OLED for PC gaming (LG 48CX) - new question: burn-in process

[phinix]

New question: burn-in process
From Post #34

--------------------------
I wanted to get some new monitor for my PC and was wondering if its worth getting OLED.
At this moment I have 4K 40" Philips monitor.

I was looking at some cheapest OLEDs, like around £900, like 55" Philips 55OLED754.
That new LG CX 48" looks good, but its more expensive.
Reason is Iw ould like to change something in overall gaming experience, more vivid colors, amazing blacks etc.

I don't play a lot, most of the time I work on it, gaming is about 30% of the time. I'm worried about burning issues, especially using Windows a lot, where there might be a lot of static elements on the screen for a long time.

I don't want to end up having my OLED burnt areas after few years of usage.

Is it a good moment of buying one, or should I better get some cheaper LED TV, like Samsung 50" TU7100 and forget about OLED?

[ycanales]

Something that surprised me is that often OLED are less bright than mid-tier/high-tier LEDs.

But i’m also curious about trying OLED.

edit: burn in shouldn’t be an issue with automatic maintenance programs in modern OLEDs, check out RTINGS burn in test in youtube for more insight.

[noisyturtle]

i wish i had your problems

[tp4tissue]

Only the NEW oleds will have complete HDMI 2.1 specs.

You'd have to buy at least the LG C9, last year's model to have variable refresh sync features.

For burn-ins, if you set the peak brightness to ~100nits,  it shouldn't be a problem, but if you push it at 200-300, saturated colors will definitely cause some blotching over time.

Oleds don't have the highest motion clarity, so you can game on them, and the image quality is good because of the deep black level,  but in terms of raw performance,  the latest Gen Fast-IPS lcds are still more clear for fragging.

[tp4tissue]

Something that surprised me is that often OLED are less bright than mid-tier/high-tier LEDs.

But i’m also curious about trying OLED.

Oleds have lower Full-Field brightness due to ABL, and Screen burn mitigation.

But in terms of peak brightness, they can get up there for very short durations.

[Coreda]

I've read that even with the new LG CX series marketing a 100,000 hour screen lifespan owners consider just a 'few years' of peak operation as more realistic, which seems crazy to me given the expense.

While tp above suggests that lowering the max nits helps. I'd be interested in more testing if I were to trust something will last. For something like PC use I would think having a different display type would be better and reserving the OLED for games/films with less static content.

[jeaneallenn]

I was looking at some cheapest OLEDs, like around £900, like 55" Philips 55OLED754.
That new LG CX 48" looks good, but its more expensive.
Reason is Iw ould like to change something in overall gaming experience, more vivid colors, amazing blacks etc.

I wish it can really help you. LG is the best choice. I will suggest you buy LG electronics OLED55E7P 55-Inch. It's expensive but durable.
https://mediaelites.com/best-65-inch-4k-tv-under-1000/

[tp4tissue]

I've read that even with the new LG CX series marketing a 100,000 hour screen lifespan owners consider just a 'few years' of peak operation as more realistic, which seems crazy to me given the expense.

While tp above suggests that lowering the max nits helps. I'd be interested in more testing if I were to trust something will last. For something like PC use I would think having a different display type would be better and reserving the OLED for games/films with less static content.

Oled as a technology is just not suitable for persistent huds.   But China moves fast enough such that it may not be a big deal, because you'll buy another one for $200 in 5 years.

Imagine 10 years ago,  a 65" tv for $230,   Impossible.

[phinix]

It would be a lot easier if they made OLED monitors... for less money.
or at least 40" TVs.

Maybe this Samsung  43" Q60T QLED 4K would be better?

[tp4tissue]

It would be a lot easier if they made OLED monitors... for less money.
or at least 40" TVs.

Maybe this Samsung  43" Q60T QLED 4K would be better?

That model doesn't have the gaming features.  Variable Refresh, and 120hz input.

[phinix]

It would be a lot easier if they made OLED monitors... for less money.
or at least 40" TVs.

Maybe this Samsung  43" Q60T QLED 4K would be better?

That model doesn't have the gaming features.  Variable Refresh, and 120hz input.

So which one would you suggest TP?
40",43", 50", QLED. For PC gaming.

[tp4tissue]

So which one would you suggest TP?
40",43", 50", QLED. For PC gaming.

Depending on the flexibility of your Work-Space.

If you own the office w/ no wife-interceptor,   Tp4 recommends 65" @ 7 feet (roomsize), 75" @ 9 feet, 82-86" @ 10-11 feet,

wallmount the panel, put the table against the back wall.

I recommend TCL 635 ROKU platform tvs for PC gaming, they have the best UI for PC..

You can get the Samsung Qled, but their interface is cumbersome for PC. They're fine for consoles. 

[phinix]

So which one would you suggest TP?
40",43", 50", QLED. For PC gaming.

Depending on the flexibility of your Work-Space.

If you own the office w/ no wife-interceptor,   Tp4 recommends 65" @ 7 feet (roomsize), 75" @ 9 feet, 82-86" @ 10-11 feet,

wallmount the panel, put the table against the back wall.

I recommend TCL 635 ROKU platform tvs for PC gaming, they have the best UI for PC..

You can get the Samsung Qled, but their interface is cumbersome for PC. They're fine for consoles. 

Sorry, I meant actual models for those sizes, not sizes:)
55" is max I can fit in on my wall. 43" is minimum I would like to go for.

I dont care about UI - why would I worried about it? It will just be used 100% as monitor, no tv at all. I would not use UI at all.
Like my monitor I only set it up once like 5years ago.


That LG OLED55BX6LB looks nice...

[tp4tissue]

Seems like you're dead set on oled.  if you keep its limitations in mind, should be fine.

[phinix]

Seems like you're dead set on oled.  if you keep its limitations in mind, should be fine.

I think I would better wait till LG CX OLED 48" goes down on price a bit. £1500 is too much. 55" is cheaper, but its like huge, sitting in front of it at around 20" distance.

[tp4tissue]

I think I would better wait till LG CX OLED 48" goes down on price a bit. £1500 is too much. 55" is cheaper, but its like huge, sitting in front of it at around 20" distance.

Then sit farther, NEVER buy smaller. Bigger is better, in 100% of the cases.

If it's too big for your desk, throw out the desk. if your room is too small, side-gig deal droogs, and buy a new house.

[phinix]

I think I would better wait till LG CX OLED 48" goes down on price a bit. £1500 is too much. 55" is cheaper, but its like huge, sitting in front of it at around 20" distance.

Then sit farther, NEVER buy smaller. Bigger is better, in 100% of the cases.

If it's too big for your desk, throw out the desk. if your room is too small, side-gig deal droogs, and buy a new house.

Desk is small, I would move it away a bit from the wall, I only wall mount my monitors:)

Yeah, dealing would be good, mo' money!

Jokes aside, is warranty cover burn in issues?

[tp4tissue]

Jokes aside, is warranty cover burn in issues?

Of course not, it's LG's policy to tell you to go-f-yoself in case of burnin.  kekekeke.


Also, don't get the 55,  get the 65 CX , USA price is only $1849

no one ever regratz gettn' a bigger Tv.  only smaller.

[phinix]

55" is max I can mount on my wall.
I'm having a feeling like OLED is not really best solution as a PC monitor. Sooner or later I think windows taskbar would be burning in. Second, auto-dimming might be a bit annoying, when browsing websites, or working with Office software. Some fringing was also reported with different bright elements.

I wonder if QLED would be better.


Anyone with OLED as PC monitor here to share their experience?

[ycanales]

While I don’t own a OLED screen and thus I haven’t been amazed by its contrast and colors I’d say you’d experience a bigger perceived improvement if you look for a high refresh monitor, my 34” ultrawide is just 100hz and it makes a big big change, basically spoiled me and I can’t no longer use my older Dell 27” 4k which is the regular 60hz.

Even if you don’t play a lot, it will make even moving your mouse for work 300% more pleasant.

Sorry for the offtopic though heh.

[tp4tissue]

55" is max I can mount on my wall.
I'm having a feeling like OLED is not really best solution as a PC monitor. Sooner or later I think windows taskbar would be burning in. Second, auto-dimming might be a bit annoying, when browsing websites, or working with Office software. Some fringing was also reported with different bright elements.

I wonder if QLED would be better.


Anyone with OLED as PC monitor here to share their experience?

If it's within about 140nits I believe ABL is disabled,  it can still burnin , but it shouldn't autodim within that threshold. @ 100nits peak white, you're reasonably safe even with static elements.

[tp4tissue]

While I don’t own a OLED screen and thus I haven’t been amazed by its contrast and colors I’d say you’d experience a bigger perceived improvement if you look for a high refresh monitor, my 34” ultrawide is just 100hz and it makes a big big change, basically spoiled me and I can’t no longer use my older Dell 27” 4k which is the regular 60hz.

Even if you don’t play a lot, it will make even moving your mouse for work 300% more pleasant.

Sorry for the offtopic though heh.

OLED has generally higher motion clarity compared to LCD monitors without ULMB, even if they're 120/240hz.

With ULMB, the clearest on the market are Fast-Ips panels, but these have crappy contrast ratio, movies look awful.

The latest oleds have 120hz, so there's no refresh advantage.   The latest CX also has BFI in 120hz mode.  ALMOST as good as Fast-IPS.


note: Fast IPS is different from IPS.

[phinix]

While I don’t own a OLED screen and thus I haven’t been amazed by its contrast and colors I’d say you’d experience a bigger perceived improvement if you look for a high refresh monitor, my 34” ultrawide is just 100hz and it makes a big big change, basically spoiled me and I can’t no longer use my older Dell 27” 4k which is the regular 60hz.

Even if you don’t play a lot, it will make even moving your mouse for work 300% more pleasant.

Sorry for the offtopic though heh.

OLED has generally higher motion clarity compared to LCD monitors without ULMB, even if they're 120/240hz.

With ULMB, the clearest on the market are Fast-Ips panels, but these have crappy contrast ratio, movies look awful.

The latest oleds have 120hz, so there's no refresh advantage.   The latest CX also has BFI in 120hz mode.  ALMOST as good as Fast-IPS.


note: Fast IPS is different from IPS.

Are there any good actual PC monitors?
Not ultra wide, dont like those, just standard ones, but at least 40". And VA.

[tp4tissue]

Are there any good actual PC monitors?
Not ultra wide, dont like those, just standard ones, but at least 40". And VA.

Good GAMING monitor  and Good IMAGE QUALITY,  are mutually exclusive.  You can't have both.

OLED is kinda the in between, but it's not the clearest for motion.

[phinix]

Are there any good actual PC monitors?
Not ultra wide, dont like those, just standard ones, but at least 40". And VA.

Good GAMING monitor  and Good IMAGE QUALITY,  are mutually exclusive.  You can't have both.

OLED is kinda the in between, but it's not the clearest for motion.

I never understood this "gaming" needs in pc hardware - always had 60MHz screen with 25-30ms refresh and was fine for all my gaming needs.
This stupid 1ms refresh rate, 144MHz etc was always ridiculous - back in the days it was only achieved by TN panels which were crap.
Nowadays there are IPS and even VA that can do stuff like this but I still dont see reason why I would go for it.

[tp4tissue]

I never understood this "gaming" needs in pc hardware - always had 60MHz screen with 25-30ms refresh and was fine for all my gaming needs.
This stupid 1ms refresh rate, 144MHz etc was always ridiculous - back in the days it was only achieved by TN panels which were crap.
Nowadays there are IPS and even VA that can do stuff like this but I still dont see reason why I would go for it.

There are multiple latencies in play.

When we talk about motion clarity today, it has nothing to do with input latency.  It has to do with the pixel's g2g time, which the fastest panels can get down to 1-5ms.  This is necessary if you're going to strobe the backlight to cut out motion blur.

the 16-30ms you're talking about is input latency from monitors 15 years ago.

What they put on the box is also random and non-conventional,  they could be quoting anything.

[phinix]

I never understood this "gaming" needs in pc hardware - always had 60MHz screen with 25-30ms refresh and was fine for all my gaming needs.
This stupid 1ms refresh rate, 144MHz etc was always ridiculous - back in the days it was only achieved by TN panels which were crap.
Nowadays there are IPS and even VA that can do stuff like this but I still dont see reason why I would go for it.

There are multiple latencies in play.

When we talk about motion clarity today, it has nothing to do with input latency.  It has to do with the pixel's g2g time, which the fastest panels can get down to 1-5ms.  This is necessary if you're going to strobe the backlight to cut out motion blur.

the 16-30ms you're talking about is input latency from monitors 15 years ago.

What they put on the box is also random and non-conventional,  they could be quoting anything.

OK. Anyway, when I'm looking for a monitor, I'm looking for a good quality VA, dont care about if its a "gaming" monitor. For me non-gaming monitor is good for games too.
As long as it will have a good quality panel, good color reproduction etc

[tp4tissue]

OK. Anyway, when I'm looking for a monitor, I'm looking for a good quality VA, dont care about if its a "gaming" monitor. For me non-gaming monitor is good for games too.
As long as it will have a good quality panel, good color reproduction etc

Usually color reproduction is OK on monitors, Most will cover the majority of SRGB.

As for Accuracy, it's impossible to have ANY at all without a colorimeter, this is true of ANY display device you buy.  Those reviews are bull****.  Even a calibrated monitor will drift wrong within 300 hours of use, and need re-calibration.

If you buy a $2000 panel, I recommend paying the $150 for the colorimeter. xrite colormunki/ i1dispro/ i1 studio. Avoid datacolor probe, they don't work on VA panels or Oleds.

As for Gamut, as long as grey scale balance is accurate,  it's ok to NOT have color accuracy.

The reason for this is from srgb(rec709) to dcip3 is not that big a stretch, it will look very saturated near the edge colors, but the majority of internal colors look normal.

So it's ok to buy a p3 panel.

[Sniping]

I never understood this "gaming" needs in pc hardware - always had 60MHz screen with 25-30ms refresh and was fine for all my gaming needs.
This stupid 1ms refresh rate, 144MHz etc was always ridiculous - back in the days it was only achieved by TN panels which were crap.
Nowadays there are IPS and even VA that can do stuff like this but I still dont see reason why I would go for it.

There are multiple latencies in play.

When we talk about motion clarity today, it has nothing to do with input latency.  It has to do with the pixel's g2g time, which the fastest panels can get down to 1-5ms.  This is necessary if you're going to strobe the backlight to cut out motion blur.

the 16-30ms you're talking about is input latency from monitors 15 years ago.

What they put on the box is also random and non-conventional,  they could be quoting anything.

OK. Anyway, when I'm looking for a monitor, I'm looking for a good quality VA, dont care about if its a "gaming" monitor. For me non-gaming monitor is good for games too.
As long as it will have a good quality panel, good color reproduction etc

To me, you're overthinking it. I would just keep it mid range, under $1000, and just refresh it after a few years. There is no ideal TV out there right now. Why not get something that's pretty darn good but won't burn a hole in your wallet, and just use it to your satisfaction until there are more offerings a couple years later and you're bored of your current monitor? I'm not an expert with recommendations but I'd probably just get a Sony X900H or Hisense H9G and call it a day. They're not perfect but they're not priced like they're supposed to be either.

[tp4tissue]

To me, you're overthinking it. I would just keep it mid range, under $1000, and just refresh it after a few years. There is no ideal TV out there right now. Why not get something that's pretty darn good but won't burn a hole in your wallet, and just use it to your satisfaction until there are more offerings a couple years later and you're bored of your current monitor? I'm not an expert with recommendations but I'd probably just get a Sony X900H or Hisense H9G and call it a day. They're not perfect but they're not priced like they're supposed to be either.

phinix's on a Gas-Quest,  no need to impede his fury.

It is everyone's duty to shimulate the e(0nomay

[phinix]

Well, so I ordered it.
Apparently OLEDs are out of stock UK wide, but 300 of those CX48s coming to UK next week, so I'm in the queue now.

Could be delivered before Christmas, but I won't count on it, with my luck
Anyway, I should be getting it in around 2 weeks.
Can't wait of course:D

I would love to try all those nice looking games first:
Elite Dangerous
Horizon zero dawn
Ori
Witcher 3
Death Stranding
crappy Cyberpunk
RDR2

Then some movies and shows:
Dark (again)
X Files
Matrix
Star wars
Indiana Jones
Blade runner

Any suggestions what should I play or watch on it to see the full potential of that panel?

[Darthbaggins]

Should add Control to that list of games   also don't forget Crysis Remastered

[tp4tissue]

The NEw latest starwars are great in HDR, the first starwars is good too, the other starwars don't really take advantage of the format.

[phinix]

Should add Control to that list of games   also don't forget Crysis Remastered

Oh, Crysis remastered, yes!

The NEw latest starwars are great in HDR, the first starwars is good too, the other starwars don't really take advantage of the format.

I have first Star Wars, will give it a go. Only played like 1 minutes in that when I bought my first 4k monitor.

[phinix]

New question: I'm trying to understand OLED burn-in process.

Burn-in happens when a static image is being displayed for a long period of time. Right?

What exactly is this time, I mean how do you count that time: would it be a total time for pixel being on with specific color since new? Then every time you turn on your OLE tv, it adds that to the overall life-time of that pixel under that color?

Lets say a pixel is being on "burning" with red color for one hour, constantly. Then after  that time it switches to lets say blue, or lets say its even turned off (becoming black) for another hour. Does this count to its overall lifetime or is this switching off to black count as "reset" and it doesn't count at all?
So technically, if image on the screen (or that pixel) changes every hour or so, that means it won't burn-in that quickly?

[tp4tissue]

Every moment the pixel is turned on , it wears. That's the nature of OLED self-emission. There is no reset.

If you set the oled peak white to ~100 nits, the burn-in is negligible.  You can run it 3-5 years, you won't notice any significant dimming.

If you use the oled during the day, with the room's windows wide open, you're going to need to set it to 200-400nits.  This is where the most wear can occur.  Because desktop elements (even if they're not white), could max out the SUB-Pixels. 

Each pixel is White, red, green, blue.   If you have a red button that's always shown in the same spot, that button could be nearly maxing out the red subpixel.  Over time,  If you displayed a full field red pattern, you'll get a small dark spot where the UI element was cast .


OVERALL, I wouldn't worry, if we assume they improve OLED technology meaningfully every 3-5 years.  You'll just buy a new one in 5 years.   You won't really notice the wear spot during normal use unless you look for it using a full field color pattern.


In the spirit of avoiding Unnecessary wear,  dim the room, set panel peak white to ~100nits, and it'll never let you down.

If you prefer bright daylight sun.  Then go full bore. whatever you'll just buy a new one.

[phinix]

Every moment the pixel is turned on , it wears. That's the nature of OLED self-emission. There is no reset.

If you set the oled peak white to ~100 nits, the burn-in is negligible.  You can run it 3-5 years, you won't notice any significant dimming.

If you use the oled during the day, with the room's windows wide open, you're going to need to set it to 200-400nits.  This is where the most wear can occur.  Because desktop elements (even if they're not white), could max out the SUB-Pixels. 

Each pixel is White, red, green, blue.   If you have a red button that's always shown in the same spot, that button could be nearly maxing out the red subpixel.  Over time,  If you displayed a full field red pattern, you'll get a small dark spot where the UI element was cast .


OVERALL, I wouldn't worry, if we assume they improve OLED technology meaningfully every 3-5 years.  You'll just buy a new one in 5 years.   You won't really notice the wear spot during normal use unless you look for it using a full field color pattern.


In the spirit of avoiding Unnecessary wear,  dim the room, set panel peak white to ~100nits, and it'll never let you down.

If you prefer bright daylight sun.  Then go full bore. whatever you'll just buy a new one.

Yeah, keeping around 100-120 nits should be ok for desktop use.
Of course for gaming, it goes full bore, like you said, OLED light up to 100 for nice HDR experience.

[tp4tissue]

Yeah, keeping around 100-120 nits should be ok for desktop use.
Of course for gaming, it goes full bore, like you said, OLED light up to 100 for nice HDR experience.

The majority of content including most games are -Graded- for SDR, which means 100nits.

When you're pushing SDR over 100 nits, into the 400nits area,  it just scales , so in theory there's no additional image detail you're pulling out, you're just stretching linearly to combat what room-lighting exists. (for things like day time use).

For HDR gaming, I've seen very few games that use HDR properly they've all seem to hacked it.  The systems in place are not truly robust enough, and they're more tone-conversion systems, none of these games are truly from the grounds up asset marked for HDR.  Kind of like movies converted to 3D , vs native 3D movies.

For HDR movies of course, you need oled light 100. That's just how it was designed.   

Consider getting the calman package for OLED if you're interested in more accuracy.

[phinix]

Yeah, I understand, but with higher OLED light, games look better, so when turning HDR on, it all looks a lot brighter and colors richer.
You can't play on 100nits (OLED light around 20), it looks dimmed etc.

I think difference is that on normal LCD monitors games looked brighter (higher nits) in general - it is hard to adjust yourself when using OLED monitor.
All other colors are darker, black is... black! It feels like its darker in general.
But you can feel the difference, definitely. Contrast is huge, even darker screen shows that contrast edge.

[tp4tissue]

Are you sure oled light 20 is 100nits ? oled light 60 is ~200nits on older models.  It could be different on the CX i suppose.  Maybe it's being crushed by some of the other dynamic settings.

[phinix]

Are you sure oled light 20 is 100nits ? oled light 60 is ~200nits on older models.  It could be different on the CX i suppose.  Maybe it's being crushed by some of the other dynamic settings.

50 is 150 nits
36 is 120 nits
~27 would be 100 nits
20 is like 75 nits

[tp4tissue]

it shouldn't compress any highlights below 150nits.  because that's its full field sustained brightness.

It will start compressing of course if you lower below 100nits.  Or if you're above 150.

So between 100 and 150 is where you want to be.

[phinix]

it shouldn't compress any highlights below 150nits.  because that's its full field sustained brightness.

It will start compressing of course if you lower below 100nits.  Or if you're above 150.

So between 100 and 150 is where you want to be.

Cool, so around 30 OLED light should be good then. Thanks TP

What do you mean by compressing?

[tp4tissue]

it shouldn't compress any highlights below 150nits.  because that's its full field sustained brightness.

It will start compressing of course if you lower below 100nits.  Or if you're above 150.

So between 100 and 150 is where you want to be.

Cool, so around 30 OLED light should be good then. Thanks TP

What do you mean by compressing?

When you color grade,  you set the color grading monitor to the standard, for SDR it's usually between 100-120 nits.

So when the movie is Graded by the colorist, that's what he and the directorial team is looking at.

If you take a material graded at 100nit,  set the tv to 75 nits, it'll still look mostly fine because SDR works on a relative gamma scale,  but the peak highlights like lightreflection/ glare, silver clouds have to be compressed to 75nit instead of 100nit, (assuming they used the 100 nit value).

HDR doesn't scale, it uses absolute luminance, so you always want it at 100%, at least in the case of OLED.

[phinix]

it shouldn't compress any highlights below 150nits.  because that's its full field sustained brightness.

It will start compressing of course if you lower below 100nits.  Or if you're above 150.

So between 100 and 150 is where you want to be.

Cool, so around 30 OLED light should be good then. Thanks TP

What do you mean by compressing?

When you color grade,  you set the color grading monitor to the standard, for SDR it's usually between 100-120 nits.

So when the movie is Graded by the colorist, that's what he and the directorial team is looking at.

If you take a material graded at 100nit,  set the tv to 75 nits, it'll still look mostly fine because SDR works on a relative gamma scale,  but the peak highlights like lightreflection/ glare, silver clouds have to be compressed to 75nit instead of 100nit, (assuming they used the 100 nit value).

HDR doesn't scale, it uses absolute luminance, so you always want it at 100%, at least in the case of OLED.

Thanks TP, you must be an expert in screens etc

These new LG OLED tvs have that Film-maker mode - it supposed to use coded information in a movie how to set screen up to watch it like Director saw it, or something like that.
I wonder how it works - does it automatically picks it up, or does it have to be specific setup, dvd player etc

[tp4tissue]

Thanks TP, you must be an expert in screens etc

These new LG OLED tvs have that Film-maker mode - it supposed to use coded information in a movie how to set screen up to watch it like Director saw it, or something like that.
I wonder how it works - does it automatically picks it up, or does it have to be specific setup, dvd player etc

The TV assumes whatever material is sent is factually accurate, graded to reference (this is the case) for major hollywood releases.

The filmmaker mode, is a calibrated mode. Every panel produces a different image, to account for the drift, they run it through several stages of calibration.  On the CX, it gets an extra stage from the factory. The filmmaker mode is that.

However, colors drift after 300-600 hours of use. So, realistically, you should have your own colorimeter to do touch-ups.  But they don't want you to do this, they'd rather let it go to crap, prompting you to buy a new tv in a few years.

[phinix]

So this OLED and RTX3070 is a perfect combo for good old Wolfenstein 3D

[tp4tissue]

Fire up some quak 3 areny @ 500fps.

[Sniping]

Fire up some quak 3 areny @ 500fps.

bruh no one plays that shiiii

[tp4tissue]

Fire up some quak 3 areny @ 500fps.

bruh no one plays that shiiii