Sharp 50GR8465E

There is a natural appeal in exploring the biggest, most compelling flagship models in a given market, in order to get a sense of current trends and where things are heading. LG's brand-new OLED panels, Samsung's striking microLEDs - it's all very well, but every now and then there's certainly good reason to look at the diametrically opposite end of the spectrum and take a closer look at the TVs people actually buy.

That's what we're doing today, because if you think a high refresh rate is essential for you, but you're not keen on the whole idea of paying at least £1,000, or even much more, for a new TV, then Sharp is among the more exciting manufacturers on the market here.

Their 50GR8465E is a 50-inch 4K QLED panel with a 144Hz refresh rate, VRR support, Dolby Vision, HDR10 and HLG, which at the time of writing is available for around £350. Regardless of good deals on other, better televisions, this is definitely among the most competitive recommended prices for a television of this calibre. The question is simply whether it is worth even this rather low price.

First and foremost, Sharp has cut corners on the build quality. This isn't really a problem in itself; a depth of just over 7.5 centimetres and the typical semi-matte black finish are nothing new, nor are they offensive, but no attention has been paid to detail here, whether at the front, the back, or in terms of the remote control. There are four HDMI 2.1 ports on the back, which is certainly plenty, and it features both Wi-Fi 6 and Bluetooth. The platform itself is Google TV, which runs more or less on the unknown MediaTek chip Sharp is using here. They call it the "AQUOS AI Ultra Clear Video Processor", but it appears to be a combination of a quad-core ARM chip, a Mali GPU, and 2GB of RAM. It isn't that important, and I would recommend either using Chromecast functionality, or buying Google TV as a separate set-top box, or even an Apple TV. I didn't run into any issues with responsiveness, but it doesn't feel as though everything just glides along if you navigate the interface quickly.

Perhaps this is also a good time to remind you that we have already reviewed the 65" version of this TV, which at the time was priced at a far, far higher price. However, it seems that Sharp has reassessed the positioning of these models in the market, and for around £350, the obvious compromises become far more palatable.

The funny thing is, though, that now that the main difference seems to be the screen size (and the price), we might as well quote directly from our previous review, as it still seems relatively relevant:

"It can achieve 450-500 NITS (our own tests actually show slightly higher broadly measured brightness of 519 NITS), which is honourable, but even OLED panels traditionally known for being dimmer like LG's B4 can achieve between 550 and 590 NITS, and Samsung's QLEDs can both peak and maintain much higher than that. It's not that the picture lacks depth, after all it's 12-bit via the aforementioned Vision IQ, and both HDR performance and motion are perfectly acceptable. The problem is that in games, 4K content or upscaled 1080p content, Sharp doesn't impress, and if you stumble upon it for £1,000, you can find infinitely better picture quality in either sharper Samsung models or LG OLED panels, that's just the undeniable truth."

Yes, that's still the case - you can get better picture quality, that's clear. But we haven't been able to dig up a 144Hz model for around £350, not anything even close, and so Sharp is re-contextualising its own product here quite drastically.

With under 10ms in Game Mode, 144Hz in supported games, and reliable brightness, this really is a decent option for a teenager's bedroom, or a similar scenario. And Sharp has proven that they're willing to go back to the drawing board if the current pricing doesn't work. There you go.