everything faster at 144hz and playing to win fun.
Each technology has it's advantages and drawbacks, and the superior technology will not always sell the best if it has its own disadvantages. Not every TN is horrible and IPS or VA does not automatically mean that the screen is great.

andrewjoy wrote: There are 144htz IPS but they are super expensive. I would take 1440p ( or better yet 1600p) at 144htz over 4k at 60

There is only one 27" 1440p 144hz IPS panel on the market at the moment and it suffers from severe quality issues. There are still no 24" 1080p IPS panels with 144hz.
At the moment, it's best to wait because no reasonable options for 144hz IPS or VA panels exist.