Question Worth it for Oled for 4k? Also, getting a 120hz screen for a 4080 is a dumb idea, right?

[GladHeGaveUsABlueSky]

I've never had a proper gaming PC before, so I wouldn't truly know.

But if I understand correctly it looks like fps is frames produced by the PC right?
And Hz is how many times per second the screen refreshes?

I've seen that a lot of benchmarks of the 4080 are definitely above 120, that's for sure.
So that would mean the screen would likely be holding back the setup, right?

But yeah, just wondering if Oled is worth the price.
Because I was considering a 48" TV sized monitor, but it's only a 120hz screen.
(The other Oled 4k Monitors are usually quite a lot more expensive, outside of my price range considering what I'm already going to be putting into the 4080 setup.)

https://www.pbtech.co.nz/product/UNC001002219/Gigabyte-AORUS-FO48U-48-UHD-OLED-120HZ-1MS-144HZ-O

https://www.gigabyte.com/Monitor/AORUS-FO48U#kf

Don't laugh at me if what I'm saying is laughable 😆

As far as Oled 4k goes, it's about the same price as a 48" TV.
(Which I just realized has 120hz as well, but may have better sound? (Linus's review said the sound was subpar on the Monitor) So that might be a better option?

https://www.noelleeming.co.nz/p/pan...-speakers-4k120hz-gaming-2023-tv/N219268.html

https://www.panasonic.com/nz/consum...elevisions/4k-oled-tvs/th-48mz980z.html#specs )

But yeah, never had a proper Gaming Pc Setup.
Planning on getting a 4080 + Ryzen 7 7800X3D setup.

And I'd heard good things about Oled.

Plus sometimes I have family around and we watch movies, so I figured getting a Monitor and TV at the same time would kill two brids with one stone lol.

And if you're wondering why I'd even consider getting a 4080 if I'm thinking about buying a 120hz screen, it's because I'm getting the 4080 so I can run PCVR games on my Quest 3.
(My wallet is crying 🫠)

But yeah, would still not want to completely ruin my experience when playing games on a screen.

Sorry for the long story.
But yeah, just interested to hear if anybody's got any wisdom/thoughts for me.
Cheers!

 

[Aeacus]

But if I understand correctly it looks like fps is frames produced by the PC right?

In general, yes. But to be specific, FPS is produced by CPU and GPU.

And Hz is how many times per second the screen refreshes?

Yes.

I've seen that a lot of benchmarks of the 4080 are definitely above 120, that's for sure.

That actually depends on resolution and if you enable Ray Tracing or not.

For example;
1080p, no ray tracing - yes, you can get over 120 FPS on average;

1080p + ray tracing - maybe. Still close to 120 FPS to consider 120Hz monitor;

1440p, no ray tracing - even still you'll get more than 120 FPS on average;

1440p + ray tracing - No. Now the performance drops off the cliff. On average, you'd get ~80 FPS, whereby 75 Hz monitor would be better;

4K, no ray tracing - the reso you plan to go for. You will not get 120 FPS out of RTX 4080. More like ~100 FPS on average;

4K + ray tracing - performance tanks so severely that even 60 Hz monitor is more than enough + then some. You'd get ~40 FPS on average;

Source of data: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4080-review/4

So that would mean the screen would likely be holding back the setup, right?

Well, lesser Hz monitor doesn't hold the setup back. CPU and GPU still produce as much FPS as they can (unless you haven't capped the FPS), but if your monitor refresh rate is lower than the FPS your hardware produces, then you don't see the extra frames produced. E.g PC produces 100FPS but your monitor is 75 Hz. Meaning that per second, you won't see the extra 25 frames your PC has produced.

And I'd heard good things about Oled.

I think that you haven't read much about OLED then.

Main issue with OLED is, that image will burn-in to the monitor due to the OLED design. Due to this burn-in issue, which can not be avoided, i don't suggest getting an OLED panel. Better get VA panel monitor.

For additional data about OLED burn-in, there has been in-depth testing done about it and OLED burn-in is very much a thing,
Test data + results: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/permanent-image-retention-burn-in-lcd-oled

If you look at that data, you can see OLED burn-in started to show itself as little as 6 weeks mark. With 20 hours per day usage, that's 140 hours per week, whereby burn-in stated to show after 840 work hours. At 10 week mark, or 1400 work hours, burn in is so severe that it will get into the way of normal usage of a monitor.

Now, you may prolong the time when burn-in becomes an issue, if you use low brightness setting, but you can not avoid it. Only way to avoid it, is to use Brightness at 0, but then entire monitor screen is black and you can't see anything.
So, something to keep in mind, when going with OLED.

Personally, i'd go with VA panel monitor. Or when more money, then Quantum Dot LED (QLED) monitor. QLED monitor has completely different design than OLED monitor and thus, is immune to burn-in issue.

 

[GladHeGaveUsABlueSky]

In general, yes. But to be specific, FPS is produced by CPU and GPU.


Yes.


That actually depends on resolution and if you enable Ray Tracing or not.

For example;
1080p, no ray tracing - yes, you can get over 120 FPS on average;

1080p + ray tracing - maybe. Still close to 120 FPS to consider 120Hz monitor;

1440p, no ray tracing - even still you'll get more than 120 FPS on average;

1440p + ray tracing - No. Now the performance drops off the cliff. On average, you'd get ~80 FPS, whereby 75 Hz monitor would be better;

4K, no ray tracing - the reso you plan to go for. You will not get 120 FPS out of RTX 4080. More like ~100 FPS on average;

4K + ray tracing - performance tanks so severely that even 60 Hz monitor is more than enough + then some. You'd get ~40 FPS on average;

Source of data: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4080-review/4


Well, lesser Hz monitor doesn't hold the setup back. CPU and GPU still produce as much FPS as they can (unless you haven't capped the FPS), but if your monitor refresh rate is lower than the FPS your hardware produces, then you don't see the extra frames produced. E.g PC produces 100FPS but your monitor is 75 Hz. Meaning that per second, you won't see the extra 25 frames your PC has produced.


I think that you haven't read much about OLED then.

Main issue with OLED is, that image will burn-in to the monitor due to the OLED design. Due to this burn-in issue, which can not be avoided, i don't suggest getting an OLED panel. Better get VA panel monitor.

For additional data about OLED burn-in, there has been in-depth testing done about it and OLED burn-in is very much a thing,
Test data + results: https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/permanent-image-retention-burn-in-lcd-oled

If you look at that data, you can see OLED burn-in started to show itself as little as 6 weeks mark. With 20 hours per day usage, that's 140 hours per week, whereby burn-in stated to show after 840 work hours. At 10 week mark, or 1400 work hours, burn in is so severe that it will get into the way of normal usage of a monitor.

Now, you may prolong the time when burn-in becomes an issue, if you use low brightness setting, but you can not avoid it. Only way to avoid it, is to use Brightness at 0, but then entire monitor screen is black and you can't see anything.
So, something to keep in mind, when going with OLED.

Personally, i'd go with VA panel monitor. Or when more money, then Quantum Dot LED (QLED) monitor. QLED monitor has completely different design than OLED monitor and thus, is immune to burn-in issue.

Wow, thanks for all the info man!

Yeah I don't know too much about all this stuff, so you really saved me with that info about OLED.
Honestly this is the first time I've heard it.

I watched a fair amount of OLED comparison videos, but I don't remember it being mentioned once.
Like why show the thing as this amazing product if you know that it destroys itself over time?
Dang.

Also I'm sorry it took me a while to respond, things are kinda hectic for me at the moment.

And oh cool, yeah I was just concerned that 120 might be shooting too low.

I'd always been a console guy who wanted a decent Gaming PC for years, but I never had the money or patience until now to actually make it work.

Just saying that to say that I really just had no idea about fps or hz, because you get what you get on console lol.

Anyway cheers man, I really appreciate it.

If it's okay with you, I just wanted to ask two more questions?
I totally understand if you don't wanna respond, I've taken so long to respond.

But is the extra resolution in a 4k TV really as useless as some people say?

As opposed to having the Resolution on a Monitor?

(I'm assuming it's because of Pixel density?)

And secondly: Is Qned the same as Qled?
Would it be about the same?

I guess the reason I was looking at things like OLED was because I've always just been on the outside looking in at all the crazy graphics in the games people have been playing for years.

And I thought that if I was going for the build that I may as well get the most out of the visuals.

Anyway and either way, thanks for your response and how much effort seems to have gone into it.
It wasn't lost on me and I really did appreciate it.
I've just got a lot of stuff going on and it's been hard to take the time or think of how to respond.

But yeah, cheers man.
God Bless you and yours.

 

[Aeacus]

I watched a fair amount of OLED comparison videos, but I don't remember it being mentioned once.
Like why show the thing as this amazing product if you know that it destroys itself over time?

Who would deliberately downplay their own tech, when idea is to get sales?

Every display type has it's flaws. None are perfect.

E.g PC monitors;
TN panel - washed out colors, terrible contrast ratio, terrible view angle; while offering fastest response time and cheapest price.
IPS panel - long response time, terrible contrast ratio, high price, colors/brightness will fade in time; while offering great color accuracy.
VA panel - no obvious flaws per se, slightly worse color accuracy than IPS, slightly worse view angles than IPS, better response time than IPS but worse than TN. So, "jack of all trades" to say so. But where VA panel excels, is great contrast ratio and durability in terms of keeping it's color accuracy over time.

TVs;
OLED - high price, burn-in issues, low brightness; while offering great color accuracy, consumes less power than other two and can be very thin.
QLED - high price, high power draw, bloom issues; while offering 0 burn-in issues, great contrast ratio and brightness.
QNED - high price, high power draw; while also offering 0 burn-in issues, great contrast ratio and brightness. But QNED just came out and surely people will find issues with this one as well.

But is the extra resolution in a 4k TV really as useless as some people say?

As opposed to having the Resolution on a Monitor?

(I'm assuming it's because of Pixel density?)

Since watching a TV is usually made from afar (easy 2 meters, if not more), TV size does play a role here, just as with monitors.

Most PC monitors are viewed from ~1m or closer (i look at my monitor at ~70cm or so and i have 23", 1080p, VA panel monitor).
Now, with monitors, 1080p is good for up to 23" screens at viewing distance of ~1m. For 27" 1080p monitor and at ~1m, you may start to see individual pixels. So, to combat that, better pixel density monitor is needed. Next step up would be 1440p (aka 2K). Hence why most 27" monitors are 1440p.
Now, if you stretch the monitor even bigger, to 32", then 1440p at ~1m distance may produce also the issue of you seeing individual pixels. Again, same would happen, for better pixel density, higher reso is needed, which is 4K (aka 2160p). And there's also a reason why most 4K monitors start at 32".

Now, if you were to sit further away from the monitor, e.g 1.5-2m, you can get away with 27" 1080p and 32" 1440p monitor.

Same is with TVs, but since viewing distance of TVs is further away than with PC monitors, TVs can be bigger in size, before you run into issue of seeing individual pixels.

Checked my local store and regarding TVs;
up to 32" are HD (720p reso)
starting from 32" to 43" are FHD (1080p reso)
starting from 43" to 85" are UHD (2160p reso aka 4K)
starting from 85" are UHD-2 (4320p reso aka 8K)

I think you can already see how TV reso goes up, as TV diagonal increases. While viewing distance remains the same.
(And i know that TV manufacturers have their own formula to calculate proper sitting distance based on screen diagonal, but who follows that? )

And secondly: Is Qned the same as Qled?
Would it be about the same?

1st OLED TV was produced by LG (back in 2013). Samsung response to that was QLED. Now, LG answered Samsung and came out with the variation of Samsung's QLED, called QNED.
Diff between the three: https://www.makeuseof.com/qned-vs-oled-vs-qled-what-is-the-difference-and-which-is-best/

I doubt that you can tell a diff between QLED and QNED. But since QNED is successor of QLED, it should have better view experience. E.g reduced bloom effect that some QLED panels (especially older ones) suffer.