Wednesday, April 16th 2025
QD-OLED to Account for 73% of OLED Monitor Shipments in 2025, Driven by Advancing Technology and New Products
TrendForce's latest investigations reveal that ongoing advancements in OLED displays are propelling the growth of QD-OLED monitor shipments. QD-OLED's share of OLED monitor shipments is expected to rise from 68% in 2024 to 73% in 2025, highlighting its strong competitiveness in the high-end monitor market. Driven by growing market demand, more brands and product lines are expected to adopt QD-OLED to deliver superior image quality and refresh rates for gamers and professional users.
The introduction of new 27-inch UHD products and high-refresh-rate QHD 500 Hz monitors is drawing attention. These models offer strong appeal for gaming and professional use, becoming key drivers of QD-OLED monitor adoption. The penetration rate of QD-OLED in 27-inch models is projected to grow from 32% in 2024 to 47% in 2025, driven by an expanding product lineup and ongoing technical improvements.
QD-OLED offers superior visuals but faces challenges in durability and cost
TrendForce notes that the main advantage of QD-OLED lies in its use of blue OLED light to excite quantum dots, which then emit pure red and green light. This design boosts brightness, color saturation, and gamut coverage, resulting in brighter, more vibrant, and finely detailed visuals.
However, QD-OLED's reliance on blue light can impact panel longevity, and residual ambient light in dark scenes may still trigger unwanted quantum dot emissions in dark scenes, potentially compromising visual clarity. Recent developments include the addition of a green emission layer, boosting luminous efficiency by 30% to improve both energy consumption and image quality.
Meanwhile, PICO inkjets allow for more precise deposition of quantum dot ink, achieving pixel densities of 140 PPI and enabling 4K resolution on 32-inch panels—further improving QD-OLED's competitiveness in the premium monitor space.
TrendForce's latest report on "OLED Panel Costs" notes that emissive materials and QD film account for the largest share of QD-OLED production costs. However, the inkjet process currently results in 20% ink waste per nozzle. Newly developed recycling techniques can recover up to 80% of residual ink, helping reduce costs and improve material efficiency.
Additionally, SDC's depreciation of QD-OLED production lines is expected to conclude in 2027, lowering production costs and boosting the competitiveness and adoption of QD-OLED monitors. SDC also plans to adopt a new emissive material solution by then to address burn-in and extend panel lifespan.
TrendForce's "OLED Technology and Market Analysis" further notes that the TV market for OLED is being constrained by the growing popularity of ultra-large LCDs and the cost competitiveness of Mini LED backlighting. However, OLED adoption in the IT sector remains in its early stages, with strong customer interest.
As QD-OLED and WOLED technologies continue to compete on brightness and other specs, they are expected to drive OLED adoption in emerging applications beyond IT, such as industrial control systems, public information displays, and the increasingly popular transparent displays.
Source:
TrendForce
The introduction of new 27-inch UHD products and high-refresh-rate QHD 500 Hz monitors is drawing attention. These models offer strong appeal for gaming and professional use, becoming key drivers of QD-OLED monitor adoption. The penetration rate of QD-OLED in 27-inch models is projected to grow from 32% in 2024 to 47% in 2025, driven by an expanding product lineup and ongoing technical improvements.
TrendForce notes that the main advantage of QD-OLED lies in its use of blue OLED light to excite quantum dots, which then emit pure red and green light. This design boosts brightness, color saturation, and gamut coverage, resulting in brighter, more vibrant, and finely detailed visuals.
However, QD-OLED's reliance on blue light can impact panel longevity, and residual ambient light in dark scenes may still trigger unwanted quantum dot emissions in dark scenes, potentially compromising visual clarity. Recent developments include the addition of a green emission layer, boosting luminous efficiency by 30% to improve both energy consumption and image quality.
Meanwhile, PICO inkjets allow for more precise deposition of quantum dot ink, achieving pixel densities of 140 PPI and enabling 4K resolution on 32-inch panels—further improving QD-OLED's competitiveness in the premium monitor space.
TrendForce's latest report on "OLED Panel Costs" notes that emissive materials and QD film account for the largest share of QD-OLED production costs. However, the inkjet process currently results in 20% ink waste per nozzle. Newly developed recycling techniques can recover up to 80% of residual ink, helping reduce costs and improve material efficiency.
Additionally, SDC's depreciation of QD-OLED production lines is expected to conclude in 2027, lowering production costs and boosting the competitiveness and adoption of QD-OLED monitors. SDC also plans to adopt a new emissive material solution by then to address burn-in and extend panel lifespan.
TrendForce's "OLED Technology and Market Analysis" further notes that the TV market for OLED is being constrained by the growing popularity of ultra-large LCDs and the cost competitiveness of Mini LED backlighting. However, OLED adoption in the IT sector remains in its early stages, with strong customer interest.
As QD-OLED and WOLED technologies continue to compete on brightness and other specs, they are expected to drive OLED adoption in emerging applications beyond IT, such as industrial control systems, public information displays, and the increasingly popular transparent displays.
28 Comments on QD-OLED to Account for 73% of OLED Monitor Shipments in 2025, Driven by Advancing Technology and New Products
I just realized, that this VA panel of mine is 6 years old now, how time flies, but I am very happy with it, has almost no black-smearing at high refresh rates, which these panels are known for. Anyways, I expect my display to last me 10 years minimum, I will check back in 4 years time concerning OLED, but for now, the burn-in, flicker, low brightness, and the big one, the massive price for being a BETA tester, will keep me well away from it.
(edit: gen1 is not good for reading, gen 2 & 3 the layout was changed for better text clarity)
Of course not all people are equally sensitive to a small loss of sharpness, fringing etc. compared to IPS, VA panels of the same pixel density. But paying quite a high premium and getting a whole list of downsides?
pcmonitors.info/articles/qd-oled-and-woled-fringing-issues/
So largely depends on the size you pick as this will affect the subpixel layout.
Here's 32" 240 Hz 4K model:
27" QHD 360 Hz model:
And finally 34" UWQHD model:
They are respectively 3rd gen, 2nd gen and 1st gen when it comes to subpixel layout.
As a bonus, 27" 4K QD-OLED:
Notice the dimple on green subpixel, I don't know what gen would you call that.
All pics from RTINGS. Read their reviews for actual details on text fringing.
LG brings tandem OLED panels to laptops, claiming three times the brightness and double the lifespan of current self-emissive screens | PC GamerMicroLed has been around since 2000, been showcased by Sony in 2012, but it's only now that we start to see a few really expensive and really commercial screens using that tech. Making those screens is still inneficient at the manufcturing level. smartphones and smartwatches will probably see that tech looong before monitors does.
It's often like that with tech. Panasonic developped in the 2010's a groundbreaking organic sensor for cameras that would give them an edge over the competion. They made a 8K prototype in 2021. It's still not ready for mass production yet.We are merely piggy backing the Tv industry tech, where those subpixels aren't an issue for media conssumption in the living room. Every professional OLED screen are using a classis RGB layout, but with a low refresh rate. I've heard it's going to change in a few years though.
But it's really partly a DPI issue, OLED phones have been using an exotic subpixel layout for years, but I don't recall people saying that IPS phones were better. Sadly gaming monitors can neither afford to be "retina" or enjoy the longer viewing distance of TVs.
However the issue isn't nearly as big a people make it out to be. A a normal person wouldn't run a monitor on 100% to begin with. Probably more at 80% max. Which will mitigate the most issues to begin with.
secondly smarter use of things like lowering contrast after 5 minutes of no use, sleep after 10 minutes or so will help a lot as well.
Just wwatch content plays games on it in other words do have the same image continuously.
My 8 year old OLED TV still doesn't have any image retention.Keep on waiting then.
Now, regarding the text clarity, that's my other issue. My monitor is used both for gaming and work; can't really invest in something that doesn't display crisp texts, and can't last more than a few years when it's on 18 hours a day.
Eg1. Mini, not micro
Rtings tested both the G4 and the bravia 9, the G4 is literally up to 50% brighter in actual scenes. That's because the Mini led has to dim the zones to avoid blooming. Hallway lights scene 1.194 cd/m2 for the G4, 800 cd/m2 for the bravia 9.
A normal LCD cannot really do HDR, the backlight destroys contrast. Only oleds and minileds with lots of zones can do it properly.
The LG G4 is rated 8.6 in HDR brightness VS the Bravia 9 Miniled rated 8.8.
I quote:
LG: "The LG G4 OLED has excellent HDR brightness (...)Unfortunately, large bright scenes are significantly dimmer than smaller, specular highlights due to its aggressive Automatic Brightness Limiter Bravia: "Combined with its exceptional contrast, this TV provides a very impactful HDR viewing experience with all HDR content.
Yes, very small areas can appear brighter, but overall pictures of Minileds are way brighter. You're making up your own reality here.
You're welcome.
But even the fact that OLED monitors got their own VESA HDR certification really muddled the field. So the people go, it can‘t do brightness, but it does contrast due to incredible black depth, so we will measure that, and somehow proclaim HDR True Black 400 way better than other screen techs at HDR 1400, for no apparent reason? It’s high dynamic range, but downwards!
Should this come with a warning that any ambient light drastically reduces the contrast, especially in QD-OLED?