Discover the latest in display technology as we compare LCD vs. OLED, IPS vs. VA, and QD-OLED vs. WOLED. This explainer breaks down how these technologies work and which is right for you.
IPS vs VA vs TN vs QD-OLED vs WOLED Explained
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
R00sT3R
Posts: 855 +2,619
TN = Lol, Nope
VA = Stick to TV
IPS = Hey, Nice light bleed
OLED = Latest FOMO cash cow
CRT = GOD TIER!
VA = Stick to TV
IPS = Hey, Nice light bleed
OLED = Latest FOMO cash cow
CRT = GOD TIER!
godrilla
Posts: 1,682 +1,115
Currently the industry is using Sony's reference displays which have Oled though.
+4
Sony's reference displays use Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) technology. Sony's OLED displays are designed for professional applications like color grading, editing, broadcasting, and scientific research. Here are some of Sony's reference displays:
BVM-E251
A 24.5-inch monitor with a second generation OLED panel that has a reduced color shift depending on viewing angle.
BVM-E171
A 16.5-inch monitor with a wide viewing angle that allows multiple people to evaluate an image simultaneously.
BVM-E250
A 24.5-inch monitor with a picture delay of less than one field.
BVM-X300 V2
A 29 5/8-inch monitor with High Dynamic Range (HDR) that can reproduce peak brightness more realistically.
Sony also uses TRIMASTER EL and ChromaTru technologies in its professional monitors.
ChipBoundary
Posts: 96 +47
Perhaps I missed it mentioned in this article, which is fully possible, but LED TV's can and do use QD technology as well. Side note, LCD are not made anymore. They are LED. Yes, it matters. Yes they are significantly different beyond backlighting.
OLED is never viable. Ever. It is guaranteed burn-in, in a short time, regardless of the content used. Then you add in the price tag? My $175 LED outperforms every single OLED on planet Earth by a significant margin, except in contrast ratio...yet OLED are four times the price on average. All for some blacker blacks? You're delusional if you think that is worth it. All the LED technology that OLED's use can be used and is found in regular LED TV's. QD and W can be used in any LED based TV.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
OLED is never viable. Ever. It is guaranteed burn-in, in a short time, regardless of the content used. Then you add in the price tag? My $175 LED outperforms every single OLED on planet Earth by a significant margin, except in contrast ratio...yet OLED are four times the price on average. All for some blacker blacks? You're delusional if you think that is worth it. All the LED technology that OLED's use can be used and is found in regular LED TV's. QD and W can be used in any LED based TV.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
LED displays are actually a type of LCD, but with LED backlighting instead of CCFLs.
The latest Macbooks Pro have Quantum Dots in their LED LCD displays.
QD-OLED panels are brighter than WOLED and it's not even close. You might want to revise your brightness section.
www.rtings.com
Brightness and color volume are two closely related aspects of a display's performance. Whereas the color gamut measurements above look at the simple range of colors a display can produce, color volume looks at how well it can produce those colors across a range of luminance levels, from dark shadow details up to the brightest highlights. QD-OLED and WOLED panels paint two very different pictures when we're talking about brightness and color volume. The extra white subpixel helps WOLED displays when showing pure white. You can see this in the color volume numbers, as the LG G3 is significantly brighter than the S95C when displaying pure white. MLA technology has a huge part to play in this, as the LG C3 OLED isn't nearly as bright.
On the other hand, QD-OLEDs only have red, green, and blue subpixels, so pure white is simply the combination of those three subpixels. When displaying saturated colors, QD-OLEDs are as much as twice as bright as their WOLED counterparts, resulting in a much more vibrant, colorful viewing experience overall.
QD-OLED vs. WOLED: What Type Of OLED Should You Buy?
If you're an avid tech enthusiast, you've likely heard the terms WOLED and QD-OLED a lot in recent years. These terms refer to specific types of OLED display technology, but what's the difference between them, and which one should you buy?
www.rtings.com
Brightness and color volume are two closely related aspects of a display's performance. Whereas the color gamut measurements above look at the simple range of colors a display can produce, color volume looks at how well it can produce those colors across a range of luminance levels, from dark shadow details up to the brightest highlights. QD-OLED and WOLED panels paint two very different pictures when we're talking about brightness and color volume. The extra white subpixel helps WOLED displays when showing pure white. You can see this in the color volume numbers, as the LG G3 is significantly brighter than the S95C when displaying pure white. MLA technology has a huge part to play in this, as the LG C3 OLED isn't nearly as bright.
On the other hand, QD-OLEDs only have red, green, and blue subpixels, so pure white is simply the combination of those three subpixels. When displaying saturated colors, QD-OLEDs are as much as twice as bright as their WOLED counterparts, resulting in a much more vibrant, colorful viewing experience overall.
Burty117
Posts: 5,447 +4,210
Tell me you've never used an OLED screen, without telling me you've never used an OLED screen...
ChipBoundary
Posts: 96 +47
That is an extremely gross over simplification. Yes, LED monitors use a liquid crystal layer, but that is where the similarities end. That's like saying old calculators from the 70's are LCD's as well. Nobody with any sense would realistically compare the two. Modern LED monitors are far more advanced using many different types of filters and layers that do not exist in LCD monitors. We're arguing nomenclature here, for the most part, but the fact is modern non-OLED monitors have very little in common with the "LCD" monitors of yore.
ChipBoundary
Posts: 96 +47
Tell me you like using tired Internet memes without coming up with a cogent, rational, factual argument without telling me...
Show me the top end OLED vs the top end LED. The LED will have better specs in EVERY category except contrast ratio. This a fact that you cannot deny or debate, unless you're delusional. On top of that, the LED will be significantly cheaper than the OLED.
Now, all that aside, OLED monitors are guaranteed to get burn-in, period. Try to deny that, go ahead. I had an OLED, and LG C2, it burned in in less than three months. Whereas my current LED monitors, barring a random component failure, will last until I die in 30 years or so and then some. They will never suffer from burn-in. They provide excellent image quality. I don't need to babysit them. They provide industry leading color accuracy as well. OTHER than contrast ratio, tell me what OLED provides over LED? If you can find a single thing you're lying, to yourself, to everyone else, or both.
I am not spending $1,000+ on a monitor for it to have guaranteed issues in less than five years.
Burty117
Posts: 5,447 +4,210
So you're telling me, every single review site out there, that boasts OLED as the best screens, they're all wrong? Every single one of them? Let me guess, every single website on the planet is paid off by LG / Samsung? Got it.
That's factually wrong, I could bring up the various graphs about pixel response times, colour volume, contrast ratio's etc... But a simple Google on practically any modern OLED, there's a reason they're considered the best, and priced the way they are.
The only way LCD's are better is usually brightness and the fact they don't have such serious burn-in issues.
They're identical other than the light source. What you're talking about could have been applied to cold cathode fluorescent lamp backlighting technology also.
OLED vs. LCD
We have summarized the properties of each display technology; OLED and LCD. This will help you assess the differences and similarities
www.flatpanelshd.com
LCD panels have not changed fundamentally over the last 10 years. LCD is short for “Liquid Crystal Display” and describes the active element of the display that is made from liquid crystals. In an LCD display the light source is located behind the panel and emits light from a rack of LEDs (Light Emitting Diodes), whereas earlier, manufacturers would use more bulky fluorescent lamps (CCFL).
OLEDs make improvements every year. LED TVs have been what they are for a very long time. I forgot how old my TV is but there is nothing that makes me want to replace it. It will definitely be an OLED TV.
tftcentral.co.uk
tftcentral.co.uk
Gen 3 Samsung QD-OLED 2024 Panels and Improvements - TFTCentral
Everything new and updated for Samsung Display’s Gen 3 QD-OLED panel technology, including a close look at the new monitor and TV panels
tftcentral.co.uk
OLED News and Rumours Round-up for 2025 - TFTCentral
A round-up of news and rumours for OLED monitor development and launches in 2025 - higher refresh rate, DP 2.1 etc
tftcentral.co.uk
captaincranky
Posts: 19,955 +8,993
I would argue that steady incremental improvements have been incorporated into "LCD" displays.
"Once upon a time", you couldn't give a gamer anything but a TN display. This due to the rapid response time of that type of panel. They truly did, and still, suck. As you likely already know, off axis viewing bordered on nonexistent. In fact, I (foolishly) bought a Samsung with a "twist me" base, to use as a vertical, (portrait) oriented "internet legal pad". Wow, if you think TN sucks in horizontal, they're practically equivalent to IPS, as compared to attempting to use them vertically. Plus, never could get the green out of the damned thing. It's sitting upstairs in the box. I'm too cheap and sentimental to put it out of its misery at the local landfill.
Funny story: I found out I could tell which of the TVs in Walmart's display were using TN panels. First the obvious, by walking up under the display, if the display washed out, TN. But other than that, for some strange reason, all the TN panels had an off color stripe running across the display. It didn't make a hell of a lot of sense, seeings as they ostensibly were all on the same feed.
Fast forward to now, and you can't give a gamer anything but, (at the very least), one of the new FAST, IPS panels. So, while improvement may indeed be incremental, it is very much in play with established panel technologies.
Let's face reality. no matter how good something is, y''all will always be wanting something "better". Even if it's because the kid next door doesn't have one (yet).
I know, I know, I'm no fun. But really, be honest, won't a 500 Hz refresh be "too slow", if you have just one game that will run at 600 FPS?
Burty117
Posts: 5,447 +4,210
It is true LCD technology got better, but it's been the same for at least 10 years now, I'm still using my Asus ROG PG279Q from 2015 (1440p IPS @ 165Hz) and not much has really changed in that time for LCD, Nothing that's worth upgrading to anyway.
OLED on the other hand, is finally starting to trickle down to Monitors as they get the burn-in issues pretty much resolved. It's hard to explain what the instant pixel response times do to the feel of a screen, my TV is OLED, 120Hz, it feels snappier than 165Hz IPS.
HDR also doesn't really work on conventional LCD screens, they can try all they want, it just doesn't work properly, you either need a lot of backlight zones (which adds latency) or go OLED.
LCD stagnated many years ago. True. Refresh rate went up, but still the same smeary panels as 10 years ago, not capaple of doing HDR well.
Samsung Display and LG Display abandoned LCD research and development for a reason. No future. They are building OLED fabs and will eventually go micro LED, in 5-10 years.
OLED has instant pixel reponse time, LCD don't. I have 360 Hz OLED, feels faster than 500+ Hz LCD even with BFI. Crisp and clear, no smearing + insanely better visuals and perfect viewing angles.
LCD needs massive amount of dimming zones to do HDR "well" (10.000+ minimum) but they are still mediocre at it. Also, control of these zones takes time, and increases input lag. Which is why most FALD LCD TVs completely disable zones or close, when in game or pc mode.
When you remove all this lipstick, you are back to looking at a pig.
Low contrast
Smearing
Bad viewing angles
Gamma shift
Bad uniformity
Lightbleed
Corner glow
Horrible image quality in dark scenes and washed out details when you enable features that will "improves" this, resulting in black crush
Just a few of the delicious LCD issues we still struggle with. LCD is very far from a perfect panel.
OLED is used in high-end stuff for a reason. Entire industry is moving away from LCD and towards OLED, at least in the high-end market.
When was the last time you saw a flagship phone with a LCD panel? People would laugh.
Last edited:
Burty117
Posts: 5,447 +4,210
Considering you and me normally butt heads in the comment sections recently, it's nice to see we both agree on something.
I would say, MicroLED has been a thing for quite some time now and most manufacturers are really struggling to make them for smaller panels and it seems to be struggling to get costs down.
I actually think we might see QD-LED panel's before MicroLED. It sounds like it's much easier to produce than OLED, whilst having all the same benefits, and we've got working protoypes in sizes and power limits of current conventional displays. Multiple companies have come out to say they reckon they'll be commercial viable and mass produced in the next few years, while MicroLED, there doesn't seem to be any timeframe of when these things will get down to 65 inches and cost less than £2k.
Haha, true. MicroLED for small displays is probably not even close. OLED will keep improving and eventually will be close to perfect for most PC users. However, if you only do static 2D work in the daylight with sun blasting directly into your screen, OLED will probably not be what you want.
Yeah and there's also tandem OLED. Plenty of exiting stuff to come. We also need monitor makers to up the brightness in HDR in a 10% window. Especially QD-OLED is capped at like 500 nits still (on PC monitors, not TVs), mainly due to their burn in warrenty I guess. WOLED is only slightly higher. However, QD-OLED and WOLED TVs are MUCH HIGHER.
I got this Dell 27" 1440p 360 Hz QD-OLED for cheap, and it is actually awesome. I can't wait for OLED to mature even more, and eventually go bigger. 32" 4K/UHD or Ultrawide maybe. For now. I am fine with 27" and a OLED TV on the side for more laid back games, mostly using a controller.
Problem with VA tho, when using dark mode, is smearing / black crush when scrolling - white text on black background typically results in this.
The smearing and crush is also why most who play fast paced games can't use VA regardless of refresh rate, as 99% of the VA panels are not suited for speed and light to dark (and the other way around) can be very slow in terms of transition time.
The few VA panels that are somewhat suited for speed, has vastly lower constrast levels, closer to 2000:1 than 4000:1 than some other VA panels have.
I use a VA panel for work and yes colors can look better than IPS. However most professionals use IPS over VA because IPS have better color accuracy and viewing angles don't require you to sit in the sweet spot at all times + viewing angles matters for collaborative work.
Last edited:
As I said, it's for watching videos and internet. I don't game but anyways, in the budget monitors segment, I don't think it would be such a noticeable difference. Of course, gamers want faster refresh rate even if, passed 120hz, I don't think it's really worth it considering the graphic card performances and the perception of the extra frames.
Being alone in front of the computer there's no real need for more viewing angles (it's not a TN).
About color accuracy, having worked for years in CGI, I can tell you that it's just for an ultra minority of people.
I have two monitors.
VA ultrawide curved for sim racing and video (mounted in a cockpit). The downside is response time.
IPS 16/9 for Fast Game (FPS). Overall a great monitor with fast response time and vibrant colors. The only downside is contrast, but it's not a big problem to my pov for a monitor.
These two monitors aren't perfect, but they are excellent in their uses.
VA ultrawide curved for sim racing and video (mounted in a cockpit). The downside is response time.
IPS 16/9 for Fast Game (FPS). Overall a great monitor with fast response time and vibrant colors. The only downside is contrast, but it's not a big problem to my pov for a monitor.
These two monitors aren't perfect, but they are excellent in their uses.
I got a used LG OLED B6 for a good price. This model is from 2016 and mine served since 2017. After 7 years, there's still close to none burn-in
defaultname365
Posts: 103 +71
Bring back CRTs! I'm sure they can make it compact and lighter (but of course not as thin as non-CRTs). I'm fairly confident there's an untapped "modern" market for traditional CRTs.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
China considers selling TikTok to Elon Musk- yRaz replied
