We cover a lot of different displays and monitors year in and year out on TechSpot, using various types of display panel technology. But what technology is the best? How does LCD compare to OLED? How does IPS LCD compare to VA LCD? How does QD-OLED compare to WOLED?
We're going to explain all of that in this freshly updated article. The last time we discussed panel technology was three years ago, and so much has changed since then that it's time for an update.
Display Tech Overview
So, what are the different types of panel technologies, and how do they work? In the monitor market right now, there are two primary display families to choose from: LCDs (liquid crystal displays) and OLEDs (organic light-emitting diode displays). Each of these families has subvariants. For LCDs, the main ones in use are IPS, VA, and TN. For OLEDs, we have QD-OLED and WOLED.
But first, we should tackle the main differences between LCD and OLED. These are two fundamentally different approaches to creating a display, but both use a layered composition.
In an LCD, the main components are a backlight, the liquid crystal layer, and various filters. The backlight uses LEDs to generate white light, which shines through the liquid crystal layer. The crystals in this layer are electrically manipulated to allow more or less light to pass through, depending on the color that needs to be displayed.
This light is then filtered into red, green, and blue components, forming subpixels. Each pixel in the display is made up of red, green, and blue subpixels, enabling the display to produce virtually any color.
An exploded view of an LCD screen illustrating the intricate layering of components, including LED backlighting, diffuser sheets, polarizers, liquid crystal layers, and color filters.
OLEDs have a simpler design. Rather than generating light and controlling its output using separate layers, an OLED generates and controls light in one step with one layer. This OLED layer contains individual organic light-emitting diodes for each subpixel, which can be directly controlled to emit more or less light. This light is then filtered into the usual red, green, and blue components through a separate layer.
From here, we move into subvariants. For LCDs, when we talk about IPS, VA, and TN, we're referring to differences in the liquid crystal layer and how the crystals are positioned and manipulated. TN, or twisted nematic displays, are the most basic design, with each crystal twisting 90 degrees to block or pass light. IPS, or in-plane switching, aligns the crystals parallel to the panel, and they rotate to control light. VA, or vertical alignment, has crystals aligned vertically, which tilt to control light. These subvariants are often given brand names by manufacturers, such as AHVA or PLS, but these days, product pages typically just list IPS, VA, or TN.
Comparison of IPS (In-Plane Switching) and TN (Twisted Nematic) LCD technologies, showcasing differences in liquid crystal alignment and viewing angles. IPS mode offers consistent colors and wide viewing angles, while TN mode provides faster response times but limited viewing angles.
For OLED subvariants, the main ones used in monitors are QD-OLED and WOLED. These refer to significant panel differences, including subpixel structure, light generation, and filtering. QD-OLEDs generate blue light, which is transformed into green and red for the other subpixels through a quantum dot layer.
WOLED uses a bottom-emission design with RGBW color filters, while QD-OLEDs utilizes a blue-emitting layer and Quantum Dot conversion.
WOLEDs generate white light, which is transformed into subpixel colors using a filter layer. WOLEDs also include a fourth white subpixel, which directly passes the white light, in addition to the usual red, green, and blue. The physical arrangement of these subpixels differs as well, with QD-OLEDs using a triangular layout and WOLEDs employing a stripe design.
How do all of these differences impact performance? Let's dive into that.
Brightness
When it comes to brightness, the main differences are between LCD and OLED families. For SDR content, LCDs are brighter when run at their maximum brightness. Across over 150 LCDs we've tested, the average LCD peak brightness was 402 nits. In comparison, OLEDs averaged just 231 nits. This gives LCDs a large brightness advantage: they are 74% brighter on average.
When breaking down brightness by subvariants, there isn't much difference within the LCD family. Since the liquid crystal layer is separate from the backlight layer, there's no technical reason why TN, IPS, or VA LCD monitors should vary significantly in brightness.
Indeed, we found an average brightness of 410 nits for IPS, 394 nits for VA, and 366 nits for TN. For QD-OLED, almost all models we've tested achieve similar SDR brightness levels of around 246 nits. For WOLEDs, newer models hit an average of 260 nits, while older models struggle to reach 200 nits.
Contrast Ratio
There is a substantial difference in contrast ratios between each of these technologies. Generally speaking, TN panels have the weakest contrast ratios. On average, we found a ratio of 982:1 for TN panels, with plenty of models falling below 900:1. IPS panels are next, with an average contrast of 1,088:1.
About 29% of IPS models tested had a contrast ratio below 1,000:1, and only 21% achieved over 1,200:1. Most of the time, IPS panels deliver just over 1,000:1, which is relatively weak. Neither IPS nor TN LCDs are known for producing deep blacks.
VA LCDs have the best contrast within the LCD family. Across the models we've tested, the average contrast ratio for VA panels is 3,238:1, meaning a typical VA delivers three times the contrast of a typical IPS panel. This leads to much deeper blacks on VA LCDs and a noticeably higher contrast experience. Even the worst VA panels we've seen outperform the best IPS LCDs in terms of contrast.
OLEDs, on the other hand, have an effectively infinite contrast ratio because they can fully switch off pixels to display true black. This isn't possible with most LCDs, as the backlight remains on, and the liquid crystal layer merely blocks as much light as possible.
When OLEDs turn off a given pixel, black levels are truly 0. On a VA LCD calibrated to 200 nits of peak brightness, we typically see black levels around 0.067 nits. On an IPS, this increases to an average of 0.19 nits, and for TN, it's 0.21 nits – none of which are actually 0, and the difference is noticeable in a dark room.
There is no difference between QD-OLED and WOLED black levels; both deliver perfect black levels.
Viewing Angles
One of the most obvious differences between panel technologies is their viewing angles. TN panels have the weakest viewing angles, with significant color and contrast shifts in both horizontal and vertical directions. Typically, TN panels are rated at 170/160 degrees, but in reality, noticeable shifts occur when viewing from any position other than dead center.
This is a major weakness for TN panels and can negatively impact the experience for tasks like productivity work or photo editing, where color accuracy is critical.
Asus ROG Swift Pro PG248QP - sRGB, tested at native resolution, highest refresh rate
Portrait CALMAN Ultimate, DeltaE Value Target: Below 2.0, CCT Target: 6500K
VA panels have much better viewing angles than TN panels, but they still don't reach the level of IPS or OLEDs. In our experience, VA panels tend to suffer from contrast or gamma shifts at off-center angles, but their sweet spot for viewing is much larger than that of TN LCDs.
Most IPS panels outperform VAs in this area, offering an even wider sweet spot with less gamma, color, and brightness shifting at extreme angles. However, the quality of viewing angles does vary between IPS panel manufacturers. Overall, modern IPS displays provide excellent viewing angles, making this a non-issue for most users.
For the best viewing angles, OLED technology takes the lead. Due to their simpler panel construction, OLEDs emit light more evenly across a broader range of angles, so even compared to IPS LCDs, OLEDs typically produce higher-quality images at extreme angles.
In most normal usage conditions, OLEDs aren't a massive upgrade from IPS panels in terms of viewing angles, but they are still better. Thanks to QD-OLED's top-emission design, it offers slightly better viewing angles than WOLED. However, both perform fantastically in this area.
Color Gamut
There are noticeable color gamut differences between the various display technologies. For LCDs, the color gamut is primarily determined by the backlight technology being used, so IPS, TN, and VA panels can theoretically deliver the same gamut.
LCDs with quantum dot enhancement layers achieve the widest color gamuts, but even those using more traditional backlights (e.g., KSF phosphor LEDs) can still exceed 95% DCI-P3 coverage. On the other hand, OLED designs, such as QD-OLED and WOLED, exhibit inherent differences in color gamut.
BenQ Mobiuz EX321UX - Rec. 2020, tested at native resolution, highest refresh rate
Portrait CALMAN Ultimate, DeltaE Value Target: Below 2.0, CCT Target: 6500K
The widest color gamuts observed in our testing come from IPS LCDs with quantum dot layers, which can achieve over 80% coverage of the expansive Rec. 2020 color gamut designed for HDR content.
The best examples have reached as high as 87% Rec. 2020 coverage. QD-OLEDs also deliver impressive performance, with an average of 81% Rec. 2020 coverage. Similarly, some quantum dot-enhanced VA LCDs also surpass 80% Rec. 2020.
Samsung Odyssey OLED G8 - Rec. 2020, tested at native resolution, highest refresh rate
Portrait CALMAN Ultimate, DeltaE Value Target: Below 2.0, CCT Target: 6500K
A step below these are LCDs that lack quantum dot enhancement. Most modern IPS and VA panels still offer wide gamuts, typically ranging between 68% and 76% Rec. 2020. This corresponds to approximately 95% DCI-P3 coverage and full sRGB coverage.
Gigabyte M27UA - Rec. 2020, tested at native resolution, highest refresh rate
Portrait CALMAN Ultimate, DeltaE Value Target: Below 2.0, CCT Target: 6500K
WOLEDs generally fall into this category as well, with an average Rec. 2020 coverage of 72%, making QD-OLEDs the superior OLED option for color gamut. Some newer TN monitors also achieve wide gamut performance, though they are less common than their IPS and VA counterparts.
Asus ROG Swift OLED PG32UCDP - Rec. 2020, tested at native resolution, highest refresh rate
Portrait CALMAN Ultimate, DeltaE Value Target: Below 2.0, CCT Target: 6500K
Occasionally, we come across monitors that do not feature a wide color gamut, but these aren't tied to a specific display technology. We've seen examples using IPS, TN, and VA panels, but such models are becoming increasingly rare in 2024. Most gaming monitors today offer 90%+ DCI-P3 coverage and qualify as wide gamut displays. TN panels remain the least likely to feature wide gamut capabilities, although even in 2024, new TN designs with wide gamut support are emerging.
When it comes to color accuracy, this depends entirely on the monitor manufacturer rather than the display technology. Proper calibration is key, and all panel types are capable of highly accurate performance if tuned appropriately.
Refresh Rates
Refresh rates have steadily increased over the last few years, and the ceiling for what each panel technology can achieve hasn't been reached yet. Generally, maximum refresh rates are tied to resolution, with lower resolutions allowing for higher refresh rates.
As things stand right now, the highest refresh rate panels available are 540Hz TN LCDs at 1080p resolution, followed closely by 500Hz IPS LCDs (also at 1080p) and 480Hz WOLEDs. These WOLED panels are unique in that they are available at 1440p, making them the highest refresh rate 1440p models, or at 1080p in 4K dual-mode products.
Below these extremes, we find QD-OLED panels reaching maximum refresh rates of 360Hz, which is also the limit for IPS LCDs at 1440p.
VA LCDs typically top out at 240Hz, with some models achieving 250Hz at 1080p. At 4K resolution, QD-OLED, WOLED, and VA LCD panels all currently offer refresh rates up to 240Hz. However, IPS LCDs lag behind, with most models maxing out at around 165Hz.
Response Times
Response times are just as important for motion clarity as refresh rates. These dictate how fast a panel can transition from one color to another, with faster response times leading to reduced blur and ghosting.
Here's how the various display technologies rank in terms of speed:
The slowest monitors we've tested are VA LCDs, excluding those tuned by Samsung. Non-Samsung VAs tend to have average response times in the 8 to 15 ms range, with the best cases reaching 7 ms at the highest refresh rates. On average, these VAs achieve a response time of 10.8 ms.
Using our cumulative deviation metric – which assesses how close a transition gets to the ideal instant response – non-Samsung VA LCDs average 844. VA panels also suffer from "dark level smearing," where transitions involving dark greys are especially slow, leading to noticeable ghosting in certain situations.
Next in speed are IPS LCDs, which have a wide performance range thanks to ongoing improvements in this technology. Across the 80+ IPS LCDs we've tested, the average grey-to-grey response time is 6.9 ms, though values generally range from 4 to 10 ms.
For newer panels, this range narrows to between 4 and 6.5 ms. The average cumulative deviation for IPS panels is 595 – 42% better than VA LCDs. Most modern IPS LCDs fall within the 500 to 600 range, which is quite solid for motion clarity.
Samsung-tuned VA LCDs are a class above other VAs. To clarify, this refers to the best examples of Samsung's VAs, as not all of them are equally well-tuned. These panels achieve response times in the 3 to 4 ms range, with cumulative deviation around 400. The best IPS panels are also capable of this level of speed and deviation, but IPS technology tends to have less variation between the best and worst examples compared to VA technology.
TN LCDs are the fastest LCD technology, with an average response time of 4.4 ms in our testing and a cumulative deviation of 399. This is nearly 50% better than the average IPS panel, although TN panels have other trade-offs to achieve this speed, as discussed earlier. Their faster response times enable TN LCDs to support class-leading refresh rates.
OLEDs are an order of magnitude faster than any LCD technology available today. The average response time for OLEDs – whether WOLED or QD-OLED, as both perform similarly – is just 0.3 ms. Their average cumulative deviation is a mere 42. Unique to OLEDs is that their performance remains consistent across all refresh rates.
While LCDs often perform worse at lower refresh rates compared to higher ones, OLEDs maintain the same speed regardless of the refresh rate.
Motion Clarity
Thanks to their response time advantage, OLEDs deliver better real-world motion clarity at a given refresh rate compared to LCDs. For instance, an OLED running at 240Hz offers motion clarity closer to a 360Hz LCD than a 240Hz LCD. Typically, OLEDs deliver motion clarity equivalent to an LCD running at 1.5x the refresh rate.
Where LCDs can surpass OLEDs in motion clarity is through backlight strobing technology. This feature is particularly popular among hardcore competitive shooter players, with the best implementations currently available on TN and IPS LCD panels.
The quality of backlight strobing depends on the panel's response time and the speed and tuning of the strobe itself. With TN LCDs being typically faster, they offer more potential for top-tier backlight strobing setups.
When comparing the best strobed LCDs to the motion clarity of OLEDs, strobed LCDs still hold an edge, delivering the highest clarity possible. However, backlight strobing is a restrictive technology – it doesn't work with adaptive sync or HDR and usually requires a locked, consistent frame rate for the best experience. In contrast, OLEDs deliver their clarity alongside full variable refresh rate and HDR compatibility.
These days, there's no input lag difference between panel technologies when it comes to processing delay – the time it takes for a signal to begin displaying. However, overall input lag is still influenced by refresh rates and response times. This means, in practice, 480Hz OLEDs and 500Hz TN LCDs deliver the lowest input latency available.
HDR Characteristics
Achieving high dynamic range (HDR) is inherently built into the design of OLED panels, which have two key hardware advantages: the ability to dim blacks down to true zero and full-range control of every individual pixel. This results in an extremely high native contrast ratio that's already suitable for HDR, along with excellent control over brightness.
LCDs, by contrast, do not inherently feature a high contrast ratio, with even the best VA LCDs topping out at around 4,000:1. To achieve HDR-suitable contrast ratios, LCDs rely on zoned backlights – ideally full-array local dimming (FALD) backlights – that work in tandem with the liquid crystal layer to boost contrast and dynamic range.
While this improves performance, it's still a compromise compared to OLEDs. LCD backlight zones often control thousands of pixels at once, unlike OLEDs, which offer precise pixel-level control. This means OLEDs excel at displaying bright and dark elements close together, whereas LCDs may show zone-related artifacts like blooming.
Generally, OLEDs handle dark HDR content with high contrast better due to their hardware capabilities. This isn't to say LCDs can't perform well in these scenarios, but their hardware has to work harder to achieve comparable results.
LCD performance in HDR depends heavily on the number of backlight zones – more zones lead to better results. VA LCDs, with their higher native contrast ratio, require fewer zones to achieve similar results compared to IPS LCDs, based on our testing experience.
However, LCDs have a clear advantage in brightness. LCD backlights can produce much higher brightness levels than OLEDs, particularly for bright scenes that use the entire display area. In most real-world scenarios, LCDs deliver significantly brighter highlights and maintain consistent brightness across brighter, higher APL (average picture level) scenes compared to darker, lower APL scenes.
OLEDs are generally dimmer. Between the two OLED technologies, there are notable differences. Our 4K QD-OLED vs. 4K WOLED explainer covers this in more detail, but for the latest panels, WOLEDs are slightly brighter on average, especially for brighter scenes. However, earlier WOLED models are considerably dimmer than typical QD-OLEDs, so performance depends on the specific monitor. Additionally, WOLEDs have worse color brightness and a narrower color gamut, which can impact the HDR presentation.
At the moment, there's no definitive winner for HDR performance between OLEDs and LCDs – it largely depends on what you prioritize in a display. If you value higher HDR brightness, LCDs are the better choice. If higher contrast and better shadow detail are your preference, OLEDs are the way to go.
Burn-In and Other Considerations
Another factor to consider is burn-in. LCDs do not suffer from permanent image retention issues, or burn-in, making them a far better choice for static content – a key use case for desktop monitors. OLEDs, on the other hand, can and will experience burn-in over time when exposed to repeated static content. This makes OLEDs more suitable for dynamic content like video playback or gaming, where screen elements frequently change.
A few additional points to keep in mind include subpixel structure and its impact on text quality. LCDs generally offer the best text clarity due to their standard subpixel layout, which operating systems like Windows are optimized for.
More unusual layouts, such as those used in WOLED and QD-OLED panels, can result in slightly reduced text clarity at the same resolution. Among LCDs, IPS, TN, and VA panels generally provide similar text clarity unless you get a rare panel with a more funky layout.
Screen coatings are another consideration, but these are determined by the monitor manufacturer rather than the panel technology. For instance, IPS LCDs can have either matte or glossy coatings, just as QD-OLEDs can.
However, we've noticed a trend in recent years where manufacturers use glossy coatings for QD-OLED panels – likely because Samsung Display primarily produces glossy variants – while matte finishes remain more common for other panel types.
What We Learned
If we had to summarize the display ecosystem today, this is it: TN panels continue to decline in popularity, and we don't see them much anymore outside of esports gaming monitors with high refresh rates and backlight strobing. Even in the budget monitor market, TN panels have been largely replaced by IPS LCDs due to their numerous flaws as general-purpose screens, particularly poor viewing angles and low contrast.
VA panels remain a mixed bag and have lost ground to IPS in many product segments. However, there's been a small resurgence in VA panels for mini-LED HDR monitors.
VA technology has some inherent strengths, like a decent native contrast ratio for an LCD, but also some notable drawbacks, such as weaker response time performance outside of a few exclusive implementations. In lower-tier products, VA performance continues to be a major issue, and we would have liked to see more advancements in this area over the last few years.
IPS panels are steadily increasing in popularity, though innovation in this technology has slowed recently. IPS panels are typically the most balanced option, with strengths across several areas, including motion performance relative to other LCDs, wide gamut coverage, and excellent viewing angles.
These strengths of IPS monitors are consistent across all market segments, from high-end models to entry-level displays, making them a great bang-for-buck option. Thanks to the prevalence of flat panels with great uniformity and very wide gamuts, IPS is also the most suitable technology for gaming and content creation on the same display. However, IPS panels still lag behind VA panels in contrast ratio.
Then there's OLED, which has made significant strides in recent years and now provides a compelling alternative for buyers looking at premium-priced monitors. OLED is fundamentally different from LCD technology, offering far superior motion performance, infinite contrast, and inherent advantages for HDR content.
That said, OLEDs have some downsides that prevent them from being an ideal all-around choice for a PC monitor, such as the risk of burn-in and lower brightness compared to LCD counterparts. It will be interesting to see how OLED technology evolves over the next few years and how affordable it can become.
English (US) ·