MULTI Need Suggestions

venom

Lado-K-Lashkary
Mar 15, 2007
2,313
14
43
Karachi
Hello fellow PGers

Apologies in advance if this is not the right category to be posting in.

So i have been gaming on my Entry level Samsung KU7000 TV which is both 4K and HDR compatible. My consoles and the TV are basically set up in my bedroom but since I have a new born now I am planning to set up the consoles in a separate room on a computer table-esque setup.

What I'm actually confused is whether to get another LED or a gaming monitor. I have both the PS4 PRO and the XBOX ONE X. I was actually looking for a gaming monitor but found out that 4k HDR monitors are stupendously expensive. There is this one monitor that I am getting thats within my budget i.e. Philips 40 Inch 4K Monitor [BDM4065UC] but its not HDR compatible.

Need your suggestions whether I should go with this monitor or just get another LED thats HDR / 4K compatible. My primary use would be to play XBOX ONE X and the Ps4 PRO only.

Thank You.
 

CerebralTiger

Expert
Apr 12, 2007
14,828
55
54
Isb/Rwp

This is the one I'm looking to get with the PS5. The advertised input lag is based on tests conducted at 120Hz. Its higher at 60Hz (around 15ms according to Rtings).

Alternatively, you could get an LG C9 OLED TV. Excellent blacks and panel uniformity, though it comes with potential burn-in issues if you're planning on doing regular TV viewing. Full array LED back-lighting (featured in the Sony X900H) is the next best alternative imo. QLED TVs such as the Samsung Q80T are also an alternative worth checking out.
 
Last edited:

venom

Lado-K-Lashkary
Mar 15, 2007
2,313
14
43
Karachi
So NO to a Non HDR gaming monitor in favor of an HDR LED then? Since I'll be sitting pretty close to the screen I thought a 32 incher screen would be enough but it's virtually impossible to get a good HDR LED in that screen size.
 

CerebralTiger

Expert
Apr 12, 2007
14,828
55
54
Isb/Rwp
Since I'll be sitting pretty close to the screen I thought a 32 incher screen would be enough but it's virtually impossible to get a good HDR LED in that screen size.
Pretty much. You aren't going to find TVs with the latest features in that screen size. If you're looking to get something a little future proof, hdmi 2.1 support is a must for the next-gen consoles, with features like ALLM and VRR that can improve the experience.

In the 32 inch range, you're better off looking for a monitor that supports HDR.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: venom

Necrokiller

Senior
Apr 16, 2009
7,485
327
89

Same choices rtings already covered :ROFLMAO:

As it is, HDMI 2.1 and VRR is only supported by a select few TVs atm to begin with. Factor in the recent Sony X900 announcement of supporting VRR, and you end up with these 3 displays with next-gen feature set compatibility lol

Also worth mentioning that next-gen games running at 30fps will exhibit higher input lag readings than the ones typically found in review tests measured at 60hz.
 
Last edited:

CerebralTiger

Expert
Apr 12, 2007
14,828
55
54
Isb/Rwp
Same choices rtings already covered :ROFLMAO:
CTRL+F Sony X900H. Nope lol.

As it is, HDMI 2.1 and VRR is only supported by a select few TVs atm to begin with.
Where "select few" = ~50 TVs? Right :ROFLMAO:

Also worth mentioning that next-gen games running at 30fps will exhibit higher input lag readings than the ones typically found in review tests measured at 60hz.
No, it's the opposite. A game running at 30fps but outputting at 120Hz will transmit a frame to the display at 1/120 sec, reducing latency associated with scan-out. If you force output at 60Hz, only then will it exhibit higher input lag on a 120Hz display. Both PS5 and XSX should support up to 4k @ 120Hz output regardless of what resolution and frame rate the game is internally running at.

With the exception of Xbox One X, a 120Hz display was of no benefit to current and previous console generations, as they couldn't output at anything above 60Hz. For example, running the Switch on a 120Hz display will result in higher latency than it would on a 60Hz display. A Switch Pro or whatever will likely come with an hdmi 2.1 port, hence resolving this issue.
 
Last edited:

CerebralTiger

Expert
Apr 12, 2007
14,828
55
54
Isb/Rwp
CTRL+F Sony X900H. Yup :ROFLMAO:
That's 6 recommended TVs, half of which don't even support hdmi 2.1. The list I narrowed down is based on the currently available hdmi 2.1 supported TVs. Therefore, the criteria is different. If I were to list down 6 TVs, none of them would be without hdmi 2.1 support.

lol @ "~50"
My bad, I forgot to check the hdmi 2.1 option from the table tool customization window. There are 16 hdmi 2.1 supported TVs (and therefore VRR and 4k @ 120Hz supported for compliant devices) listed on Rtings, which is still not "a select few".
 
Last edited:

Necrokiller

Senior
Apr 16, 2009
7,485
327
89
We're already down to 16 from "~50".

3 of those 16 are 8K TVs. Safe to say no one is in the market for those for PS5 or Series X. The list will keep on decreasing.

X900H, and several others, have yet to receive the updates for VRR.

Most importantly, simply supporting VRR is not enough. LG CX is the only display that actually supports VRR upto 120HZ at 4K (which still has a lower barrier at 40Hz so not the best implementation of VRR possible). Others are limited to 40-60Hz at 4K (which is not good enough for TVs - or even monitors imo - that will cost around $1000, or up to $3000 for larger screen sizes).

So yeah, not a lot of options right now if you want to buy a future proof TV that is expected to last a full console generation.
 
Last edited:

CerebralTiger

Expert
Apr 12, 2007
14,828
55
54
Isb/Rwp
The list will keep on decreasing.
The point is that they're all hdmi 2.1 TVs that support 4k @ 120fps. Even if you take those 3 native 8k TVs out, it's still not "a select few".

X900H, and several others, have yet to receive the updates for VRR.
They'll receive updates in due time when there are hdmi 2.1 compliant mainstream devices in the market. There's no technical hurdle in this regard. It'll happen in due time.

Most importantly, simply supporting VRR is not enough. LG CX is the only display that actually supports VRR upto 120HZ at 4K (which still has a lower barrier at 40Hz so not the best implementation of VRR possible). Others are limited to 40-60Hz at 4K (which is not good enough for TVs - or even monitors imo - that will cost around $1000, or up to $3000 for larger screen sizes).
A VRR minimum at 30Hz is ideal, but 40Hz isn't bad by any means. A software update should be able to improve this. Besides, we have yet to see how VRR is implemented on the Sony X900H and several other TVs, which will also support it at up to 120Hz, so your claim isn't future proof to begin with lol. 30Hz may well be the VRR minimum there. There's no reason why the LG C9 can't do VRR @ 120Hz either, but it ultimately depends if LG will support it on the software side.
 
Last edited:

Necrokiller

Senior
Apr 16, 2009
7,485
327
89
They'll receive updates in due time when there are hdmi 2.1 compliant mainstream devices in the market. There's no technical hurdle in this regard. It'll happen in due time.
But there is a major hurdle. Dedicated hardware module does have its advantages over FreeSync/Adaptive Sync. Even the certified "G-Sync Compatible" TVs do not have the feature set of displays with a dedicated module in them, limited range being one of them.

it ultimately depends if LG will support it on the software side.
And that's the biggest problem with VRR on TVs. Wildly inconsistent implementation, except in cases that have a dedicated G-Sync module.

A VRR minimum at 30Hz is ideal, but 40Hz isn't bad by any means.
Console games do not operate at a minimum 40fps, so its pretty useless.

The only PS5 game to support 120Hz mode currently, Dirt 5, will not be able to utilize VRR on anything other than the LG CX. Not a "select few" I guess, but the "chosen one" then lol

A software update should be able to improve this.
You'd think but there doesn't exist any FreeSync TV that covers the full range of the display's refresh rate. HDMI 2.1 can improve this perhaps, who knows, but there is no sign of that happening at the moment. More power to the people willing to gamble and spend a $1000 on the hope that it "should" be possible.
 
Last edited:

CerebralTiger

Expert
Apr 12, 2007
14,828
55
54
Isb/Rwp
Dedicated hardware module does have its advantages over FreeSync/Adaptive Sync.
While dedicated hardware is undoubtedly better, FreeSync enabled as an hdmi 2.1 protocol extension isn't a deal breaker for anyone looking to get a new TV with the PS5 or XSX. The possibility of these consoles supporting hardware-based G-sync is slim. On the other hand, a PC gamer looking to invest a $1000+ towards a new TV should probably wait.

Console games do not operate at a minimum 40fps, so its pretty useless.
More next-gen console games are likely to have optional performance modes that target 60fps, but may or may not hold that target well. That's where this is useful.

The only PS5 game to support 120Hz mode currently, Dirt 5, will not be able to utilize VRR on anything other than the LG CX. Not a "select few" I guess, but the "chosen one" then lol
The Sony X900H, along with some Samsung TVs, will undoubtedly add support for VRR @ 120fps. I see no reason why they wouldn't. Rtings will update its reviews for all TVs that are pending updates to support certain hdmi 2.1 features.

Moreover, a game doesn't need to target 120fps for the console to output at 120Hz. The PS5/XSX should be able to do that at the OS level, just as all current/previous consoles were able to output at 60Hz despite most games targeting 30fps. The Xbox One X also has a low latency 120Hz mode (reduced scan-out time) for supported displays, regardless of what internal frame rate games run at. Therefore, VRR will be useful for games that target 60fps but often drop into the 40s.
 
Last edited:

Necrokiller

Senior
Apr 16, 2009
7,485
327
89
More next-gen console games are likely to have optional performance modes that target 60fps, but may or may not hold that target well. That's where this is useful.
Only if it never drops below 40fps or 48fps (the two most common lower limits). Then it will be useless.

The Sony X900H, along with some Samsung TVs, will undoubtedly add support for VRR @ 120fps
So, a select few then lol
 

CerebralTiger

Expert
Apr 12, 2007
14,828
55
54
Isb/Rwp
Only if it never drops below 40fps or 48fps (the two most common lower limits). Then it will be useless.
Games that target 60fps on consoles don't readily drop below 40 (unless it's Sekiro lol).

So, a select few then lol
Even if most of the listed TVs continue to support 4k VVR max at 60Hz and min at 40-48Hz, there are likely to be very few games that run above 60fps on the next consoles anyway. Outputting at 4k @120Hz reduces latency, while VRR takes care of tearing due to frame rate variations between 40-60fps.
 
Last edited:

Necrokiller

Senior
Apr 16, 2009
7,485
327
89
Games that target 60fps on consoles don't readily drop below 40 (unless it's Sekiro lol).
This is not something the user can control which makes these TV a better fit for PCs where you can adjust to keep the minimums high enough. But Display Port 2 will almost double HDMI 2.1's bandwidth so there are still more options for PC gamers.

Even if most of the listed TVs continue to support 4k VVR max at 60Hz and min at 40-48Hz, there are likely to be very few games that run above 60fps on the next consoles anyway. Outputting at 4k @120Hz reduces latency, while VRR takes care of tearing due to frame rate variations between 40-60fps.
You're focusing on a smaller subset of cases to pitch these TVs. The primary target for most games pushing visuals will still be 30fps and no one knows which games will get a performance mode. Outputting at 4K/120Hz will not eliminate the stutter/judder associated with frame drops in a 30fps game which consoles readily do. Even reducing the lower limit of VRR to 30hz does not fix this problem because its the dips below 30fps that the display's refresh rate cannot mitigate.

An ideal scenario for VRR is running games at an unlocked frame rate and keeping 60fps as the baseline. Not possible as a standard on consoles so the next best thing is supporting VRR on the full range of display's refresh rate.
 
Last edited:

CerebralTiger

Expert
Apr 12, 2007
14,828
55
54
Isb/Rwp
You're focusing on a smaller subset of cases to pitch these TVs. The primary target for most games pushing visuals will still be 30fps and no one knows which games will get a performance mode.
At the very least, I'm expecting pretty much all multiplayer games/modes to target 60fps. As for single-player games, of the PS4's year 1 titles, Miles Morales and Demon's Souls Remake are already confirmed to feature a performance mode. I'd expect a similar situation with Insomniac's other PS5 game i.e. Ratchet & Clank, as well as Housemarque's Returnal. Most cross-gen titles, such as Deathloop will also run at 60fps. The PS5 will likely have many more 60fps games in its first year than the PS4 did in its launch year.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
Pakgamers intro videos on our youtube channel
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Necrokiller Necrokiller: one crazy mofo