• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

4k or OLED?

I am looking to replace my 7 year old Sony Bravia LCD TV and I am not sure what to go for.
I am currently considering either the Full HD LG 55EC930V or the Panasonic TX-50CX802B.
I have read as much as I can about both and seen both in Currys (not the best environment I know).

I like the blacks and colour accuracy on the LG but I am wondering whether the lack of 4k is going to be an issue in the future. The biggest size I can fit is 55" (which is a push), the sofa is 9ft away and there is an arm chair at about 45-50 degree angle to the TV.
I cant decide whether 4k is worth it a) with how far away I am sat from the TV b) due to the lack / extra expense for the content. Is full hd going to be more than enough for the next 4-5 years?

My use is mainly general TV (Freesat HD, so a lot of SD channels). We do watch movies at the weekend and I do occasionaly play Fifa on PS4.

I am really sturggling to decide what to do, I ideally dont want to replace the TV again within 5 years. Any advice / alternative TVs would be appreciated.


Active Member
The only Freesat content is the Astra ULTRA HD Demo channel. So at present you may not need 4K TV. Nothing on Freeview afaik.


Well-known Member
If it were an either/or situation I would go for colour accuracy every time. I'm not convinced that on a 55" screen 4k is that important.


Active Member
With 4K being available on NETFLIX and AMAZON I would say it is well worth it now. Also we are seing a lot of 4K HDR content too. Sky and BT both transmit 4K sports. BBC have transmitted 4K HLG test material (Planet Earth). So all in all I think we are going to get a lot of contents.

Watching UHD versus HD the difference is very noticable on a 55' which is what my Samsung TV is (quantum dot).

But as always it is a matter of opinion.


If you view close enough (optimum viewing distance to a 55" UHD is around 1m, 3,2ft), don't mind SD material looking worse and plan on utilising UHD/HDR content (and paying sub fees, console fees, games fees, UHD Blu-Ray player fees and UHD Blu-Ray disc fees) then its fine.

Broadcast TV is a joke for UHD right now, really not worth it at all unless you subscribe to watch BT / Sky football in UHD or pay for Sky F1...again you need to view close enough.

The rest of broadcast tv is mostly in SD, out of all terrestrial tv channels there are 5 main ones that are HD and they already struggle for bandwidth. On top of that HDR on broadcast tv is non existent. I actually think HDR will be more significant in the future to broadcast tv because unlike UHD it doesn't cost more bandwidth to transmit, hence why they introduced 1080p resolution to the HLG HDR specs.

So buying a UHD TV with good HDR now would be like buying a sports car that you can't take to a track. In one way or another 90% of the time you are not going to be utilising any of its content..unless you pay a premium for very limited content and view close enough.

Plus in a few years time when new tech comes out, spending years of not being able to utilise HDR/UHD for a while and you realise that if you would have waited and just bought a new TV when it is actually popular, you would have got a lot more for your money.


Distinguished Member
If you have 4k content, buy a 4k tv.

If you don't and you don't mind buying a new TV in a few years, go for a non 4k tv.

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom