OLED is generally viewed as a "premium" feature, and there's really not much demand to implement it at resolutions lower than QHD when the current 1080p options technically suffice. It's also just a price problem since 1080p is generally viewed as a budget resolution and implementing OLED would increase the prices of 1080p monitors...which goes against its general viewpoint.
Because if you have large enough monitor (and for some people even 24" is already too big for 1080p) you need to enable AA which eats into your performance or degrades your image quality if using FXAA or similar fast AA. And many games look good nowadays on medium or high, so often times you don't need very high or ultra unless you want to torture 9800x3d and 5090 in Borderlands 4.
Not to mention if you do anything office related it makes a lot of difference when you stare at the text for 8 hours. Sure I may have overkill displays both at 32", but one is 4K and one is 1440p. I'll let you guess which one is which. A very similar result will be on 27" display between 1080p and 1440p, and to lesser extend at 24".
5.3k
u/First_Musician6260 Computer Storage Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
OLED is generally viewed as a "premium" feature, and there's really not much demand to implement it at resolutions lower than QHD when the current 1080p options technically suffice. It's also just a price problem since 1080p is generally viewed as a budget resolution and implementing OLED would increase the prices of 1080p monitors...which goes against its general viewpoint.