1440p OLED or 4K OLED

[Speedwack]

Seeing all these new 4K OLED displays is exciting. Currently use a 1440 IPS, but I can’t help but think if 4K is the way to go, or if I should stick with 1440p but still enjoy the benefits of OLED.

Anyone purchase an OLED monitor or has experience both resolutions? What’s your preference and why?

[C1REX]

I don’t own an OLED but I do own a 4K120 50inch screen.

I definitely prefer a 4K screen. Due to different upscaling techniques and how well 4K can handle lower resolutions I see no downsides to 4K. Except price there are just benefits for me.

[Obsessive Power]

I play PC games (and only PC games) on my C2 OLED. I have no plans to use it as a monitor.
I use a my 32" IPS PC monitor for everything else

I'm interested in OLEDS for general PC use, but until there is no chance of burn in, I have no plans to change anytime soon. If anything I'd go for a VA based display for better contrast.

I currently do 60% of my work at home, lots of static screens, not good for OLED's.

[Speedwack]

Originally posted by Obsessive Power:

I play PC games (and only PC games) on my C2 OLED. I have no plans to use it as a monitor.
I use a my 32" IPS PC monitor for everything else

I'm interested in OLEDS for general PC use, but until there is no chance of burn in, I have no plans to change anytime soon. If anything I'd go for a VA based display for better contrast.

I currently do 60% of my work at home, lots of static screens, not good for OLED's.

I’ve been happy with my IPS, but I’ve definitely noticed IPS glow which is what I’d like OLED correct

[CaptObvious75]

You did not mention size. I have a 27" 1440p IPS monitor and a 65" C1 4k OLED. I think 4k isn't needed unless you have a "big" screen."

[Pocahawtness]

I came down from a 4K screen to a 1440p OLED.

No regrets. OLED is stunning. But it's a very personal decision.

[xSOSxHawkens]

If both are OLED then the 4K screen is the easy choice, so long as your GPU is up to par.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

The only GPU currently capable of 4k is the 4090.
(100fps is the minimum for me)
its ridiculous 450W put me off getting one.

the xx80ti/titan/xx90 cards since the 1xx serirs used to always use at worst 250W.

nvidea really failed here in market with insanely high energy prices to not release a more power efficient top model.
adding +80% power to get +100% performance vs a 250w 2080ti does not feel as enough of a gain.

it always was : every 2d generation :
double the power at same watt
same power at half the watt.

4xxx series failes here big time.
4070 has same performance of 2080ti
but at 200W its obly -20% power vs a 2080ti not -50% as it should have

so due the terrible power performance I likely wait tilll 5xxx series and hope mvidea makes those better.

than there is the lack of a 80ti in the lineup.. the model that always was one of the models series launched with.
I hate super models.. those may be scrapped if it were me.
xx70, xx80ti at launch.
xx90 (can be called titan) and xx80 released 3 months later
xx60 released 3 months after that.
and leave it at that.. all the other ti and super models are not needed.

ofcourse tge xx80ti cards always were around 700 euro.. but stsrting with 2080ti they spiked up to 1600..
thats a bit gouching too..
if you basicly overcharge.. at least let the product be good.. which right now it is not.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

so due the above issues I have postponed upgrading.

if their is a 5080ti in the 5xxx lineup ideally from launch
it has TDP of 250w or less
and it performs like a 4090 now does or better.

than I e loolimg for a proper oled screen too.

either..

LG UltraGear 48GQ900
ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG48UQ

as I want
-120hz or more
-1ms or less
-freesync and gsync
- 16:9 4k
-40 imch or larger (below that size 4k makes no sense to me)

those 2 are the only models that right now do it.

likely would pick the LG due ir using 175W instead of the 300W of the asus.
the LG amso has much better contrast which is more important than it having a bit less brightness than the asus.

the discontinued alienware AW5520QF
would be better..
while 55 inch would to large even for 4k.
it somehow used only 100W
while having a brightness like the asus one and a contrast lile the lg one.

but even if it still was sold.. it being just tooo large (55 inch) and an awfull 5500 euro that can buy you 3 lg's.. would set me off one anyway..

[battlezoby]

Originally posted by C1REX:

I don’t own an OLED but I do own a 4K120 50inch screen.

I definitely prefer a 4K screen. Due to different upscaling techniques and how well 4K can handle lower resolutions I see no downsides to 4K. Except price there are just benefits for me.

Actually, many computers will have problems running many games at 4K. You can almost always lower the resolution on the PC side, but if you don't run a multiple of the native resolution (the full resolution of the monitor, or exactly one-half, one-third, one-forth or whatever of it) you'll lose some sharpness to the image.

I also have some concerns that not running a multiple of the native resolution might not be as good for your eyes than the native resolution, but I'm not a doctor and I really don't know (or even think that I know) if it makes a significant difference or not; I'm just pretty sure it makes a difference - just not how big a difference. I do worry about a little, but not sure if you should.

[Tomi Montana]

Originally posted by De Hollandse Ezel:

The only GPU currently capable of 4k is the 4090.
(100fps is the minimum for me)
its ridiculous 450W put me off getting one.

the xx80ti/titan/xx90 cards since the 1xx serirs used to always use at worst 250W.

nvidea really failed here in market with insanely high energy prices to not release a more power efficient top model.
adding +80% power to get +100% performance vs a 250w 2080ti does not feel as enough of a gain.

it always was : every 2d generation :
double the power at same watt
same power at half the watt.

4xxx series failes here big time.
4070 has same performance of 2080ti
but at 200W its obly -20% power vs a 2080ti not -50% as it should have

so due the terrible power performance I likely wait tilll 5xxx series and hope mvidea makes those better.

than there is the lack of a 80ti in the lineup.. the model that always was one of the models series launched with.
I hate super models.. those may be scrapped if it were me.
xx70, xx80ti at launch.
xx90 (can be called titan) and xx80 released 3 months later
xx60 released 3 months after that.
and leave it at that.. all the other ti and super models are not needed.

ofcourse tge xx80ti cards always were around 700 euro.. but stsrting with 2080ti they spiked up to 1600..
thats a bit gouching too..
if you basicly overcharge.. at least let the product be good.. which right now it is not.

But your standards simply don't apply to others. That's the issue at hand. Not everyone considers less than 100 FPS unplayable and 4K 100 FPS is just insane and unrealistic.
2080 ti is not on par with a 4070. It's more in the same perfomance class as a 3070 when talking about raw performance. The direct rtx 40xx equivalent is a 4060 ti, usually in it's 16GB variant.

[N3tRunn3r]

QLED, not OLED

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Originally posted by Tomi Montana:

Originally posted by De Hollandse Ezel:

The only GPU currently capable of 4k is the 4090.
(100fps is the minimum for me)
its ridiculous 450W put me off getting one.

the xx80ti/titan/xx90 cards since the 1xx serirs used to always use at worst 250W.

nvidea really failed here in market with insanely high energy prices to not release a more power efficient top model.
adding +80% power to get +100% performance vs a 250w 2080ti does not feel as enough of a gain.

it always was : every 2d generation :
double the power at same watt
same power at half the watt.

4xxx series failes here big time.
4070 has same performance of 2080ti
but at 200W its obly -20% power vs a 2080ti not -50% as it should have

so due the terrible power performance I likely wait tilll 5xxx series and hope mvidea makes those better.

than there is the lack of a 80ti in the lineup.. the model that always was one of the models series launched with.
I hate super models.. those may be scrapped if it were me.
xx70, xx80ti at launch.
xx90 (can be called titan) and xx80 released 3 months later
xx60 released 3 months after that.
and leave it at that.. all the other ti and super models are not needed.

ofcourse tge xx80ti cards always were around 700 euro.. but stsrting with 2080ti they spiked up to 1600..
thats a bit gouching too..
if you basicly overcharge.. at least let the product be good.. which right now it is not.

But your standards simply don't apply to others. That's the issue at hand. Not everyone considers less than 100 FPS unplayable and 4K 100 FPS is just insane and unrealistic.
2080 ti is not on par with a 4070. It's more in the same perfomance class as a 3070 when talking about raw performance. The direct rtx 40xx equivalent is a 4060 ti, usually in it's 16GB variant.

I grant you that a 2080ti is abit between a 4070 but point I made still stands.. not enough gain per kwh.

I consider 100fps basicly "the norm" I grand you thats my norm.
60fps is the general vaseline of below that its truelly unplayble..
but personally : 100+ fps 1440p looksbetter than 65fps 4k.
-
that means indeed that to me ANY 4k screens or gaming before the 4090 ariveed wasjust never possible.

which is no problem.1440p excist for most of us.. and most 4xxx 3xxx and 2xxxx cards run that fine at 100fps.

those that still run 1xxx or older cards or have llow end 2xxx cards there is 1080p
for most cards in 1440p 100FPS is totally feasable..

so yeqh 4k only recently with the 4090 became feasable.
but its prucetag will mean for now 4k still is very niche.. only when cheaper less powerhungry cards can run as well will 4k become more mainstream.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Originally posted by N3tRunn3r:

QLED, not OLED

enlight me.. the difference?

its just as the 500 typrs of IPS mostly brandimg?
or is there intrimsic difference?

[N3tRunn3r]

grossly negligent:

QLED lives 15 years
OLED lives 5 years, then you can trash it

[Speedwack]

Originally posted by CaptObvious75:

You did not mention size. I have a 27" 1440p IPS monitor and a 65" C1 4k OLED. I think 4k isn't needed unless you have a "big" screen."

I have a 27” display. I’m
comfortable with this size, and I currently have a 4070 Ti paired with it. I just mostly don’t know if I got a 4K monitor would it hold me off from buying a 50 series card, lol. I also don’t have any complaints with 1440p performance. This is strictly me looking to jump onto the next display technology. Does sorta sour me on the thought of being stuck on a 1440p display again for 5 years.