The 'I need a next-gen proof TV' thread

Pargon · May 21, 2020

nillapuddin said:
See you've explained it in a way that I can parse it, but it seems to constantly undercut itself

Bfi @ 60 good
Bfi @ 120 bad
but also
Bfi = less bright, doesn't work with vrr

It's like there isn't a truly slam dunk answer here

60Hz BFI = Retro consoles, and games locked to 60 FPS.
VRR = Next-gen consoles and PC games > 60 FPS.

The way LG have implemented BFI on the CX means that the auto/low/med options are useless, since they double the refresh rate to 120Hz for a 60Hz source.
The high option refreshes at 60Hz, which means it's the only option worth using for games.

The way they could have implemented BFI, but appear not to have done so, is to have low/med/high have variable persistence at 60Hz, for 12.5ms, 8.33ms, and 4.17ms.
Since high is the only option that runs at 60Hz, we only get 4.17ms as a usable option now.
That's better than the previous OLEDs which were fixed at 8.33ms, but is also going to be dimmer.
For reference, 60 FPS has a persistence of 16.7ms without using BFI. CRTs were ≤2ms, while Plasma TVs were typically around 4–6ms. Shorter persistence = clearer and smoother motion, but also more flicker and loss of brightness.

The loss of brightness does not matter too much if the display can still reach 100 nits with BFI enabled, as that is the brightness specified for SDR content; i.e. all retro consoles.
Some people do prefer their display to be set brighter than the SDR spec though.

Wariobenotware · May 21, 2020

Pargon said:
60Hz BFI = Retro consoles, and games locked to 60 FPS.

VRR = Next-gen consoles and PC games > 60 FPS.

The way LG have implemented BFI on the CX means that the auto/low/med options are useless, since they double the refresh rate to 120Hz for a 60Hz source.
The high option refreshes at 60Hz, which means it's the only option worth using for games.

The way they could have implemented BFI, but appear not to have done so, is to have low/med/high have variable persistence at 60Hz, for 12.5ms, 8.33ms, and 4.17ms.
Since high is the only option that runs at 60Hz, we only get 4.17ms as a usable option now.
That's better than the previous OLEDs which were fixed at 8.33ms, but is also going to be dimmer.
For reference, 60 FPS has a persistence of 16.7ms without using BFI. CRTs were ≤2ms, while Plasma TVs were typically around 4–6ms. Shorter persistence = clearer and smoother motion, but also more flicker and loss of brightness.

The loss of brightness does not matter too much if the display can still reach 100 nits with BFI enabled, as that is the brightness specified for SDR content; i.e. all retro consoles.
Some people do prefer their display to be set brighter than the SDR spec though.

Interesting post. I guess that means that BFI isn't a good option for older games that run at 30FPS?

FredFredriksson · May 21, 2020

So i'm looking my very first TV at the moment and i'm interested in the new LG Nano906NA with 65".
I will be using it for 70% Gaming (PC, PS4 Pro, plan to get PS5) and 30% Streaming, it only has 100HZ but all the other things like VRR, ALLM and eARC are there and it has Freesync.
I know you guys recommend OLED but i don't want to worry about burn-in.

So what do you think of these new Nanocell Models? Or would you recommend other non-OLED Models instead?

Pargon · May 21, 2020

Wariobenotware said:
Interesting post. I guess that means that BFI isn't a good option for older games that run at 30FPS?

You will get double images with 60Hz BFI and quadruple-images with 120Hz.
Some people still prefer that to the huge amount of motion blur that you get without BFI though.

There's not really an ideal solution for anything less than 50 FPS, as flicker becomes a real problem at that point.

FredFredriksson said:
So i'm looking my very first TV at the moment and i'm interested in the new LG Nano906NA with 65".
I will be using it for 70% Gaming (PC, PS4 Pro, plan to get PS5) and 30% Streaming, it only has 100HZ but all the other things like VRR, ALLM and eARC are there and it has Freesync.
I know you guys recommend OLED but i don't want to worry about burn-in.

So what do you think of these new Nanocell Models? Or would you recommend other non-OLED Models instead?

People on this forum generally seem to favor contrast over image quality, so I don't think many will recommend LG's IPS TVs.
Personally though, unless I was planning on watching it in a dark room, I don't think the contrast is going to be that much of an issue, and the viewing angle will be much better than most VA-type panels.

I've always recommended IPS-type displays for my family, and they have never been dissatisfied with them.
One recently replaced a dead Panasonic LCD that used their IPS-Alpha panels with a lower-end Samsung TV using a VA-type panel, and it looks terrible unless you're in the seat directly in front of it.
Most of the VA-type TVs that try to fix the viewing angle problem end up with much lower contrast anyway - and they're stuck with awful VA response times.

nillapuddin · May 21, 2020

Pargon said:
60Hz BFI = Retro consoles, and games locked to 60 FPS.

VRR = Next-gen consoles and PC games > 60 FPS.

The way LG have implemented BFI on the CX means that the auto/low/med options are useless, since they double the refresh rate to 120Hz for a 60Hz source.
The high option refreshes at 60Hz, which means it's the only option worth using for games.

The way they could have implemented BFI, but appear not to have done so, is to have low/med/high have variable persistence at 60Hz, for 12.5ms, 8.33ms, and 4.17ms.
Since high is the only option that runs at 60Hz, we only get 4.17ms as a usable option now.
That's better than the previous OLEDs which were fixed at 8.33ms, but is also going to be dimmer.
For reference, 60 FPS has a persistence of 16.7ms without using BFI. CRTs were ≤2ms, while Plasma TVs were typically around 4–6ms. Shorter persistence = clearer and smoother motion, but also more flicker and loss of brightness.

The loss of brightness does not matter too much if the display can still reach 100 nits with BFI enabled, as that is the brightness specified for SDR content; i.e. all retro consoles.
Some people do prefer their display to be set brighter than the SDR spec though.

I appreciate the response, this week alone I was dead set on C9 this weekend, then completely reserved for CX this fall, back to C9 watch, now uncertain lol

$1900 isn't a killer price, but C9 is readily available right now and back in the day I paid $2200 for my B6 (and I'm selling it for a thousand) so I might just do it anyways.

If it's the wrong move maybe I'll just flip again in a couple years ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Pargon · May 21, 2020

nillapuddin said:
I appreciate the response, this week alone I was dead set on C9 this weekend, then completely reserved for CX this fall, back to C9 watch, now uncertain lol

It would be a much easier decision if LG had not gone with 120Hz for auto/low/med BFI, and kept low/med/high at 60Hz with variable persistence instead.
BFI for a native 120Hz (120 FPS) input does not seem to be implemented well on the CX, and as I said, I suspect that most people using a 120Hz input would prefer to use VRR which makes it pointless too.

So it's really a decision between BFI that gets you 8.33ms persistence ("600 lines" of motion resolution) vs 4.17ms persistence ("1200 lines" of motion resolution).
But the CX could be much dimmer than the C9 when using those settings. We need measurements of the CX on high with the cell light at max brightness to see if it can reach at least 100 nits.

After reading more about the CX implementation, I'd question whether that's worth any extra money over the C9, or even waiting for it to drop in price.
I would at least wait for HDTVtest's review to see if they find any meaningful differences in image quality/processing options.

nillapuddin · May 21, 2020

Pargon said:
It would be a much easier decision if LG had not gone with 120Hz for auto/low/med BFI, and kept low/med/high at 60Hz with variable persistence instead.
BFI for a native 120Hz (120 FPS) input does not seem to be implemented well on the CX, and as I said, I suspect that most people using a 120Hz input would prefer to use VRR which makes it pointless too.

So it's really a decision between BFI that gets you 8.33ms persistence ("600 lines" of motion resolution) vs 4.17ms persistence ("1200 lines" of motion resolution).
But the CX could be much dimmer than the C9 when using those settings. We need measurements of the CX on high with the cell light at max brightness to see if it can reach at least 100 nits.

After reading more about the CX implementation, I'd question whether that's worth any extra money over the C9, or even waiting for it to drop in price.
I would at least wait for HDTVtest's review to see if they find any meaningful differences in image quality/processing options.

Cool cool cool, I'll keep my shopping carts at bay for a bit longer.

Hopefully they put that out soon so we don't miss out on the last few C9s!

FredFredriksson · May 22, 2020

Pargon said:
People on this forum generally seem to favor contrast over image quality, so I don't think many will recommend LG's IPS TVs.
Personally though, unless I was planning on watching it in a dark room, I don't think the contrast is going to be that much of an issue, and the viewing angle will be much better than most VA-type panels.

I've always recommended IPS-type displays for my family, and they have never been dissatisfied with them.
One recently replaced a dead Panasonic LCD that used their IPS-Alpha panels with a lower-end Samsung TV using a VA-type panel, and it looks terrible unless you're in the seat directly in front of it.
Most of the VA-type TVs that try to fix the viewing angle problem end up with much lower contrast anyway - and they're stuck with awful VA response times.

Thanks for your advice! I'll go with it then!

Pargon · May 22, 2020

FredFredriksson said:
Thanks for your advice! I'll go with it then!

To be clear: I'm not specifically recommending that model, just saying that many people here will tell you to avoid it because it's using an IPS panel, due to their lower contrast. Personally though, I tend to prefer IPS panels to VA ones even if the contrast is lower - so long as they're not being used in a dark room.
Check reviews etc first. Something like the Samsung Q80T may be better - though it only has a single HDMI 2.1 port.
RTINGS just posted a review of that and say it has "IPS-like viewing angles" - though it looks like it still has off-axis gamma shift in their video. That's something they don't seem to measure.

RedGator · May 22, 2020

Apologies if this has been stated already but there's a lot of jargon frying my head in here, but is it likely there will be HDMI 2.1 capable TVs under £1,000 or would I be better off settling for a 2.0?

FredFredriksson · May 22, 2020

Pargon said:
To be clear: I'm not specifically recommending that model, just saying that many people here will tell you to avoid it because it's using an IPS panel, due to their lower contrast. Personally though, I tend to prefer IPS panels to VA ones even if the contrast is lower - so long as they're not being used in a dark room.
Check reviews etc first. Something like the Samsung Q80T may be better - though it only has a single HDMI 2.1 port.
RTINGS just posted a review of that and say it has "IPS-like viewing angles" - though it looks like it still has off-axis gamma shift in their video. That's something they don't seem to measure.

Yes, thanks, i understand! And of course i'm trying to get as much information as i can before buying!

Tennis · May 22, 2020

RedGator said:
Apologies if this has been stated already but there's a lot of jargon frying my head in here, but is it likely there will be HDMI 2.1 capable TVs under £1,000 or would I be better off settling for a 2.0?

I recently saw a 55" LG B9 for €899 (it sold out immediately tho) so I'd recommend to look out for sales on that one and also C9.

Euler007 · May 22, 2020

Man these OLED TVs are expensive in Canada. The 65" CX is 4,021.99$ at costco, that's 4,624.28$ with taxes in my province. Assuming you make 100k per year the marginal tax rate is 45.71%, so that's 8,517.74$ in gross income (8.5% of your yearly income not counting other deductions if you make 100k). The house around that TV isn't exactly cheap either, even outside the frothy markets.

I might have to go for a Vizio P series Quantum X at 1499$ instead, it's just hard to justify that price in my budget.

nillapuddin · May 22, 2020

Welp, I shot first. Went ahead and bought the C9 from Newegg for $1900.

I figure if it somehow gets discounted more in 30 days I'll hit up VISA and see if they will recoup me, and if not I'm okay with it. Frankly by the end of June I'm not sure how many more you will be able to buy? Maybe I'm being naive.

My friend is buying my B6 for $1000, so $900 is an easy call for me.

Hopefully this bad boy will last a full console cycle

Alek · May 22, 2020

I always play on monitors, not interested in big TVs and it'll be the same for PS5.

Do you folks think this monitor will be good for next gen?

Acer Predator XB273KGPbmiipprzx 27 inch UHD Gaming Monitor, Black/Grey (IPS Panel, G-Sync Compatible/Adaptive Sync, HDR 400, Quantum Dot, DP, HDMI, USB Hub, Height Adjustable Stand): Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

Buy

www.amazon.co.uk

Pargon · May 22, 2020

GungJoe said:
I always play on monitors, not interested in big TVs and it'll be the same for PS5.
Do you folks think this monitor will be good for next gen?

Acer Predator XB273KGPbmiipprzx 27 inch UHD Gaming Monitor, Black/Grey (IPS Panel, G-Sync Compatible/Adaptive Sync, HDR 400, Quantum Dot, DP, HDMI, USB Hub, Height Adjustable Stand): Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

Buy

www.amazon.co.uk

No. G-Sync uses DisplayPort.
They do not have HDMI 2.1 and do not support HDMI-VRR. You would likely be limited to basic 4K60 support from the PS5.
Additionally, "HDR400" means that it's not really doing proper HDR. It will accept an HDR input, but you're not getting a real HDR experience.

That price is around what I expect the 48CX OLED to be discounted to - though it may not be this year.

Stallion Free · May 22, 2020

So in regards to the CX BFI discussion: does BFI effect a normal 120 fps source? Example: If I go to play Half-Life 2 and I can lock it at 120 FPS from the videocard is the TV going to display 120 unique frames? Or is it just the BFI + 60 unique frames?

Pargon · May 22, 2020

Stallion Free said:
So in regards to the CX BFI discussion: does BFI effect a normal 120 fps source? Example: If I go to play Half-Life 2 and I can lock it at 120 FPS from the videocard is the TV going to display 120 unique frames? Or is it just the BFI + 60 unique frames?

120 frames plus BFI on the CX. No BFI at 120Hz on the C9.
RTINGS says it's not timed correctly and causes double-images - though I'd want to verify that against at least one more source.
Only 60Hz plus BFI set to high seems useful on these TVs. It sounds like LG messed up badly on the implementation.

C9 gets you 8.33ms persistence at 60Hz, while CX gets you 4.17ms.
That means clearer and smoother motion on the CX, but also a dimmer picture that may flicker more.

Alek · May 22, 2020

Pargon said:
No. G-Sync uses DisplayPort.
They do not have HDMI 2.1 and do not support HDMI-VRR. You would likely be limited to basic 4K60 support from the PS5.
Additionally, "HDR400" means that it's not really doing proper HDR. It will accept an HDR input, but you're not getting a real HDR experience.

That price is around what I expect the 48CX OLED to be discounted to - though it may not be this year.

What do you recommend for monitors?

I don't want anything like a 48CX OLED. Those types of big TVs just aren't the best for input latency and I play a lot of competitive games. I know the CX has latency down to 13ms, but that's still high compared to smaller screens, and I also don't think playing on a big screen in and of itself is necessarily good for competitive either.

Pargon · May 22, 2020

GungJoe said:
What do you recommend for monitors?

I don't want anything like a 48CX OLED. Those types of big TVs just aren't the best for input latency and I play a lot of competitive games. I know the CX has latency down to 13ms, but that's still high compared to smaller screens, and I also don't think playing on a big screen in and of itself is necessarily good for competitive either.

I don't think there is anything smaller than the 48CX with HDMI 2.1 support. No monitors at all that I'm aware of.
Don't forget that OLEDs have near-zero response times, compared to LCD which takes some time to change. Measured input lag is not the only factor to consider.

hey it's that dog · May 22, 2020

I don't really want to get a new TV for another year or two, but I keep hearing how amazing the C9 is. Should I be worried at all that LG's followup to the CX will somehow be worse than the C9 or is that crazy? I guess this question implies that the C9 will not be easily available in 1-2 years, which might also be false?

Pargon · May 22, 2020

hey it's that dog said:
Should I be worried at all that LG's followup to the CX will somehow be worse than the C9 or is that crazy?

The only downgrade there's been with LG's OLEDs so far that would have made me want to keep an older model is when they removed 3D support. I wish I had picked one up.

The CX is technically dropping a couple of minor features with its HDMI support (10-bit 4K120 on the CX vs 12-bit on the C9, and no DTS support over ARC/eARC) but it should be an improvement overall.
It just doesn't seem worth paying a premium for right now when C9s are cheap, unless you want a specific feature like the improved BFI - though that doesn't seem to be as much of an upgrade as some had hoped.

I would suggest people at least wait for HDTVtest's review to get the full picture before buying a C9 though.

nillapuddin · May 22, 2020

Pargon said:
I would suggest people at least wait for HDTVtest's review to get the full picture before buying a C9 though.

I didn't mean to disregard lol!

Im not sure the cadence of how long it takes hdtvtest to publish his videos though so I'll admit I probably jumped early

Fisty · May 22, 2020

Welp I scooped a CX 65" from Best Buy. Happy to finally replace my 10+ year old Sony 1080p 52"... it has served me well and I love that XMB but its time to retire it. Was going to wait a bit for price drops and PS5 launch... but figured I want to treat myself with that HDR on Ghost of Tsushima and high res on TLOU2

Also, ill be damned if it isn't a pain in the ass to find a 15 foot HDMI cable that does 48gbps. Only 1 made apparently?

DealWithIt · May 22, 2020

Euler007 said:
Man these OLED TVs are expensive in Canada. The 65" CX is 4,021.99$ at costco, that's 4,624.28$ with taxes in my province. Assuming you make 100k per year the marginal tax rate is 45.71%, so that's 8,517.74$ in gross income (8.5% of your yearly income not counting other deductions if you make 100k). The house around that TV isn't exactly cheap either, even outside the frothy markets.

I might have to go for a Vizio P series Quantum X at 1499$ instead, it's just hard to justify that price in my budget.

This post captured my interest so I spent some time looking up canadian tax rates. Provincial tax rates are indeed pretty insane.

A person making 100k in CA will pay $17,918.98 in federal taxes, before any deductions, credits or rebates.

In addition, if they live in Nova Scotia (where provincial tax rates are very high) they will pay
13,875.62 in provincial taxes.

So that looks like effective tax rates could be as high as 31.8% in high tax areas like Nova Scotia.

So that would make a $4624 around 6% of a Nova Scotian's income after taxes, but without factoring any deductions, refunds etc. It looked like Manitoba's provincial tax might be slightly higher, but how do you end up with 8.5%? I'm not Canadian, nor am I throwing mud I just thought the exercise was interesting.

dd492941 · May 22, 2020

I just purchased an lg c9 55in today because my old 4k hisense bit the dust and it feels so so so much better than my old one, and the picture is phenomenal. I cant wait for some next gen goodness on it.

Euler007 · May 22, 2020

DealWithIt said:
This post captured my interest so I spent some time looking up canadian tax rates. Provincial tax rates are indeed pretty insane.

A person making 100k in CA will pay $17,918.98 in federal taxes, before any deductions, credits or rebates.

In addition, if they live in Nova Scotia (where provincial tax rates are very high) they will pay
13,875.62 in provincial taxes.

So that looks like effective tax rates could be as high as 31.8% in high tax areas like Nova Scotia.

So that would make a $4624 around 6% of a Nova Scotian's income after taxes, but without factoring any deductions, refunds etc. It looked like Manitoba's provincial tax might be slightly higher, but how do you end up with 8.5%? I'm not Canadian, nor am I throwing mud I just thought the exercise was interesting.

I divided the price with sales tax with the marginal tax rate to get the gross required to net the amount after income taxes.

DealWithIt · May 22, 2020

Euler007 said:
I divided the price with sales tax with the marginal tax rate to get the gross required to net the amount after income taxes.

Maybe you don't care or already know this, it's just a forum post and your general point is well taken, but in case you are interested, that's not how marginal tax rates work.

Marginal tax rates mean that your effective tax rate will always be below the highest marginal tax rate you pay, because the higher tax bracket is only imposed on the next dollar you earn while in that bracket. So, for example you might pay 10% tax on the first 10k you earn and then 20% on anything between 10k and 30k and then 30% on everything above 30k. In that scenario, a person earning 25k would be paying a marginal tax rate of 20% but their effective tax rate would be 16% ($4000 tax paid is 16% of 25k earnings).

Nerdcy · May 22, 2020

How does the C9 do in a brightly lit room with sunlight? My husband likes to use out 65" in the basement but a new puppy is keeping us mostly in the living room on the first floor. Thanks!

macindc · May 23, 2020

Nerdcy said:
How does the C9 do in a brightly lit room with sunlight? My husband likes to use out 65" in the basement but a new puppy is keeping us mostly in the living room on the first floor. Thanks!

OLEDs in general tend to be less bright than their LED/QLED counterparts, so you often hear people recommend the latter for brightly lit rooms.
My personal experience having a C9 in a room with windows on two sides is that unless you have the light coming directly at the screen then it's perfectly adequate. I might not put one in, like, a sunroom or an enclosed porch though.

jett · May 23, 2020

Pargon said:
It's not necessary, but without VRR it's possible that games will run at lower frame rates (locked to 30/60 rather than unlocked) and won't be as smooth.
Without HDMI 2.1 you will be limited to 1440p with VRR enabled. Microsoft will support that, Sony may not.

Without VRR games will run exactly the same. It''ll just look juddery/stuttery, like every game that runs with an unlocked framerate.

Pargon · May 23, 2020

jett said:
Without VRR games will run exactly the same. It''ll just look juddery/stuttery, like every game that runs with an unlocked framerate.

I wouldn't presume that games will let you unlock the frame rate without VRR. And even if it's an option, why would you want to?
The point is that VRR will make games smoother next-gen, and reduce latency at the same time.
I would consider it essential if you are looking for a "next-gen proof TV".

jett · May 23, 2020

Pargon said:
I wouldn't presume that games will let you unlock the frame rate without VRR. And even if it's an option, why would you want to?

We got plenty of unlocked framerates now. Variable, unlocked framerates have basically been the norm forever.

TitlePending · May 23, 2020

Having given it a lot of thought, I don't want to stress about OLED burn-in.

So I'll buy a 4K LCD with full HDMI 2.1 bandwidth (hopefully the X950H), then use that differential to begin saving up for MicroLED after it's been on the market for 2-3 years (maybe 2025-2026).

k4mon · May 23, 2020

Wondering about buying a new 55" TV, but despite reading a lot I'm not entirely sure what are the differences between B9, C9 and E9 LG OLEDs. Should I just get the cheapest one from those three?

Gorion's Ward · May 23, 2020

TitlePending said:
Having given it a lot of thought, I don't want to stress about OLED burn-in.

So I'll buy a 4K LCD with full HDMI 2.1 bandwidth (hopefully the X950H), then use that differential to begin saving up for MicroLED after it's been on the market for 2-3 years (maybe 2025-2026).

The X950H doesn't have full 2.1 bandwidth (and I wouldn't buy it anyway if you can get the 950G which is the same TV). I'd wait for reviews on the X900H.

TitlePending · May 23, 2020

Gorion's Ward said:
The X950H doesn't have full 2.1 bandwidth (and I wouldn't buy it anyway if you can get the 950G which is the same TV). I'd wait for reviews on the X900H.

Ah yes, right!

nillapuddin · May 23, 2020

TitlePending said:
Having given it a lot of thought, I don't want to stress about OLED burn-in.

about burn in

honestly unless you use the TV in the most EXTREME cases I dont believe it will ever be an issue, and I'm pretty sure there is a lot of evidence to support this, but heres rtings findings on the issue which is documented very well

Real-Life OLED Burn-In Test On 6 TVs

There are concerns about OLED long-term performance due to the possibility of burn-in. We bought 6 LG OLED C7s to play real, non-altered content. It should give you a better idea of what to expect depending on what you watch on your TV.

www.rtings.com

I guess the cynic could say it proves how serious burn in is, but a skeptic could say "you will never leave a specific static image on for months at a time"

personal experience, Ive had an OLED for 3 years and I would say that I game on it/have my consoles on, for 7 hours a night on average and pretty much every minute of every weekend, and Ive never seen any indication of image retention or burn in, but ofcourse, ymmv

Elios83 · May 23, 2020

I also want to upgrade but right now I'm undecided.
OLED looks great out of the box and at night but I had multiple burn-in experiences on my smartphones (although smartphones have to deal with static interfaces a lot so it's a worst case application) also my PSVita has basically lost half of its screen brightness over the years. Quite frankly I don't find acceptable the fact that on such an expensive screen I might get burn if I don't put extra attention to not leave static images on the TV (something that in my case often happens when I make pauses while I play games).
QLED with all the improvements they have made on blacks over the years with FALD technology plus other advantages like peak brightness and reliability seems to be a better choice for my case. Too bad that Samsung this year has basically downgraded all the 4K line and basically if you want something really high quality you need to go at least with the cheapest 8K series which is the Q800T. That might be an (expensive) option that adds 8K and HDR with 2000 nits as a bonus although it becomes important to understand how the TV will handle upscaled images on its own (with its IA based upscaler) and how good the 8K output of PS5 will be. So basically until next gen consoles are out in November there won't be an answer, in the meantime next January a new round of TVs will be announced. Maybe waiting for 2021 is the best option, right now I have a KS8000 which is still really good for 4K/HDR10 contents by the way.

nillapuddin · May 28, 2020

DannyClash · Jun 23, 2020

Hey friends, are there many more TV models scheduled for release before new consoles? I'm sizing up for Cyberpunk.

I'm particularly interested in the <50" category which is a wasteland. I want HDR /120 Hz but it's just not realistic. The CX is only released in 55" here in Aus (also costs $3,000) :(. The Samsung frame (qled, fald, wcg, 60Hz) is an option but the brightness and viewing angle are poor :(. There's also a Sony X8000H at 49 (edge dimming, wcg, 60Hz) which is as big as I can go.

I'm leaning toward an interim solution-

LG UHD 43 inch 4K TV w/ AI ThinQ® | LG Australia

Get more information on the LG 43UN7300PTC. Click for pictures, reviews, and tech specs for the LG UHD 43 inch 4K TV w/ AI ThinQ®

www.lg.com

(bright,60Hz, VRR, cheap with a hot deal atm but entry level HDR). This will be a big jump in display for me but just wonder if investing in better HDR right now would be good.

Midnight_Chomper · Jun 24, 2020

DannyClash said:
Hey friends, are there many more TV models scheduled for release before new consoles? I'm sizing up for Cyberpunk.

I'm particularly interested in the <50" category which is a wasteland. I want HDR /120 Hz but it's just not realistic. The CX is only released in 55" here in Aus (also costs $3,000) :(. The Samsung frame (qled, fald, wcg, 60Hz) is an option but the brightness and viewing angle are poor :(. There's also a Sony X8000H at 49 (edge dimming, wcg, 60Hz) which is as big as I can go.

I'm leaning toward an interim solution-

LG UHD 43 inch 4K TV w/ AI ThinQ® | LG Australia

Get more information on the LG 43UN7300PTC. Click for pictures, reviews, and tech specs for the LG UHD 43 inch 4K TV w/ AI ThinQ®

www.lg.com

(bright,60Hz, VRR, cheap with a hot deal atm but entry level HDR). This will be a big jump in display for me but just wonder if investing in better HDR right now would be good.

Vizio is releasing their new TVs soon I believe.

Jeffram · Jun 27, 2020

Alright friends, help me decide.

- Today I have a 65" KS8000
- I intend to buy an LG OLED for Next Gen. (samsung local dimming issues in game mode makes them a no go)

There's some sales on LG OLEDs today in Canada
65" CX - $3700 CDN ($300 off)
77" CX - $6500 CDN ($500 off) ~75% more cost for 40% more screen area

Is the jump to 77" worth it? I don't mind spending that much on a 77 inch if it's only going to be once in the next 5-6 years. BUT if TV tech is going to advance substantially in the next 3-4 years (like micro-led), I'd rather just get a 65" now and splurge on that future tech that can be my "forever" TV. Obviously not forever, but one I pretty much don't have to worry about changing away from as we're really into diminishing returns on resolution, color, contrast and brightness.

I've heard that maybe Micro-LED won't be a thing, and that samsung is investing in OLED+Quantum dots?

What do ya'll think? Are today's OLEDs future proof to go ahead and get one and not feel buyers remorse given the tech track?

manustany · Jun 27, 2020

Jeffram said:
(samsung local dimming issues in game mode makes them a no go)

This week Samsung has released an update that fix a lot of issues on the Q90T series, including inverse ghosting and local dimming in gaming.

Jeffram · Jun 27, 2020

manustany said:
This week Samsung has released an update that fix a lot of issues on the Q90T series, including inverse ghosting and local dimming in gaming.

Oh that might change things. Can get an 85inch Q90 for $500 less than the 77 LG. Haven't looked in to the Q90 at all because of that fatal flaw. Will have to do some research and consider it

manustany · Jun 27, 2020

Jeffram said:
Oh that might change things. Can get an 85inch Q90 for $500 less than the 77 LG. Haven't looked in to the Q90 at all because of that fatal flaw. Will have to do some research and consider it

Watch this:

Kieli · Jun 27, 2020

Jeffram said:
Alright friends, help me decide.

- Today I have a 65" KS8000
- I intend to buy an LG OLED for Next Gen. (samsung local dimming issues in game mode makes them a no go)

There's some sales on LG OLEDs today in Canada
65" CX - $3700 CDN ($300 off)
77" CX - $6500 CDN ($500 off) ~75% more cost for 40% more screen area

Is the jump to 77" worth it? I don't mind spending that much on a 77 inch if it's only going to be once in the next 5-6 years. BUT if TV tech is going to advance substantially in the next 3-4 years (like micro-led), I'd rather just get a 65" now and splurge on that future tech that can be my "forever" TV. Obviously not forever, but one I pretty much don't have to worry about changing away from as we're really into diminishing returns on resolution, color, contrast and brightness.

I've heard that maybe Micro-LED won't be a thing, and that samsung is investing in OLED+Quantum dots?

What do ya'll think? Are today's OLEDs future proof to go ahead and get one and not feel buyers remorse given the tech track?

Neither the C9 nor the CX are "future-proof" in the sense that they support the full HDMI 2.1 spec. Their panels are 10-bit and cannot handle the full bandwidth of 2.1 which enables 4K and 120 FPS. But it's worth pointing out there is no current AV receiver in the market or devices that support 2.1 anyway. They are future proof in the sense that they support variable refresh rate, which I personally think is more important than 120 FPS.

If money isn't an problem, I think you'll do well with the 65" model. If you're somewhat budget conscious, then I strongly recommend waiting. The 65C9 also retailed with a MSRP of $3500 or more, and it was discounted to $2500 during Black Friday. It's somewhat likely that the CX will see steep discounts into the high $2000s during the holidays.

laxu · Jun 27, 2020

Jeffram said:
Alright friends, help me decide.

- Today I have a 65" KS8000
- I intend to buy an LG OLED for Next Gen. (samsung local dimming issues in game mode makes them a no go)

There's some sales on LG OLEDs today in Canada
65" CX - $3700 CDN ($300 off)
77" CX - $6500 CDN ($500 off) ~75% more cost for 40% more screen area

Is the jump to 77" worth it? I don't mind spending that much on a 77 inch if it's only going to be once in the next 5-6 years. BUT if TV tech is going to advance substantially in the next 3-4 years (like micro-led), I'd rather just get a 65" now and splurge on that future tech that can be my "forever" TV. Obviously not forever, but one I pretty much don't have to worry about changing away from as we're really into diminishing returns on resolution, color, contrast and brightness.

I've heard that maybe Micro-LED won't be a thing, and that samsung is investing in OLED+Quantum dots?

What do ya'll think? Are today's OLEDs future proof to go ahead and get one and not feel buyers remorse given the tech track?

At 4K, no the 77" is not worth it. I feel the 65" is a really good size overall. That said these are best bought around Black Friday sales or other end of year sales.

There will always be something better in the years to come but it's hard to improve significantly from what LG OLEDs offer right now.

I went from a 65" KS8000 to a LG C9 and it is just so, so much better in every way. Well, except the stand, the LG stand sucks. It sits very low so you can't fit a soundbar or some controllers in front of it and it sticks out from the back a lot.

Jeffram · Jun 27, 2020

manustany said:
Watch this:

Thanks for providing. Good to hear its better. Only hesitation is that it's more impressions vs. a proper side by side comparison. Have you seen anything like this with the new firmware?

That's the video that scared me away from Samsung

FuturaBold · Jun 27, 2020

I bought a C9 and then I got a good deal on an E9 for my Moms house. That should say enough. The 9 series are drying up so get them while they're available.

The 'I need a next-gen proof TV' thread

Alt Account

Games User Researcher

Games User Researcher

Community Resettler

Community Resettler

Unshakable Resolve

Unshakable Resolve

Self-requested ban