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

This might be the best actual review of this monitor that I have seen, released a week ago

https://tweakers-net.translate.goog...tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

(In Dutch so linked to Google Translate).

Especially the parts about response times is interesting, where Rtings just said something like them being excellent or similar from what I can remember. I often find that Rtings reviews seem to have a lot of "fake details" and not really as thorough as they might seem to be.
 
Last edited:
improwise said:
This might be the best actual review of this monitor that I have seen, released a week ago

https://tweakers-net.translate.goog...tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

(In Dutch so linked to Google Translate).

Especially the parts about response times is interesting, where Rtings just said something like them being excellent or similar from what I can remember. I often find that Rtings reviews seem to have a lot of "fake details" and not really as thorough as they might seem to be.
Click to expand...
Their findings are basically in line with Rtings. The panel is capable of being almost as fast as the Neo G8 but Samsung smartly decided to sacrifice overall response time to prevent overshoot which is really bad on the 49 and visible in certain scenarios on the Neo G8.

EDIT: The power consumption measurements are very interesting. At both 150nits and maximum brightness its basically on par with a Neo G8 while having essentially 2x the screen area. No wonder the Neo G8 is handicapped to such low full field brightness because it would cook the display otherwise being so inefficient.
 
Last edited:
SoCali said:
Their findings are basically in line with Rtings. The panel is capable of being almost as fast as the Neo G8 but Samsung smartly decided to sacrifice overall response time to prevent overshoot which is really bad on the 49 and visible in certain scenarios on the Neo G8.

EDIT: The power consumption measurements are very interesting. At both 150nits and maximum brightness its basically on par with a Neo G8 while having essentially 2x the screen area. No wonder the Neo G8 is handicapped to such low full field brightness because it would cook the display otherwise being so inefficient.
Click to expand...
What I feel is missing often in Rtings reviews are context. Like for the GN95NC, "The response time at the max refresh rate of 240Hz is fantastic." Compared with what, an office monitor? Probably every OLED ever made has better response times and probably some LCDs as well. Now, that does not necessarily make the response times bad as they are probably quite good but "fantastic"? If you know how to read the attached numbers, you can probably draw your own conclusions but still, I find they could do a better job of explaining their findings.

I agree about energy consumption is interesting, if now for the fact that all that heat has to come from somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Well its a done deal. Shipped out the 32" MSI to my friend and his 57" will arrive tomorrow. Really excited to get back to a 1 monitor solution that doesn't require baby sitting. I'll dump this when the next best thing comes along in a year or two (or if 75% of my use case is no longer productivity/work from home).
 
SoCali said:
Well its a done deal. Shipped out the 32" MSI to my friend and his 57" will arrive tomorrow. Really excited to get back to a 1 monitor solution that doesn't require baby sitting. I'll dump this when the next best thing comes along in a year or two (or if 75% of my use case is no longer productivity/work from home).
Click to expand...
Does any modern OLED really require baby sitting though? My main concern about OLEDs is still the lack of brightness more than anything and text quality (something that seems to be maybe a thing of the past now).
 
improwise said:
Does any modern OLED really require baby sitting though? My main concern about OLEDs is still the lack of brightness more than anything and text quality (something that seems to be maybe a thing of the past now).
Click to expand...
Probably not but I like to take care of my stuff so its just a mental/paranoia thing for me.
 
1709854662254.png
 
Yeah I'm enjoying this way more than the 32" OLED. Going down to 120hz sucks but that can be remedied with a 5090 late this year.

I was hoping the 1005.3 firmware would fix HDR on the desktop but it still looks like trash like every Samsung monitor but switching it on/off isn't a big deal.

Before I did the registry edit to add 5120x2160 but this time around it was just a couple clicks using the Scaled Resolution Utility.
 
SoCali said:
Before I did the registry edit to add 5120x2160 but this time around it was just a couple clicks using the Scaled Resolution Utility.
Click to expand...
Can you try adding something like 6144x2160?

With the Samsung CRG9 I found that 3840x1440 was a good sweet spot where you don't get most of the FOV distortion in games but gain some performance while still having a wider than 21:9 view.
 
SoCali said:
Scaled Resolution Utility
Click to expand...
Are you refering to the Scaled Resolution Editor?

https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=9691

As you probably know already you can do still emulate a 240hz 32" on this monitor.

Did you actually compare it side by side with a 32" OLED and then decided to return the OLED? Probably quite a few people pondering this question at the moment which one to get, in my case mostly due to the lack of brightness on OLEDs but the choice in reality isn't that simple....
 
Are there still no real alternatives to the Neo G9 57"? I recall that Asus releases something similar, or at least is supposed to, but if I recall correctly it was only 120 hz. Maybe the new 40" Dell could be seen as an alternative if the usage is mostly or only productivity (in which case it is probably all in all a better option).
 
improwise said:
Are you refering to the Scaled Resolution Editor?

https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=9691

As you probably know already you can do still emulate a 240hz 32" on this monitor.

Did you actually compare it side by side with a 32" OLED and then decided to return the OLED? Probably quite a few people pondering this question at the moment which one to get, in my case mostly due to the lack of brightness on OLEDs but the choice in reality isn't that simple....
Click to expand...
He traded his oled to a buddyman...essentially got the 57 for 1k which is a no brainer.
 
improwise said:
Are there still no real alternatives to the Neo G9 57"? I recall that Asus releases something similar, or at least is supposed to, but if I recall correctly it was only 120 hz. Maybe the new 40" Dell could be seen as an alternative if the usage is mostly or only productivity (in which case it is probably all in all a better option).
Click to expand...

The 57" Samsung has 50% more real estate than the 40" Dell, so it's significantly better for productivity, although the 40" Dell is very good too.
 
Bigmonitorguy said:
The 57" Samsung has 50% more real estate than the 40" Dell, so it's significantly better for productivity, although the 40" Dell is very good too.
Click to expand...
Well, at least assuming you can actually use all the available screen area, something that I personally found wasn't really the case unless you pushed the monitor a bit back due to viewing angles (both limitations of the panel and the rather extreme viewing angles to the edges of the screen). Which would then most likely require you to enable scaling which would then mean that the actual screen area decreased. To me, I found the 57" to be more of a 5k2k monitor for productivity unless I pushed it back so much that I had to enable scaling. But that is of course dependent on many factors, personal preference, workflow etc.
 
Last edited:
improwise said:
Well, at least assuming you can actually use all the available screen area, something that I personally found wasn't really the case unless you pushed the monitor a bit back due to viewing angles (both limitations of the panel and the rather extreme viewing angles to the edges of the screen). Which would then most likely require you to enable scaling which would then mean that the actual screen area decreased. To me, I found the 57" to be more of a 5k2k monitor for productivity unless I pushed it back so much that I had to enable scaling. But that is of course dependent on many factors, personal preference, workflow etc.
Click to expand...

I use it at the same distance as other monitors - haven't noticed a need to push it back. No issues with the edges for me. I have to turn my head, but that's fine - I have to turn my head with the 40" Dell as well, just less.
 
improwise said:
Are you refering to the Scaled Resolution Editor?

https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=9691

As you probably know already you can do still emulate a 240hz 32" on this monitor.

Did you actually compare it side by side with a 32" OLED and then decided to return the OLED? Probably quite a few people pondering this question at the moment which one to get, in my case mostly due to the lack of brightness on OLEDs but the choice in reality isn't that simple....
Click to expand...
Yeah sorry, meant SRE. How are you getting 240hz @ 4K with it?

As l88bastard mentioned, I traded the MSI (and kept the $100 steam codes lol) for the 57" with my friend because our uses cases are literally opposites. He just games all day and I work all day. We basically cross shipped to each other so no chance to compare but what started the desire to switch was comparing the 32" MSI with my PG32UQX. I just didn't like the HDR performance of QD-OLED compared to mini led especially now that RTX HDR exists. I already had 1 really crappy QC 57" around launch but sent it back so I knew it was like 75% as good as the PG32UQX in HDR but way cleaner in motion and in an amazing form factor for my use case.

Basically its just a far better jack of all trades for me.

EDIT: TCL and Acer both have alternatives but the Acer for whatever reason has a lower zone count + is limited to 120hz. Looks like its using their own backlight instead of what I assume is the OEM TCL one supplied with the panel like the Samsung.

https://www.acer.com/us-en/predator/monitors/z57-miniled
 
Last edited:
improwise said:
Well, at least assuming you can actually use all the available screen area, something that I personally found wasn't really the case unless you pushed the monitor a bit back due to viewing angles (both limitations of the panel and the rather extreme viewing angles to the edges of the screen). Which would then most likely require you to enable scaling which would then mean that the actual screen area decreased. To me, I found the 57" to be more of a 5k2k monitor for productivity unless I pushed it back so much that I had to enable scaling. But that is of course dependent on many factors, personal preference, workflow etc.
Click to expand...
IMO any 4K+ res display that is smaller than about the equivalent of 36" 16:9 is going to need scaling to be practical for desktop use. I like to keep my monitors fairly close, currently at slightly over an arm's length away (and I have long arms).

Checking the G95NC at a store, I'd run the display at 125% scaling in Windows. That's 6144x1728 desktop space. By comparison, I run my 28" dual 4K monitor setup at 150% for 5120x1440 desktop space.

On the 40" Dell you'd probably run 125% (4096x1728) or 150% (3413x1440). So that's a good chunk less even at 125%, but obviously could work well as a multimonitor setup. The Dell is overpriced for its specs, but when we get more 5120x2160 options I could see myself running one of those + a smaller 4K display.

My favorite option on these superultrawides for desktop use is using the PbP mode and running 21:9 + 11:9 screens and heavily utilizing virtual desktops. That 11:9 section works great for secondary things like email/Slack/Teams/terminals etc stuff. I run my dual 4K monitor in a similar manner but wish one of them was ultrawide. The lack of bezels on the split superultrawide is real nice tho.
 
SoCali said:
Yeah sorry, meant SRE. How are you getting 240hz @ 4K with it?

As l88bastard mentioned, I traded the MSI (and kept the $100 steam codes lol) for the 57" with my friend because our uses cases are literally opposites. He just games all day and I work all day. We basically cross shipped to each other so no chance to compare but what started the desire to switch was comparing the 32" MSI with my PG32UQX. I just didn't like the HDR performance of QD-OLED compared to mini led especially now that RTX HDR exists. I already had 1 really crappy QC 57" around launch but sent it back so I knew it was like 75% as good as the PG32UQX in HDR but way cleaner in motion and in an amazing form factor for my use case.

Basically its just a far better jack of all trades for me.

EDIT: TCL and Acer both have alternatives but the Acer for whatever reason has a lower zone count + is limited to 120hz. Looks like its using their own backlight instead of what I assume is the OEM TCL one supplied with the panel like the Samsung.

https://www.acer.com/us-en/predator/monitors/z57-miniled
Click to expand...
Don't recall if the PG32UQX is VA (I think it is), does it have the same drawbacks with limited viewing angles and a somewhat grainy coating (not the worst, not the best)? Having owned the 57" for a while now, are the differences with the 32" 4K OLED the obvious ones or any findings that isn't what to be expected?
 
Last edited:
PG32UQX is Ips with semi-matte AG....basically not glossy and not matte..it has a nice AG.
 
I've been testing a bunch of newer games. Really surprised how well a 4090 is handling it. Even heavy stuff like Ratchet and Clank manages 80+ FPS maxed out with DLSS+RT and no framegen (20Gb+ VRAM usage).

After using it for a while, I think I prefer 120hz with this much more immersive aspect ratio vs 240hz 16:9. The fluidity and motion clarity of 240hz is great but I think the gain in FOV of 32:9 has far more impact especially considering the fact that I never really saw over 160FPS @ 4K in modern games. I created a bunch of lower aspect ratio resolutions for games where I would need the performance but I'm finding that I'll do whatever it takes to use the full 32:9 by lowering stuff like Volumetric quality or other settings that have huge performance penalities with little visual gain.

Armored Core on this monitor is an amazing experience. I'm still praying that we get an Nvidia driver fix to manage 240hz via HDMI 2.1.
 
SoCali said:
I've been testing a bunch of newer games. Really surprised how well a 4090 is handling it. Even heavy stuff like Ratchet and Clank manages 80+ FPS maxed out with DLSS+RT and no framegen (20Gb+ VRAM usage).

After using it for a while, I think I prefer 120hz with this much more immersive aspect ratio vs 240hz 16:9. The fluidity and motion clarity of 240hz is great but I think the gain in FOV of 32:9 has far more impact especially considering the fact that I never really saw over 160FPS @ 4K in modern games. I created a bunch of lower aspect ratio resolutions for games where I would need the performance but I'm finding that I'll do whatever it takes to use the full 32:9 by lowering stuff like Volumetric quality or other settings that have huge performance penalities with little visual gain.

Armored Core on this monitor is an amazing experience. I'm still praying that we get an Nvidia driver fix to manage 240hz via HDMI 2.1.
Click to expand...
To me the 32:9 FOV distortion is just really annoying and nearly every game has it. First person shooters especially just feel bad because I feel like there's a major fish lens effect. 3rd person, flying and driving games fare much better.

But the full aspect ratio is hard to beat for productivity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
SoCali said:
I've been testing a bunch of newer games. Really surprised how well a 4090 is handling it. Even heavy stuff like Ratchet and Clank manages 80+ FPS maxed out with DLSS+RT and no framegen (20Gb+ VRAM usage).

After using it for a while, I think I prefer 120hz with this much more immersive aspect ratio vs 240hz 16:9. The fluidity and motion clarity of 240hz is great but I think the gain in FOV of 32:9 has far more impact especially considering the fact that I never really saw over 160FPS @ 4K in modern games. I created a bunch of lower aspect ratio resolutions for games where I would need the performance but I'm finding that I'll do whatever it takes to use the full 32:9 by lowering stuff like Volumetric quality or other settings that have huge performance penalities with little visual gain.

Armored Core on this monitor is an amazing experience. I'm still praying that we get an Nvidia driver fix to manage 240hz via HDMI 2.1.
Click to expand...
1710017469522.png
 
kasakka said:
To me the 32:9 FOV distortion is just really annoying and nearly every game has it. First person shooters especially just feel bad because I feel like there's a major fish lens effect. 3rd person, flying and driving games fare much better.

But the full aspect ratio is hard to beat for productivity.
Click to expand...
I don't think its that bad especially if you slightly adjust the FOV where the distortion gets minimized to the very far edges. Most of the games I currently have installed do not have any distortion at all out the box.
 
haha yea ive been tempted....I had the G8 neo and didn't hate it, but its curve was absurd on a 16:9...I imagine two of those fused without the bezel and a logical formfactor for the curve would be nice.

I had the old G9 49" VA but returned it within the return window due to 1440pee

I think $1499 would be my impulse buy price and greatly lesson buyers remorse when the new stuff comes out next year.

Plus im limited on desk space, if I got the 57 some other displays would have to go....and id probably miss the double stack Mini Leds and id also miss the oled 240.....pffffffff.....looks over at table to the right of desk....hmmmmmm
 
Last edited:
You don't have access to EPP or your kids .edu? It's $1397 right now and you can knock off another $100ish by asking CS for a promo code. Rakuten also gives you 3% cash back ($35).

At $1999 or $2500 the monitor makes 0 sense but just over $1000 is compelling.

My friend transferred his BB Geek squad warranty which is why I jumped on it.
 
I've been out of college 22 years so no edu discount...I never served my country unless you count those drunken couple months in college I worked as a stripper grinding on fatties for dollars....so only discount is the $100 promo code...

Sigh....I just ordered the stupid thing 😆
 

Attachments

  • 20240309_231543.jpg
    20240309_231543.jpg
    297.1 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Its $1310 now with edu/epp now. I got CS to add the promo making it $1200 which is where it should be (2x Neo G8's).
 
Is it safe to assume that the 57" is basically two Neo G8 panels in the same chassis, with the same panel, coating etc? It would seem reasonable based on specs but I have never seen either the Neo G7 nor G8 IRL.
 
improwise said:
Is it safe to assume that the 57" is basically two Neo G8 panels in the same chassis, with the same panel, coating etc? It would seem reasonable based on specs but I have never seen either the Neo G7 nor G8 IRL.
Click to expand...

No, the 57" has a better panel. I have both the Neo G8 and the 57" Neo G9.
 
Bigmonitorguy said:
No, the 57" has a better panel. I have both the Neo G8 and the 57" Neo G9.
Click to expand...
In what regard? Not saying your are wrong but based on number of dimming zones etc, it seems like the 57" is quite similar to a "double G8". Never seen the Neo G8 IRL though.
 
improwise said:
In what regard? Not saying your are wrong but based on number of dimming zones etc, it seems like the 57" is quite similar to a "double G8". Never seen the Neo G8 IRL though.
Click to expand...

Better viewing angles (still not great, but better). Better HDR image quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top