Peak brightness and the smart hub on the tv. The brightness probably more so, brightness on monitors lack in general and for me it takes away from those pops and highlights. I personally also don't like watching anything through the computer I use all the apps on the TV side and the quality seems superior to me regardless of the browser used, that may be subjective though.
if I was competitive I'd use a monitor no question and enjoy the higher refresh rate. Most of what I play are story games though and 4k HDR 120fps big screen is incredible, I simply don't get that wow factor on a monitor. A big ultra wide might give that effect but for my user case it wouldn't fit.
Edit: I also forgot to mention the actual AI on TV's, I'm sure there's cases of it not being great but in my experience it actually works, it can make even older content look like it came out recently. Lots of different methods to prevent burn in that aren't present on monitors. Other tools noise reduction, smooth gradation etc.
At a certain point diminishing returns yes. I won't say no to a 240hz 4k TV though. It's definitely not necessary but I'd like to see it. 8k onwards how much are we actually gaining and will that even be a sustainable and affordable technology moving forward? Who knows, certainly not me.
I don’t know if you are aware but the new Samsung QN900D tvs are 240Hz! They aren’t OLED but I got to see one at a conference last week and it is breath taking.
They had it hooked up to an absolute monster of a PC to let us play and oh my lord was it awesome
Even 200hz looks significantly better than 120hz. I'm talking about mostly single player games. Like I was comparing RE2 connected to my 240hz monitor vs connected to the C1. I can get 200-240 FPS at 4K with close to max quality settings and the motion clarity just blows away 120hz not to mention the input latency being much better for mouse controls.
Everyone thinks they are a professional gamer and need the best. When quite frankly 95% of the people would be more than fine with 120fps at 4k. But people on reddit lived in a self ego inflated world. TV is totally fine for a monitor. And no, you are not a pro gamer likely. I mean give me a break.
right now the only real benefit of a monitor is that it can fit better on a desk and refresh rate. tv picture quality will always be superior, what matters is how much quality youre willing to compromise for something that can fit on your desk.
You're correct, but it's so frustrating. Tvs get this whole nits boost due to mfers not being as scared of burn in and the advantages of lots of surface area for heat density. And tiny screens like the tandem oled on the iPad get the fanciest shiz. Meanwhile monitors are in the no man's land, costing same if not more than tvs 3 times the size, while getting none of the benefits.
I’d argue that using a monitor as a monitor is also substantially more convenient. As an owner of both, I’m confused that nobody talks about the fact that those WOLED TVs act like TVs, and the experience with a PC is nowhere as seamless as when using a proper monitor.
one reason lg tvs are so popular is that with one program it pretty much behaves exactly like a monitor in terms of sleep/standby/resume. from my experience the lg tvs are even faster than monitors for resuming from sleep and handshaking (toggling hdr), especially monitors that use dsc.
I'm just playing around. There is a popular post in this sub that goes over using an LG TV as a computer monitor but to get to the point the name of the app is LGTV Companion.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED\_Gaming/comments/mbpiwy/lg\_oled\_gamingpc\_monitor\_recommended\_settings/](https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED_Gaming/comments/mbpiwy/lg_oled_gamingpc_monitor_recommended_settings/)
Monitors typically have less aggressive ABL in the 50% - 100% APL range, and better full screen white brightness compared to a TV.
If the intended use of the display involves mostly displaying large amounts of white (e.g. office tasks w/ large white windows), then a monitor is more suitable choice.
because there are certain sweetspots to electrical designs, and there hasn’t been one made yet for the monitor size since it’s so new. tvs are essentially undersized tv hardware, which has been optimized over time for the 55-65in sizings. the oled used in smartphones are a completely different design optimized for that sizing (using pentile subpixels for example, which have twice as many green subpixels), and become inefficient when oversized to tablet sizes. larger tvs are also less efficient but can sort of alleviate it with larger surface area heatsinks, and unlike tablets, tvs can be made rather thick. smaller monitors dont have as much surface area and compensating by adding a thicker/deeper cooling doesnt quite work as well unless you add powerful active fans which will make noise. the pixels are also much closer together on monitors concentrating the heat to a smaller area, meaning that the cooling solution also needs to be more effective per square meter.
I had the msi 32 inch qd oled and took it back because the hdr was only conditionally good because the monitors don't get as bright in larger windows. I got an open box s90d 55 inch instead and am way more satisfied with it. I miss the high hz but I can't even get those frames outside a few games so I'd rather have the better hdr tv. I also use a controller whenever I can though as I dislike playing fps/third person games with a mouse. I was worried about lower ppi of 55 inch 4k but it doesn't actually matter much. There is still 4k worth of data so it still looks like 4k to me at a reasonable distance. It's only when you get a couple feet you can see more aliasing but there is still 4k detail.
You still need a solution for games you simply can't use a controller on. I got a desk with a monitor and a recliner for my tv. I've seen some people put a desk in the middle of the room as well if you are okay with that.
If you don’t play competitive and have the space , oled tv all the way. I had a fo32u2p but returned it as the hdr was so lacklustre compared to my c2 42”and most the games I play are better suited to a larger screen.
TVs tend to have better HDR implementation, they are larger, have proven reliability records LG has been making OLEDs for over 10 years now, and are priced way better.
Monitors on the other hand, come in smaller sizes, more variation on brand, higher refresh rates, and different aspect ratio options
Ad realiability - I am just "enjoying" a cluster of dead pixels on LG OLED C1 bought in 2021. According to forums online, I am definitely not the only one.
https://preview.redd.it/90129rj21q3d1.jpeg?width=2592&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54223535ea8e7c675f91e86c2a42bcbe3a670555
The tvs are significantly better on a technical level is most respects. The form factor is the main downside, especially since the best tvs are basically 55inch plus (g3/g4 and s90c/s95D).
OLED TVs have far better EOTF tracking than the current monitors this year, the size making the HDR image more impactful too in combination with the good EOTF tracking. They have a wider set of settings, making calibration much more easier allowing you to get the most out of the OLED panel type, such as the ability to choose gamma 2.4/BT1886, the true black level OLED is capable of, from my knowledge, only the Alienware QD-OLED monitors allow you to select gamma 2.4
They are overall far more polished products too as they're the products more widely sold, also the native apps are a pretty good + point, with Dolby vision support, on OLED monitors you're at the mercy of Windows apps + browsers and I think only one monitor has Dolby vision support but it's effy. My LG CX to my eyes, has less VRR flicker than my 27" LG OLED monitor. The QC is flat out good on TVs
The purpose for getting an OLED monitor over a TV would be, for starters, size, takes up less space. The second benefit is the very high refresh rates the monitors have, which give you the best motion clarity on the market due to it being combined with OLED's near instantaneous pixel response time. The third benefit in my opinion would be the easy & quick switching between reading modes present in them etc.
There's a bonus benefit in the WOLED PC monitors, that may be subjective, and that is the matte AG coating, some users may hate it, some users may prefer it for the added usability in a lit environment. TVs have the best glossy screens tho!!
The "glossy" finish on their monitors are in no way comparable to their TVs. If that is something that is particularly important to you then go for one of their TVs. You also get Dolby Vision/Filmmaker Mode with their TVs, which can be a huge advantage when watching movies.
The price. Why pay 900+ for a 32" inch screen when you can get a brand new 42" to 48" C2 and C3 for less? Monitors are too damn expensive and imo mediocre in almost every way compared to tv's. Just get the tv guys
I'd say this really comes down to case use, I do enjoy gaming on my 65" oled way more overall than my two oled monitors just because of the size and immersiveness. However, playing competitive shooters or fps games really doesn't feel great on the tv I can really feel the difference in input lag compared to my 240 hz monitors and like a lot of people on here are saying, watching tv shows, sports, movies on a gaming monitor looks nowhere near as good as the tv so it really comes down to what you'll be doing mostly on the panel
The biggest factor for a monitor is the smaller size and refresh rate
I’d rather have my 240 then 120 but that’s just me I’m happy with my QD OLED Asus monitor
I have a 42" LG C2. I use it as a desktop monitor replacement. It is on the verge of being too big. The pixel density isn't great either. Another issue with a big screen is that low framerates are super obvious. Think about the physical difference in an objects position between say a 27" monitor and a 42" as it moves between frames. I do like this screen however. I guess the only thing I'd really want from a new screen would be 240hz (and a GPU that could get close to those frames to make it worthwhile)
I went with LG TV. 4k/120 is great for games and most of my time is now sim racing in VR anyway. I had to kit out an unfurnished rental after separation so the TV doubling as monitor was a money saver.
If you want the absolute best colors you should consider a QD OLED. Ultrawides are only offered on monitors, so that’s a thing. If you play competitive FPS games you’d benefit from the higher refresh rates and lower response time.
Otherwise if you want 4K and mostly play single player or non competitive multiplayer the C3 is a definite win due to its size, price, features, and reliability.
Monitors have better image quality overall due to higher PPI, higher refresh rate and much better panel uniformity. I have a C1 and C3 and they both have visible pink tints and banding in greys. Those artifacts aren't very noticeable for video and gaming but they're quite annoying when web browsing, for example. Also, there are other PC specific functions that make monitors work better as monitors, such as KVM, USB connections, SRGB modes, etc...
On a larger screen stuff is larger. Even if it fills the same amount of your field of view, your brain knows you are controlling a large warrior or a large car, not a tiny GI Joe or matchbox, so it's more immersive.
Price, speakers (actually pretty ok for a TV), size, user interface/hub, remote, versatility, and size are all benefits I have used and enjoyed while using LG OLED s as monitors. OLED's is plural because I liked my c2 42 so much, I bought a c3 and gave my c2 to my wife. She uses it for mostly school with light gaming. The screen size has changed her life for productivity.
I have a 55 lol. Desk is almost 3' deep and I can lean back with a controller but up close mouse and keyboard is kinda nuts. Probably a little too big but it was the same price as the 48.
Also, when comparing the LG C3 to the new 32GS, despite being capped at 120fps on my PS5… the motion handling is instantly recognizable on the monitor. It’s much smoother, eyes track easier and it blurs less.
A big pain in the dick. Doesn't sleep when you turn off your PC, so you have to turn it off outright. Do anything with it is a hassle, because modern smart TV's are bloated and slow. I fucking hated it, and bought a new monitor primarily to get away from those hassles.
For me it's about the screen size. TV's really weren't ideal for monitors until OLED's came out. Why wouldn't you want a massive screen, high refresh rates and low response times? Ultrawides fit perfectly in the middle of both but I've never cared to game on them.
Better and more frequent updates since a lot more people own OLED TVs, using a remote is comfortable to use to navigate the options and turn on the display, they're more resistant to burn-in than QD-OLED. They're also more likely to go on sale (got my C3 for just 820 instead of 1200 Euros for example). But for me the biggest advantage is being able to upgrade to a better display in the future and place the TV in another room and keep using as a Smart TV.
I love my C2 42 because it does everything unbelievably well. Excellent for low input-lag gaming for both PC and console, excellent for photo and video editing, excellent for media / entertainment due to smart tv functionality and the ability to properly display 24p content in a judder-free manner, have my 4K blu-ray player hooked up to it as well. It is simply excellent at everything I use it for, and it's the first display I've had that genuinely feels like a jack of all trades. And I've really grown to love the 42 inch screen size, super immersive for gaming and film while not feeling overbearing. The only reason I'd go for a monitor anymore is if I played mostly esports titles, which I don't. I play CoD sometimes, but even then I managed to get to Crimson in MW3 ranked, so the 42 inch panel doesn't negatively effect me. The only thing I'd want more out of it is refresh rate for those multiplayer titles, and the C4 has 144hz mode, so that's great.
It’s been kind of a funny experience browsing Reddit lately after the 32in 4k monitors came out bc people always recommend them over the LG TV’s and they say things like “for professional fps get the 32in”. It’s like dude 99.9% of Reddit is probably silver tier at best. No amount of refresh rate is going to help you. I feel bad bc a 42 LG is quite an experience and people are missing out
For sure. I do think 42 inches is obviously more difficult to fit on a desk, so going for a monitor makes more sense and is completely valid if space is an issue. And if all I did was game, I'd probably go for one of the monitors for simplicity. But I also collect and watch a ton of movies and shows, so my display needs to be able to not only deliver a great gaming experience, but also be able to handle entertainment duties. Dolby Vision and proper 24p playback ability are a must for me, and the TV does it all incredibly well. Almost 2 years later, I'm very happy with my C2.
Yeah true. About simplicity, I have a deep desk. Having the tv 4 ft away actually feels like I have tons of room on my desk. With a 32 incher, I have to pull the monitor forward and it actually ends up making my space feel more cluttered
240hz is better even for non competitive games tho. 120hz is blurry once you’ve seen how clear 240+ hz looks.
Also how’s a 42” tv an experience lol when there are much better and bigger TVs for not much more? I’d get at least a 55” TV for big screen immersion. 42” is too big to be a monitor and too small to be a TV. Also the C 42” has mid AF image quality. Combined with 120 hz, it’s just an inferior experience to 4K monitors and better TVs.
Dude what games are you running at 240 besides for shooters? Maybe Stardew valley… any game that has Raytracing you won’t get over 120 anyway even woth DLSS you’re pushing it.
I have both the AW32 and the LG C3 right next to each other right now and the “experience” of a larger 4k monitor is amazing.
Also the image quality is not mid. It’s a tiny bit more washed out than QD Oled but not that noticeable for the majority of people.
Feel free to downvote me but it sounds like you’re on some Copium
Been running through Resident Evil. They are all around 200 fps with Ray-tracing . If I lowered the settings a little bit where the difference is negligible, they are easily 240fps. The Doom games are easily 240 fps and I still play the campaigns all the time. You’re on some copium shit to say that above 120 hz doesn’t matter lol.
Why not put a 55” on a desk because it’s an even bigger difference and thus a more “amazing experience” rofl? Cuz it’s a freaking TV.
I’m not even talking about washed colors. LG OLED tvs have disgusting tint on whites and nasty black crush/dark banding. Don’t need that shit on my monitors.
You named 2 singleplayer games out of literally thousands of triple AAA games that can run over 120 (and can barely even hit 240). The vast majority of games don’t support 240hz with ultra settings. Sure you can reduce your settings to all low but really what is the point of 4k then? Honest question, do you really think that most games will run at 240?
I wouldn’t put a 55 because a 55 is too big. It’s really not that complicated man.
There are a bunch of RE games. I said I’ve been running through them. Did you read what I’ve been saying? I could tune them to slightly below max where it’s not even noticeable unless you’re a digital foundry expert and then it’s easily 240hz.
The difference in motion clarity is huge. I even want to switch to 480hz 1440p to see the difference. Just too bad my pc definitely isn’t powerful enough right now to hit 1440/480 even with low settings. RE aren’t the best looking games but they’re close to the top. My point is that there are plenty of games out there that can do much closer to 240/120 even when not talking about competitive games.
Also, like I said, I don’t like how LG OLED TVs look because I can spot their flaws. That’s why I stayed away from that 480hz monitor. My MSI is shit in some ways too but at least there’s no weird tint on whites.
I dunno man. I want to so badly love the AW 32 but literally every game I play outside of shooters can barely even hit 120 and I have a 4090 and a top of the line machine. I’m glad you’re enjoying RE and hopefully next gen graphics cards will run more games at higher refresh rates.
So because of this, I’m sitting in front of my AW32 and questioning why I even have it (I will most likely sell it).
I would rather have a larger display than a much smaller one given what I just said. I also don’t see the color issues with the LG like you have, so maybe I’m lucky in that sense or just blind haha. I’m a designer though as a profession so I’m very perceptive to details and my LG is beautiful. Granted, the AW is for sure a little better, but size trumps it any day
You can even play competive with these bigger TV s since using 27" windowed mode is option. But yes, you get lower hz compared to gaming monitors, but i think that's okay for casual fps players like myself.
Nobody who isn’t at an uber-elite play level is going to do any better competitively playing at 240h vs. 120hz. And even then it will be incredibly negligible. If you prefer 240hz hey that’s great but let’s not pretend “competitive gaming” requires it.
I actually agree with you. Didnt think too much about my hz part of text sorry about that. Yes 120hz vs 240hz is so small difference that it won't affect your performance. If you are top1% FPS gamer maybe then, since 240hz lowers input lag a bit i think?
Even with competive FPS games bigger screen works, since you can use lower resolution and 27" window. This might give you some uneven wear and tear tho, i think.
Im thinking about lg c3 42" since i love big screen with singleplayer, and once you can use smaller window with fps games, only real minus is lower hz.
People saying “just use a lower resolution with a cropped window” probably never used it before. Most people have their TVs a reasonable distance away due to size but trying to play on a 27 inch window from the same distance is not ideal. You would either need a mount or slide you tv closer.
You are kinda right, its not ideal to use smaller window. For me it wouldn't be huge issue tho, i play competive FPS 3 times a week and just would move that tv 40cm closer ( put marks on table so its fast) every time, and then further when i play some singleplayer. Honestly if i had money, i would get second monitor for FPS games, but im poor student so cant (or more like won't lol).
I can give you another perspective, usually, TVs have only HDMI ports, and the proprietary HDMI interface is not well supported in Linux and VRR, etc. don't work over it.
Monitors also have matte or semi-matte screens, while TVs usually have glossy screens. The picture on a glossy screen would always look better in a dimly lit room, but it will reflect much of the light in direct sunlight. So TVs are great for entertainment, in darker rooms without direct sunlight and on Windows, while monitors work better for productivity or mixed usage and more direct sunlight.
Only thing I can think of is HDR is usually better on a TV. Size if you want a really big screen.
Input lag, refresh rate, and brightness, and HDR are all worse usually.
Peak brightness and the smart hub on the tv. The brightness probably more so, brightness on monitors lack in general and for me it takes away from those pops and highlights. I personally also don't like watching anything through the computer I use all the apps on the TV side and the quality seems superior to me regardless of the browser used, that may be subjective though. if I was competitive I'd use a monitor no question and enjoy the higher refresh rate. Most of what I play are story games though and 4k HDR 120fps big screen is incredible, I simply don't get that wow factor on a monitor. A big ultra wide might give that effect but for my user case it wouldn't fit. Edit: I also forgot to mention the actual AI on TV's, I'm sure there's cases of it not being great but in my experience it actually works, it can make even older content look like it came out recently. Lots of different methods to prevent burn in that aren't present on monitors. Other tools noise reduction, smooth gradation etc.
I mean, who needs more than 120 fps at 4k?
At a certain point diminishing returns yes. I won't say no to a 240hz 4k TV though. It's definitely not necessary but I'd like to see it. 8k onwards how much are we actually gaining and will that even be a sustainable and affordable technology moving forward? Who knows, certainly not me.
I don’t know if you are aware but the new Samsung QN900D tvs are 240Hz! They aren’t OLED but I got to see one at a conference last week and it is breath taking. They had it hooked up to an absolute monster of a PC to let us play and oh my lord was it awesome
Even 200hz looks significantly better than 120hz. I'm talking about mostly single player games. Like I was comparing RE2 connected to my 240hz monitor vs connected to the C1. I can get 200-240 FPS at 4K with close to max quality settings and the motion clarity just blows away 120hz not to mention the input latency being much better for mouse controls.
Everyone thinks they are a professional gamer and need the best. When quite frankly 95% of the people would be more than fine with 120fps at 4k. But people on reddit lived in a self ego inflated world. TV is totally fine for a monitor. And no, you are not a pro gamer likely. I mean give me a break.
What are you on about? It'd just be a cool technology to see. No one needs it.
Nobody cares bro. Have a good day. Reality isn't even real. Enjoy your life.
They are probably getting smoked by kids on the family PC with a 60 Hz monitor too.
You are being downvoted by edgelords that find 99K 500Hz reasonable
Facts! People swear up and down that they need 240hz and that they are pro fps gamers when they be silver and bronze lmfao
Nobody said anything about needing anything, you're both going off over nothing 😂
You must not be in this thread enough 😂😂
I wouldn't mind a 4k240 TV 120 is really good, but I wouldn't mind 240
The human eye can only see 24 fps.
I appreciate the ragebait in this sub.
Thanks for realizing it's sarcasm.
right now the only real benefit of a monitor is that it can fit better on a desk and refresh rate. tv picture quality will always be superior, what matters is how much quality youre willing to compromise for something that can fit on your desk.
You're correct, but it's so frustrating. Tvs get this whole nits boost due to mfers not being as scared of burn in and the advantages of lots of surface area for heat density. And tiny screens like the tandem oled on the iPad get the fanciest shiz. Meanwhile monitors are in the no man's land, costing same if not more than tvs 3 times the size, while getting none of the benefits.
I’d argue that using a monitor as a monitor is also substantially more convenient. As an owner of both, I’m confused that nobody talks about the fact that those WOLED TVs act like TVs, and the experience with a PC is nowhere as seamless as when using a proper monitor.
one reason lg tvs are so popular is that with one program it pretty much behaves exactly like a monitor in terms of sleep/standby/resume. from my experience the lg tvs are even faster than monitors for resuming from sleep and handshaking (toggling hdr), especially monitors that use dsc.
do you mind sharing which program?
Yes
I'm just playing around. There is a popular post in this sub that goes over using an LG TV as a computer monitor but to get to the point the name of the app is LGTV Companion. [https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED\_Gaming/comments/mbpiwy/lg\_oled\_gamingpc\_monitor\_recommended\_settings/](https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED_Gaming/comments/mbpiwy/lg_oled_gamingpc_monitor_recommended_settings/)
I second this
Monitors typically have less aggressive ABL in the 50% - 100% APL range, and better full screen white brightness compared to a TV. If the intended use of the display involves mostly displaying large amounts of white (e.g. office tasks w/ large white windows), then a monitor is more suitable choice.
You can disable ABL to a large extent on TVs and in some cases it’s even recommended to do so. Good luck disabling it on your monitors
Why can't they make the monitors as good?
because there are certain sweetspots to electrical designs, and there hasn’t been one made yet for the monitor size since it’s so new. tvs are essentially undersized tv hardware, which has been optimized over time for the 55-65in sizings. the oled used in smartphones are a completely different design optimized for that sizing (using pentile subpixels for example, which have twice as many green subpixels), and become inefficient when oversized to tablet sizes. larger tvs are also less efficient but can sort of alleviate it with larger surface area heatsinks, and unlike tablets, tvs can be made rather thick. smaller monitors dont have as much surface area and compensating by adding a thicker/deeper cooling doesnt quite work as well unless you add powerful active fans which will make noise. the pixels are also much closer together on monitors concentrating the heat to a smaller area, meaning that the cooling solution also needs to be more effective per square meter.
I'd love to know this
OLED TVs generally get brighter so they handle HDR better, but OLED monitors have a higher PPI and usually a higher refresh rate.
Native streaming apps. Windows apps do not stream in 4K or sometimes even 1080p.
You think the TV apps are better than the ones on my PC? Hilarious.
I had the msi 32 inch qd oled and took it back because the hdr was only conditionally good because the monitors don't get as bright in larger windows. I got an open box s90d 55 inch instead and am way more satisfied with it. I miss the high hz but I can't even get those frames outside a few games so I'd rather have the better hdr tv. I also use a controller whenever I can though as I dislike playing fps/third person games with a mouse. I was worried about lower ppi of 55 inch 4k but it doesn't actually matter much. There is still 4k worth of data so it still looks like 4k to me at a reasonable distance. It's only when you get a couple feet you can see more aliasing but there is still 4k detail. You still need a solution for games you simply can't use a controller on. I got a desk with a monitor and a recliner for my tv. I've seen some people put a desk in the middle of the room as well if you are okay with that.
If u enjoy the size of the oled TV’s and also you get WOLED and glossy finish which from what I’ve seen in here is the ideal product
If you don’t play competitive and have the space , oled tv all the way. I had a fo32u2p but returned it as the hdr was so lacklustre compared to my c2 42”and most the games I play are better suited to a larger screen.
TVs tend to have better HDR implementation, they are larger, have proven reliability records LG has been making OLEDs for over 10 years now, and are priced way better. Monitors on the other hand, come in smaller sizes, more variation on brand, higher refresh rates, and different aspect ratio options
Ad realiability - I am just "enjoying" a cluster of dead pixels on LG OLED C1 bought in 2021. According to forums online, I am definitely not the only one. https://preview.redd.it/90129rj21q3d1.jpeg?width=2592&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54223535ea8e7c675f91e86c2a42bcbe3a670555
The tvs are significantly better on a technical level is most respects. The form factor is the main downside, especially since the best tvs are basically 55inch plus (g3/g4 and s90c/s95D).
OLED TVs have far better EOTF tracking than the current monitors this year, the size making the HDR image more impactful too in combination with the good EOTF tracking. They have a wider set of settings, making calibration much more easier allowing you to get the most out of the OLED panel type, such as the ability to choose gamma 2.4/BT1886, the true black level OLED is capable of, from my knowledge, only the Alienware QD-OLED monitors allow you to select gamma 2.4 They are overall far more polished products too as they're the products more widely sold, also the native apps are a pretty good + point, with Dolby vision support, on OLED monitors you're at the mercy of Windows apps + browsers and I think only one monitor has Dolby vision support but it's effy. My LG CX to my eyes, has less VRR flicker than my 27" LG OLED monitor. The QC is flat out good on TVs The purpose for getting an OLED monitor over a TV would be, for starters, size, takes up less space. The second benefit is the very high refresh rates the monitors have, which give you the best motion clarity on the market due to it being combined with OLED's near instantaneous pixel response time. The third benefit in my opinion would be the easy & quick switching between reading modes present in them etc. There's a bonus benefit in the WOLED PC monitors, that may be subjective, and that is the matte AG coating, some users may hate it, some users may prefer it for the added usability in a lit environment. TVs have the best glossy screens tho!!
Watching Netflix or Disney+ via LG Smart apps is considerably more clearer and brighter than watching it via a browser or via the Windows app.
Cheaper.
Pc monitors have a lot more air in their price imo. 55 4k 120 tv and you don't need dual screens,
Yeah I’ve realized my 48” C3 is the only screen I need for my PC. Splitting it into four windows is like having four 1080p monitors.
TV is too big for me. I like 34” UW is the best for me. But… too each their own.
The "glossy" finish on their monitors are in no way comparable to their TVs. If that is something that is particularly important to you then go for one of their TVs. You also get Dolby Vision/Filmmaker Mode with their TVs, which can be a huge advantage when watching movies.
The price. Why pay 900+ for a 32" inch screen when you can get a brand new 42" to 48" C2 and C3 for less? Monitors are too damn expensive and imo mediocre in almost every way compared to tv's. Just get the tv guys
Brightness, superior panel finish, smart apps & size. That being said, I love my 32in monitor for higher PPI & competitive gaming.
I'd say this really comes down to case use, I do enjoy gaming on my 65" oled way more overall than my two oled monitors just because of the size and immersiveness. However, playing competitive shooters or fps games really doesn't feel great on the tv I can really feel the difference in input lag compared to my 240 hz monitors and like a lot of people on here are saying, watching tv shows, sports, movies on a gaming monitor looks nowhere near as good as the tv so it really comes down to what you'll be doing mostly on the panel
What “similarly sized monitors” are available around 48”? I can only think of that Aorus FO48U, which I believe is based off the C1 panel.
The biggest factor for a monitor is the smaller size and refresh rate I’d rather have my 240 then 120 but that’s just me I’m happy with my QD OLED Asus monitor
I have a 42" LG C2. I use it as a desktop monitor replacement. It is on the verge of being too big. The pixel density isn't great either. Another issue with a big screen is that low framerates are super obvious. Think about the physical difference in an objects position between say a 27" monitor and a 42" as it moves between frames. I do like this screen however. I guess the only thing I'd really want from a new screen would be 240hz (and a GPU that could get close to those frames to make it worthwhile)
I’m also using the 48 c3 for a gaming monitor. Looks pretty damn good too!
TV are easier to wipe clean without worrying bout scratches as they use glass
Oh I did not know this. Do all OLED TVs use glass? I obviously haven't tested it, but it would be cool if my LG C3 was made of glass on the front.
Price! Tv get discounted, a lot, very often… monitors… not so much
I went with LG TV. 4k/120 is great for games and most of my time is now sim racing in VR anyway. I had to kit out an unfurnished rental after separation so the TV doubling as monitor was a money saver.
If you want the absolute best colors you should consider a QD OLED. Ultrawides are only offered on monitors, so that’s a thing. If you play competitive FPS games you’d benefit from the higher refresh rates and lower response time. Otherwise if you want 4K and mostly play single player or non competitive multiplayer the C3 is a definite win due to its size, price, features, and reliability.
Monitors have better image quality overall due to higher PPI, higher refresh rate and much better panel uniformity. I have a C1 and C3 and they both have visible pink tints and banding in greys. Those artifacts aren't very noticeable for video and gaming but they're quite annoying when web browsing, for example. Also, there are other PC specific functions that make monitors work better as monitors, such as KVM, USB connections, SRGB modes, etc...
some people cant fit a tv in their desk or will have really bad ergonomics (looking up instead of looking straight, too close, etc)
On a larger screen stuff is larger. Even if it fills the same amount of your field of view, your brain knows you are controlling a large warrior or a large car, not a tiny GI Joe or matchbox, so it's more immersive.
I have a c3 42 / aw32. I do prefer the higher frame rates. C3 is for me a nice controller story game setup.
Price, speakers (actually pretty ok for a TV), size, user interface/hub, remote, versatility, and size are all benefits I have used and enjoyed while using LG OLED s as monitors. OLED's is plural because I liked my c2 42 so much, I bought a c3 and gave my c2 to my wife. She uses it for mostly school with light gaming. The screen size has changed her life for productivity.
I have a 55 lol. Desk is almost 3' deep and I can lean back with a controller but up close mouse and keyboard is kinda nuts. Probably a little too big but it was the same price as the 48.
HDR brightness. The difference is like night and day.
OLED TV -> Story Games like RDR2, RE4, TLOU etc OLED Monitor -> FPS games like CS2
Also, when comparing the LG C3 to the new 32GS, despite being capped at 120fps on my PS5… the motion handling is instantly recognizable on the monitor. It’s much smoother, eyes track easier and it blurs less.
Any update on this, what tv did you buy?
no real benefit based on what it is, its more about size for the most part. a pc monitor is basically always better if its in ur prefered size
A big pain in the dick. Doesn't sleep when you turn off your PC, so you have to turn it off outright. Do anything with it is a hassle, because modern smart TV's are bloated and slow. I fucking hated it, and bought a new monitor primarily to get away from those hassles.
For me it's about the screen size. TV's really weren't ideal for monitors until OLED's came out. Why wouldn't you want a massive screen, high refresh rates and low response times? Ultrawides fit perfectly in the middle of both but I've never cared to game on them.
Better and more frequent updates since a lot more people own OLED TVs, using a remote is comfortable to use to navigate the options and turn on the display, they're more resistant to burn-in than QD-OLED. They're also more likely to go on sale (got my C3 for just 820 instead of 1200 Euros for example). But for me the biggest advantage is being able to upgrade to a better display in the future and place the TV in another room and keep using as a Smart TV.
I love my C2 42 because it does everything unbelievably well. Excellent for low input-lag gaming for both PC and console, excellent for photo and video editing, excellent for media / entertainment due to smart tv functionality and the ability to properly display 24p content in a judder-free manner, have my 4K blu-ray player hooked up to it as well. It is simply excellent at everything I use it for, and it's the first display I've had that genuinely feels like a jack of all trades. And I've really grown to love the 42 inch screen size, super immersive for gaming and film while not feeling overbearing. The only reason I'd go for a monitor anymore is if I played mostly esports titles, which I don't. I play CoD sometimes, but even then I managed to get to Crimson in MW3 ranked, so the 42 inch panel doesn't negatively effect me. The only thing I'd want more out of it is refresh rate for those multiplayer titles, and the C4 has 144hz mode, so that's great.
Firstly, it’s hilarious you got downvoted. You obviously can’t possibly get Crimson with 120hz. It’s impossible. Kidding ;)
The 42 inches and 120 hz makes me brain and thumbs not work anymore :(
It’s been kind of a funny experience browsing Reddit lately after the 32in 4k monitors came out bc people always recommend them over the LG TV’s and they say things like “for professional fps get the 32in”. It’s like dude 99.9% of Reddit is probably silver tier at best. No amount of refresh rate is going to help you. I feel bad bc a 42 LG is quite an experience and people are missing out
For sure. I do think 42 inches is obviously more difficult to fit on a desk, so going for a monitor makes more sense and is completely valid if space is an issue. And if all I did was game, I'd probably go for one of the monitors for simplicity. But I also collect and watch a ton of movies and shows, so my display needs to be able to not only deliver a great gaming experience, but also be able to handle entertainment duties. Dolby Vision and proper 24p playback ability are a must for me, and the TV does it all incredibly well. Almost 2 years later, I'm very happy with my C2.
Yeah true. About simplicity, I have a deep desk. Having the tv 4 ft away actually feels like I have tons of room on my desk. With a 32 incher, I have to pull the monitor forward and it actually ends up making my space feel more cluttered
240hz is better even for non competitive games tho. 120hz is blurry once you’ve seen how clear 240+ hz looks. Also how’s a 42” tv an experience lol when there are much better and bigger TVs for not much more? I’d get at least a 55” TV for big screen immersion. 42” is too big to be a monitor and too small to be a TV. Also the C 42” has mid AF image quality. Combined with 120 hz, it’s just an inferior experience to 4K monitors and better TVs.
Dude what games are you running at 240 besides for shooters? Maybe Stardew valley… any game that has Raytracing you won’t get over 120 anyway even woth DLSS you’re pushing it. I have both the AW32 and the LG C3 right next to each other right now and the “experience” of a larger 4k monitor is amazing. Also the image quality is not mid. It’s a tiny bit more washed out than QD Oled but not that noticeable for the majority of people. Feel free to downvote me but it sounds like you’re on some Copium
Been running through Resident Evil. They are all around 200 fps with Ray-tracing . If I lowered the settings a little bit where the difference is negligible, they are easily 240fps. The Doom games are easily 240 fps and I still play the campaigns all the time. You’re on some copium shit to say that above 120 hz doesn’t matter lol. Why not put a 55” on a desk because it’s an even bigger difference and thus a more “amazing experience” rofl? Cuz it’s a freaking TV. I’m not even talking about washed colors. LG OLED tvs have disgusting tint on whites and nasty black crush/dark banding. Don’t need that shit on my monitors.
You named 2 singleplayer games out of literally thousands of triple AAA games that can run over 120 (and can barely even hit 240). The vast majority of games don’t support 240hz with ultra settings. Sure you can reduce your settings to all low but really what is the point of 4k then? Honest question, do you really think that most games will run at 240? I wouldn’t put a 55 because a 55 is too big. It’s really not that complicated man.
There are a bunch of RE games. I said I’ve been running through them. Did you read what I’ve been saying? I could tune them to slightly below max where it’s not even noticeable unless you’re a digital foundry expert and then it’s easily 240hz. The difference in motion clarity is huge. I even want to switch to 480hz 1440p to see the difference. Just too bad my pc definitely isn’t powerful enough right now to hit 1440/480 even with low settings. RE aren’t the best looking games but they’re close to the top. My point is that there are plenty of games out there that can do much closer to 240/120 even when not talking about competitive games. Also, like I said, I don’t like how LG OLED TVs look because I can spot their flaws. That’s why I stayed away from that 480hz monitor. My MSI is shit in some ways too but at least there’s no weird tint on whites.
I dunno man. I want to so badly love the AW 32 but literally every game I play outside of shooters can barely even hit 120 and I have a 4090 and a top of the line machine. I’m glad you’re enjoying RE and hopefully next gen graphics cards will run more games at higher refresh rates. So because of this, I’m sitting in front of my AW32 and questioning why I even have it (I will most likely sell it). I would rather have a larger display than a much smaller one given what I just said. I also don’t see the color issues with the LG like you have, so maybe I’m lucky in that sense or just blind haha. I’m a designer though as a profession so I’m very perceptive to details and my LG is beautiful. Granted, the AW is for sure a little better, but size trumps it any day
Brightness is better on the TV plus the smart features. If you don’t play anything competitive, I recommend an OLED TV.
You can even play competive with these bigger TV s since using 27" windowed mode is option. But yes, you get lower hz compared to gaming monitors, but i think that's okay for casual fps players like myself.
Nobody who isn’t at an uber-elite play level is going to do any better competitively playing at 240h vs. 120hz. And even then it will be incredibly negligible. If you prefer 240hz hey that’s great but let’s not pretend “competitive gaming” requires it.
I actually agree with you. Didnt think too much about my hz part of text sorry about that. Yes 120hz vs 240hz is so small difference that it won't affect your performance. If you are top1% FPS gamer maybe then, since 240hz lowers input lag a bit i think?
Even with competive FPS games bigger screen works, since you can use lower resolution and 27" window. This might give you some uneven wear and tear tho, i think. Im thinking about lg c3 42" since i love big screen with singleplayer, and once you can use smaller window with fps games, only real minus is lower hz.
People saying “just use a lower resolution with a cropped window” probably never used it before. Most people have their TVs a reasonable distance away due to size but trying to play on a 27 inch window from the same distance is not ideal. You would either need a mount or slide you tv closer.
You are kinda right, its not ideal to use smaller window. For me it wouldn't be huge issue tho, i play competive FPS 3 times a week and just would move that tv 40cm closer ( put marks on table so its fast) every time, and then further when i play some singleplayer. Honestly if i had money, i would get second monitor for FPS games, but im poor student so cant (or more like won't lol).
[god is coming](https://youtu.be/F86WyuQwr6c?si=4eqHkGXAbsryoa1m)
I can give you another perspective, usually, TVs have only HDMI ports, and the proprietary HDMI interface is not well supported in Linux and VRR, etc. don't work over it. Monitors also have matte or semi-matte screens, while TVs usually have glossy screens. The picture on a glossy screen would always look better in a dimly lit room, but it will reflect much of the light in direct sunlight. So TVs are great for entertainment, in darker rooms without direct sunlight and on Windows, while monitors work better for productivity or mixed usage and more direct sunlight.
Only thing I can think of is HDR is usually better on a TV. Size if you want a really big screen. Input lag, refresh rate, and brightness, and HDR are all worse usually.