Samsung Display to Introduce First 90Hz OLED Laptop Display

[btarunr]

While most laptops and notebooks now offer a 60 Hz refresh rate, Samsung Display announced today that it will mass produce the world's first 90 Hz OLED laptops in the first quarter of this year. Samsung Display Chief Executive Officer Joo Sun Choi said that the company will initially produce very large quantities of 14-inch, 90 Hz OLED displays destined for laptops and notebooks, beginning in March.

"OLED display panels can best satisfy the diverse consumer needs for laptops used in telework, online education, video streaming, and gaming," the company said. Samsung Display said it is helping to introduce a major shift in the market as it collaborates closely with global manufacturers to achieve a new level of excellence for refresh rates in laptops, beginning this year.



Samsung Display believes consumers will quickly warm to the opportunity to purchase OLED displays offering a 90 Hz refresh rate, even though the OLED panels require the use of a high-spec. graphics card. In rendering static images 90 times a second, they will make movements look much more lifelike, or snappier, from a color perspective. As such, the new refresh rate updates changes in motion more often, allowing for smoother-looking visuals that appear virtually seamless to the viewer.

In a seeming contradiction, OLED displays are able to transition from one screen to the next much more quickly than LCD screens with the same refresh rate. As a result, OLED screens can make gaming and movie watching a more vibrant, pleasurable experience, without compromise. Their 90 Hz OLED refresh rate is actually 10X the fastest screen response time on the market today. In fact, the 90 Hz OLED display offers high-speed driving that is actually on par with that of 120 Hz LCD screens.

Samsung Display tested blur length using the same motion picture of a fast driving car and found that the image drag of 90 Hz OLED and 120 Hz high refresh rate LCD screens is 0.9 mm and 1 mm, respectively. In short, 90Hz OLED screens smear amazingly little, at practically the same rate as a 120 Hz LCD.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Space Lynx]

oh sweet mama, please make it affordable...

 

[ixi]

Has anyone used here 90Hz display? Can you "really feel" the difference, like "wow"?

My self have only used mobile phone 120Hz which is nice.

 

[Xaled]

Has anyone used here 90Hz display? Can you "really feel" the difference, like "wow"?

My self have only used mobile phone 120Hz which is nice.

I used 100 Hz on many screen,and I can clearly say that when compared to 60hz you definitely feel "wow" at this refresh rate
any thing higher is noticeable but not as impressive

 

[Bwaze]

Lots of OLED TVs have variable refresh rate and 120 Hz panels, and you can get 55" for as low as 1200 EUR.

I can't imagine the reason why they can't produce 27 - 32" 4K OLED with 120 Hz, other than desire to get there eventually, and sell all the in-between steps for as much money as possible.

And I still don't believe they have solved the burn-in problem. What, will we have desktops without icons, worry about static HUD elements in games?

 

[R-T-B]

Lots of OLED TVs have variable refresh rate and 120 Hz panels, and you can get 55" for as low as 1200 EUR.

I can't imagine the reason why they can't produce 27 - 32" 4K OLED with 120 Hz, other than desire to get there eventually, and sell all the in-between steps for as much money as possible.

And I still don't believe they have solved the burn-in problem. What, will we have desktops without icons, worry about static HUD elements in games?

It gets worse when you realize the LG TVs actually "tick" at 240hz, but they just don't have interface bandwidth to manage that (in the controller, the HDMI 2.1 should be fine).

As for the burn in problem, I've been using a B9 LG OLED at 100% brightness for more than a year now. No burn in, no practice change other than a screensaver.

 

[medi01]

Great news, but if they pair it with Intel chips only, no thanks.

I'd be interested in any OLED Notebook, that doesn't expect you to sell parts of your body to be able to buy it.

 

[Mussels]

Has anyone used here 90Hz display? Can you "really feel" the difference, like "wow"?

My self have only used mobile phone 120Hz which is nice.

Pixel 4 XL i have is 90Hz OLED. you can definitely feel it when you change to 60hz, and it took weeks to adjust back to 60Hz LCD when i changed to another phone for a warranty claim (battery died)

 

[deu]

To all the people weirding out about 90hz; 90 hz is the VR standard for refresh rate. Im pretty confident that these panels should/could be used for VR. (eventhough i would want 120 hz+ to be honest.)

As a user of 144hz screens for the last 10+ years : in gaming scenarios yes the refresh (even 90hz) makes a noticable change. The effect in everyday application is not so noticable (maybe less eyefatique with 90hz)

 

[voltage]

This is great news. I'm in for one immediately as long as its somewhat affordable.

I used 100 Hz on many screen,and I can clearly say that when compared to 60hz you definitely feel "wow" at this refresh rate
any thing higher is noticeable but not as impressive

my old pioneer plasma TV is 600hz. I am never replacing it, unless it stops working.

 

[MikeMurphy]

It gets worse when you realize the LG TVs actually "tick" at 240hz, but they just don't have interface bandwidth to manage that (in the controller, the HDMI 2.1 should be fine).

As for the burn in problem, I've been using a B9 LG OLED at 100% brightness for more than a year now. No burn in, no practice change other than a screensaver.

OLED flickers at 240hz, presumably to increase display performance. Having said that the flicker rate needs to be a multiple of the refresh rate, so a 90hz OLED would not flicker at 240hz but more likely 270hz.

The size of the pixels also really matters when it comes to OLED. Larger pixels present on TVs are more resilient to burn-in compared to very small pixels found on smartphones. Larger OLED pixels also benefit much less from flicker, so many OLED TVs don't exhibit flicker, but all OLED smartphones do.

Source: I do a lot of research in light science and frequently measure flicker on consumer devices.

 

[R-T-B]

OLED flickers at 240hz, presumably to increase display performance.

I'm not talking about backlight blinking or similar.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Has anyone used here 90Hz display? Can you "really feel" the difference, like "wow"?

My self have only used mobile phone 120Hz which is nice.

I have an 100Hz panel which feels just like an 120Hz one....
Love the feeling of fluidity of the Windows interface with that screen refresh compared to a 60Hz one.

 

[InVasMani]

Just hurry up and make a 15" QLED 4K 90Hz/120Hz that you can VESA mount on a swing arm.

 

[Raunhofer]

OLED flickers at 240hz, presumably to increase display performance. Having said that the flicker rate needs to be a multiple of the refresh rate, so a 90hz OLED would not flicker at 240hz but more likely 270hz.

The size of the pixels also really matters when it comes to OLED. Larger pixels present on TVs are more resilient to burn-in compared to very small pixels found on smartphones. Larger OLED pixels also benefit much less from flicker, so many OLED TVs don't exhibit flicker, but all OLED smartphones do.

Source: I do a lot of research in light science and frequently measure flicker on consumer devices.

So, you mean they have a sort of low persistence implemented? image | image | black | image | image | black ... ?

Why do larger displays benefit from this less than the small ones? I'd imagine no blur would be equally beneficial no matter the size? Or is this more about preserving the pixels and less about actual visual performance?

And beyond anything, does this mean that smaller OLED-screens need to have brighter pixels due to the screen essentially being "off" ~half of the time, which could lead to even more burn-in?

I've always wondered why it has taken so long to get OLED-monitors. It seems there's much more to be considered than just making the pixels smaller.

 

[MikeMurphy]

So, you mean they have a sort of low persistence implemented? image | image | black | image | image | black ... ?

Why do larger displays benefit from this less than the small ones? I'd imagine no blur would be equally beneficial no matter the size? Or is this more about preserving the pixels and less about actual visual performance?

And beyond anything, does this mean that smaller OLED-screens need to have brighter pixels due to the screen essentially being "off" ~half of the time, which could lead to even more burn-in?

I've always wondered why it has taken so long to get OLED-monitors. It seems there's much more to be considered than just making the pixels smaller.

I think the flicker is implemented to both improve response rate and to reduce the likelihood of burn-in. Response rates become noticeably poorer at lower brightness without flicker, especially when rendering the color blue. With flicker the response rate improves substantially.

Both of those factors are more problematic with smaller OLED pixels found on high-resolution small devices like phones. Larger OLED pixels seem to be far more resilient to both of those factors, leading some manufacturers to eliminate the flicker on TVs as it's not as useful.

The flicker is a pulsing of brightness but doesn't usually reach zero / black. The characteristics of the pulsing also change depending on the brightness set, but the frequency does not change. It's always a multiple of the image refresh rate as the pulsing is the image, compared to LCD where the backlight flicker (if flicker is present) is totally independent of the image being rendered by the LCD.

With the shortcomings of small-pixel OLED panels would be a disaster for any devices that don't become obsolete anyways in 2-4 years.

MicroLED will change all of that though. MicroLED will be truly revolutionary as it has none of these shortcomings.