RTINGS 2.0 just rewired TV reviews and quantum dots come out looking really good
If you’ve ever bought a high‑end TV, you’ve probably ended up on RTINGS at 2 a.m., skimming charts and trying to decode which panel will make Dune look like, well, Arrakis. RTINGS is the reference everyone else references. So when the site overhauled its testing this spring, that mattered — for shoppers and for the industry.
Why RTINGS matters
RTINGS is the most influential, lab‑driven TV review site on the internet. In March, the team rolled out TV Test Bench 2.0, a sweeping update that revamps how performance is measured and how scores are presented. The new system introduces “Performance Usages” (think stand‑alone scores for Brightness, Black Level, Color, Motion, etc.) and tightens the rubric so the numbers better match what you actually see at home. Translation: scores got tougher and more informative.  
Here’s what changed that’s especially meaningful:
Gamut Rings for color volume. Instead of a single bar for “color,” RTINGS now evaluates how much of a reference color space a TV can reproduce across brightness levels. Gamut Rings is a newer way to measure color volume that’s gaining traction in pro calibration circles.  
Spectral power distribution (SPD) charts. RTINGS now publishes the spectrum of light coming off the TV. That lets you see the actual light engine inside — whether it’s a classic white LED, a KSF/PFS red phosphor blend, a true quantum‑dot backlight, or QD‑OLED’s RGB stack. You’ll even find explicit callouts in individual reviews where the SPD confirms the hardware. 
Ambient Color Saturation. New tests show how well colors hold up in bright rooms, not just in a dark lab. It’s a great proxy for the living room reality of lamps, windows, and sunny afternoons. 
Motion/response time overhaul. RTINGS tightened its response‑time methodology (including color transitions), which matters a lot to gamers and sports fans. 
Harsher, more balanced scoring. Because each performance area is now scored the hard way, some categories — especially color and motion — weigh more clearly on the overall Mixed Use score.
TV Technology Comparison – RTINGS 2.0 Average Scores
The big picture: who’s winning under 2.0?
We compiled the first few months of RTINGS 2.0 results into the charts above. A few patterns jump off the page:
Everyone’s scores fell under the tougher rubric, but the drop wasn’t equal. Our dataset shows QD‑OLED and QD‑LCD models dipped by roughly half a point on average, while WOLED fell a bit more and sets with WLED/KSF backlights — including many so‑called “pseudo‑QLED” sets — lost more than a full point. That’s consistent with RTINGS’ stated goal to make the scores more discriminating. 
In today’s snapshot of 55 models across nine brands (tested since the switchover), QD‑OLED sits at the top of the Mixed Use rankings, with WOLED close behind and full‑fat QD‑LCDs leading all LCDs. There’s a noticeable step down to KSF, “pseudo QD,” and plain WLED sets — exactly where you’d expect if color and motion have more bite in the scoring.
Color is the new kingmaker
RTINGS 2.0 puts more daylight between displays that merely cover a wide gamut and those that can maintain color accuracy across a wide dynamic range. Using the Gamut Rings approach to color volume:
QD‑OLED leads by a lot on BT.2020 color volume, with QD‑LCD next.
WOLED, KSF, and “pseudo QD” cluster in the mid‑60% range.
YAG‑based WLED (no wide‑gamut tech) trails far behind around ~45% BT.2020 SDR volume.
That’s exactly what Gamut Rings is meant to surface: how accurately a set can deliver color across a range of brightness.  
And in Ambient Color Saturation — a bright‑room stress test — the pattern holds. QD‑OLED and true QD‑LCDs maintain saturation better than WOLED and KSF sets, which is what you’d expect from light engines designed to produce narrower, purer primaries. 
Brightness: Mini‑LED horsepower still rules
Peak brightness is where modern QD‑MiniLED LCD monsters flex. Looking at RTINGS’ familiar HDR Peak 10% window metric, our roll‑up shows:
QD‑LCD averages north of ~2,000 nits,
QD‑OLED lands around the mid‑teens (near ~1,500 nits for recent sets),
WOLED/KSF/“pseudo QD” generally sit in the ~900–1,000 nits band.
Mini‑LED backlights with a quantum‑dot film still deliver the most headroom for specular highlights without washing out color, and RTINGS measures this consistently. 
Motion: OLED is untouchable; QD‑LCD is the fastest LCD
If you chase blur‑free motion, emissive OLED remains in a different league, with sub‑millisecond “first response” transitions in RTINGS’ method. Among LCDs, QD‑LCDs consistently post the best response times in our sample, a notable gap versus KSF‑based sets. One plausible reason: quantum‑dot down‑conversion is extremely fast (nanoseconds), so the backlight itself isn’t adding latency on top of the liquid crystal’s inherently slower shutter. Phosphors, by contrast, have extended decay times on the order of several milliseconds that slow LCDs even further.
“Pseudo QLED” vs the real thing — spectra don’t lie
Marketing language has gotten… creative. Some budget “QLED” TVs use only trace amounts of quantum dots but rely primarily on KSF red phosphor plus a green phosphor to create a wider .
Under RTINGS 2.0, that’s suddenly easy to spot. Reviews now link the SPD chart in the Pixels section. A cluster of sharp red lines around ~631 nm is the telltale KSF signature. Several 2024 “Q” models are explicitly called out as KSF‑plus‑something in RTINGS copy. Conversely, you’ll also find entry-level models that use neither QDs nor KSF, which shows up as broad, less separated primaries — and weaker color performance. 
This is great for shoppers: you can verify the light engine, not just the label, and understand why two “QLEDs” behave so differently.
What this means for buyers (and why we like where 2.0 landed)
If you care about color in the real world, RTINGS’ Color and Ambient Color Saturation scores now surface the gap between wide‑gamut engines (QD‑OLED, true QD‑LCD) and everything else. 
If you watch a lot in bright rooms, check Brightness and Reflection Handling, then glance at the Ambient color score to make sure saturation won’t wash out. Mini‑LED QD‑LCDs often shine here. 
If you game, look at the Motion/Response Time and Game Mode Responsiveness. OLED still owns motion clarity, but the gap between LCD technologies is meaningful under 2.0. 
The bottom line
RTINGS’ Test Bench 2.0 is a win for TV shoppers. The new metrics and stricter scoring make it easier to separate true wide‑color, high‑performance sets from look‑alikes. And across the data we aggregated so far, quantum‑dot technologies like QD‑OLED and QD‑LCD consistently land at or near the top of the new system, with advantages in color volume, bright‑room saturation, and (for QD‑LCD) searing HDR peaks. WOLED remains excellent, especially for dark‑room purists, but when color and brightness matter together, QD has momentum — and now there’s a test bench that shows why. 
⸻
Notes on the charts in this post
All scores and data are aggregated from RTINGS 2.0 reviews as of this writing. Score Drop calculated using historical data of same models scored under 1.11 compared to 2.0. Individual models vary, and RTINGS continuously updates its database. For the precise methodology behind each metric, see RTINGS’ test pages linked above. 
