• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Question Would you buy a OLED TV for a monitor? Which there of these would you prefer?

Which one of these three TV's/monitors would you buy as a monitor?


  • Total voters
    5
  • Poll closed .

MtSeldon

Member
Jan 13, 2014
176
2
81
I have an Asus MG278Q monitor right now. It’s ok. Very fast panel, Free sync is supported but color reproduction is poor. So, I’m looking for a new monitor. I did a little research, some are advising to look TV’s, specially OLED TV’s for this generation.
Min 120 hz and Freesync/Gsync support is must for me. So, I found these three candidates.
  1. LG OLED48CXPUB
This one has a OLED panel and said to have the best color productions, specially blacks. But I never used a 48” TV as a monitor. Does anyone has a personal experience with these big panels? Isn’t it too big to put on a desk and use it at a desktop monitor distance (about 70cm)?
OLED’s are great for movies, games but how good are they for text related work? Like for Excel or Visual Studio?
I can see Ultrawide monitors being useful if you put two apps side by side but is 21:9 ratio at this size good for multitasking Office related work?

2. SAMSUNG 43-inch Class QLED Q60T Series
This one was advised as a cheaper alternative. Reviews seems ok but nothing very positive. 43” is more suitable for computer monitor, I think. But as far as I can see, It supports Freesync.

3. LG 38GL950G-B 38-inch Ultragear Nano IPS 1ms Curved Gaming Monitor with 144HZ Refresh Rate and NVIDIA G-SYNC
This is the monitor I’m thinking of buying If I don’t find other usable. But at 1800usd it’s more expensive than an OLED TV, makes me think it’s a reasonable price.

Do you have any experience with any of these? Which one would you go for?
 
Last edited:

KentState

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2001
8,077
285
126
I can't imagine putting something over 32" on a normal desk. That's what I have as my center monitor and it's hard to focus on the entire thing compared to my 27" monitors.
 

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,393
358
136
I currently use a 43" IPS 60hz 4k panel at my desk, about 2.7-3 feet viewing distance, wall mounted at desk height.

I would personally go for the upcoming LG CX48 OLED. 48" doesn't seem all that much bigger than my current 43", i'd probably have to move the 48" another 5-10" further back towards the wall, but I've got the space so it wouldn't be an issue. My main use-case for the large 4k panel is movie watching, so OLED is the obvious winner for that particular category, the newer LGs are supposed to be good for gaming too, which would be a nice bonus for my use-case.

48" 4k is = to 24" 1080p, just scaled up 4x. So in terms of pixel density, it would be considered bog-standard for desktop viewing distances.
 

MtSeldon

Member
Jan 13, 2014
176
2
81
The screen is 100 PPI. How bad is it really? I used to have a 25" 1080p monitor and pixels were too big . Now I'm using a 1440p ,27" , this one is fine.

Lİnus has meaused the latency of the previous model (C9) , in gaming mode it's 12ms . I cant find the same measurement of a recent gaming monitor. How bad 12 ms is when compared to a gaming monitor?
 

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,393
358
136
Lİnus has meaused the latency of the previous model (C9) , in gaming mode it's 12ms . I cant find the same measurement of a recent gaming monitor. How bad 12 ms is when compared to a gaming monitor?
I believe that is at 4k60hz, at 1440p120hz (what most people would use for gaming) the latency is 6.6ms

It also supports 4k120hz, but since no GPUs support HDMI 2.1, we can't test the latency on that yet, however i assume it would be closer to the 6.6ms figure of 1440p120hz than it would be to the 12-13ms results we see from 4k60hz.
2020-04-30 00_57_22.jpg
 

MtSeldon

Member
Jan 13, 2014
176
2
81
How good is 6.6ms?
I have an Asus MG278Q. It's advertised as 1ms. But I assume that's G2G and best-case scenario. It doesn't include the lag of the electronics of the monitor. I guess 6.6ms maybe even faster than that?
Only problem is the 48" size. That's the smallest OLED panel I can find.
 

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,393
358
136
How good is 6.6ms?
I have an Asus MG278Q. It's advertised as 1ms. But I assume that's G2G and best-case scenario. It doesn't include the lag of the electronics of the monitor. I guess 6.6ms maybe even faster than that?
Only problem is the 48" size. That's the smallest OLED panel I can find.
Input lag isn't response time. Input lag is just the lag introduced from the input source. The 1ms G2G you mention is about pixel response time.

OLED has even better response time.

The C9 OLED has a 0.2ms G2G response time and 2.4ms for 100% pixel transitions (IE from 0% luminance to 100% luminance)

2020-05-02 00_47_14.jpg
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,841
359
126
wow amazing tv, just a tiny bit small ;( wish it was 55+" but i guess they prob have another model that is bigger. its funny how people dont use more than 32" for a desktop monitor, 65" is ok with me sitting 4 feet away wall mounted, sure i might have to move my head around a tiny bit but i dont actually sit at my desk very often anyway. to bad i dont see them for sale very many places, maybe ill wait for 3000 series nvidia since im perfectly happy with the nu8000 65" and dont really want a smaller monitor. ;( voted for the oled48cx but i use blackout curtains at the house
 

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,393
358
136
wow amazing tv, just a tiny bit small ;( wish it was 55+" but i guess they prob have another model that is bigger. its funny how people dont use more than 32" for a desktop monitor, 65" is ok with me sitting 4 feet away wall mounted, sure i might have to move my head around a tiny bit but i dont actually sit at my desk very often anyway. to bad i dont see them for sale very many places, maybe ill wait for 3000 series nvidia since im perfectly happy with the nu8000 65" and dont really want a smaller monitor. ;( voted for the oled48cx but i use blackout curtains at the house
They've had 55"+ for years now.

You should be able to get last year's C9 55" or 65" for cheap this fall since the 2020 models will be hitting in June. The 48" is brand new for 2020, and is the smallest LG OLED panel for consumers so far, very exciting for people who have wanted something under 55".
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,841
359
126
They've had 55"+ for years now.

You should be able to get last year's C9 55" or 65" for cheap this fall since the 2020 models will be hitting in June. The 48" is brand new for 2020, and is the smallest LG OLED panel for consumers so far, very exciting for people who have wanted something under 55".
im well aware they have 55+" c9 :p i wondered is they had that same model in 55" but i dont know the difference between teh c9 and 48cx since ive been waiting on gfx cards with hdmi2.1 to make a purchase. i really like the tv tho looks very nice.
 

MtSeldon

Member
Jan 13, 2014
176
2
81
I'm well aware they have 55+" c9 I wondered is they had that same model in 55" but i dont know the difference between teh c9 and 48cx since ive been waiting on gfx cards with hdmi2.1 to make a purchase. i really like the tv tho looks very nice.
this new model has GSync support, HDMI 2.1 and faster response time. Therefor said to be more suitable to use with PCs. Though I don't see much info if there have been improvements about the burn-in problem. Some sources say it's no longer a problem, but this video shows (though not a real-life scenario and using a previous generation panel ) burn in still happens.

This video claims it's not a problem anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: killster1

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,393
358
136


Basically it depends what kind of content you'll be displaying.

If you run some 24/7 news network all day every day, it'll burn in the static on-screen elements of the news broadcast, so logos, news ticker, etc.

But if you're using varied content (movie watching, gaming, youtube, varied web browsing, etc), blank black desktop background, blank black screen saver that turns on after 3-5 minutes, etc. Then it's gonna be fine and wont have burn in issues.


Just remember you need to leave it powered on when turned off so it can run compensation cycles.
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,841
359
126
Powered on when turned off hehh.. ya I see it says static images so even hiding your windows Taskbar would be a good idea and having zero desktop icons. Also just set the timer to a conservative time and low overall brightness. I'll buy one eventually to bad about having kids always worried about them breaking nice things. (They stabbed holes in my aeon Miller chair lulz while the wife was watching them/eye roll )
 

MtSeldon

Member
Jan 13, 2014
176
2
81
Basically it depends what kind of content you'll be displaying.

If you run some 24/7 news network all day every day, it'll burn in the static on-screen elements of the news broadcast, so logos, news ticker, etc.
When used as a TV it's easier to know. Since by nature content of Tv, Movie, games change by time. Noone watches the same channel 7/24 for months. But for PC's it's hard to guess. Since there is always some element of the GUI, taskbar, status bar, side tabs that are always on the screen even if you use different apps. Those elements use the same space on the monitor. And it's not very logical for the user to worry and take of that this all the time. Maybe we gotta see the PC usage tests first.
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,841
359
126
When used as a TV it's easier to know. Since by nature content of Tv, Movie, games change by time. Noone watches the same channel 7/24 for months. But for PC's it's hard to guess. Since there is always some element of the GUI, taskbar, status bar, side tabs that are always on the screen even if you use different apps. Those elements use the same space on the monitor. And it's not very logical for the user to worry and take of that this all the time. Maybe we gotta see the PC usage tests first.
but its not true! how long do you browse the web? taskbar is hidden status bar hidden. side tabs? what is that? maybe something i dont use like wigits. i even mentioned deleting all your desktop shortcuts and setting a timer on the monitor that is very quick. there have been people that use as a monitor and reported back after 2 years zero burn in. lemme see if i can find the thread.

here you go

they claim 3 years zero burn in as desktop just keep brightness at 0 during desktop use and turn it up for movies and games. Sounds like a win to me. (thats with 2018 model or lower obviously if been using 3 years in 2019 :p )
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,841
359
126
Not a chance. Burn in is a real thing. Also I don't see a reason to when you can get an ultrawide IPS 120hz these days.
why not share which ips you are thinking of? the lg 38 144hz ips is 400$ more and 10" smaller :( would make me so sad to use a 38" let alone a 48"
 

aigomorla

Cases and Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
18,558
1,180
126
Not a chance. Burn in is a real thing. Also I don't see a reason to when you can get an ultrawide IPS 120hz these days.
I would full on UltraWide IPS/PLS for a PC if i do mix movies/gaming.
 
Last edited:

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,393
358
136
I would full on UltraWide IPS/PLS for a PC if i do mix movies/gaming.
That doesn't make much sense to me, an OLED is objectively better at BOTH movies and gaming, unless you're concerned about burn-in, I just don't see why you'd want an inferior panel.

If you're playing World of Warcraft, or similar games, for very long periods of time, I get that, you WILL get burn-in if you're playing WoW 18 hours a day. The static GUI elements are everywhere in that game and they tend to stay there the whole time (your abilities and toolbars, health, chat window, etc)

But with varied usage, 3-4 hour gaming session, 2 hour movie, couple hours of youtube, 3-4 hours of web browsing, etc. It's simply far too varied content, and you're not going to get burn-in even after a few years assuming you let it run it's compensation cycles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: killster1

aigomorla

Cases and Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
18,558
1,180
126
That doesn't make much sense to me, an OLED is objectively better at BOTH movies and gaming, unless you're concerned about burn-in, I just don't see why you'd want an inferior panel.
Having a ultrawide means more stuff being shown on the sides then a standard, this is why most of them are coded out in competitive FPS esports, and require specialized drivers / mods to patch out.

After playing and gaming on a ultra wide i honestly do not think i can go back.

Unless the OP is looking for a full bloated TV to mount a HTPC / Gaming PC while watching it a few feet back, a ultrawide is probably the best choice over a HDTV even at 48".

Its honestly too much monitor to be sitting smack faced up to.

Not to mention i have seen that LG UltraWide in person.
Its a beautiful, monitor, but requires a massive GPU prowess for it, its a beast of a monitor, and something i am looking to purchase when the RTX 3080 comes out.
 

mnewsham

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
14,393
358
136
Having a ultrawide means more stuff being shown on the sides then a standard, this is why most of them are coded out in competitive FPS esports, and require specialized drivers / mods to patch out.

After playing and gaming on a ultra wide i honestly do not think i can go back.

Unless the OP is looking for a full bloated TV to mount a HTPC / Gaming PC while watching it a few feet back, a ultrawide is probably the best choice over a HDTV even at 48".

Its honestly too much monitor to be sitting smack faced up to.

Not to mention i have seen that LG UltraWide in person.
Its a beautiful, monitor, but requires a massive GPU prowess for it, its a beast of a monitor, and something i am looking to purchase when the RTX 3080 comes out.
nothing stops you running the CX48 at 3840x1600 if you want 21:9
 

MtSeldon

Member
Jan 13, 2014
176
2
81
I was watching a youtube reviewer, and he was insisting that PC users should prefer TVs over monitors since monitors use older technologies and overpriced. His first choice was LG 48CX, and the second choice was SAMSUNG 43-inch Class QLED Q60T Series.

Is there any reason no one chose Samsung Q60T? is it really very inferior to OLED? If 48" is found to be too big, this is 43".

Tough in this video, even the 43" monitor looks unergonomic on desktop.
 

killster1

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
5,841
359
126
I was watching a youtube reviewer, and he was insisting that PC users should prefer TVs over monitors since monitors use older technologies and overpriced. His first choice was LG 48CX, and the second choice was SAMSUNG 43-inch Class QLED Q60T Series.

Is there any reason no one chose Samsung Q60T? is it really very inferior to OLED? If 48" is found to be too big, this is 43".

Tough in this video, even the 43" monitor looks unergonomic on desktop.
are you talking about the 3 people who voted? i would use a q60t no problem id use any tv i could get that was as large as possible :) mount it on the wall dont worry about "unergonomic" on the desk.
 

piokos

Senior member
Nov 2, 2018
554
203
86
Do you have any experience with any of these? Which one would you go for?
Well, the question in topic was: would you buy a TV for a monitor.
And my answer would be, clearly, no.

It's not about the panel itself. It should be fine.
It's about the features. Monitors offer things that TVs don't.
No OSD menu, no easy switching between sources, no ambient light sensor for automatic brightness adjustment (I moved from a monitor that had it to one that doesn't - enormous loss...).
Unless you're going to put that monitor on a VESA mount - no way to adjust angle.

If the large TV is too close - very wide viewing angle which will make it irritating (unless you get a curved one).

You'll also run into ergonomic issues. Like: how high will the top panel edge be?
You should not be looking up and a TV standing on a desk is... well... limited by the desk.
Of course you can mount that TV to the wall and put the desk away from the wall - so that the TV is partly below the desk top, yet visible. But why?!

You can get the same resolution, similar angle of view, more PC-focused features and a lot less problems with a large monitor.
A monitor will take less space, pull less power, produce less heat.

TVs also aren't less expensive and they come with a standard consumer warranty (e.g. 2 years in EU, 1 year in US), whereas you usually get 3-5 years for a monitor.

There's really no gain and I've never understood why people do this.
I currently use a 43" IPS 60hz 4k panel at my desk, about 2.7-3 feet viewing distance, wall mounted at desk height.
So the viewing angle is basically equivalent to a 28" monitor standing on a desk with recommended 60cm/~2ft distance.
What was the point?

Not to mention that 3ft distance means that you either have an enormous desk or it's not touching the wall (like I suggested above). Either way, it's not for people with tight flats...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY