The Samsung QN90D and TCL C855 represent mid - range options within their various line of reasoning - ups , with both 4 K HDR TVs offer similar specifications . However , the Samsung model is price at a premium over its TCL alternative , with the Korean giant prioritising performance over affordability .
This raise an interesting question : does Samsung ’s claims of superior picture quality justify the toll agio ? get ’s take a detailed look at these two Mini light-emitting diode TVs , with an emphasis on test the impression quality to objectively establish which one offer the best value proportional to execution .
For the purposes of this evaluation I have straight compared and tested the Samsung 75QN90D against the TCL 75C855 . All the objective measurements were conducted using Portrait Displays ’ C6 HDR5000 colour meter , VideoForge Pro formula source , and Calman standardization computer software .
Price
The Samsung QN90D is one the brand ’s less expensive 2024 Neo QLED 4 K boob tube , and is presently uncommitted in a mountain chain of sieve sizes . There are 43 - column inch ( £ 999 ) , 50 - in ( £ 1,099 ) , 55 - inch ( £ 1,299 ) , 65 - inch ( £ 1,749 ) , 75 - in ( £ 2,599 ) , 85 - column inch ( £ 4,199 ) and 98 - inch ( £ 7,999 ) models to choose from .
The TCL C855 sits towards the gamy last of the firebrand ’s transmission line - up , with the focus on large screen sizing but at more affordable Leontyne Price . If you want lowly screens look elsewhere because the C855 only comes in 65 - inch ( £ 1,299 ) , 75 - inch ( £ 1,699 ) , 85 - inch ( £ 2,089 ) and 98 - inch ( £ 3,999 ) size .
There’s not much in it in terms of looks, control and connections
The Samsung QN90D and TCL C855 both follow the received guide for modern TV design with a narrow metal radix , angled viewpoint and bezel - less covert . The shape quality and finale is adept , although the Samsung feel a petty more polished and at 28 millimeter deep from top to bottom , liken to the C855 ’s 56 mm , it is also sleeker and easy to wall mount .
The connections on these TV are located at the correct keister as you face the screen , and while both let in USB connectors , an Ethernet port , satellite and terrestrial tuners , a CI ( Common Interface ) slot , and an opthalmic digital output , they do disagree when it comes to HDMI .
The QN90D sports fourHDMI 2.1inputs compared to the C855 ’s two ( along with two HDMI 2.0 inputs ) . So if you ’re already using one of the HDMI 2.1 stimulation on the C855 foreARC , you could only use the other for one next - gen gaming console at a fourth dimension .
On the plus side , while all the HDMI 2.1 inputs support HDR10 , HLG , HDR10 + , VRR , ALLM , and 4K/144Hz , the C855 can also handle Dolby Vision , giving it an advantage in this regard .
In terms of wireless connectivity both boob tube have Wi - Fi and Bluetooth , while the QN90D supportsApple AirPlay 2and the C855 include Chromecast . So I venture we ’ll call it a draw play on this one .
The QN90D comes with two control : a standard black zapper , and the Solar Cell distant with its rechargeable batteries . It uses Bluetooth and is more eco - well-disposed . There ’s a choice of Bixby or Amazon Alexa for vocalisation dominance , and the excellent SmartThings app for frame-up and operation .
The C855 infrared remote control is a clean received but capable controller that ’s finished in silver medal and has its loudness controls located on the side , which is unusual . There ’s the choice of spokesperson ascendence via Google Assistant , and a degree of additional apparatus and control through the Google Home app .
There ’s not much in it as far as ascendancy is concerned , although the QN90D just beats the C855 .
The Samsung QN90D edges ahead in terms of smarts and sounds
The Samsung QN90D uses the brand ’s Tizen - powered bright system , while the TCL C855 includesGoogle video . The two program are fairly similar , and both have an extensive alternative of streaming apps . However , I did find the QN90D to be more reactive when navigating the system , and due to ongoing issuing with Google the C855 is missing the UK TV catch - up services . So overall I ’d say the QN90D get ahead the struggle of the smarts .
The two TVs are well - endowed sonically , with the QN90D boasting a 4.2.2 - channel speaker configuration , with Object Tracking Sound Plus and 60W of amplification ; while the C855 also has 60W of onboard juice drive a 2.1.2 - distribution channel Onkyo sound organization . Both support Dolby Atmos , but the C855 can also handle DTS , which is something of a low density these days .
They each have sufficient oink to reach unsociable loudness without deform , and overall the intelligent quality on both was good with a clean midrange and treble , in force manner of speaking of overhead channels , and even a surprising amount of bass . However , I did observe that the QN90D had a wider soundstage equate to the C855 , and overall it was a short more refined in its delivery .
Both make great gaming TVs
The Samsung QN90D and TCL C855 are both very telling TVs for gambling , with bread and butter for 4K/144Hz , VRR ( including Freesync Premium Pro ) , ALLM , and pop - up biz bar . In the compositor’s case of the QN90D there ’s also a Game Hub for swarm gaming with an optional controller .
As antecedently mentioned the QN90D has four HDMI input rather than the C855 ’s two , and the former is a smidge more responsive with an input stave of 9.8ms compared to the latter ’s 14.4ms . But overall there really is n’t much to secern the two TVs in term of gaming feature .
The real secret plan period of play on the QN90D and C855 is incredibly smooth and loosely responsive , and the question handling is equally telling with no house of tear or other artifact , even at the high-pitched frame rates . However I did recover the motion handling on the QN90D to be a touch sharper .
The TCL C855 is brighter with more dimming zones
The Samsung QN90D and TCL C855 are both 4 K TVs that use LCD VA panels with Quantum Dot coloration filters and Mini LED backlights . They each support HDR10 , HLG and HDR10 + , but as antecedently advert only the C855 can handleDolby Vision . Their LCD panels have aboriginal refresh pace of 120Hz , and the two TVs can also accept 144Hz via their HDMI 2.1 stimulation .
So far , so like , but where the two deviate is in term of their Mini LED backlights . On composition at least the C855 is the light success here with its 2,160 sovereign local dip zones compared to the QN90D ’s 900 freestanding geographical zone . In summation , while the QN90D can hit a very tidy acme brightness of 2,100 nits , the C855 is capable of a monumental 3,200 nits with HDR content .
The remaining picture feature are largely proprietary , with Samsung include its Anti Reflection filter , Ultra Viewing Angle tech to widen the off - axis of rotation performance , and NQ4 AI Gen2 processor with 20 neuronal networks for optimal upscaling , processing and apparent motion treatment . The C855 includes TCL ’s AiPQ Pro AI - enhanced processor for its own upscaling and picture processing .
But the Samsung QN90D has better overall picture quality
Of course all these marketing specifications do n’t necessarily translate into superior picture performance , so let ’s liken the two TVs directly and start guide objective measurements .
kick off with the BASIC both the Samsung QN90D and TCL C855 utilize VA gore , which entail they have good native smuggled levels for LCD TVs . They also have filters to minimise reflections , although I found Samsung ’s implementation to be more effective at reject ambient ignitor .
If you look at both TVs from dead center they appear quite standardized , but as soon as you start move off - axis there is a obtrusive divergence in picture quality . Traditionally VA panels endure from miserable off - axis vertebra carrying into action , with the contrast and colours washing out when see at an slant . Samsung has induct a luck of R&D into addressing this weakness , and the QN90D is a great example of its success in this regard . There is a clean difference between the two TVs when view off - axis vertebra , with the QN90D maintain its dividing line and colour in compare to the C855 .
The overall panel uniformity also differs between the two , and while the QN90D shows no sign of clouding up , banding or dirty screen upshot , there is some clouding on the C855 , which storm me considering it has over double the numeral of LEDs in its backlight .
This more effective use of the LED in the QN90D ’s backlight extends to the local dimming as well , and despite hold 900 self-governing zones compared to the C855 ’s 2,160 zone , the
Samsung was clearly ranking . It ’s often say it ’s not what you ’ve gravel but what you do with it that counts , and Samsung ’s ten of experience in this area is clearly paying dividends .
When comparing the two TVs in a darken way there ’s obvious blossom around bright objects on the C855 , which is exacerbated by the increased luminance of HDR and the TCL ’s deficient off - axis performance . The QN90D by comparability is free of any bloom or haloing on bright object , even when watching in HDR or at extreme viewing angle .
watch Ryan Gosling in a limelight during the alive concert sequence in La La Land let out well defined light and shadow on the QN90D but a definite glow around the beam of light on the C855 . The same is true in another Ryan Gosling film , as Apollo 11 enters lunar orbit in First Man . The Moon ’s Earth’s surface appear through the command module ’s windowpane is a real torment test , but the QN90D handled it with slap-up skill , while the C855 fight to minimise the blooming around it .
In condition of video accuracy the QN90D delivers excellent greyscale , Vasco da Gamma and colour measurements in Filmmaker mode ( whether SDR or HDR ) , with errors well below the visible doorstep . There are extensive calibration controls if necessary , but this splendid out - of - the - box seat accuracy control range of a function that reflect the content God Almighty ’ original aesthetic intentions .
The C855 is n’t as telling as the QN90D when it comes to picture truth , with errors in greyscale , da Gamma and colours in its Movie way ( there ’s noFilmmaker mode ) . I did n’t detect the calibration controls to be as effectual either , and as a result there ’s discolouration in the whites , a reddish undertone to form tones , and over - saturate colours in both SDR and HDR .
The QN90D image processing is also excellent with accurate and detailed upscaling that does n’t introduce unwanted artefacts . There are additional characteristic for enhancing compressed or noisy content , with the result images looking clean regardless of the quality of the original generator . The C855 ’s processing is generally effective as well , and if you feed in the C855 a eminent caliber image the consequence are often excellent , but with lower resolve or compressed substance the upscaling and image processing are n’t quite as impressive as the Samsung .
The Samsung return smooth gesture handling with no planetary house of judder , tearing or other annoying artefacts , and overall the trend is clean and clean . The C855 is n’t quite as sound with motion , showing occasional artefacts like stutter as objects move across the screen . These can be distracting , and as a result the QN90D is good at handling motion with picture show , games and fun .
While the C855 delivers a peak brightness of 3,200 nit compared to the QN90D ’s 2,100 nit , this is n’t as important as accurate HDR timber mapping . In testing it was exonerated the QN90D get over the shade mapping prey more accurately than the C855 , and this was confirmed with mensuration .
As a event the Samsung deliver the original originative intent , secure the shadows are loose of press and detail are n’t curtail in the highlights . This is obvious when run through HDR demo footage grade at 1,000 , 4,000 and 10,000 nits . Conversely the C855 was beat the shadows and lose detail in the bright parts of the image on 1,000 nits content , and this got progressively worse moving to 4,000 and 10,000 nits scenes .
In Aquaman during the scenery where he is chain up in Atlantis , the environment is mostly white with brilliant light , and thanks to its higher-ranking tone map out the QN90D reveals more detail in the backgrounds during verbatim comparability with the C855 . As a result the persona has good contrast and thus more impingement , despite not technically being as bright . The same is true with The Greatest Showman , where the superior dividing line , improved detail and richer , more accurate colours of the QN90D produce an image with extended profoundness and pop . In lineal comparability the C855 appeared bright but the mental image was more washed out , lacking the deepness and visual slug of the QN90D.
Verdict
The Samsung QN90D and TCL C855 are both excellent TVs , and whilst the former edges out the latter in many respects , it ’s with moving-picture show lineament that the QN90D really stands out . Samsung is the more naturalized of the two brands , and has decades of experience , enquiry and exploitation when it comes to panel purpose , image processing and local dimming .
This is evident in every scene of the QN90D ’s performance , from its wider regard angles , serious pictorial matter truth , smoother motion , higher-ranking image processing , more precise local dimming and higher-ranking feel single-valued function . All of which combines to render a premium performance that ’s objectively more sophisticated and refined , and easily justifies any additional monetary value .
