I was in the same boat when I bought my C2X. 4K Monitors are very expensive especially OLED's. Plus having a TV with 120 Hertz served as a monitor too and 48 inch is not too big either.
Party Monger
Juggernaut
Using 48inch C3 oled as my monitor. Never going back. Its amazing to use. Get so much work done. I still miss the Triple 22in monitor setup out of habit, but this with fancy zones has been phenomenal.
I work long desk hours hence OLED will never be my preferred pick for a monitor until they'll be certified flicker/PWM free
Gohio
Beginner
Tracer_Bullet
Galvanizer
yeah, its getting cheaper though. Bought it directly from dell. I think that's the only option.
It started around 1.3L, i bought for 1.05L, couldn't wait any more. Recently on independence sale it went to 90k.
+ there are going to be options with lower refresh rates in future which will be cheaper.
Hopefully, oled options will come down to 50k or so in future.
A good mini led might be a decent option too, though they can have blooming. Some of them have much higher brightness, so in some scenes they will look better than oleds.
+ no burn in issues.
I was thinking of samsung neo g7 for a long time, but decided against it due to reported samsung qc issues + my own bad experience with samsung ( mobile is ok)
Gohio
Beginner
Yea, checked out all the Samsung oddysey monitors in a showroom. Apart from the QC issues i find super ultrawides like the G9 very jarring for gaming. I also dont like the lack of curve in the latest models.
About the alienware OLED. Do you spend long hours coding/browsing. I'm scared of investing so much into LED given my use case is gaming + programming. I see many good 38 inch IPS options in Rtings but none of them are available in India or are needlessly expensive.
About the alienware OLED. Do you spend long hours coding/browsing. I'm scared of investing so much into LED given my use case is gaming + programming. I see many good 38 inch IPS options in Rtings but none of them are available in India or are needlessly expensive.
Tracer_Bullet
Galvanizer
1) Ideally, if you can - best option will be to have 2 monitors and use oled only for media. I do not have the space.
Miniled is the next logical choice, but when i bought we only had samsung one which i decided to skip. We have more now - some from Acer on amazon ( dunno if they are good).
Also oleds probably will get cheaper in future, its already dropping in price quickly. And we might get say models with lower but good enough refresh rates at cheaper prices which might make better sense.
2) Since they are giving 3 year burn in warranty and i was waiting for long, i decided to go for it. And made lots of changes to mitigate burn in which will hopefully help.
I use in darkish room so can manage with low brightness and also reduced blue and green color gain. etc
3) yes, i use it for coding/browsing and other work for decent amount of time.
IDEs can have stuff at fixed places which isnt good. I try to reduce how much stuff is visible. And i don't use full screen ( dont really need to) and open window in random locations ( KDE has the option) and also in general keep moving windows to different points once in a while - along with all other precautions.
Even in games i try to remove hud now - esp for long playtime games like rdr2.
All these precautions might be too much for some - i tried to simulate some of them in my old lcd monitor first and see if i can manage. I could and really wanted the monitor so went for it.
It helps that while this amount is not trivial, its still only a small portion of savings/income. This is a call one has to make. I have managed with cheaper stuff too for long time. Just went for a bit of indulgence this time. No harm in waiting for few years and see them drop in price if you feel like it.
Edit - what i got is slightly curved 32 4k. Not ultrawide.
38 sounds nice too, 42 was a bit too much for me to use as desktop based on TV experience.
I think larger monitors have higher tax in India, which might be one reason when they cost more ( i think 34 has that problem - not sure).
Last edited:
yothisisyo
Apprentice
RaceGurram
Discoverer
Heisen
Herald
Before buying a high refresh rate monitor, it’s important to ask: will this actually benefit me?
At 60Hz, your frame time is about 16ms. When you jump to 120Hz, it drops to 8ms, and at 240Hz, it’s around 4ms. At this point, a typical young esports player with good eyesight and quick reaction times might benefit from a 240Hz monitor. However, going beyond that seems unnecessary. Just take a look at the following graph of reaction times across different age groups.
While you can improve reaction time with practice, I doubt going from 4ms to 2ms will have a noticeable impact on your gameplay. If you have 480 FPS, you will be able to see your enemies 2ms earlier than on 240Hz. One has to think, is the 2ms is what holding me back from unleashing my full potential.
The reason high refresh rate OLED monitors exist is that OLED pixels have much faster switching times than traditional LED panels. It’s essentially marketing "look, our product supports 480Hz!" but this is just what OLED technology allows without causing ghosting, it basically has become a race at this point.
Last edited:
enc0dex264
Forerunner
Thanks for this comment.. my itch to get a 360-480hz oled has disappeared.
variablevector
Forerunner
@Heisen I agree that the benefit of going from 240hz to 480hz is probably minimal for most people. But I'm not sure I agree with your logic based on average human latency. Because that's usually tested as your time to respond to a change on the screen with a mouse click. That necessarily takes into account the latency of the total system including your pc+monitor, your eyes, your visual cortex, your mental processing speed, your motor cortex, the muscles in your arm and the latency of the mouse.
But if I'm tracking someone across the map with a sniper rifle, or if someone peeks a corner I'm looking at, what matters more is the number of frames I see before I fire my shot. The higher the number of frames I see, the better the fluidity of the motion, the better I should (at least in theory) be able to predict their final position and fire.
If someone runs past your scope in 0.2 seconds, then at 120hz you will see 24 frames of motion, at 240hz you will see 48 frames of motion, and at 480hz, you will see 96 frames of motion. There's nothing too conscious about the process of leading and firing a shot. It's purely subconscious. A trained reflex. It's only using the perceptual system, and therefore not bogged down by the other sources of latency. I think there are probably cases where pros could benefit from going even faster than 480hz because perception works much, much faster than conscious thought. Our brains can process motion information faster than our bodies can respond to it basically and that information can decide when and where your reflexes decide to pull the trigger.
But if I'm tracking someone across the map with a sniper rifle, or if someone peeks a corner I'm looking at, what matters more is the number of frames I see before I fire my shot. The higher the number of frames I see, the better the fluidity of the motion, the better I should (at least in theory) be able to predict their final position and fire.
If someone runs past your scope in 0.2 seconds, then at 120hz you will see 24 frames of motion, at 240hz you will see 48 frames of motion, and at 480hz, you will see 96 frames of motion. There's nothing too conscious about the process of leading and firing a shot. It's purely subconscious. A trained reflex. It's only using the perceptual system, and therefore not bogged down by the other sources of latency. I think there are probably cases where pros could benefit from going even faster than 480hz because perception works much, much faster than conscious thought. Our brains can process motion information faster than our bodies can respond to it basically and that information can decide when and where your reflexes decide to pull the trigger.
WDYM when you say "proper OLEDs in the local market", Dell has the Alienware OLED monitors on their website, they're typically in stock (I bought an Alienware AW3225QF 4k 240hz qd OLED a couple of months back from their website, and it's very much a proper OLED). If you mean the offline market, then it's probably because the sales for big ticket niche items, such as 1L monitors, are low, really low and no shop would want so much of the working capital to be tied up.
Heisen
Herald
Yes, this is correct.
However, consider this, the 96 frames of motion at 480Hz isn’t significantly better than the 48 frames at 240Hz. That's because those 96 frames at 480Hz are essentially filling in the gaps between the 48 frames of 240Hz. The enemy will still appear on screen for 0.2 seconds (200ms) on both 240Hz and 480Hz displays, perhaps just 1 or 2 frames longer on the 480Hz. The real difference is that, on a 480Hz display, you’ll see the enemy 1 frame earlier than on a 240Hz display, and that 1 frame translates to just 2ms at 480Hz, as I mentioned earlier.
It seems there may have been some confusion that at 480Hz, you get to see the enemy for 96 frames versus 48 frames on a 240Hz display, leading to the idea that you see the enemy 48 frames earlier (96-48=48). That’s not the case.
Maybe with double the frames of 480Hz the enemy movement will be smoother than the already very smooth 240Hz and help your subconscious to trigger earlier in edge cases, but that will only happen if you have consistent double the frame rate to back it up. I think the player will be more consistent with his shots at 240FPS @240Hz than varying FPS @480Hz. Because this introduces the element of inconsistency if the system is not fast enough.
In my opinion, as refresh rates increases, the gaming advantage sees diminishing returns.
That said, perhaps 480Hz benefits esports players in other ways. They're already highly skilled, and maybe that 1 frame of reduced input latency is more important to them than the 99.99% of other players because at their level, they already mastered all the aspects of the game and this is the only thing left for them.
Last edited:
Yeah "curved" != "proper"
not to mention overpriced.I was looking at the gigabyte and msi oleds with relatively lower refresh (165hz) which are listed on the websites but not available online/offline since who knows when.
Hopefully closer to year-end or early next year there will some options.
So this one is now available for about ₹ 1 lakh -> https://in.msi.com/Monitor/MAG-321UPX-QD-OLED (32 inch flat 4k QD-OLED).
Any thoughts/review/feedback on this? I'm going to read up before thinking about buying it.
I actually wanted something in the under ₹80k range (one of those lower refresh rate panels like 145 or 165 hz) so if anyone has any ideas on when these might become available?
In the mean time , I'm getting this portable unit as a stopgap/backup/use for my mini PC/rpi display
See https://www.msi.com/Portable-Monitor/PRO-MP161-E2
Any thoughts/review/feedback on this? I'm going to read up before thinking about buying it.
I actually wanted something in the under ₹80k range (one of those lower refresh rate panels like 145 or 165 hz) so if anyone has any ideas on when these might become available?
In the mean time , I'm getting this portable unit as a stopgap/backup/use for my mini PC/rpi display
See https://www.msi.com/Portable-Monitor/PRO-MP161-E2