So here's the thing. Don't use Rtings ratings (scores?) the way you're doing it. Unfortunately Rtings scores are misleading because people just take them at face value which is definitely the thing not to do. It's like using Rotten Tomatoes or other review aggregators as being a sole indicator of whether a movie is good or not. I mean Rtings is not an aggregator to be clear, but their scores have a lot of hidden details. Now the details aren't really all that "hidden" because they explain all of this in quite a lot of detail and you can use their comparator system to custom-tailor your own scores based on what's important to you.PC_Cola wrote: ↑Can a TV expert help me out here. I bought a Vizio M Series M658-G1 for $699.99 at Costco when they had $300 dollars off based on good reviews. The Rtings rating is 7.9 Mixed Usage, 8.5 for Movies, and 8.3 for HDR Movies as seen here: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/vizio ... antum-2019
However, I haven't been really impressed with it. So I've been looking for an upgrade. This X950G deal seems like everyone thinks its hot hot hot. But looking at the Rtings it's got an 8.0 mixed usage, 8.3 Movies, and 8.2 for HDR Movies as seen here: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x950g
So the X950G would be double what I paid for my Vizio, but the Movie performance and HDR performance is worse than the Vizio? is that right? Does this mean this wouldn't be the upgrade I am looking for and I should be shooting for a true OLED then if I want to see a better picture?
However this is the thing, the reality is in the details. Rtings scores are weighted a certain way, and a lot of the weighting doesn't really make sense to many, and also may not make sense on a personal level--i.e. the things you consider important and the material/content you view. If you look in the comments on various reviews you'll see that several people have often made the same comments/observations/critiques regarding their reviews. You have to read into the details and not go by the "out of 10 scores" as some kind of absolute because a lot of times a TV that scores the same or similar...or possibly even lower than another actually performs significantly better in reality. I would go on more about this but there was one post I came across on there that very beautifully talks about this. It's a comment on the TCL 8-series review and the person reflects on the scores in comparison with the Z9D, a TV that is to him, a much better TV in reality than the 8-series, despite scoring "only" 0.3 better in the overall score. Also the Z9D itself got "only" an 8.3 in their overall score but the TV is much better than the score would suggest, with many people considering it among the best LCDs Sony has ever made.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/discussions/5 ... he-details
Again there are lots of comments like this if you start reading the comment/question sections of their reviews. This is really not to say their scores are useless, but they just aren't that good to judge sets on, on their own. Instead you can use their comparator and it will give you a much better idea of what is what. Also careful attention to the actual review and not just the number scores tells a big story as well. The problem with Rtings is they do very in-depth and thorough testing and so all the information you need is there really. However people are generally lazy and just want the "TLDR" of it, which the Rtings scores really don't do well at providing. I suggest people looking for reviews like that, look elsewhere, because the Rtings number scores are somewhat indicative of performance but they're not and end-all and be-all of how a TV performs compared to another.
The way I think of it, any TV that has an 8 or higher overall score @ Rtings, is probably a pretty good TV. However a TV that has an 8.2 might be better in various areas than one with an 8.6, but you would never know that unless you read the details in the review.
HDMI 2.1 doesn't "bring" that. Dolby Vision is already Dynamic HDR. HDR10+ is also dynamic, and doesn't require 2.1.
None of these require 2.1 either, there are many TVs that have one or more of these that do not have HDMI 2.1.
Nearly meaningless features. Allows for more seamless transitions and switches but I doubt any one is so annoyed by those things that they think this is some Godsend or something.
Only useful for 8K+ resolution--not even used for 4K, except possibly able to be used for 4K HFR or RGB 4:4:4 10-bit or higher. Speaking of HFR you actually forgot to list that one, though again guess what, the Q90R has that too and it doesn't need 2.1, at least not for 4k 8-bit 4:2:0 @ 120Hz. Though higher colour may require it, it's still HFR IMO since it's 4k/120 nonetheless.
Also none of these features are mandatory 2.1 features. A TV can be "HDMI 2.1" and not have many of those just the same. So the question is what does 2.1 really do for you on a 4K TV? Nothing in particular. So no folks HDMI 2.1 is not the next coming of Christ, it's just a fluffy number that people are going bananas about when they don't even know why. Mostly the weird people always on about meaningless nonsense like "future proofing", etc.