> Thankfully, we can just have all three :)

Not at this time. There are some hypothetical options like the LG 27GN950, but it has poor contrast and uses Displayport 1.4 compression, which is only supported in the latest graphics cards. VESA and friends really made DisplayPort 1.4 as close as they possibly could to false advertising without actually committing it (because the only relevant new thing in DP 1.4 -- DSC, display stream compression -- is technically optional and no one claimed they'd support DSC while saying they support DP 1.4, which is pretty much the same as supporting DP 1.3, since nothing of note changed).

And now we're looking at DisplayPort 2.0 which can already barely support uncompressed 8K at 60 Hz and is basically maxed out by 5K/6K 120/144 Hz. And it's unclear if the presently introduced generation of GPUs even supports it, or if we're going to use effectively-2013-Displayport until ~2022.

Note how the marketing material only talks about HDMI 2.1; DisplayPort isn't mentioned once.

I think DisplayPort is not mentioned because Nvidia hasn't upgraded their cards to 2.0. Super disappointing. 4k/144Hz/HDR is enough for now, to be honest, but DP2 can do 84/144Hz/HDR as long as it has DSC, 244Hz with subsampling. The slow pace of development and deployment has hurt everyone for sure, but I don't think the standard is bad in itself - just a bit late.

Yeah, good points–it seems even armed with a 3090 we'll be limited to 8K/120hz/12 bit over HDMI 2.1...we'll have to wait a while before we're actually driving 8K at higher refresh rates.

This is why I'm personally looking at the LG CX 48" - low latency, 120Hz, 4k, wide gamut, HDR.

OLED TVs are in a much better space than PC LCDs, where no really good options exist. Either IPS, which has poor contrast, bleed and doesn't do HDR, or VA, which has good contrast, but also doesn't really do HDR, and VA generally has poor uniformity (nitpick) and viewing angles. Some VA are pretty smeary, but that seems to have cleaned up in the latest generation. TN panels are much better than they used to be in the color department, but it doesn't have the contrast of VA, and even poorer viewing angles than VA.

OLED is clearly the way forward - accurate colors, excellent contrast, no bleeding, no uniformity issues, proper HDR, excellent response time. Except OLED doesn't come to PCs.

Burning out is still big problem on OLED for PC monitor. PC monitors should be used more years than smartphone and tend to display same content.

Some things could be counter acted with software (make desktop taskbar only visible when mouse reaches bottom of screen, etc.), but I would be interested in some real life data as to how long it would take for even burn out over the whole screen, till it drops as much, that the quality degrades to TFT level.

(there is a guy on Youtube who installed an OLED TV as his main monitor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXKhYH3BaIA&t=36s)

I'd be okay buying a new OLED monitor every year if they were available in the format I want (large ultrawide) and with low latency scalers, high refresh reates and without privacy destroying "smart" features plaguing TVs. Anything to get out of the crappy tradeoffs there are with backlit displays.

guess we have to boil the ocean a little earlier for your pleasure :)

Yep, agreed. I mentioned the CX 48 because it's the first one that can somewhat reasonably be used as a monitor.

MicroLED is another promising tech that has a lot of OLED upsides, but no burn-in issues.

Iiyama's MVA3 displays are, to my knowledge, significantly in front of other LCD styles (e.g. TN, IPS) as far as contrast, especially from an angle, is concerned.

Unfortunately my desk's dear centerpiece, https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-x4071uhsu-b1/ , has been EOL'd about 2 years ago, because I have been unable to find a replacement that's not worse, while staying in the 40~50" range. Any concrete suggestion would be greatly appreciated.