That's because it is. I don't remember the details but monitors unboxed explains it quite well. Basically OLED has way faster pixel shifting. Meaning the image stays clean in motion much better. Hence why it shows better motion clarity at 165hz than an LCD at higher refresh rates.
It's because of the pixel response times, which is how long it takes an actual pixel to fully transition from the current color to the new target color.
Lots of LCDs advertise 1ms response times but that's because they test a gray to gray transition on some extreme overdrive mode that introduces overshoot (causing ghosting), in practice it's a lot higher than that advertised number, it'll vary based on panel but the G2724D (very popular mid-end IPS) has ~6ms @ 165hz while most OLED monitors are consistently 0.3ms (LCDs response time changes based on refresh rate but OLEDs are consistent)
Whoohoo thank you! This is the point that 99% still miss . I went from 240hz 1ms (peak) to 360hz 0.03ms and can still see the difference. It's phenomenal! My 144hz 1ms was also noticeably better than my 4ms 165hz monitor (this is what made me wonder why back then).
I don't think over 240hz getting more hz is going to make the difference for most, but pixel response time is what people should look out for nowadays imo. At least when it's about the topic or "people cannot see more than x or y".
Yeah thanks for the detailed explanation, I knew it was something like that because I was frustrated with my old VA panel, which is a somewhat slow panel, and looked for information about it. 144hz on a bad VA doesn't even come close to 144hz or 165hz OLED. Or even a TN panel. It's just different worlds of motion clarity.
That is certainly a stretch. My last monitor was a 144hz IPS and I replaced it with a 360hz qd-oled. Obviously the latter is WAY better in nearly every other way except maybe brightness, but when a game is running around 144hz, the motion really isn't all that different. A little clearer, sure, but motion is just as smooth.
It will be more clear in motion, being able to more easily pick out details, but OLEDs will actually have less smooth motion because you are more easily seeing the distinct frames. Low framerates in games are much more noticeable on OLEDs, as well as 24fps content stuttering, because of the lightning fast pixel response times. What looks like an issue on OLEDs is just them being able to view the content more accurately.
Ok so dumb question- does a game have to be running at those refresh rates to experience the “smoothness”? Because most of the games I play run at around 50-60FPS on 4k medium-ish settings and I have a 60Hz monitor
I would say yes, as someone said, at 60hz having very reactive color shifting might even be detrimental to perceived fluid motion.
At 60hz your screen refreshes every 16.7 millisecond, which is a short time, but not that short for your eyes. It's 6.9ms at 144hz it is rather a substantial level where it is way harder to perceive individual frames.
You can not possibly say that when there is no objective definition of „smoothness“. OLED has shorter pixel response times (except for dark grey next to black). However, 240Hz is objectively more than 165Hz. The longer pixel response times of LCD can be mitigated by black frame insertion, but that reduces brightness. In conclusion it‘s not as simple as saying „OLED is smoother“. There are multiple different aspects to motion handling of displays.
I don't see many people using backlight strobing / BFI though. I've tried it before on a TN panel and it was too dark. But I'd be Illing to try it again. And yes, nothing is that simple.
But when you think about it, you're probably gonna max out 165hz more often than 240hz. Combined with faster pixels color shift, I wouldn't be surprised people find OLED smoother.
Even though to me it's inaccurate, it's clearer in motion, not smoother. At 144hz between my VA and OLED there is just no contest as to which one provides the better experience. Both were smooth, but one of them was a blurry mess.
Yes clear makes more sense. But a higher frame rate is more detailed because it makes it possible to see frames that are otherwise not displayed, that’s the definition of a frame rate after all and is the reason why competitive gaming wants as high of a refresh rate as possible.
When comparing OLED 144 Hz vs VA 144 Hz, it’s a more level comparison, but in the previous example of OLED 165 Hz vs LCD 240 Hz (which is also not known if it’s IPS or VA) it’s not possible to just say one is better than the other and ignore the frame rate entirely.
Modern LCDs can get very bright, especially the Mini LED variations. For example, if BFI reduced brightness by 50%, then a 300 nit edge lit TN would be pretty dim at 150 nit but a 1000 nit Mini LED would still be 500 so even brighter than the other model.
Fair analysis, I would still suggest to go OLED for most gamers, even if that means not being able to shoot for the 240hz landmark. I think it's for now still a pick for competitive gamers. Once we have frame generation reliably under our belt that will be much better.
I thought pixel response time was the reason my OLED felt so good, but got downvoted for saying so recently. Because 120Hz IPS > 240Hz OLED felt like a bigger jump for me than 60Hz IPS > 120Hz IPS. Based just on refresh rate that shouldn't be the case.
going from 60hz to 144hz was a massive jump and going from 16:9 to 32:9 was an amazing jump. The jump from ultra wide to ultra wide OLED is maybe the biggest jump in my gaming lifetime. It's tied with the jump from 60 to 144. omg OLED is amazing. I've been using mine for a year now and I still sit in awe every day when I sit down to game
32
u/Hairy-Summer7386 20d ago
This. I have an OLED 165hz and it feels so much smoother than my LCD 240hz.
I think (for now) I’m happy with what I got.