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

-snoopi- said:
Are you talking about the 57"
If yes, I totally agree! HFW with a bit of reshade tweaking looks bloody gorgeous on my 57".

I went and looked at my friends new 49" Oled G9, and I could not believe how crap (besides the shadows in caves) it looked compared to this 57" NG9. To me, Oled isn't everything anymore. I use to be a massive oled fan boy. But, now the tables have turned quick.
View attachment 645398
Click to expand...
Your friend should properly calibrate their monitor.
 
Shoganai said:
Your friend should properly calibrate their monitor.
Click to expand...
Yea that could be the issue.

But the overall extremely low brightness levels, just did not look anywhere near vibrant in large tropical scenery areas in HFW, compared to the 57" NG9.
 
-snoopi- said:
Yea that could be the issue.

But the overall extremely low brightness levels, just did not look anywhere near vibrant in large tropical scenery areas in HFW, compared to the 57" NG9.
Click to expand...
I will agree there. I usually game on my 75" Samsung Neo QLED with its 2,000 nits of brightness and HFW looks so real I feel like I could jump through my screen into the game.
 
Hello! I’m stuck deciding between this 57” monitor vs the NON OLED 49” G9. I tried the 49” OLED but I think the 1800R curvature kills the immersion the 1000R of the mini led 49” provides. Now, I haven’t seen the 57” in real life. My fear is that I don’t know if because of its bigger size vs the 1000R 49” the sense of immersion will be nots as good as with the 49” because I would need to be more far away from the monitor. I want the best immersion experience. Up until now I think the 49” 1000R provides the best immersion of all (much more than my 800R 45” monitor) but because of my goal of having the most immersive monitor I really would like to know if going the 57” way will provide that or on the contrary, it will diminish the immersion actually. Thank you very much!!
 
You have no choice! 57 is like a giant Michael Duncan Green mile cellie in your ass!!!
 
Fun aside guys, being that this is the most reliable forum I know, does the 57” really provides a much better immersion than the 49” 1000R monitor? I intend to use this monitor only for gaming. The best VRR experience I could get out of a monitor is what I want. I saw the 49” 1000R and I found the immersion experience to be outstanding.
 
Yes the extra height makes a huge difference. The width not so much because unless you can place it really far away, it can be too wide to be useful.
 
The 57s great! My favorite display for work productivity and gaming.

I went all in, got a 7900xtx and dumped my 4090 / 4k240 oled

That 49s got a weak curve, weak resolution and dim oled.
 
l88bastard said:
The 57s great! My favorite display for work productivity and gaming.

I went all in, got a 7900xtx and dumped my 4090 / 4k240 oled

That 49s got a weak curve, weak resolution and dim oled.
Click to expand...
Which 4K 240hz OLED did you have and apparently already dumped in favor of this?
 
Man...I absolutely adore this 57! Just played a round of Battlefield 4 @ native res 200hz (highest game will go)....and OLEE CHIT, I need a cigarette now and I dont even smoke! PTSD hitting me haaaaard!

1712526580854.png
 
I still use on my PC a RX 6900XT video card. I'll be updating my card whenever the 5090 or 4090+ or whatever equivalent comes. Likewise, I have no problem playing games with my current 4K monitor, but I have a question: Being that I'm still deciding between this 57" monitor and the Neo G9 49" (non OLED) monitor and because my current GPU won't handle gaming in the 57" native resolution, would the DOWNSCALE in the 57" to, say, 1440p or 1080p degrade the image that much that I would be better off buying the 49" version and play at its native resolution? Or the down scaling in the 57" would be unnoticeable and look exactly like it was a 1440p native resolution? Thank you very much.
 
insoc123 said:
I still use on my PC a RX 6900XT video card. I'll be updating my card whenever the 5090 or 4090+ or whatever equivalent comes. Likewise, I have no problem playing games with my current 4K monitor, but I have a question: Being that I'm still deciding between this 57" monitor and the Neo G9 49" (non OLED) monitor and because my current GPU won't handle gaming in the 57" native resolution, would the DOWNSCALE in the 57" to, say, 1440p or 1080p degrade the image that much that I would be better off buying the 49" version and play at its native resolution? Or the down scaling in the 57" would be unnoticeable and look exactly like it was a 1440p native resolution? Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
You could just keep running games in 3840x2160, or add a custom resolution for 5120x2160. Since most games support FSR these days you could use that, even if it has a pile of issues but it might still be a better option than dropping the resolution.
 
I just bought the 57 odyssey from Samsung through the Edu program replacing my triple 32 del curved monitors. So far I like the monitor except the HDR. I can't get it to work on pc games that it supported. I tried Forza 5 but says doesn't supported. I connected with dp 1.4 with a 4090 card. I can enable it manual, but the colors are washed out. when I enable it manual and go to the game Forza says still not support it. flight simulator in the other hand is working but you have manual every time to enable from windows and to the game. I thought games supports auto HDR. Any trick for auto HDR? Also any good settings for the picture? I have it on game standard with 30 /50 brightness contrast and location dimming high but in my eyes local dimming off is better.
 
Can this monitor run standard 4K 3840x2160 at 240 Hz with a 4090 and no frame skipping? I know full resolution is max 120 Hz with the 4090.
 
jacuzz1 said:
OMG, I had that monitor, I hurt my back getting it into my buddies car when i gave it away. Had I known,,,,,
Click to expand...

I carried it myself across living room, out front door and down 3 concrete steps and over to my truck when I got rid of it. It was a bear for sure, almost 200 lbs. and most of that was front-heavy, plus just unwieldy bulk wise.

When I had a PS3 I couldn't even play the quickdraw gunslinger games on my LCD tv, the input lag was so bad even after "calibrating" in the ps3 game's menu. The crosshairs in gun games would lag behind badly too. Playing PS3 move stuff sort of like vr-ish. I connected it to that CRT and it was dead on. TV tech has come a long way since then though, especially modern gaming tvs.

I also carried an old, large, glass 16:9 tv out of my parent's basement storage just last year that was pretty heavy. Fishbowl style big screen. Like 50" or 60" 16:9 I think. :inpain:
 
Vega said:
Can this monitor run standard 4K 3840x2160 at 240 Hz with a 4090 and no frame skipping? I know full resolution is max 120 Hz with the 4090.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it's goofy. With a 4090 to get 4K/240 you need to set the OSD to 240hz which drops the monitors native res to 60hz so you'd have to switch the monitor back to 120hz in its OSD to unlock 7680x2160/120 again.

For me the OSD dance wasn't worth the hassle so I never used 4K/240.
 
elvn said:
I carried it myself across living room, out front door and down 3 concrete steps and over to my truck when I got rid of it. It was a bear for sure, almost 200 lbs. and most of that was front-heavy, plus just unwieldy bulk wise.

When I had a PS3 I couldn't even play the quickdraw gunslinger games on my LCD tv, the input lag was so bad even after "calibrating" in the ps3 game's menu. The crosshairs in gun games would lag behind badly too. Playing PS3 move stuff sort of like vr-ish. I connected it to that CRT and it was dead on. TV tech has come a long way since then though, especially modern gaming tvs.

I also carried an old, large, glass 16:9 tv out of my parent's basement storage just last year that was pretty heavy. Fishbowl style big screen. Like 50" or 60" 16:9 I think. :inpain:
Click to expand...
It was one sweet monitor. The horizontal wires disappeared to my eyes after a bit. Playing Quake using a 3DFX on this looked real 3D. It was awesome. Back to the thread, I have an edu address. Are you telling me that I can buy this thing for 1300 dollars? Don't get me wrong, I love my OLED but I am not so sure that I would not have gone this route at the same price.
 
jacuzz1 said:
It was one sweet monitor. The horizontal wires disappeared to my eyes after a bit. Playing Quake using a 3DFX on this looked real 3D. It was awesome. Back to the thread, I have an edu address. Are you telling me that I can buy this thing for 1300 dollars? Don't get me wrong, I love my OLED but I am not so sure that I would not have gone this route at the same price.
Click to expand...

Oh I thought you meant the TV .. yeah the monitor was almost 100 lbs too lol, and similarly awkwardly front heavy to the screen side. I went through a few fw900's. Always take your belt off when lifting heavy screens like those.. belt buckle is bad mojo. Sweat pants or joggers all the way for screen movement operations now.
 
Last edited:
It is the only Ultra wide monitor that I know of that appears to match mine for vertical height. Dang. Well 3 or 4 year from now , I will once gain be in the hunt, perhaps by then we will have OLED in this size, the brightness to match and video cards/ cables to drive them at 240 and above.
 
Played some classic halo MCC (H3 & H2A) matched with a 7900xt and wow this is so much fun...smooth 240hz native resolution!

If your a classic halo fan....paired with this 57 is feels like a super awesome immersive arcade game!

This 57 at native res + 240hz really is a super awesome and unique experience.

No scan lines and no ABL! This thing is so fun :)
 
SoCali said:
I'm going to need you to stop having so much fun.
Click to expand...
lol....I have 4090 in main rig.....and 7900xt in work prod rig....this fiddy sevens caused me to send the 7900xt back and step up my game to a 7900xtx nitro....but work prod rig has an 8700k lol....now im gonna have to upgrade the processor and ram in that pc haha shoot me now!
 
insoc123 said:
Hello! I’m stuck deciding between this 57” monitor vs the NON OLED 49” G9. I tried the 49” OLED but I think the 1800R curvature kills the immersion the 1000R of the mini led 49” provides. Now, I haven’t seen the 57” in real life. My fear is that I don’t know if because of its bigger size vs the 1000R 49” the sense of immersion will be nots as good as with the 49” because I would need to be more far away from the monitor. I want the best immersion experience. Up until now I think the 49” 1000R provides the best immersion of all (much more than my 800R 45” monitor) but because of my goal of having the most immersive monitor I really would like to know if going the 57” way will provide that or on the contrary, it will diminish the immersion actually. Thank you very much!!
Click to expand...

You want the most immersion and you are comparing the 49" vs the 57" NG9.

Ive used both extensively, and there is absolutely no contest against the 57" for immersion. Like another guy here said the 57" will immerse out of your butt because of its dual 32" 4K real estate!

No gaming display currently on the market would contest it in terms of immersion. Correct me if you think I am wrong.
 
l88bastard said:
lol....I have 4090 in main rig.....and 7900xt in work prod rig....this fiddy sevens caused me to send the 7900xt back and step up my game to a 7900xtx nitro....but work prod rig has an 8700k lol....now im gonna have to upgrade the processor and ram in that pc haha shoot me now!
Click to expand...
did you just happen to have nV and AMD cards on two different rigs, or did you choose them specifically for a reason? what would the xtx give you the 4090 cant?
 
aliaskary77 said:
did you just happen to have nV and AMD cards on two different rigs, or did you choose them specifically for a reason? what would the xtx give you the 4090 cant?
Click to expand...

I think he might have ordered a newer AMD gpu to test out on the G95NC for 7680x4320 at 240Hz (or "up to" 240fpsHz using VRR more like it).

While both hdmi 2.1's 41.x Gps ("48Gbps") with DSC 3x (3:1), and current Displayport 2.0~DP 2.1 implementation's 54 Gbps theoretical (though likely a bit lower) peak with DSC 3x (3:1) both have enough bandwidth to do 7860x4320 10bit 444/RGB at 240Hz, Nvidia did not allocate enough bandwidth per port in their 3000 - 4000 series gpus to allow for that. They also didn't allow for 8k screens over 60hz even though hdmi 2.1 could do 115hz - 120hz there too bandwidth wise.

Potentially, and hopefully, that will change with the 5000 series gpus.

. . .


from nvidia's 4090 page's spec sheet:
1 - Up to 4K 12-bit HDR at 240Hz with DP 1.4a + DSC or HDMI 2.1a + DSC. Up to 8K 12-bit HDR at 60Hz with DP 1.4a + DSC or HDMI 2.1a + DSC.

2 - As specified in HDMI 2.1a: up to 4K 240Hz or 8K 60Hz with DSC, Gaming VRR, HDR
Click to expand...

. . . .

From some of my other replies:

"NVIDIA's specs for the GeForce RTX 4090 list the maximum capabilities as "4 independent displays at 4K 120Hz using DP or HDMI, 2 independent displays at 4K 240Hz or 8K 60Hz with DSC using DP or HDMI." Could support be added as part of a driver update? That remains to be seen."
Click to expand...


Reddit user reply from a g95nc thread:

"I want to clarify how DSC works since I have yet to see anyone actually understand what is going on.
DSC uses display pipelines within the GPU silicon itself to compress the the image down. Ever notice how one or more display output ports will be disabled when using DSC at X resolution and Y frequency? That is because the GPU stealing those display lanes to process and compress the image.
So what does this mean? It means if the configuration, in silicon, does not allow for enough display output pipelines to to be used by a single output port, THAT is where the bottleneck occurs."

"Nividia's own spec notes that only 8k 60hz is feasible using DSC over HDMI 2.1 on their cards by disabling at least one port (it will just disable the one that isn't plugged in), so it's clear all the display pipelines are interconnected for use together. I suppose it may be possible to forcibly disable 2 ports to achieve a high enough internal bandwidth to deal with 240hz at 1/2 8k resolution, but again, that is also determined by the slicing and compression capabilities."
Click to expand...
 
ah, thanks elvn and l88bastard. Makes sense. Might have seen this after posting in some of the prior pages.
You can see the system I am still running in my sig. Every year I plan to do a big upgrade, and other priorities keep coming up. I just look here and drool at the setups....living vicariously though you all lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top