Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 57" 7680x2160 super ultrawide (mini-LED)

The problem is that prior G9 models 3440x1440 @ 240hz doesn't even work (it isn't even a option in the EDID). These DSC monitors aren't really happy with custom resolutions. You can read on reddit all the work arounds people have had to use or try but it ends up breaking HDR or VRR.
Good to know! Seems that it does behave a bit weird if DSC is in use. I had no problem with this when using the CRG9 but since that tops out at 120 Hz without DSC I guess that's why it worked.

I'm hoping Samsung just includes some of those resolutions out of the box.

Samsung does these incremental improvements then never ports them to their older models. As an example, the CRG9's preset functionality was pretty much garbage - you could not assign most of the OSD options to the presets. Then the Neo G9 (ugh, why could they not call the new one Neo G10 or Neo G9 8K or something?) fixes that where most settings can be stored in the preset. Then weirdly they seem to have removed this functionality completely from the Neo G8. I hope they don't do that for the new Neo G9 as those presets are useful.
 


One of the LTT guys testing out the Neo G9 at CES. Unfortunately nothing more than like personal descriptions of how it seems and no new details really. But it does seem a lot like two Neo G8's stitched together.

I don't know if the last chapter in the video has ended up in the wrong video, but he says these would have Philips Hue support and some sort of "take a portion of the screen and enlarge it or cast it to a different display" thing which is interesting. They cast a minimap from Fortnite to the 43" G70 model under a TV.
 
Good to know! Seems that it does behave a bit weird if DSC is in use. I had no problem with this when using the CRG9 but since that tops out at 120 Hz without DSC I guess that's why it worked.

I'm hoping Samsung just includes some of those resolutions out of the box.

Samsung does these incremental improvements then never ports them to their older models. As an example, the CRG9's preset functionality was pretty much garbage - you could not assign most of the OSD options to the presets. Then the Neo G9 (ugh, why could they not call the new one Neo G10 or Neo G9 8K or something?) fixes that where most settings can be stored in the preset. Then weirdly they seem to have removed this functionality completely from the Neo G8. I hope they don't do that for the new Neo G9 as those presets are useful.

Having gone back and looked at user complaints about the G9 one of the the biggest gripe appears to have been Samsung's failure to include native 21:9 presets in the EDID at release, which is pretty fucking stupid and unforgivable considering there is absolutely no reason why 3440x1440 isn't a viable resolution for the panel (doesn't surprise me though considering Samsung's shitty engineering in other products). From the latest manual it now looks the firmware has been updated to support 3440x1440 at 120 hz.

I won't be touching the G9 57" unless it supports 5K2K at 120hz out of the box. For the amount of money Samsung will be demanding for this monitor, there is no way I will accept fucking around with custom resolutions.

Edit: also seems that Samsung's quality control for monitors in general is atrocious, I might wait for several model revisions and firmware updates before buying anything.

 
Last edited:
So I had a bright idea: "Hey, I have two identical 28" 4K 144 Hz IPS Samsung G70A displays, let's see if I can get these running in Nvidia Surround!"

Well, I had to disable VRR and drop them both to 60 Hz first, then connect both over Displayport until NVSurround started accepting the configuration. After that I was able to set it to 7680x2160 @ 120 Hz.

So I decided to test a number of games and see how they would perform at such a high res.

Test setup:
  • Intel 13600K
  • PNY 4090 Epic-X, undervolted, runs at about 2700 MHz clocks
  • 32 GB DDR5-6000
  • 2 Tb Samsung 980 Pro NVME
  • All games are running at about highest graphics settings.
  • Raytracing is enabled if available.
  • I tried to pick a "demanding" location for SOTR and Witcher 3
  • For Q2 and Doom Eternal I just picked a "stable but somewhat demanding" location with no enemies etc.
  • Screenshots show the location used for testing. Uploading them here seems to have turned their quality to crap.
Caveats:

7680x2160 3840x2160 were tested in borderless windowed mode. Exclusive fullscreen tends to break NVSurround but does not perform better nowadays.

To test running at 5120x2160 and 6144x2160, I had to run the games windowed because adding custom resolutions with NVSurround doesn't work (or might be tricky).
To set the games to these specific resolutions, I used Fancyzones to define presets with 5120x2160 and 6144x2160 zones where I could drag the game window to resize it.

Running in windowed mode instead of borderless window has some performance penalties so with real custom resolutions you would get a bit better performance.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1.jpg

ResolutionQualityFramerate (average)
7680x2160DLSS Quality140
DLSS Balanced155
Native (SMAA2X)100
6144x2160DLSS Quality150
Native (SMAA2X)110
5120x2160DLSS Quality172
Native (SMAA2X)130
3840x2160DLSS Quality200
Native (SMAA2X)170


Witcher 3 Next gen

Witcher 3.jpg


I tested only 8Kx2K and 4K here because it otherwise took too much time to go through all the options.

ResolutionQualityFramerate (average)
7680x2160DLSS Quality + Frame generation64
DLSS Balanced + FG70
DLSS Performance + FG80
DLSS Quality42
DLSS Balanced48
DLSS Performance53
Native (TAAU)28
3840x2160DLSS Quality + Frame generation100
DLSS Balanced + FG110
DLSS Performance + FG120
DLSS Quality66
DLSS Balanced70
DLSS Performance74
Native (TAAU)45

Quake 2 RTX

First level, outside area with exploding barrels.

ResolutionQualityFramerate (average)
7680x2160Dynamic resolution scale, 120 fps target = 58% scale120
Native46
6144x2160Native58
5120x2160Native65
3840x2160Native88

Doom Eternal

Spaceship hub level, on top of stairs facing the main bridge (mission select etc)

ResolutionQualityFramerate (average)
7680x2160DLSS Quality135
DLSS Balanced144
Native110
6144x2160DLSS Quality150
Native126
5120x2160DLSS Quality169
Native145
3840x2160DLSS Quality224
Native185

So with a 4090, gaming at 7680x2160 is totally viable! Sure, it's not 200+ fps but even super heavy games like the Witcher 3 next gen can be made at least playable and this was without dropping any details. Realistically, more modern games would be run at 6144x2160 or 5120x2160 to minimize FOV distortion issues of the super ultrawide form factor.
 


Found a bit more footage of the 57" Neo G95NC. The only interesting thing here is the size comparison vs the 49" G9. The 57" model does not look that much bigger - a bit taller but width seems quite similar.

It also looks like they keep that weird "not quite smooth" curvature to it where most of the curvature is in the center and then it kind of flattens out at the very edges.
 


Found a bit more footage of the 57" Neo G95NC. The only interesting thing here is the size comparison vs the 49" G9. The 57" model does not look that much bigger - a bit taller but width seems quite similar.

It also looks like they keep that weird "not quite smooth" curvature to it where most of the curvature is in the center and then it kind of flattens out at the very edges.


Not sure why they make the curve like that.

Still no hint of when they'll start selling these.
 
Not sure why they make the curve like that.

Still no hint of when they'll start selling these.
I assume it's a technical limitation somehow.

I'd just like them to release the full specs and manual to know what it supports over HDMI 2.1.
 
I don't think its any technical limitation. If you think about it, a uniform curve would greatly limit the ideal seating position due to the edges flaring in closer to you and as a result causing gamma loss from the more extreme horizontal viewing angle.

The reason all curved monitors are curved as they are with a center pinch and flatter sides is likely to balance many factors like above.
 
I don't think its any technical limitation. If you think about it, a uniform curve would greatly limit the ideal seating position due to the edges flaring in closer to you and as a result causing gamma loss from the more extreme horizontal viewing angle.

The reason all curved monitors are curved as they are with a center pinch and flatter sides is likely to balance many factors like above.
My LG 40WP95C has a uniform curve. However, the curvature is lower than what Samsung does, so maybe that has something to do with it.
 
I don't think its any technical limitation. If you think about it, a uniform curve would greatly limit the ideal seating position due to the edges flaring in closer to you and as a result causing gamma loss from the more extreme horizontal viewing angle.

The reason all curved monitors are curved as they are with a center pinch and flatter sides is likely to balance many factors like above.
I don't think that's the case. the G9, current and upcoming, only slightly straightens out. I firmly expect it's some sort of production related compromise. I think a uniform curve would help with image quality at the very edges since they would face more towards you. The seating position on these screens is already kinda limited.
 
Lower failure rate to heat bend only the center versus the whole LCD panel. Saving costs = more profit.
 
Lower failure rate to heat bend only the center versus the whole LCD panel. Saving costs = more profit.
That's a possibility. I wonder why they bend it so much, though. The curvature looks excessive. I wish they just made it uniform with less curvature.
 
SD should've opted for 49" 7680x2160 QD-OLED instead of crappy VA panel, even if it's a FALD-QD one.
 
SD should've opted for 49" 7680x2160 QD-OLED instead of crappy VA panel, even if it's a FALD-QD one.
The 57" will be great for productivity. I’m glad the text quality won’t be compromised with an OLED panel. VA is much better than OLED for that.
 
SD should've opted for 49" 7680x2160 QD-OLED instead of crappy VA panel, even if it's a FALD-QD one.
I don't think they can make that yet. We are only getting a 5120x1440 QD-OLED this year.

I also appreciate they went for the larger size, that's going to be quite immersive.
 
10224


Found a pic with it next to what I think is the previous Neo G9 model. The curvature at least seems to be more than the OLED G9.

Viewing angles can be deceiving but it doesn't look massively larger physically than the 49" model. At probably that viewing distance difference it would work quite nicely at 125 or 150% scaling.

It might also be just a difference in settings, one running in HDR and one in SDR or various other factors but the 57" model looks much brighter, especially noticeable in the red building.
 
Did they fix the HDR tone mapping that has plagued the Odyssey line up?

Have a Neo G9 49 inch and the HDR pales in comparison to my Asus 32UCG despite claiming to have *2000 nit peak* and a further 900 dimming zones.
 
Did they fix the HDR tone mapping that has plagued the Odyssey line up?

Have a Neo G9 49 inch and the HDR pales in comparison to my Asus 32UCG despite claiming to have *2000 nit peak* and a further 900 dimming zones.
Samsung's 2000 nits peak brightness figures are straight up bullshit and false advertising when they don't tell what situation allows them to reach that and no reviewer has managed such a feat.

There is basically no info about the 57" model at this point besides what was available at CES 2023. My assumption is that the Neo G9 57" will perform a lot like 2x Neo G8 models. I'm hoping it would actually have peak/sustained brightness closer to the Neo G9 49" as it can get brighter.

Your Asus actually has more dimming zones in the same screen area. If the Neo G9 49" is equivalent to 2x 27" 1440p screens, that would be 1024 dimming zones per half. Obviously that's not a big difference to 1152 on the Asus, but the intended purpose and price range of the two is way different so it's not exactly a fair comparison. The Asus costs nearly 5000 € in my country whereas the Neo G9 49" can be had for ~1700 €. The Asus is aimed at professionals so accuracy etc are going to be more important factors than the more general purpose and gaming oriented Samsung.

Samsung definitely does some weird things when it comes to following the EOTF curve. Even their QLED TVs have similar shenanigans. Why, I have no idea. Maybe it's not putting in the time and effort to make them more accurate or it's a compromise to allow better performance in some other area like to avoid blooming as much as possible. Samsung Display seems to be capable of making some rather good panels but then Samsung's TV and monitor divisions that make those panels into consumer products end up messing things up with variety of firmware issues etc.

That still doesn't put me off from looking to buy the Neo G9 57" G95NC. Pricing and capabilities over HDMI 2.1 will be a factor. The way I see it, it's the only monitor that combines everything I need:
  • 4K sharpness for desktop use.
  • Tons of desktop space.
  • Ultrawide high refresh rate gaming.
  • HDR capability that is at minimum quite alright even if it's not best in class.
  • Picture by Picture mode for 21:9 + 11:9 or 2x 16:9.
I used the Samsung CRG9 for a few years as my desktop monitor and my only real complaints were the HDR capabilities (crap local dimming) and "only" 1440p resolution. Everything else I can file under "quirks and compromises."
 
This monitor will be worth a try when it comes out. Not sure when that will be. Maybe towards the end of the year?

Samsung's record with their high-end monitors makes it very likely that there will be significant issues with this one as well, but there will be no alternative monitor with these specs, so still worth a try.
 
This monitor will be worth a try when it comes out. Not sure when that will be. Maybe towards the end of the year?

Samsung's record with their high-end monitors makes it very likely that there will be significant issues with this one as well, but there will be no alternative monitor with these specs, so still worth a try.
Yeah I agree, I expect it might have some issues. Ideally it's basically iterative from their previous models so they could take the known issues and try to improve upon things.

I'm hoping it would come out by summer but that might be too optimistic.
 
I had the 49 inch but felt the height wasn’t enough. Looks like 57 inch might just hit the spot for my flightsim. Going to give it a try when it gets released.
 
Any idea when release window is?

I am super keen on it. I loved my Neo G9 49" whilst I had it, but I sold it due to the narrow size.

So the 57" might be more enticing for the likes of me.
 
Any idea when release window is?

I am super keen on it. I loved my Neo G9 49" whilst I had it, but I sold it due to the narrow size.

So the 57" might be more enticing for the likes of me.
Zero info. My expectation is summer at the earliest.
 
A2MGVmNDhiMjYxZDY3MTlmMThhZWM0NzA3YzRlYTYifQ%3D%3D.jpg


Found a pic with it next to what I think is the previous Neo G9 model. The curvature at least seems to be more than the OLED G9.

Viewing angles can be deceiving but it doesn't look massively larger physically than the 49" model. At probably that viewing distance difference it would work quite nicely at 125 or 150% scaling.

It might also be just a difference in settings, one running in HDR and one in SDR or various other factors but the 57" model looks much brighter, especially noticeable in the red building.

Pasting reply from other thread here and tagging along. . .


As much as I dislike the downsides/tradeoffs of FALD, and I love the per pixel emissive nature and black depths of OLED . . The 4k x2 samsung ultrawide looks interesting. Unfortunately the OLED version is smaller and only 1440px high so this FALD sounds like it might be the best step closer to a high PPD gaming screen with a wall of bezel free screen resolution outside of games since the 55" 4k ark missed the mark on a lot of things and flopped.

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...rst-57-inch-8k-ultrawide-oled-gaming-monitors

model G95NC

240Hz, quantum dot, VESA HDR 1000nit

1000R curve = 1000mm radius or focal point of curve = ~ 40" view distance optimally for all points on the screen surface to be equidistant from your eyeballs. That would result in the least distortion from the curve as all of the pixels would be on axis in relation to you. For racing and flight sims you might want to sit a little closer pushing the ends of the screen into your periphery somewhat, or if just using desktop as if it was a bezel free multi-monitor setup - though in both cases it would probably introduce some distortion/warping and off-axis pixels the closer you sat. It would probably be better if it were made at a 800R curve considering 800mm = 31.5" radius / focal point.

A 32:9 at 57" diagonal is around 55" wide by 15.4 inches tall. That's as tall as a 32" monitor. So sit back around (30 to) 40 inch away from a 32" (4k if possible) monitor and that would be what the middle of the 57" ultrawide looks like size wise. Just imagine another 32" screen split in half and stitched to the left and right sides of the screen.

For comparison, a 48" cx running a 21:10 at 3840x1600 rez is around a 17.4" tall viewable, and a 42" 4k screen is probably around 16" tall viewable at that rez so is pretty close (42" 4k at 21:9 is ~ 15.5" tall so 21:10 would be a little taller).



Tracking the same distance to compare at the focal point of the 1000R curve for reference ~ 40" on both:
70PPD on the 48" 4k
78 PPD on a 42" 4k
100PPD on a 32" 3840x2160 (two of them side by side essentially = 57" uw).

At 30" view distance:
55 PPD on 48" 4k
61 PPD on 42" 4k
77 PPD on 32" 4k (2 wide)

100PPD is very good compared to most gaming screens today. At 30" view distance , though there would be some distortion and edges of screen would be outside of your human viewing angle, the 4k x2 screen would still be getting 77 PPD which is still quite good, the same PPD you get on 4k screens viewed at the high end of their human viewing angle/distance range at 50deg viewing angle rather than a 60 deg one where they get ~ 64 PPD.

It's too bad we can't get a 7680x2160 240Hz OLED version of this. 240hz 1440p is not for me. I'd actually prefer it even larger/taller personally in 32:10 and a slightly larger screen vs the 1000R, 1000mm radius. Maybe in the next few years OLED will catch up rez+Hz wise along with phosphorescent oleds etc.
 
Last edited:
As much as I dislike the downsides/tradeoffs of FALD, and I love the per pixel emissive nature and black depths of OLED . . The 4k x2 samsung ultrawide looks interesting. Unfortunately the OLED version is smaller and only 1440px high so this FALD sounds like it might be the best step closer to a high PPD gaming screen with a wall of bezel free screen resolution outside of games since the 55" 4k ark missed the mark on a lot of things and flopped.

It's too bad we can't get a 7680x2160 240Hz OLED version of this. 240hz 1440p is not for me. I'd actually prefer it even larger/taller personally in 32:10 and a slightly larger screen vs the 1000R, 1000mm radius. Maybe in the next few years OLED will catch up rez+Hz wise along with phosphorescent oleds etc.
I don't mind not having OLED. Not having to deal with things like potential burn in for what is going to be most likely a rather expensive display is a plus to me. I like not having to deal with the pixel structure issues QD-OLED has. The G95NC is going to be used mostly for work and I expect to keep this for many years - especially with those new OLED panel roadmaps from TFTCentral which point to interesting stuff coming in maybe 2025 at the earliest.

For reference atm I'm using a 16" Macbook Pro M2 Max next to a 28" 4K Samsung G70A. I miss the superultrawide form factor, it worked perfectly for my work needs. Just wanted more resolution than 5120x1440 for the sharper text/UI. I like to keep my displays fairly close unless they are overwhelmingly tall like the LG CX 48".
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
My biggest gripes with ultrawides were:

. . the vertical resolution
. . the physical height being only ~ 13"
. . the radius/focal point of the curve vs the size of the screen.


The G95NC is 15.4 inch tall where I think running a 32:9 rez on a 55" 4k (or future 55" 8k) would only be 13.5" tall, which is closer to a smaller ultrawide 's 13.x " height. Running 32:10 would be a litte larger on a 55" 16:9 at 15" tall. So comparable as a half height 8k ~> 2x 4k screen and apparently years before we get any 8k 240hz 16:9 screens or 120hz ones that could possibly run 240hz at smaller resolutions.

I just checked a 32" screen proportions wise and I think a sweet spot vs the height would be around 24" to 28" view distance where the height wouldn't be shrunk to the point where it would appear narrow to my perspective. Just like sitting in front of a 32" 16:9 screen at a desk normally. Viewed from center, the G95NC is like a 32" 4k with another 32" 16:9 worth of screen space split in half and tacked onto each side in that sense. The 60 to 50 degree horizontal human viewing angle of a 32" 16:9 screen is at a 24" to 30 inch view distance, respectively, so that tracks pretty well with what I just eyeballed with the help of a tape measure as it corresponds to the height.. That is sitting well inside of the focal point of the curve of the G95NC though.

The curve could be a lot more aggressive considering that the radius of 1000R is ~ 40". 800R would be 31.5". At the focal point of a curve a curved screen would have less distortion and off axis pixels. At 40" view distance on a 32" screen the height is very narrow and belt-like to me so I probably wouldn't ever use one of these like that and would just have to live with some more distortion rather than make a belt like height to my perspective. I think a 19" to 20" tall screen would be better in this case at 1000R, or instead a 700R to 800R curve at this height - but it is what it is. Considering all of that, sitting at the 60 to 50 degree viewing angle of the central 32" screen portion of the G85NC, the +1920 pixel wide "wings" of the screen on each end would be outside of your focal view which means you'd be on the center line at a tennis match so to speak. In action games and vs reading huds, notifications, points, etc. there'd be some ping ponging of your eyeballs in that scenario. So there is some tradeoff there. Especially more Immersive for racing and flying games though, and like I think kasakka said - you could optionally run a game in a middle-ish resolution when you wanted to rather than full width when desired and still be at 4k or higher rez. That and getting the full desktop real-estate outside of games.


==========================================================

vs.27" 2560x 1440 and a theoretical 55" 8k 16:9 as reference points vs ~ 32" 4k (32" 4k two wide). For me, in the 4k era, 60 PPD is a minimum. Even higher if a non standard pixel structure. I really prefer 70PPD+ personally if I can get it.

27" 2560x1440 at 18" = 39 PPD
27" 2560x1440 at 24" = 49 PPD
27" 2460x1440 at 30" = 60 PPD


55" 4k at ~ 40" focal point of 1000R curve = 62 PPD
32" 4k at 40" focal point of 1000R curve = 100 PPD
55" 8k at 40" = 124 PPD

55" 4k at 30" = 50 PPD
32" 4k at 30" = 77 PPD
55" 8k at 30" = 99 PPD

55" 4k at 28" (desk) distance = 47 PPD
32" 4k at 28" (desk) distance = 73 PPD
55" 8k at 28" (desk) distance = 95 PPD

55" 4k at 24" (desk) distance = 43 PPD
32" 4k at 24" (desk) distance = 64 PPD
55" 8k at 24 (desk) distance = 85 PPD




834273_cIoEkLA.png
mRyIRD1.png
 
Last edited:
So I had a bright idea: "Hey, I have two identical 28" 4K 144 Hz IPS Samsung G70A displays, let's see if I can get these running in Nvidia Surround!"

Well, I had to disable VRR and drop them both to 60 Hz first, then connect both over Displayport until NVSurround started accepting the configuration. After that I was able to set it to 7680x2160 @ 120 Hz.

So I decided to test a number of games and see how they would perform at such a high res.

Test setup:
  • Intel 13600K
  • PNY 4090 Epic-X, undervolted, runs at about 2700 MHz clocks
  • 32 GB DDR5-6000
  • 2 Tb Samsung 980 Pro NVME
  • All games are running at about highest graphics settings.
  • Raytracing is enabled if available.
  • I tried to pick a "demanding" location for SOTR and Witcher 3
  • For Q2 and Doom Eternal I just picked a "stable but somewhat demanding" location with no enemies etc.
  • Screenshots show the location used for testing. Uploading them here seems to have turned their quality to crap.
Caveats:

7680x2160 3840x2160 were tested in borderless windowed mode. Exclusive fullscreen tends to break NVSurround but does not perform better nowadays.

To test running at 5120x2160 and 6144x2160, I had to run the games windowed because adding custom resolutions with NVSurround doesn't work (or might be tricky).
To set the games to these specific resolutions, I used Fancyzones to define presets with 5120x2160 and 6144x2160 zones where I could drag the game window to resize it.

Running in windowed mode instead of borderless window has some performance penalties so with real custom resolutions you would get a bit better performance.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

View attachment 545396

ResolutionQualityFramerate (average)
7680x2160DLSS Quality140
DLSS Balanced155
Native (SMAA2X)100
6144x2160DLSS Quality150
Native (SMAA2X)110
5120x2160DLSS Quality172
Native (SMAA2X)130
3840x2160DLSS Quality200
Native (SMAA2X)170


Witcher 3 Next gen

View attachment 545399

I tested only 8Kx2K and 4K here because it otherwise took too much time to go through all the options.

ResolutionQualityFramerate (average)
7680x2160DLSS Quality + Frame generation64
DLSS Balanced + FG70
DLSS Performance + FG80
DLSS Quality42
DLSS Balanced48
DLSS Performance53
Native (TAAU)28
3840x2160DLSS Quality + Frame generation100
DLSS Balanced + FG110
DLSS Performance + FG120
DLSS Quality66
DLSS Balanced70
DLSS Performance74
Native (TAAU)45

Quake 2 RTX

First level, outside area with exploding barrels.

ResolutionQualityFramerate (average)
7680x2160Dynamic resolution scale, 120 fps target = 58% scale120
Native46
6144x2160Native58
5120x2160Native65
3840x2160Native88

Doom Eternal

Spaceship hub level, on top of stairs facing the main bridge (mission select etc)

ResolutionQualityFramerate (average)
7680x2160DLSS Quality135
DLSS Balanced144
Native110
6144x2160DLSS Quality150
Native126
5120x2160DLSS Quality169
Native145
3840x2160DLSS Quality224
Native185

So with a 4090, gaming at 7680x2160 is totally viable! Sure, it's not 200+ fps but even super heavy games like the Witcher 3 next gen can be made at least playable and this was without dropping any details. Realistically, more modern games would be run at 6144x2160 or 5120x2160 to minimize FOV distortion issues of the super ultrawide form factor.
God damn, thanks for the thorough testing!
 
Hard to tell how far away they were sitting in the IGN video where they were playing a racing game.

The problem for me is the farther away you sit with ultrawides vs the width, the shorter they get. More aggressive curves would be better for shorter screens imo.


kpSvZbc.png
 
Did they fix the HDR tone mapping that has plagued the Odyssey line up?

Have a Neo G9 49 inch and the HDR pales in comparison to my Asus 32UCG despite claiming to have *2000 nit peak* and a further 900 dimming zones.

The monitor division of Samsung has kinda overall done a pretty poor job tuning the entire G9 line. So I would personally be more interested in the OLED G9 coming up simply because it's harder to screw up :LOL:
 
Last edited:
My biggest gripes with ultrawides were:

. . the vertical resolution
. . the physical height being only ~ 13"
. . the radius/focal point of the curve vs the size of the screen.

The curve could be a lot more aggressive considering that the radius of 1000R is ~ 40". 800R would be 31.5". At the focal point of a curve a curved screen would have less distortion and off axis pixels. At 40" view distance on a 32" screen the height is very narrow and belt-like to me so I probably wouldn't ever use one of these like that and would just have to live with some more distortion rather than make a belt like height to my perspective. I think a 19" to 20" tall screen would be better in this case at 1000R, or instead a 700R to 800R curve at this height - but it is what it is.
I think they are already curving these things to their limit for what the manufacturing allows. 800R curves will be coming with similar OLED versions eventually, though it's weird the OLED G9 is just 1500R when 1000R is better for the form factor.

For me the vertical height is not much of a problem. I find that about 1600 pixels vertical resolution is as much as is useful at 100% scaling and above that it's just increasingly diminishing returns as the height becomes more of a problem. But I am also the type who hides taskbar because I would rather claim that space for more window.

It was mainly the height of the LG CX 48" that was a problem for me as it was more comfortable working in its bottom 2/3rds even with 1m viewing distance. The height of a 32" 16:9 display for the G95NC should be pretty spot on for me.

Considering all of that, sitting at the 60 to 50 degree viewing angle of the central 32" screen portion of the G85NC, the +1920 pixel wide "wings" of the screen on each end would be outside of your focal view which means you'd be on the center line at a tennis match so to speak. In action games and vs reading huds, notifications, points, etc. there'd be some ping ponging of your eyeballs in that scenario. So there is some tradeoff there. Especially more Immersive for racing and flying games though, and like I think kasakka said - you could optionally run a game in a middle-ish resolution when you wanted to rather than full width when desired and still be at 4k or higher rez. That and getting the full desktop real-estate outside of games.
Yeah the full resolution - even if we ignore the performance implications - is often not that great for gaming. It mostly works in cockpit type games and for everything else the FOV distortion can become jarring or feel like you are rendering pixels that are mainly just stretched rather than contributing to the visuals. Control is still the only game I've played that seems to handle this properly without distortion or reduction of vertical resolution. Instead something like 3840x1440 for the 5120x1440 model worked pretty great - still wide, but minimized FOV distortion with extra performance. That would be I think something like 6K x 2K for the G95NC.

I love the form factor for desktop use though because you can fit 3-4 windows side by side comfortably. For work I ran my CRG9 mostly in Picture by Picture mode setup for 21:9 + 11:9 displays. I did this mainly because I got another set of virtual desktops this way and the Mac I had then was a bit of a turd for external display handling so running as two displays worked better.

With no 40" 5120x2160 @ high refresh rate options in sight, this seems like a good compromise if you want everything but OLED.
 
God damn, thanks for the thorough testing!

Yeah that is an awesome reply.

Idk if you could run that rez on a single screen numbers wise, downsampled to the screen's rez to get similar testing or not. Wouldn't look great to play on but might work for testing purposes vs gpu horsepower. Like how you can run 8k rez downsampled to 4k for example.

I think they are already curving these things to their limit for what the manufacturing allows. 800R curves will be coming with similar OLED versions eventually, though it's weird the OLED G9 is just 1500R when 1000R is better for the form factor.

For me the vertical height is not much of a problem. I find that about 1600 pixels vertical resolution is as much as is useful at 100% scaling and above that it's just increasingly diminishing returns as the height becomes more of a problem. But I am also the type who hides taskbar because I would rather claim that space for more window.

It was mainly the height of the LG CX 48" that was a problem for me as it was more comfortable working in its bottom 2/3rds even with 1m viewing distance. The height of a 32" 16:9 display for the G95NC should be pretty spot on for me.


Yeah the full resolution - even if we ignore the performance implications - is often not that great for gaming. It mostly works in cockpit type games and for everything else the FOV distortion can become jarring or feel like you are rendering pixels that are mainly just stretched rather than contributing to the visuals. Control is still the only game I've played that seems to handle this properly without distortion or reduction of vertical resolution. Instead something like 3840x1440 for the 5120x1440 model worked pretty great - still wide, but minimized FOV distortion with extra performance. That would be I think something like 6K x 2K for the G95NC.

I love the form factor for desktop use though because you can fit 3-4 windows side by side comfortably. For work I ran my CRG9 mostly in Picture by Picture mode setup for 21:9 + 11:9 displays. I did this mainly because I got another set of virtual desktops this way and the Mac I had then was a bit of a turd for external display handling so running as two displays worked better.

With no 40" 5120x2160 @ high refresh rate options in sight, this seems like a good compromise if you want everything but OLED.


Agree on less bezels for desktop use for sure.

This screen addresses the vertical desktop real estate height more than enough.

The distortion however will be worse when you aren't sitting at the focal point of the curve (the curve's radius as view distance). If you sit at the focal point of the curve, all of the pixels would be on axis pointed directly at you. If you think of every pixel as a tiny laser pointer in a room with a fog machine - you'd be seeing all of the points of light on the screen surface. The nearer you sat, the more you'd start seeing the beams of the lasers sidelong rather than the just the points of light since they would be aimed at a point behind you.

Since with a 1000mm curve that focal point is at 40" distance, it would make the height of the screen pretty short to your perspective, too short at least to my tastes. So instead sitting at a distance where the central 32" 16:9 worth of screen space would get 60 to 50 degree viewing angle you'd be at 24" to 30" view distance. The screen height would be suitably tall at those distances but you'll get more distortion from being out of sync with the focus of the curve, and maybe some off axis viewing of the far sides uniformity depending on the panel type. At 800R it would be around 32" focal point so would be less distant from where you'd sit at a desk.

It still sounds like a great monitor and with a very healthy resolution and PPD but it still has that one facet that could be better.
 
Latest on OLED G9 and Neo G9 57" availability from Samsung:

The new 2023 Odyssey models will be available in 2H in 57-inch Odyssey Neo G9 and the 49-inch Odyssey OLED G9, providing superb picture quality and user experience.

So I guess earliest in August, but would not be surprised if they slip to Q4.
 
Latest on OLED G9 and Neo G9 57" availability from Samsung:

The new 2023 Odyssey models will be available in 2H in 57-inch Odyssey Neo G9 and the 49-inch Odyssey OLED G9, providing superb picture quality and user experience.

So I guess earliest in August, but would not be surprised if they slip to Q4.
Yup - toward the end of the year has been my guess.
 
Longer out but nice to see there will be some advancement and options later on the oled front:

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1681202930

Here's what LG Display is reportedly planning:
  • 34" ultrawide curved OLED with 3440x1440 and 240Hz – production start planned for Q1 2024
  • 39" ultrawide bendable OLED with 3440x1440 and 240Hz – production start planned for Q1 2024
  • 31.5" OLED with 4K (16:9) and 240Hz (+ 480Hz 1080p support) – production start planned for Q3 2024
  • 42" OLED with 4K (16:9) and 240Hz – production start planned for Q3 2024
  • 27" OLED with 1440p (16:9) and 480Hz – production start planned for Q3 2024
  • 45" ultrawide OLED with 5120x2160 and 165Hz – production start planned for Q1 2025
  • 27" OLED with 4K (16:9) and 240Hz – under consideration


    Here's what Samsung Display is reportedly planning (no details on production start):
  • 31.5" OLED with 4K (16:9) and 240Hz
  • 27" OLED with 4K (16:9) and 240Hz
  • 27" OLED with 1440p (16:9) and 360Hz
  • 34" ultrawide OLED with 3440x1440 and 240Hz

More details:

Besides the step up in resolution and refresh rates, LG Display is hoping to increase OLED brightness for monitors to around 1300 nits for peak brightness and 275 nits in fullscreen, according to the report.

Most of these panels are obviously intended for gaming but a 27 or 32-inch 4K OLED panel could also work as a general purpose OLED monitor or even a small-sized TV in case of the 32-inch version.

Another interesting development is the 31.5-inch OLED panel with 4K and 240Hz refresh rate from LG Display that also has an option to run 480Hz at 1080p, with so-called DFR (Dynamic Frequency and Resolution) technology. This could put it ahead of the fastest LCD monitors out there due to OLED's superior response time.

It is worth noting that it may take additional time from the start of production until monitor products arrive on the consumer market.


Q1 2024 31.5" OLED with 4K (16:9) and 240Hz

Q3 2024 45" ultrawide OLED with 5120x2160 and 165Hz

Those two sound interesting.
As much as I love OLED I'm going to keep an eye on this 1000R curved, 1000nit FALD 57" diagonal "half 8k" samsung in this thread that might come out by the end of the year. It's like two 32" 4k screens side by side on the 1000R curve. 240Hz, dp 2.1

. . .

1/4 + [36" 4k] + 1/4

45" 21:9 5120x2160 ultrawide

Around 17.5" tall. That is around the same height as a 36" 16:9 screen, (with another 1/2 of a 16:9 screen split into 1/4's and added to each side of the 4k screen space sort-of).

A 36" 16:9 screen gets a 60 deg viewing angle at around 27" view distance, and gets a 50 deg viewing angle at around 34" view distance. 1000R curve (if that's what this screen ends up with) is around 39.5" view distance ~ 40". So if you sit at what would be a 60deg viewing angle on a 36" 16:9 you'd get the typical height you'd expect of a 36" screen at a desk but the pixels would be aimed at a point 6" behind you. You could sit back a little farther but the height would shrink to your perspective a bit.

. . .

1/2 + [32" 4k] + 1/2

57" 32:9, 7680x2160 super ultrawide FALD

Around 15.4" tall. That is the same height as a 32" 16:9 screen, (2 wide in this case, or like splitting another 4k screen in half and adding one of those halves to each side of the 4k screen sort-of).

A 32" 16:9 screen gets a 60 deg viewing angle at around 24" view distance, and gets a 50 deg viewing angle at around 30" view distance. 1000R curve is around 39.5" view distance ~ 40". So if you are sitting at where you'd perceptually have what a 32" 16:9 screen's height would normally be at a desk, the pixels/curvature would be aimed at or focused on a point conisderably behind you, 16" farther behind you if you sat a the 16:9's 60 deg point. You could sit a little farther away but the farther away you sit, the shorter the screen will appear to you too so there are some limitations due to the curve radius imo. If you sat at the ~ 40" focal point of the curve it would be like sitting that far away from a 32" screen so it wouldn't really be viable that way imo as it would look shorter and belt-like.

. .

Long story short (pun?) - the 45" 21:9 screen when viewed at 16:9, 60 deg point and resulting perceived screen height is within 6" of a 1000R curve's focal point, while the 57" 32:9 super ultrawide screen is 16" away from it's 1000R focal point in the same scenario.

. . .

So there is some tradeoff there with greater desktop real-estate width of two full 4k resolutions essentially but on 1000nit FALD and 15.4" tall vs. the 45" 21:9 oled being 17.5" tall.
32" and ~ 36" 4k screens are pretty much perfect size for a desk normally but these screens are curved (and much wider). The curve complicates the view distance vs screen size.

The 57" FALD one due out could stand to be a little taller vs the curve imo, like most curved screens vs their curves. 1000R = 1000mm radium = around 40" focal point of the curve. So unless it was a larger screen, it would have been better at 800R (31.5" radius/focal point) really so you could sit at the focal point without making the screen look too short like it would be at 40".

You can sit closer of course, they have the PPD to spare but when you sit closer than the focal point of the curve the curve distorts things since the pixels are instead pointing at a location behind you rather than where you are sitting.

The solid blue is the 1000R viewpoint, the transparent field is when sitting nearer. There is some wiggle room like the first example but the 2nd example is poor imo.

0UhdIIr.png


q03mqmG.png




I'd normally lean toward the taller of the two screens I'm discussing as I find the height of ultrawides low since most of them aren't curved enough to sit close enough optimally vs the focal point of the curve. However the greatly increased desktop real estate on the 57" one is a huge increase. The 45" one's 5120 rez width would be slightly easier to run gpu wise but you could run similarly narrower than full super ultrawide resolutions on the 2x 4k wide one, or even a 4k rez in the middle depending on the game at times yet still get all of that desktop real estate. Still I'd prefer if the 57" was 17.5" height at a 1000R curve, or that it used a more aggressive curve like 800R (31" radius/focal point).

The 57" one is probably going to be out by xmas 2023 while the 45" oled according to that is Q3 2024 (so prob even farther away than that, the 57" one was originally slated earlier too).
Still good to see they are developing better, faster oleds. Hopefully they will use phosphorescent blue oleds and ai wear monitoring so that they can go brighter in hdr by then as well. The 2024 - 2025 OLED gaming tvs will have that, plus maybe micro lens arrays in the lg ones. They did say:

LG Display is hoping to increase OLED brightness for monitors to around 1300 nits for peak brightness and 275 nits in fullscreen, according to the report.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top