Can't decide between LGCX or Q80/90T

stueyg87

Standard Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Points
12
Location
Sunderland
Hi All,

I'm a current owner of the LGB7 OLED and noticed the other day I had some pretty bad screen burn, so on the hunt for a new TV.

I really do like the OLED but I'm a bit wary of buying another due to them being more succeptable to screen burn, although after speaking with an LG rep today instore, they did advise that recent models are a lot better than the likes of the B7's.

A few friends I game with have the Samsung QLED, although they have the 2019 models but looking around the Q80/90T seem to be the 2020 versions of their models and they rave about them a lot.

I've had bad experiences with Samsung in the past, which is why I switched over to LG screens which I've never had major issues with, so that is always playing on my mind with switching back over to a Samsung.

I mainly use my TV for gaming, so I was looking for something that would offer HDMI 2.1 with 120hz for the newer games consoles.

Could anyone offer some advice on which they think would best? Or is there any other TV's out there which could be added to the selection process?
 
Big difference between them, you should really be looking more at the Q90/95 model for good HDR.

All being said though unless it's for a really bright room I'd still go OLED.
 
QLED is not a new display tech like OLED, they are LCD TVs still.

Its arguable which is better for gaming between the Samsung Q90T/Q95T and LG BX/CX. Boils down to the way each TV handles HDR and the pros and cons of each technology.

If you game lots on the TV using titles with bright huds, or colourful static images/huds then an OLED will eventually see burn in due to the way the technology works. If that's the case, you'll be better off with a Q90T/Q95T.
Example of a high risk game would be FIFA and low risk, Call of Duty. 8h a week playing the same high risk game may mean you see burn in again in a few yeras. Most peoples usage means its a non-issue, but you should think carefully about how you use the TV since you've seen it happen already.

Think about what caused burn in on your B7 and your usage that led to it, improvements have been made since, but it was actually in 2017 that they made the biggest stride in burn in resistance with features like auto logo luminance adjustment.

LCD TVs can also get brighter than OLEDs can so they can show more detail in bright parts of the image. It can make them more striking and impactful in games where HDR can reach high nits. They also stutter less, as motion blur is present.

On the other hand an OLED can show more detail closer to black and is suited more for gaming with the lights off or when its dim. They have per-pixel dimming instead of zone wide, and make for more uniform TVs to use in darker conditions. They have instant pixel response times which means they have no motion blur but a result of that is they stutter more, particularly with low frame rate material. Viewing angles are also better on OLED.
 
QLED is not a new display tech like OLED, they are LCD TVs still.

Its arguable which is better for gaming between the Samsung Q90T/Q95T and LG BX/CX. Boils down to the way each TV handles HDR and the pros and cons of each technology.

If you game lots on the TV using titles with bright huds, or colourful static images/huds then an OLED will eventually see burn in due to the way the technology works. If that's the case, you'll be better off with a Q90T/Q95T.
Example of a high risk game would be FIFA and low risk, Call of Duty. 8h a week playing the same high risk game may mean you see burn in again in a few yeras. Most peoples usage means its a non-issue, but you should think carefully about how you use the TV since you've seen it happen already.

Think about what caused burn in on your B7 and your usage that led to it, improvements have been made since, but it was actually in 2017 that they made the biggest stride in burn in resistance with features like auto logo luminance adjustment.

LCD TVs can also get brighter than OLEDs can so they can show more detail in bright parts of the image. It can make them more striking and impactful in games where HDR can reach high nits. They also stutter less, as motion blur is present.

On the other hand an OLED can show more detail closer to black and is suited more for gaming with the lights off or when its dim. They have per-pixel dimming instead of zone wide, and make for more uniform TVs to use in darker conditions. They have instant pixel response times which means they have no motion blur but a result of that is they stutter more, particularly with low frame rate material. Viewing angles are also better on OLED.
The screen burn is a netflix logo in the bottom right corner of the screen, I really cant figure out how it's got there as I can never remember having anything netflix related in that location. I think my biggest issue is the likes of the wife and kids just leaving the TV on rather than switching off, so it can just be left playing through, but generally the TV does pop into screensaver mode.

I do game quite a bit across the week, I would probably say around 15-20 hours, mainly playing Destiny, so i think the likes of FIFA menus wouldn't be an issue as such. The LG rep today said they woudn't recommend gaming for sessions longer than 4 hours a time without switching up the source, which makes sense and would help against the likes of burn in.

I understand the QLED isn't anything spectacular, just a fancy name for LED but I'm looking at the 55" CX and for the same price I can get the 65" Q80T. I know bigger isn't always necessarily better, but it's a saving of around £150-£200 too.

I just really can't decide what to do for the best and it's a shame there's no guarantee from LG in regards to the screen burning issue.
 
If its the Netflix logo then its probably from the TV being left in the Netflix app idle for some time or you (or someone else who uses the TV) spends a lot of time in the Netflix menu.

With an OLED you ideally want to turn it into standby every 4 hours so it can perform its compensation cycle. The burn in effect is cumulative so its not really watching something different for a bit that itself that lessens the risk, but instead using the TV for a wide variety of things.

Things that can fasten the burn in would be keeping the TV on for longer than 4 hours on a regular basis, or turning the TV off at the wall so it can't perform its cycle or using an external device so the TV doesn't enter screensaver mode if left with a stationary logo/image.

Either way, there's nothing wrong if you want to go for an LCD TV instead. They are certainly better value at 65" compared to OLEDs but I'd suggest looking at the Q90T or Sony XH9505 instead of the Q80T which is quite the step down when it comes to overall picture quality. Particularly if you are going to use HDR and you want better viewing angles.

To give you an idea, if each TV was sharing space on a ladder really TVs like the Q90T/XH9505 are slightly below OLEDs overall in picture quality, whilst the Q80T (or Sony XH9005) are down on the next step again.

From what it seems the burn in risk of your games really will be a non-issue, its more how the TV is used when you're not using it yourself that may be. Providing you're using integrated apps the TV sitting idle on the Netflix app shouldn't be an issue since a screensaver will kick in. Its when its an external device where a screensaver may not be added that could be a problem...or a lot of scrolling and stopping when deciding what to watch.
 
I’m having the same predicament. I usually game with the lights on so not sure I really need a OLED. Plus I think wider viewing angles is better for me in terms of how our family watches Tv. Issue is that I can’t find the q90t anywhere - well not at JL and Richer Sounds which offer the best warranty packages normally.
 
Oled has better viewing angle then any LCD
 
Gaming with the lights on will mean you'll notice less of LCD TVs poorer light control, since the black level you can distinguish will be higher. LCD TVs can also get brighter which can make for a better experience using HDR with lights on...although if you read up about HDR really you may have to watch without lights on anyway to see detail in dark moments.

There are still areas an OLED will be better though. Namely no motion blur and better viewing angles.

Pricespy has retailers listed that are reputable offering their own warranties like Peter Tyson and Crampton and Moore.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I am after the 55 inch and that’s a rare find at the moment. I think I will just go for the LG as my main concern was viewing angles.
 
So I think the reason I couldn't find the Q90t in 55 inch version is because the Q95t is more readily available in the UK. I feel like the Q95t is a better option for me compared to the CX as I'll be watching a lot of sports in a well lit room so the brighter picture may be better and I normally game in a semi-lit room.
 
or the Sony X95J 4K new LED tv.
 
Yeah the Q95T is the same TV with the one connect box, its also been discounted recently.

If you're watching with light on, LCD TV is definitely better overall than OLED since you should save some money and see less downsides of LCD tech.
 
As always thank you for your advice. I suppose the only issue with the q95t is the one hdmi 2.1 port. Not very future proofed. I also stumbled on a rambling video on YouTube which was moaning about LG CX only having 40 gb/s for its hdmi 2.1 - I take it that is just noise and not really that relevant?
 
If manufacturers created the perfect TV they'd never sell more...
 
Anecdotal impressions here: As a I actually own a 55 cx in the living room and a 75 q90t in a home thearte room (couldn't stretch to a 77 oled) and I have to say with some bias lighting I'm really impressed by the Samsung TV. I actually haven't noticed much blooming, really enjoying gaming on it and the black levels seem very good.
 
Is the lack of dolby vision a concern? I do watch Netflix, Apple TV and sky q (which will be getting it soon)
 
That was the one thing that did make me think twice about the tv. I assumed (could be wrong) that a better display in standard hdr is better than a worse display in dolby vision.

I honestly can't say I've watched something in DV on the cx and thought that it was so much better than standard hdr but then again I've not compared the same film in both formats.
 
Only time 48gbps ports make more sense than 40gpbs is for connecting a PC for desktop usage, it has no relevance with TV/film or computer games at all.
Dolby Vision isn't a requirement, since every Dolby Vision title also uses HDR10. So as long as the TV is good at reproducing HDR then it doesn't matter so much.

If you want a TV that supports Dolby Vision consider the Sony XH95 instead of the Samsung Q90T/Q95T or if you want HDMI 2.1 on a Sony, wait to buy so the new X95J is released and comes down in price. Right now its too expensive to buy any 2021 model.
 
Only time 48gbps ports make more sense than 40gpbs is for connecting a PC for desktop usage, it has no relevance with TV/film or computer games at all.
Dolby Vision isn't a requirement, since every Dolby Vision title also uses HDR10. So as long as the TV is good at reproducing HDR then it doesn't matter so much.

If you want a TV that supports Dolby Vision consider the Sony XH95 instead of the Samsung Q90T/Q95T or if you want HDMI 2.1 on a Sony, wait to buy so the new X95J is released and comes down in price. Right now its too expensive to buy any 2021 model.
Thanks so in terms of future proofing the q95t is fine? I plan to keep it for at least 7 years. I want 2.1 but if I'm never gonna miss out re dolby vision then I don't care really
 
If you are fine with the single HDMI 2.1 port yes, it will be fine. Most 2021 TVs only have 2x HDMI 2.1 ports anyway.

Because some HDMI 2.1 features are bolted on to the HDMI 2.0 ports also, you don't really need HDMI 2.1 at all unless you're a gamer and most gamers will only connect one console.

If you are wanting to connect two consoles, both using HDMI 2.1 then that's when you should consider buying a TV with more HDMI 2.1 ports, but as I said sadly the 2021 models that have just been released are way too expensive.
 
If you are fine with the single HDMI 2.1 port yes, it will be fine. Most 2021 TVs only have 2x HDMI 2.1 ports anyway.

Because some HDMI 2.1 features are bolted on to the HDMI 2.0 ports also, you don't really need HDMI 2.1 at all unless you're a gamer and most gamers will only connect one console.

If you are wanting to connect two consoles, both using HDMI 2.1 then that's when you should consider buying a TV with more HDMI 2.1 ports, but as I said sadly the 2021 models that have just been released are way too expensive.
Thanks. I will only ever play one console at a time. So just to be clear (sorry to labour the point) if I was watch a show on Apple TV on the LG or Samsung then there will be little difference between dolby vision v HDR10? Apart from the tvs themselves obviously
 
The difference will more down to the TV itself and its HDR capabilities than the formats it supports.
So if you have an LG OLED which supports Dolby Vision and HDR10, of course the Dolby Vision looks better than HDR10.

But if you have two different TVs side by side, you can't automatically assume because it supports Dolby Vision it will look better, there are things that constitute to the picture quality much more than only the formats the TV supports.

I wouldn't worry so much about format support, but instead think about the pros and cons to each TVs HDR picture quality. The main contenders in 2020 are the Samsung Q90T/Q95T vs the Sony XH9505, and each TV takes a different approach to displaying HDR.

Its these differences in approach that make the difference, not the formats the TV accepts. This is a post I made comparing the two:

Because of the way HDR works, if a TV lacks support for Dolby Vision or HDR10+ it will always fall back to HDR10.

This is true of Samsung TVs when they play Dolby Vision content, and Sony TVs when they play HDR10+ content.
 
The difference will more down to the TV itself and its HDR capabilities than the formats it supports.
So if you have an LG OLED which supports Dolby Vision and HDR10, of course the Dolby Vision looks better than HDR10.

But if you have two different TVs side by side, you can't automatically assume because it supports Dolby Vision it will look better, there are things that constitute to the picture quality much more than only the formats the TV supports.

I wouldn't worry so much about format support, but instead think about the pros and cons to each TVs HDR picture quality. The main contenders in 2020 are the Samsung Q90T/Q95T vs the Sony XH9505, and each TV takes a different approach to displaying HDR.

Its these differences in approach that make the difference, not the formats the TV accepts. This is a post I made comparing the two:

Because of the way HDR works, if a TV lacks support for Dolby Vision or HDR10+ it will always fall back to HDR10.

This is true of Samsung TVs when they play Dolby Vision content, and Sony TVs when they play HDR10+ content.
Many thanks again. I noticed on the currys websites that the xh9505 has 1 hdmi 2.1 port? Is that correct? https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-an...lHehoC-mkQAvD_BwE&gclid=CjwKCAjw&gclsrc=aw.ds
 
Nope, that is one reason why people go for Samsung instead if they are gamers. The Sony XH9505 doesn't have HDMI 2.1.

As mentioned the lower tier XH9005 does have HDMI 2.1, but it also is an inferior TV with picture quality, so its really not worth stepping down to imo.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom