For the past couple of years I always asked myself if OLEDs were outright better than any display technology that ever existed.
We've all seen videos and comparisons between CRTs/plasmas and OLEDs/IPS displays and thinking to ourselves "oh those older ones look better"
I did experience an excellent LG CRT, I did experience TN LCDs and modern smartphone and monitor AMOLED/IPS "led slop" as you may call it whether by owning them or seeing them with a different owner and I have to say I got partially convinced.
there have been countless videos trying to cover this topic but I viewed it as injustice since it just dismisses older technology for factors like size or power consumption or strobing or those that favor the old ones only focus on certain aspects both sides doesn't get the full picture.
I made sure to state that the ai must focus on giving unbiased details from unbiased and professional sources (blurbusters are crt leaning, digitalfoundary made a video about crts being better for control) so that we get a better picture.
here is the prompt:
I want this comparison to be done without bias, so sources from digitalfoundry, blurbusters and the major (professional only display tech) are focused on and avoiding biased/blogger like sources so aim to make this comparison as neutral as possible without following trends like x display is better in this category because its more modern
ok, now let us wrap it all up and make an all in one table comparison for each category I will list, but make sure the parameters for each and answers are correct and backed up
here are the contestants:
1-best case possible QD-OLEDs
2-best case possible tn display
3-best case possible QLED mini-led ips
4-best case possible QLED mini led va
5-best case possible crt
6-best case possible plasma
(notice that the best of the best has to be in this comparison, hence the quantum oled and quantum dot mini-led lcds, so for plasma and crt include the best possible scenarios for both and assume the highest of high end, highest refresh rate highest dynamic range highest contrast range highest resolution produc money no object, best case scenario possible)
the criterias of the table
1-higher pixel density capability
2-higher refresh rate capability (in hz)
3-lower g2g response time for same refresh rate capability (in ms)
4-lower mprt response time per same refresh rate capability (in ms)
5-better smpt result per same res capability (least defects, noise and artifacts)
6-higher contrast ratio (global and local) capability (list typical or mean or max contrast ratios)
7-higher brightness uniformity capability per same brightness
8-higher brightness capability (nits)
9-lowest motion blur capability per same refresh rate
10-lowest defect count (depending on type)
11-higher viewing angle capabilities (list up to 180 or maximum in ° )
12-higher color accuracy ability (colorchecker de2000 grayscale de2000 mean and max values and the likes, gamma, etc)
13-higher rendition accuracy ability (pixel perfection)
14-lowest flicker/strobe capability (higher pwm/strobe or dc dim)
15-higher easier on the eye capability
16-higher efficiency possibility (rank higher as possible in all the previous categories in comparison to others while consuming the least power possible)
17-total score ( best in criteria gets 6 points
2nd gets 5
3rd gets 4
4th gets 3
5th gets 2
6th/last gets 1)
begin your deep search/analysis and carefully and thoroughly review and search and measure for each one, then let your answer be a compiled table that lists the headers with a numbered * marks whenever you need to list source or explanations and list them below the table.
Chatgpt 5.4 answer (with extended thinking, took 7 minutes to finish with search function):
I treated “best case possible” as the best documented real hardware or panel capability, not imaginary future devices. So for the legacy rows I anchored CRT to the Sony GDM-FW900 class and plasma to Panasonic ZT60/ZT65 class plus the smallest 42-inch 1080p plasma sets for maximum documented plasma PPI; for current tech I used top-end QD-OLED, TN, and QD-miniLED IPS/VA exemplars from Samsung, ASUS, MSI, Acer, Sony, RTINGS, TFTCentral, Blur Busters, HDTVTest, and DisplayMate-style sources. I also treated your “SMPT” as SMPTE/image-cleanliness/artifact performance.
A few rows are inherently less absolute than others, especially 3, 4, 9, 10, and 15, because CRT/plasma do not map perfectly to modern GtG-style lab metrics, and “easy on the eyes” is partly individual. So the table is strict, but not fake-precise.
# Criterion 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Note
1 Pixel density capability QD-OLED (166 ppi class) QD-miniLED IPS (163 ppi class) QD-miniLED VA (138 ppi class) CRT (~137 ppi max addressed on FW900 class) TN (~91 ppi class) Plasma (~53 ppi class) *1
2 Refresh rate capability TN (540Hz) QD-OLED (500Hz) QD-miniLED IPS (320Hz dual-mode class) QD-miniLED VA (240Hz monitor / 288Hz TV mode class) CRT (>100Hz reduced-res class) Plasma (60–120Hz class; 600Hz subfield is not true input refresh) *2
3 Lower GtG for same refresh QD-OLED TN QD-miniLED IPS CRT Plasma QD-miniLED VA *3
4 Lower MPRT for same refresh CRT Plasma TN QD-OLED QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA *4
5 Better SMPTE / image-cleanliness / artifact result QD-OLED CRT Plasma QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN *5
6 Contrast ratio capability QD-OLED QD-miniLED VA Plasma CRT QD-miniLED IPS TN *6
7 Brightness uniformity capability QD-OLED Plasma CRT QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN *7
8 Brightness capability QD-miniLED VA QD-OLED QD-miniLED IPS TN CRT Plasma *8
9 Lowest motion blur for same refresh CRT TN Plasma QD-OLED QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA *9
10 Lowest defect count / least tech-specific compromises QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN QD-OLED Plasma CRT *10
11 Viewing angle capability Plasma CRT QD-OLED QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN *11
12 Color accuracy ability QD-miniLED IPS QD-OLED Plasma QD-miniLED VA CRT TN *12
13 Rendition accuracy / pixel perfection QD-miniLED IPS QD-OLED QD-miniLED VA TN CRT Plasma *13
14 Lowest flicker / strobe burden QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN QD-OLED Plasma CRT *14
15 Easier on the eye QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN Plasma QD-OLED CRT *15
16 Efficiency possibility QD-OLED TN QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA CRT Plasma *16
Total score
Display type Points
QD-OLED 74
QD-miniLED IPS 66
QD-miniLED VA 52
TN 50
CRT 48
Plasma 46
Notes / source-backed explanations
*1. Pixel density: I used Samsung’s 27-inch 4K QD-OLED at 166 ppi, 27-inch 4K IPS QD-miniLED at roughly 163 ppi, Samsung’s 32-inch 4K VA Neo G8 at roughly 138 ppi, Sony’s FW900 at 2304×1440 max addressed on a 19.8-inch viewable area (about 137 ppi), ASUS’s 24.1-inch 1080p TN at about 91 ppi, and 42-inch 1080p plasma at about 53 ppi.
*2. Refresh rate: TN’s current documented ceiling is 540Hz on the PG248QP, QD-OLED is 500Hz on Samsung’s G6, QD-miniLED IPS can reach 320Hz in dual-mode implementations, VA miniLED is 240Hz on Neo G8 and up to 288Hz on TCL’s game-accelerated TV mode, while the FW900 manual shows a 48–160Hz vertical range with 121kHz scan capability. Plasma’s 600Hz subfield drive is not the same thing as true 600Hz input refresh.
*3. GtG: QD-OLED is the clean winner because modern panels are documented at 0.03ms class; top TN is 0.2ms class; fast IPS miniLED is 0.5ms class; VA miniLED is marketed at 1ms but is still structurally weakest on dark transitions. CRT and plasma are not truly GtG technologies, so I placed them by effective transition behavior rather than literal GtG.
*4. MPRT: Blur Busters’ distinction matters here: GtG is not MPRT. CRT wins because its phosphor is only visible briefly and decays in about 1–2ms on the cited example; plasma is also impulse-like and historically delivered 1080 lines of motion resolution on the ZT60; TN takes third because ULMB 2 on the PG248QP is the best LCD blur-reduction TFTCentral had seen; QD-OLED remains sample-and-hold unless BFI or beam-simulation is used.
*5. SMPTE / image-cleanliness: I interpreted your “SMPT” as SMPTE-style image cleanliness: noise, artifacts, scaling, banding, and haloing. QD-OLED leads because it avoids local-dimming halo artifacts and modern top implementations like the A95L show excellent processing with almost no banding. CRT ranks very high because DisplayMate’s older shootout explicitly praised CRT for the fewest artifacts and lowest picture noise. Plasma stays strong but still has dithering/phosphor-related caveats. FALD IPS/VA can look excellent but still carry haloing, black crush, or blooming tradeoffs.
*6. Contrast: QD-OLED wins because it gives perfect blacks / no blooming at the pixel level. VA miniLED comes next because high-end units like the Neo G8 combine strong VA contrast with 1,196 zones and a quoted 1,000,000:1 class figure. Panasonic’s ZT60 still deserves third because HDTVTest measured an exceptional calibrated black level of 0.003 cd/m² and 0.004 cd/m² ANSI checkerboard. IPS miniLED gains a lot from local dimming, but its native IPS base still trails VA and OLED.
*7. Uniformity: QD-OLED leads because top implementations pair self-emissive pixels with very good screen uniformity; the A95L was specifically noted for very good uniformity in sports viewing. Plasma ZT60 was measured as excellent for uniformity. CRT is still strong as an emissive tech, but analog geometry/focus caveats keep it behind the best flat emissive panels. Backlit IPS/VA miniLEDs can be very good, but they remain backlit systems.
*8. Brightness: VA miniLED wins decisively: TCL’s QM8L page quotes up to 6,000 peak nits and 4,000+ dimming zones, and Tom’s Guide measured 3,719 nits HDR on a review unit. QD-OLED is now second because Samsung Display’s 2026 Penta Tandem QD-OLED claims 4,500 nits for TV panels and 1,300 nits for monitors. IPS miniLED is next, with ASUS quoting 1,600 nits peak and 1,000 nits sustained on the ProArt PA32UCXR. TN esports panels are bright enough for SDR, but nowhere near HDR leaders. Plasma is last here; HDTVTest measured only about 92–108 cd/m² depending on panel-luminance setting on ZT60.
*9. Motion blur: CRT still takes the crown in raw motion purity; Blur Busters keeps returning to the same point that CRT phosphor fade and rolling scan behavior are still the reference standard. TN takes second because the PG248QP’s ULMB 2 was described by TFTCentral as the best LCD blur-reduction mode they had seen. Plasma stays third because ZT60 still resolves 1080 motion lines and behaves as an impulse-driven display. QD-OLED is excellent, but without strobing it is still sample-and-hold.
*10. Defect count / compromise count: This is the most judgment-based row. I ranked by how many major technology-specific compromises are still in play: IPS miniLED and VA miniLED avoid burn-in and analog drift, TN is mature but has large image-quality compromises, QD-OLED still carries burn-in and older text-fringing caveats, plasma still shows image retention/phosphor issues, and CRT has the heaviest burden of convergence, purity, geometry, size, and aging drift.
*11. Viewing angle: Plasma wins because DisplayMate’s LCD-vs-plasma shootout described plasma as delivering very close to true 180° viewing, explicitly comparing it to CRT. CRT is second for the same reason. QD-OLED and IPS are both very wide in modern implementations, but OLED still has the edge in black consistency and side-angle punch. VA and especially TN fall behind in real-world off-axis behavior.
*12. Color accuracy: IPS miniLED wins because the ProArt PA32UCXR is explicitly marketed at Delta E < 1 with built-in calibration hardware. QD-OLED is a very close second; RTINGS called the A95L’s colors vibrant, lifelike, bright, and accurate. Plasma ZT60 remains elite historically because HDTVTest said its calibrated errors were mostly below 1. TN is last because even RTINGS and TFTCentral treat these top TN panels as esports-first rather than reference-first.
*13. Rendition accuracy / pixel perfection: IPS miniLED wins for strict desktop-style pixel rendition because it combines fixed-pixel RGB behavior with high density and professional tuning. QD-OLED rises to second because Samsung Display’s new V-Stripe QD-OLED layout directly addresses the older text-fringing weakness. VA miniLED stays next as a sharp fixed-pixel 4K LCD, while CRT and plasma fall because they are not pixel-perfect fixed-pixel technologies in the modern desktop sense.
*14. Flicker / strobe burden: RTINGS’ current flicker testing explains why this row matters: PWM and similar modulation can bother sensitive users. IPS and VA LCDs often ship in flicker-free operation when not using blur-reduction modes, TN likewise when ULMB 2 is off, while QD-OLED can still encounter OLED-specific flicker/VRR/PWM caveats. Plasma and CRT are inherently more flicker-prone visually because they are impulse-driven.
*15. Eye comfort: This is low-confidence and partly personal. I weighted stable text, low visible flicker, flexible brightness control, and fewer OLED-specific text/flicker complaints highest, which is why IPS miniLED and VA miniLED come out on top. QD-OLED scores lower mainly because text rendition and OLED flicker sensitivity remain common pain points, while CRT scores last because visible flicker and geometry/focus fatigue are still real.
*16. Efficiency: QD-OLED wins the “performance achieved per watt” synthesis row because OLED’s lack of backlight helps efficiency in many scenes, and Samsung Display is now explicitly claiming higher luminous efficiency with Penta Tandem. LCD can still be more efficient on very bright high-APL content, which is why TN stays surprisingly strong here and why miniLED LCDs remain competitive. CRT and plasma finish last because they are simply much more power-hungry for the performance delivered: the FW900 manual lists about 170W in normal operation, while Panasonic’s 42-inch plasma class lists about 95W average / 195W rated on one model family.
My neutral wrap-up is this: QD-OLED is the best top-end all-round display technology today, IPS QD-miniLED is the best non-OLED “accuracy + usability” compromise, TN is still king for pure esports speed, CRT still owns raw motion purity, and plasma remains historically special for motion / blacks / angles but loses too much in brightness, density, and efficiency.
If you want, I can turn this into a second table that is even stricter and more numeric, with a separate “objective measurements only” version and a “practical real-world winner” version.
Ok, I guess I was wrong and it's all nostalgia. even if we subtract 5 or ten points, OLEDs still end up leading by 15 points above CRTs and Plasmas.
there was a couple of parameters that cgpt got wrong (like highest ppi)
what surprised me the most is plasma ranking the lowest, even lower than CRTs, low time plasma tvs are hailed as rare collectables among tv enthusiasts and they basically claim in its limited lifetime is the peak of rendition and motion, but it ranked lower even in those categories with the exception of blur performance.
This made me think that it could be just nostalgia bias all this time, the "pixel art" thing and the motion blur are really just two parameters, if you have 300-400 dollars you shouldn't ever buy a crt or a plasma for your pc.
It is quite similar to how boomers in the audiophile space are so adhering to old mechanisms like vinyl or tube amps and as it turns out when the bigger picture is concerned solid state just trashes them and outperforms them. you cannot just sell things based on a feeling or based on cherrypicked parameters like vinyls sounding more natural or tube amps being better for warmer songs and this is no different tbh.
I'm also afraid that this is the same case for filmheads. the analog niche market is just trying to force themselves back and the result is cheap and old technology selling for thousands of dollars when they shouldn't be.
Also if a cheap qd-mini led ips, buy it and don't spend too much on an OLED.
We've all seen videos and comparisons between CRTs/plasmas and OLEDs/IPS displays and thinking to ourselves "oh those older ones look better"
I did experience an excellent LG CRT, I did experience TN LCDs and modern smartphone and monitor AMOLED/IPS "led slop" as you may call it whether by owning them or seeing them with a different owner and I have to say I got partially convinced.
there have been countless videos trying to cover this topic but I viewed it as injustice since it just dismisses older technology for factors like size or power consumption or strobing or those that favor the old ones only focus on certain aspects both sides doesn't get the full picture.
I made sure to state that the ai must focus on giving unbiased details from unbiased and professional sources (blurbusters are crt leaning, digitalfoundary made a video about crts being better for control) so that we get a better picture.
here is the prompt:
I want this comparison to be done without bias, so sources from digitalfoundry, blurbusters and the major (professional only display tech) are focused on and avoiding biased/blogger like sources so aim to make this comparison as neutral as possible without following trends like x display is better in this category because its more modern
ok, now let us wrap it all up and make an all in one table comparison for each category I will list, but make sure the parameters for each and answers are correct and backed up
here are the contestants:
1-best case possible QD-OLEDs
2-best case possible tn display
3-best case possible QLED mini-led ips
4-best case possible QLED mini led va
5-best case possible crt
6-best case possible plasma
(notice that the best of the best has to be in this comparison, hence the quantum oled and quantum dot mini-led lcds, so for plasma and crt include the best possible scenarios for both and assume the highest of high end, highest refresh rate highest dynamic range highest contrast range highest resolution produc money no object, best case scenario possible)
the criterias of the table
1-higher pixel density capability
2-higher refresh rate capability (in hz)
3-lower g2g response time for same refresh rate capability (in ms)
4-lower mprt response time per same refresh rate capability (in ms)
5-better smpt result per same res capability (least defects, noise and artifacts)
6-higher contrast ratio (global and local) capability (list typical or mean or max contrast ratios)
7-higher brightness uniformity capability per same brightness
8-higher brightness capability (nits)
9-lowest motion blur capability per same refresh rate
10-lowest defect count (depending on type)
11-higher viewing angle capabilities (list up to 180 or maximum in ° )
12-higher color accuracy ability (colorchecker de2000 grayscale de2000 mean and max values and the likes, gamma, etc)
13-higher rendition accuracy ability (pixel perfection)
14-lowest flicker/strobe capability (higher pwm/strobe or dc dim)
15-higher easier on the eye capability
16-higher efficiency possibility (rank higher as possible in all the previous categories in comparison to others while consuming the least power possible)
17-total score ( best in criteria gets 6 points
2nd gets 5
3rd gets 4
4th gets 3
5th gets 2
6th/last gets 1)
begin your deep search/analysis and carefully and thoroughly review and search and measure for each one, then let your answer be a compiled table that lists the headers with a numbered * marks whenever you need to list source or explanations and list them below the table.
Chatgpt 5.4 answer (with extended thinking, took 7 minutes to finish with search function):
I treated “best case possible” as the best documented real hardware or panel capability, not imaginary future devices. So for the legacy rows I anchored CRT to the Sony GDM-FW900 class and plasma to Panasonic ZT60/ZT65 class plus the smallest 42-inch 1080p plasma sets for maximum documented plasma PPI; for current tech I used top-end QD-OLED, TN, and QD-miniLED IPS/VA exemplars from Samsung, ASUS, MSI, Acer, Sony, RTINGS, TFTCentral, Blur Busters, HDTVTest, and DisplayMate-style sources. I also treated your “SMPT” as SMPTE/image-cleanliness/artifact performance.
A few rows are inherently less absolute than others, especially 3, 4, 9, 10, and 15, because CRT/plasma do not map perfectly to modern GtG-style lab metrics, and “easy on the eyes” is partly individual. So the table is strict, but not fake-precise.
# Criterion 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Note
1 Pixel density capability QD-OLED (166 ppi class) QD-miniLED IPS (163 ppi class) QD-miniLED VA (138 ppi class) CRT (~137 ppi max addressed on FW900 class) TN (~91 ppi class) Plasma (~53 ppi class) *1
2 Refresh rate capability TN (540Hz) QD-OLED (500Hz) QD-miniLED IPS (320Hz dual-mode class) QD-miniLED VA (240Hz monitor / 288Hz TV mode class) CRT (>100Hz reduced-res class) Plasma (60–120Hz class; 600Hz subfield is not true input refresh) *2
3 Lower GtG for same refresh QD-OLED TN QD-miniLED IPS CRT Plasma QD-miniLED VA *3
4 Lower MPRT for same refresh CRT Plasma TN QD-OLED QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA *4
5 Better SMPTE / image-cleanliness / artifact result QD-OLED CRT Plasma QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN *5
6 Contrast ratio capability QD-OLED QD-miniLED VA Plasma CRT QD-miniLED IPS TN *6
7 Brightness uniformity capability QD-OLED Plasma CRT QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN *7
8 Brightness capability QD-miniLED VA QD-OLED QD-miniLED IPS TN CRT Plasma *8
9 Lowest motion blur for same refresh CRT TN Plasma QD-OLED QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA *9
10 Lowest defect count / least tech-specific compromises QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN QD-OLED Plasma CRT *10
11 Viewing angle capability Plasma CRT QD-OLED QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN *11
12 Color accuracy ability QD-miniLED IPS QD-OLED Plasma QD-miniLED VA CRT TN *12
13 Rendition accuracy / pixel perfection QD-miniLED IPS QD-OLED QD-miniLED VA TN CRT Plasma *13
14 Lowest flicker / strobe burden QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN QD-OLED Plasma CRT *14
15 Easier on the eye QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA TN Plasma QD-OLED CRT *15
16 Efficiency possibility QD-OLED TN QD-miniLED IPS QD-miniLED VA CRT Plasma *16
Total score
Display type Points
QD-OLED 74
QD-miniLED IPS 66
QD-miniLED VA 52
TN 50
CRT 48
Plasma 46
Notes / source-backed explanations
*1. Pixel density: I used Samsung’s 27-inch 4K QD-OLED at 166 ppi, 27-inch 4K IPS QD-miniLED at roughly 163 ppi, Samsung’s 32-inch 4K VA Neo G8 at roughly 138 ppi, Sony’s FW900 at 2304×1440 max addressed on a 19.8-inch viewable area (about 137 ppi), ASUS’s 24.1-inch 1080p TN at about 91 ppi, and 42-inch 1080p plasma at about 53 ppi.
*2. Refresh rate: TN’s current documented ceiling is 540Hz on the PG248QP, QD-OLED is 500Hz on Samsung’s G6, QD-miniLED IPS can reach 320Hz in dual-mode implementations, VA miniLED is 240Hz on Neo G8 and up to 288Hz on TCL’s game-accelerated TV mode, while the FW900 manual shows a 48–160Hz vertical range with 121kHz scan capability. Plasma’s 600Hz subfield drive is not the same thing as true 600Hz input refresh.
*3. GtG: QD-OLED is the clean winner because modern panels are documented at 0.03ms class; top TN is 0.2ms class; fast IPS miniLED is 0.5ms class; VA miniLED is marketed at 1ms but is still structurally weakest on dark transitions. CRT and plasma are not truly GtG technologies, so I placed them by effective transition behavior rather than literal GtG.
*4. MPRT: Blur Busters’ distinction matters here: GtG is not MPRT. CRT wins because its phosphor is only visible briefly and decays in about 1–2ms on the cited example; plasma is also impulse-like and historically delivered 1080 lines of motion resolution on the ZT60; TN takes third because ULMB 2 on the PG248QP is the best LCD blur-reduction TFTCentral had seen; QD-OLED remains sample-and-hold unless BFI or beam-simulation is used.
*5. SMPTE / image-cleanliness: I interpreted your “SMPT” as SMPTE-style image cleanliness: noise, artifacts, scaling, banding, and haloing. QD-OLED leads because it avoids local-dimming halo artifacts and modern top implementations like the A95L show excellent processing with almost no banding. CRT ranks very high because DisplayMate’s older shootout explicitly praised CRT for the fewest artifacts and lowest picture noise. Plasma stays strong but still has dithering/phosphor-related caveats. FALD IPS/VA can look excellent but still carry haloing, black crush, or blooming tradeoffs.
*6. Contrast: QD-OLED wins because it gives perfect blacks / no blooming at the pixel level. VA miniLED comes next because high-end units like the Neo G8 combine strong VA contrast with 1,196 zones and a quoted 1,000,000:1 class figure. Panasonic’s ZT60 still deserves third because HDTVTest measured an exceptional calibrated black level of 0.003 cd/m² and 0.004 cd/m² ANSI checkerboard. IPS miniLED gains a lot from local dimming, but its native IPS base still trails VA and OLED.
*7. Uniformity: QD-OLED leads because top implementations pair self-emissive pixels with very good screen uniformity; the A95L was specifically noted for very good uniformity in sports viewing. Plasma ZT60 was measured as excellent for uniformity. CRT is still strong as an emissive tech, but analog geometry/focus caveats keep it behind the best flat emissive panels. Backlit IPS/VA miniLEDs can be very good, but they remain backlit systems.
*8. Brightness: VA miniLED wins decisively: TCL’s QM8L page quotes up to 6,000 peak nits and 4,000+ dimming zones, and Tom’s Guide measured 3,719 nits HDR on a review unit. QD-OLED is now second because Samsung Display’s 2026 Penta Tandem QD-OLED claims 4,500 nits for TV panels and 1,300 nits for monitors. IPS miniLED is next, with ASUS quoting 1,600 nits peak and 1,000 nits sustained on the ProArt PA32UCXR. TN esports panels are bright enough for SDR, but nowhere near HDR leaders. Plasma is last here; HDTVTest measured only about 92–108 cd/m² depending on panel-luminance setting on ZT60.
*9. Motion blur: CRT still takes the crown in raw motion purity; Blur Busters keeps returning to the same point that CRT phosphor fade and rolling scan behavior are still the reference standard. TN takes second because the PG248QP’s ULMB 2 was described by TFTCentral as the best LCD blur-reduction mode they had seen. Plasma stays third because ZT60 still resolves 1080 motion lines and behaves as an impulse-driven display. QD-OLED is excellent, but without strobing it is still sample-and-hold.
*10. Defect count / compromise count: This is the most judgment-based row. I ranked by how many major technology-specific compromises are still in play: IPS miniLED and VA miniLED avoid burn-in and analog drift, TN is mature but has large image-quality compromises, QD-OLED still carries burn-in and older text-fringing caveats, plasma still shows image retention/phosphor issues, and CRT has the heaviest burden of convergence, purity, geometry, size, and aging drift.
*11. Viewing angle: Plasma wins because DisplayMate’s LCD-vs-plasma shootout described plasma as delivering very close to true 180° viewing, explicitly comparing it to CRT. CRT is second for the same reason. QD-OLED and IPS are both very wide in modern implementations, but OLED still has the edge in black consistency and side-angle punch. VA and especially TN fall behind in real-world off-axis behavior.
*12. Color accuracy: IPS miniLED wins because the ProArt PA32UCXR is explicitly marketed at Delta E < 1 with built-in calibration hardware. QD-OLED is a very close second; RTINGS called the A95L’s colors vibrant, lifelike, bright, and accurate. Plasma ZT60 remains elite historically because HDTVTest said its calibrated errors were mostly below 1. TN is last because even RTINGS and TFTCentral treat these top TN panels as esports-first rather than reference-first.
*13. Rendition accuracy / pixel perfection: IPS miniLED wins for strict desktop-style pixel rendition because it combines fixed-pixel RGB behavior with high density and professional tuning. QD-OLED rises to second because Samsung Display’s new V-Stripe QD-OLED layout directly addresses the older text-fringing weakness. VA miniLED stays next as a sharp fixed-pixel 4K LCD, while CRT and plasma fall because they are not pixel-perfect fixed-pixel technologies in the modern desktop sense.
*14. Flicker / strobe burden: RTINGS’ current flicker testing explains why this row matters: PWM and similar modulation can bother sensitive users. IPS and VA LCDs often ship in flicker-free operation when not using blur-reduction modes, TN likewise when ULMB 2 is off, while QD-OLED can still encounter OLED-specific flicker/VRR/PWM caveats. Plasma and CRT are inherently more flicker-prone visually because they are impulse-driven.
*15. Eye comfort: This is low-confidence and partly personal. I weighted stable text, low visible flicker, flexible brightness control, and fewer OLED-specific text/flicker complaints highest, which is why IPS miniLED and VA miniLED come out on top. QD-OLED scores lower mainly because text rendition and OLED flicker sensitivity remain common pain points, while CRT scores last because visible flicker and geometry/focus fatigue are still real.
*16. Efficiency: QD-OLED wins the “performance achieved per watt” synthesis row because OLED’s lack of backlight helps efficiency in many scenes, and Samsung Display is now explicitly claiming higher luminous efficiency with Penta Tandem. LCD can still be more efficient on very bright high-APL content, which is why TN stays surprisingly strong here and why miniLED LCDs remain competitive. CRT and plasma finish last because they are simply much more power-hungry for the performance delivered: the FW900 manual lists about 170W in normal operation, while Panasonic’s 42-inch plasma class lists about 95W average / 195W rated on one model family.
My neutral wrap-up is this: QD-OLED is the best top-end all-round display technology today, IPS QD-miniLED is the best non-OLED “accuracy + usability” compromise, TN is still king for pure esports speed, CRT still owns raw motion purity, and plasma remains historically special for motion / blacks / angles but loses too much in brightness, density, and efficiency.
If you want, I can turn this into a second table that is even stricter and more numeric, with a separate “objective measurements only” version and a “practical real-world winner” version.
Ok, I guess I was wrong and it's all nostalgia. even if we subtract 5 or ten points, OLEDs still end up leading by 15 points above CRTs and Plasmas.
there was a couple of parameters that cgpt got wrong (like highest ppi)
what surprised me the most is plasma ranking the lowest, even lower than CRTs, low time plasma tvs are hailed as rare collectables among tv enthusiasts and they basically claim in its limited lifetime is the peak of rendition and motion, but it ranked lower even in those categories with the exception of blur performance.
This made me think that it could be just nostalgia bias all this time, the "pixel art" thing and the motion blur are really just two parameters, if you have 300-400 dollars you shouldn't ever buy a crt or a plasma for your pc.
It is quite similar to how boomers in the audiophile space are so adhering to old mechanisms like vinyl or tube amps and as it turns out when the bigger picture is concerned solid state just trashes them and outperforms them. you cannot just sell things based on a feeling or based on cherrypicked parameters like vinyls sounding more natural or tube amps being better for warmer songs and this is no different tbh.
I'm also afraid that this is the same case for filmheads. the analog niche market is just trying to force themselves back and the result is cheap and old technology selling for thousands of dollars when they shouldn't be.
Also if a cheap qd-mini led ips, buy it and don't spend too much on an OLED.
1
2
3
