I registered to be notified when this monitor will be available for preorder and just received an email from LG with a 20% off code. Also works with the 45GR95QE-B.
Not sure if you can sign up to receive a code now, but if you have already, check your emails!
Fulfilment start 10/4/2023.
This is a public service announcement… 'check your emails!'
It's not a deal because it's too late to sign up for the code… hence the deal is unobtainable.
It's targeted, not "unobtainable"
Hmm 45" OLED or wait for G9 OLED?
Argh. Just needed more resolution on the 45"
Its so close to a perfect monitor.
G9 for sure due to the low ppi of the LG but then you will face a new dilemma: 57" G9 or 49" OLED G9?
this isnt a deal so much but here is the code for anyone who needs it
263FBAJA7DC
I'm still waiting to see the model LM270WR8-SSE1 that LG has pushed back the development of two or three times at this point. Shown under LG panel development update which is consistently updated over on TFTCentral. https://tftcentral.co.uk/news/lg-display-latest-lcd-panel-de…
What is the difference between the 2?
Well it being LCD means it'll suffer from worse motion and contrast for one.The little we have to work with suggests it'll be LGs (late) answer of sorts to the Samsung G8. The differences being higher zone count (1560 vs 1196) a lower refresh rate (144hz) and a smaller screen size (27".) Anything beyond that is speculative but if I had to hazard a guess, a modern LG panel without the QC issues that plague the Samsung, or so one would hope.
I find when this happens to clear cache etc and/or switch off extensions (Using Chrome)
As someone who had to have an LG OLED tv panel replaced due to screen burn, I find it crazy that they are now marketed as computer monitors. Is this no longer an issue?
Might be worth specifying which TV. OLED panels have improved over the years.
C8
Yeah the C8 had burn-in issues; LG's latest OLED offerings have improved in this dept.
Engineering & diode improvements, along with AI-driven algorithms to compensate for screen burn-in have brought a lot to their lifespans.
As predicted, below $1500, as it's under heavy competition against first gen QD-OLED ultrawides in terms of mindshare, and 42" OLED TVs.
I expect things to quickly drive towards $1000 as people look into issues like burn-in potential when used as a monitor, SDR performance in a bright room, the matte finish issues, the lack of BFI, and motion resolution up against 2nd gen 360Hz IPS, 360Hz TN, and their 500Hz counterparts.
200 nits is still bright. I don't like matte coatings either however RTINGS shows it is effective at reducing the intensity of reflected light. OLED response times at 240Hz is better than IPS at 360Hz which really tells you all you need to know. TN is not a viable competitor due to poor image quality.
120Hz BFI would be nice for console users though.
Beat me to it. Also worth mentioning the lack of BFI is a complete non-issue due to what you've shown above (this panel showing a truly negligible difference in motion clarity compared to a 360Hz DyAc TN panel (lowest pixel response time/motion clarity on the market outside of OLED)).
The image you were looking at is with DyAc off, and in either case, the difference is not minor. Text on the OLED image is smeared comapred to the original image, due to a combination of some overshoot issues and the sample and hold blur that comes to the fore with OLED tech.
OLED needs BFI or motion interpolation, smoothing, and de-judder to help eliminate sample and hold blur at 60-300ish Hz, because it's very visually noticeable in high speed content.
@jasswolf: I know, that doesn’t invalidate my point however. Here’s the comparison: https://i.imgur.com/EJfYE7B.png
There’s overshoot, but nothing jarring or perceivable in gaming (which I’d argue is the main demographic for this monitor); agree to disagree.
@zonfierre: That's from that Aussie youtuber, whose methodolgy for this kind of testing has already been pointed out as poor. You can't equate the two panel sizes by changing the motion speed like that.
His response time measurements should be fine though.
@zonfierre: That's what the RTings photos are. You can also see it capture somewhat here: https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg-27gr95qe-oled#Motion-Cla…
OLED definitely punches above its weight at a given refresh rate compared to the standard LCD fare by virtue of having response times that are less than half the monitor's refresh window, but that only does so much to help.
@jasswolf: I meant specifically comparing this panel to the 2566K with DyAc enabled. The provided link only further proves how well this panels' motion clarity fares at 240Hz. Whilst BFI would certainly improve motion handling, it's not a big of a deal as you're making it out to be, and certainly not a need.
@zonfierre: None of this is a need, they're all luxury items. That TFTCentral comparison is up against the 2566K with DyAc off, and that it is clearly reproducing the test image better in most aspects, with the most easily spotted issue being the length of the white sections and the clarity of the dark lines.
The TN LCD monitor has a wider set of response times, some of which stray beyond the refresh window, and that's reflected in some sections smearing more. Overall though, it's a much cleaner image.
The IPS shown is irrelevant because it's crappy 1st gen tech that was never worth the money and got pantsed by recent 240-280Hz TN monitors.
The RTings review already shows a DyAc motion pursuit photo further down, and here's the TFTCentral review of the Zowie monitor.
OLED needs BFI or motion interpolation, smoothing, and de-judder to help eliminate sample and hold blur at 60-300ish Hz, because it's very visually noticeable in high speed content.
Your words. My arguement this whole time is that this is hyperbole and isn't "very visually noticeable". This monitor is leaps and bounds ahead of anything LCD-based for gaming-use, and is whilst it doesn't get as bright as QD-OLED panels (gets plenty bright, and once again not as important for gaming as it is for productivity), it outdoes them in terms of burn-in/longevity.
There's no use in discussing it any further as we're just arguing opinions, and FWIW I'm happy to eat my words once I've got this in-hand.
@zonfierre: We're not just arguing opinions. These monitors push things in competitive gaming and fast motion video, little else. In these scenarios you can see the action far clearer and react and have the system react to your actions far quicker.
The scenarios I'm discussing are the only ones that are of merit, but you cannot run a comparison of a 25" FHD monitor against 27" QHD monitor by upping the speed of a ghosting test to reflect the change in resolution: it's supposed to reflect the relative change in distance, which is far less.
I am all for OLED, just understand its use case, which is competitive adjacent while being cinematically spectacular. The only thing that knocks it down a notch in that respect is you're ideally going to want to be using it in a fairly dark environment (for both black levels and longevity), and that you're probably going to want to use one with a glossy finish until they pick a better matte coating, at least if you plan on using it in brighter conditions.
Price is too rich, I'll be revisiting these when they're $700ish, probably through QD-OLED and hopefully with BFI (but this will only be available for SDR gaming).
I was more showing the motion pursuit photos with the links, but in sustained windows 100% white drops this monitor down to 135 nits, so ABL gets somewhat aggressive after a short period of time, and this has been demonstrated with light/default mode OS settings in Windows in several reviews.
I agree that for most people a range of 100-140 nits covers their needs for SDR, I'm just helping manage expectations. Samsung's QD-OLED is holding 250 nit peaks in the same scenarios, but it's probably less aggressively limited.
SDR sustained 100% window is 196 nits. It's right there in the link you sent. SDR also has zero ABL.
It's lower in HDR however HDR should only be enabled when gaming or watching video, not for regular desktop use.
@tp0: RTings don't specify the length of time they're measuring for, but if it is holding 200 nits in SDR, the ABL behaviour in HDR mode highlights that they don't want users pushing beyond 140 nits, which is honestly fine considering that you'd be targeting 2.4 gamma with an OLED.
You still want to be doing all the usual OLED stuff: dark mode everything, auto-hide taskbar, short standby timer for screensaver and monitor standby, avoid leaving bright static content up for a long time.
@jasswolf: If they didn't want it going beyond 140nits the SDR mode would be limited to 140nits.
This is common with OLEDs. The PC SDR mode drives the panel differently and targets a higher 100% window figure and no ABL. The HDR mode targets the highest possible peak brightness at smaller window sizes. It's nothing new. The PC mode on the 42" C2 is the same (and records similar numbers).
It's a 200nit SDR monitor. If you want 200nits for desktop usage, it'll happily give it to you.
@tp0: It's a different thermodynamic trade-off to a small extent given the luminance of the content varies less, but it's also reflecting that any diminished luminence (aka burn in) will happen more evenly in SDR mode.
I think in this case it's more that if LG didn't offer the option of at least 200 nits, there'd be a bunch of internet commentary crying about that for bright room use.
I'll hold onto my AW3423DW for now
![[Pre Order] LG 27GR95QE-B 27" 240Hz OLED Gaming Monitor $1799 ($1439.20 Targeted Code) + Delivery ($0 with MyLG Account) @ LG](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/95/764095.jpg?h=6e481729)
Thanks OP bought none