• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Help me decide..........OLED monitors

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeeeee I've gone for the MSI MAG 271QPX QD-OLED E2

Thanks for everyone's opinions and insights. I will probably go duel OLED by moving the MSI to be my 'side monitor' with a 4K OLED eventually becoming my primary.....But that won't be until I upgrade my GPU in couple of years Or Will It.........The more likely scenario is I'll be that enamoured by my new OLED I'll be like... screw it 4k hear I come :laugh:.

It's my first experience with an OLED so I'll be over the top with looking after it anyways.

I'll let you know how I get on it with it for sure :).

Oh, the 32" vs 27", 4K vs 1440p and "is OLED ready for prolonged mixed use" debacle. That's a lot of subjective question...

My brother runs the MSI MPG 271QRX (27" 1440p 360Hz QDOLED) with a Philips 27" 1440p IPS. He bought the QDOLED at launch week, so it should have been used for ~11 months. At ~200nits. It looks awesome, and text clarity issue is not very noticeable. No burn in issue, but AFAIK he has been taking care of the monitor, and he doesn't put non-gaming usage onto the QDOLED side very often.
His main usage is shooters. Many different shooters. And some racing games.

I have a very strong opinion of wanting double 27" 4K for myself, just because I want to stuff as many pixels in my limited physical space (no way my desk can do double 32") and I have gotten used to one.
The monitors I'm considering are both 27" 4K QDOLEDs that are not launched yet, namely ROG PG27UCDM (very likely, because it looks superior in features) and Gigabyte MO27U2 (just because it is Gigabyte), to pair with a Gigabyte M27U (27" 4K IPS) that I'm running. Like my brother, I intend to put the M27U for more of the non-gaming usage.



With that out of the way...

4K or 1440p? -> The MPG 271QRX is awesome enough, but because I'm the bigger brother I want mine to be more awesome. If you don't hate DLSS, it is useful to relieve the load of 4K. It shouldn't be that heavy with DLSS.

If 1440p, 240Hz or 360Hz -> IIRC some shooters like Rainbow Six Siege can go way above 240fps easily. And you have enough money. So, 360Hz. But there were 240Hz options that were very very price attractive on the last...whatever holiday sale. And one might easily argue that 240Hz is awesome enough.

27" or 32" -> Do you have enough physical space? Like, do you have a big enough desk? Can you accomodate a slightly longer viewing distance for a 32"? I can't, but If you can, and you feel okay with a bigger monitor, then sure why not?
FYI, the difference between 32" and 27" in terms of width is ~4" (~10cm).

OLED or not? -> I'm sure I want an OLED, but double OLED is probably a nope for me, because I'm fine running two different monitors.
I have re-read the OP many times and failed to get if you want to replace both monitors with 2 OLEDs. If you want multi-monitor setup, keeping at least one of your current monitor, or buying non-OLED monitor to match whatever your new 32" OLED might be an option. Just saying. EDIT: welp, didn't see OP's followup post.
Alienware and ASUS should have 3yrs burn-in warranty. Not sure about others.

Side note: The main display on the iPhone 13mini is OLED. I bought it on launch week for my region ,so ~40months, have it gone through an average of at least 14hrs of usage per day, with lots of lots of them on the same result screen of the same game (partly because the game is light enough that I run it while working, partly because I may fall asleep while playing, leading to hours of the same result screen with the same static UI elements in moderate-to-high brightness, and I'm talking one game here). It took a lot more abuse than most desktop / TV screens, but it still looks like new. No burn-in at all. Really.

Thanks for this insight @Todestrieb. I was exactly like this....I want the best but I don't want the best if what I have at the moment will not bring out the best (if that makes sense). IMO I have the space for 32". I'm revamping my entire setup. Custom desk etc.

This is my setup as it is now:

Screenshot 2025-01-05 211647.png


New monitor will be wall bracketed further left to where the left monitor is now so I'm gaining 3 or 4 inch depth on my desk and more space on the right. Rig will be moving up off the floor on the desk where my current right monitor is. Going to smash some wall panelling on the back and shelve the alcove with some lights and stuff like all thew 'cool kids'.
 
Hey all,

I've decided I'm finally going to upgrade my monitor but I just cannot nail down what to upgrade to....

The current options I've whittled it down to are:

- Alienware 32" 4k QD-OLED - AW3225QF
- ASUS ROG Swift PG32UCDM 4K Ultra HD 31.5" QD-OLED
- MSI MPG 271QRX QD-OLED 360hz
- MSI MAG 271QPX QD-OLED 240hz

I just can't decide. May I have your opinions/experiences with any of them so I can make a more informed decision. I spend upwards of 12 - 15 hours a day at my desk for work and gaming.

I'm currently rocking 2x ASUS ROG Swift PG279QE 27" and they've served me well but it's about time I went full throttle. Games wise I play a lot of JRPG and Adventure. Ya know....big open world games. I do play some FPS but nothing mega competitive. Battlefield my go to usually. My current CPU/GPU combo is the Intel Core i5-13600KF 3.5 GHz and Geforce RTX 4070 TI.

The main concern I have is the choice over 4k or not 4k. Is the jump from 1440p to 4K really that good? I'm not looking to upgrade my GPU anytime soon so will a 4k panel be too much for GPU to handle at this point? Also the reason I've listed both variations of the MSI is I'm not sure if the jump in refresh is worth the extra coin. What's peoples perception of that?

Is there any other monitors that I've overlooked and should check out?

Hit me with it. Hopefully look to buy it before the day is out.

Cheers in advance.
With the 4070ti, and that core i5, stay away from 4k mate.
Do yourself a favor and get an oled thats just 1440p, and here is why:

I do have this system:
Ryzen 7 5800x3d
RTX 4070 TI Super
32gb 3600mhz ram.

Still i do have a 1080p monitor at this time, but in a month from now im gonna upgrade to 1440, and i have read almost everything about the do's/don'ts/pro's/con's for the last couple of months.

I found out that when enabling super resolution in your nvidia control panel (manage 3d settings>general settings then dsr factor or whatever its called in english (but it is dsr) and set it to 1440p, you get to experience what your system will do when using a proper 1440p monitor. It only gets downscaled to 1080p, or from 4k to 1440p, or whatever you set it to.

In my case, for most of my games, I HAD to enable dlss or frame generation to not go below 60fps in this case. For example:

Alan wake 2: 1080p with full path tracing, frame gen, and dlss quality, around 70ish fps. With 1440p that dropped to the low to mid 60's.
Indiana jones is the same story, but here i could go maxed out on 1080p, without dlss at all, and still manage above the 60's. On this 1440p, i had to use dlss to maintain that..
New kcd2, sits around 80fps on average maxed out, with dlss on native aa, and on 1440p, this drops even to the mid 50's. With dlss to quality again, this goes up again to the upper 60's.

So take your pick on this, cause this is with a gpu that's even better then yours. So i would stay away from 4k, unless youre planning to upgrade to a 4090, or the high end 5000 series.

If not, then go for 1440p, and go with this monitor:


I compared really a lot of gaming monitor's the last months to find out which was the best oled money, for the bang for the buck, and whereever i've read, i found out that the fo27q3 was the best, and beat the rest by a margin.
But i've linked the f027q2 here, and this is why:

The q2 is exactly the same panel as that the q3 is, but only with 240hz instead of 360hz, and a much more friendly selling price (€600 for the q2, instead of around 800 for the q3 here in the netherlands)

Ive tried looking for some higher end and more expensive asus ones, some samsung odyssey ones, msi ones, aoc ones, lg ones, you name it.

All of them had something, but when comparing them (especially on rtings.com) the q3 always was the clear winner by a milestone, especially after calibrating.

So, since its only 600 euros, is an oled (qd that is, but still), has a shiny coating (for better colors) and is from gigabyte (my current monitor is some sort of a predecessor in the form of the aorus cv27f) it means that the q2 is the clear winner here.

So, all in all, do yourself a favor, stay away from 4k, and go for this monitor instead. If you trying to find reviews for either the q3, or the q2, you will see that its a suberb screen.

And if your curious about that rting website, here it is for the q3:

Let me know what you think of this text, and maybe what you gonna do about it.

Cheers, Mara

Edit: Ive saw after typing this that you gone for the msi screen, a good choice that you didnt go for 4k. But still. Do yourself a favor and don;t make that jump to 4k yet. Wait a couple of more generations for the gpu's, and then with a 6000 or 7000 series think about it again. Since really, 4k is a kneebender for even a 4090 nowadays for some games...
 
At the beginning of the year I grabbed a LG ‎32GS95UV (White ver. of LG ‎32GS95UE)
after the ASrock PGO32UFS 32" dual-mode OLED from NewEgg, died w/in a few hours of unpacking it.

Surprisingly, ASrock didn't even have a manual for their 32" OLED. Even more surprisingly, neither did Acer or the other brands I looked @ to replace the ASrock.
Since it seemed like all the 'partner' manufacturers had similarly 'undercooked' products, I paid the ~$200 premium for a '1st party' LG. [TBH, the choice was made when LG Support responded to my technical inquiry, in less than 24hrs and to my satisfaction.]

tl;dr
-Check for reviews (esp. R-tings' response times #s)
-Check how supported the monitor is by the Brand
-Check if others have reported issues with the Model

-Accept that you may have to RMA your new high-$ display
-Accept that OLEDs are 'consumables' moreso than most equipment (Reminds me of Plasma TVs)

and, don't forget:

-Enjoy contrast, color, and response times, not seen since the days of the CRT and PDP :eek:
 
Last edited:
@maramsp
what utter baloney.
screen has has ZERO to do with what res your going to run OS/games or videos etc.
a higher res screens will have higher ppi and such, reducing chance of screen door effect when getting closer, and making overall image still better than same screen with lower res.

im running a 50in 4K tvs (as moni) with a 2080S without problem, and at 2-3ft still looks way better than the 32in doing QWD i had before (switching to >40in 4k screens).

and anytime a game doesnt run above 40fps (tv has vrr), i just lower the in-game res, but i still have better IQ, as my screen is still at 4K.
no one forces you to run the game in native (moni) res, so i cnt come up with a single reason NOT to get UHD screens, except for cost.

ignoring for a moment that running 4K will shift load towards gpu, making it easier on those with older/lower tier cpus, as long as the gpu can handle it.
 
Wow okay..... a lot has happened since Friday.

I did end up going with the MSI MAG 271QPX which to be fair it looks great in SDR....however after a few days of tinkering I just could not get the HDR settings to look right. I tried so many different setting to try hit that sweet spot with a bunch of games but whatever I did I wasn't happy with it. The colours just looked washed out.

So I bit the bullet and got the AW3225QF (the MSI is getting sent back today). Received the Alienware yesterday morning and I have to say it is stunning.....it's probably not a fair comparison going from 1440p to 4k but everything looks awesome. The different in HDR (and SDR) quality is night and day to the MSI.

With the 4070ti, and that core i5, stay away from 4k mate.
Do yourself a favor and get an oled thats just 1440p, and here is why:

I do have this system:
Ryzen 7 5800x3d
RTX 4070 TI Super
32gb 3600mhz ram.

Still i do have a 1080p monitor at this time, but in a month from now im gonna upgrade to 1440, and i have read almost everything about the do's/don'ts/pro's/con's for the last couple of months.

I found out that when enabling super resolution in your nvidia control panel (manage 3d settings>general settings then dsr factor or whatever its called in english (but it is dsr) and set it to 1440p, you get to experience what your system will do when using a proper 1440p monitor. It only gets downscaled to 1080p, or from 4k to 1440p, or whatever you set it to.

In my case, for most of my games, I HAD to enable dlss or frame generation to not go below 60fps in this case. For example:

Alan wake 2: 1080p with full path tracing, frame gen, and dlss quality, around 70ish fps. With 1440p that dropped to the low to mid 60's.
Indiana jones is the same story, but here i could go maxed out on 1080p, without dlss at all, and still manage above the 60's. On this 1440p, i had to use dlss to maintain that..
New kcd2, sits around 80fps on average maxed out, with dlss on native aa, and on 1440p, this drops even to the mid 50's. With dlss to quality again, this goes up again to the upper 60's.

So take your pick on this, cause this is with a gpu that's even better then yours. So i would stay away from 4k, unless youre planning to upgrade to a 4090, or the high end 5000 series.

If not, then go for 1440p, and go with this monitor:


I compared really a lot of gaming monitor's the last months to find out which was the best oled money, for the bang for the buck, and whereever i've read, i found out that the fo27q3 was the best, and beat the rest by a margin.
But i've linked the f027q2 here, and this is why:

The q2 is exactly the same panel as that the q3 is, but only with 240hz instead of 360hz, and a much more friendly selling price (€600 for the q2, instead of around 800 for the q3 here in the netherlands)

Ive tried looking for some higher end and more expensive asus ones, some samsung odyssey ones, msi ones, aoc ones, lg ones, you name it.

All of them had something, but when comparing them (especially on rtings.com) the q3 always was the clear winner by a milestone, especially after calibrating.

So, since its only 600 euros, is an oled (qd that is, but still), has a shiny coating (for better colors) and is from gigabyte (my current monitor is some sort of a predecessor in the form of the aorus cv27f) it means that the q2 is the clear winner here.

So, all in all, do yourself a favor, stay away from 4k, and go for this monitor instead. If you trying to find reviews for either the q3, or the q2, you will see that its a suberb screen.

And if your curious about that rting website, here it is for the q3:

Let me know what you think of this text, and maybe what you gonna do about it.

Cheers, Mara

Edit: Ive saw after typing this that you gone for the msi screen, a good choice that you didnt go for 4k. But still. Do yourself a favor and don;t make that jump to 4k yet. Wait a couple of more generations for the gpu's, and then with a 6000 or 7000 series think about it again. Since really, 4k is a kneebender for even a 4090 nowadays for some games...

Thanks for your input but I have to disagree. I know I've only experienced 4k for a short while but I've tried multiple games and put the GPU through it's paces so far. Final Fantasy Remake.....while an older-ish game is still graphic heavy, didn't drop below 100 fps in Ultra settings. BF 2024 stays between 60 and 80 which is playable for me. Granted I haven't tried a very recent game yet but I have faith.
 
@Paridian
good to hear.

make sure to turn on Gsync + V sync, and enable low latency in Nv cpl (dont use Ultra low latency unless for games where you can reach steady fps 100% of the time).
 
@maramsp
what utter baloney.
screen has has ZERO to do with what res your going to run OS/games or videos etc.
a higher res screens will have higher ppi and such, reducing chance of screen door effect when getting closer, and making overall image still better than same screen with lower res.

im running a 50in 4K tvs (as moni) with a 2080S without problem, and at 2-3ft still looks way better than the 32in doing QWD i had before (switching to >40in 4k screens).

and anytime a game doesnt run above 40fps (tv has vrr), i just lower the in-game res, but i still have better IQ, as my screen is still at 4K.
no one forces you to run the game in native (moni) res, so i cnt come up with a single reason NOT to get UHD screens, except for cost.

ignoring for a moment that running 4K will shift load towards gpu, making it easier on those with older/lower tier cpus, as long as the gpu can handle it.

I think we misunderstand each other here @Waldorf
Cause what you say, i do agree on, ofcourse a bigger screen has a better ppi, and therefore better image quality.

I was talking about the fact that a gpu has to work harder to achieve a higher reslotion on the same fps, as that it has to do compared to lower res and the same fps.

And since i have read everywhere, that enabling dsr in nvidia control panel, is the same as having a higher resolution monitor (so dsr 1440p, vs a 1440p screen in this matter)
I have found out that my 4070ti super has to work a lot harder, to achieve the same fps. And thats why i said it would be better with a 4070 ti to stay away from 4k for now, cause with higher end games, you simply won't get the fps that you would get when having a lower res monitor, or playing on lower res.

Ofcourse its not a bad choice per se to get a 4k monitor, for multiple reasons: It's future proof, lower end games do look better when playing on 4k, and with a bit of tweaking here and there, especially with dlss and frame generation, you still might get good fps nevertheless. But as far as i have concluded and tested, you will never get the same fps on a high end game (like alan wake 2, indiana jones, cyberpunk, etc) with just a 4070ti if you compare with a 1080p screen compared to a 4k monitor.

I might have suggested that a 4k monitor was a bad choice overall, but that certainly isnt the case. But i think in this regard cause of the 4070 ti, a 1440p screen was the best choice.

But in the end, the OP is happy, and thats whats the most important isnt it?

Btw @Paridian
I hope your faith is still there when youve tried a very heavy game.
Since i strongly believe your gpu will be brought on its knees when trying a fully path traced game like alan wake 2, cyberpunk or the new indiana jones.
But still, with dlss and frame generation i think you still can get good fps even with a 4k. But for me? I will wait a few years still to go 4k. I mean, i couldve made the jump to 1440p or oled a couple of years ago, but i didnt, cause i knew back then my hardware wasnt capable of it (rtx 2070 and ryzen 7 1800x).

But hey, your happy with your new screen, so who am i to judge. Enjoy your new screen and let us know how it handles in the coming months :) Maybe your faith is justified after all, who knows :)
 
Maybe what I am reading is panel based or something, but my OLED in specs has been a beast.
Same I have none of the issues spoken about here. My panel has been amazing for the last year and a half and I’m happy I moved to it from my IPS displays just like I was happy I moved to IPS from va and tn.

Im a systems engineer so my life is sitting infront of my screen for extended hours.

Time to move on. The OP has made his decision and I think it is a good one.
Oh nice!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top