For most of the time, let's say in 90% of film scenes, viewers will hardly see any difference between the S85F versions. When small but very bright light points appear on screen – a lantern in a dark alley, a gunshot, the sun breaking through the clouds – this WOLED panel (just like the smaller S85F) performs exceptionally well. Our measurements showed a peak brightness of around 750 nits. We can confidently state: this is a great result that guarantees fantastic HDR effects. The problem arises in a very specific, uncomfortable situation for any OLED. We're talking about the moment when the entire screen has to shine at full brightness clearly. Examples include a white background screen, a skiing scene, or our test sequences (5) from the film The Meg. And here, unfortunately, the results diverge quite significantly against the WOLED panel variant. Our measurement equipment was able to measure a maximum of around 250 to 300 nits of brightness under such conditions. To be clear: the same model on a QD-OLED panel in the same test is almost twice as bright. The second issue: colours. And here we also have to be honest – QD-OLED has a structural advantage. Why? It’s simple. QD-OLED creates colours from three components (red, green, and blue) and doesn’t need an additional white subpixel. The WOLED panel we’re testing here uses that white subpixel, mainly to boost overall brightness. The effect is that QD-OLED is able to display a slightly wider colour palette, and the colours are a bit "cleaner." But let’s be clear: it’s not that the colours on this WOLED panel are bad! Quite the opposite, they are really very good. Coverage of the DCI-P3 film colour gamut at 97% and 71% for the wider BT.2020 palette is still high-end. We just have to honestly admit that those few percentage points of coverage advantage lie with QD-OLED technology and may be noticeable in very specific moments.
The Samsung S90H in the WOLED variant is still an exceptionally bright TV for its price bracket, although it is slightly dimmer compared with the QD-OLED version. That difference is not as pronounced as in last year’s F series, where gaps sometimes reached 500 nits. Here the parameters of both panels are very similar, with differences in peak brightness of only about 100–150 nits. In small-window measurements the S90H with the WOLED panel easily reaches close to 1,500 nits. That headroom lets it phenomenally convey the dynamics of HDR effects — blooms, light reflections and explosions have the right punch, exactly as intended by the studio creators. As with most OLED displays, when a very bright scene fills the entire screen, panel protection systems kick in and brightness naturally falls to around 700 nits. It’s worth stressing that this is still an excellent result on the market, often noticeably better than many Mini LED screens in the same segment.
Colour gamut coverage
The biggest difference between the two S90H variants lies in colour reproduction and saturation. This stems directly from the different construction of the WOLED panel, which uses an additional white subpixel. As a result, very high-brightness colours don’t achieve quite the same saturation, and the wide-colour volume is slightly more limited than with QD-OLED. That said, in everyday use these differences will be hard for most viewers to notice. Our measured DCI-P3 coverage on the WOLED panel reaches almost 99%, meaning that for the vast majority of real film scenes both variants will present an almost identical image. The real gap only appears in rarer, especially demanding productions that use the ultra-wide BT.2020 gamut. Because of the WOLED panel’s construction, coverage of that standard is roughly 15% lower compared with the S90HAT with a QD-OLED panel, so the brightest, heavily lit HDR colours may appear a touch less vivid.