The C43J89 Is Samsung’s Latest Ultra-Wide Monitor

[Megalith]

Samsung’s newest monstrosity is a 43" 32:10 curved monitor suitable for both gamers and business workers: the C43J89 not only offers a 3000:1 contrast ratio and 120 Hz refresh rate, but also picture-in-picture, built-in KVM switch, and two USB Type-C ports. This display was actually introduced earlier this year, but increasing coverage would suggest that release is near.

The diagonal length of the 32:9, 49-inch curved screen is a whopping 124cm! The first thing we thought was, “Can we see everything on screen without turning our heads?” But our doubts vanished quickly once we sat in front of it. The usual procedure with dual monitors is to turn one’s head to and fro. With the CJ89, however, we could see everything effortlessly.

 

[spintroniX]

I really don't get the point of these, even for gaming. Why wouldn't you want to take up as much of your FOV as possible? I get the allure of variable / high refresh rates, but not the wonky aspect ratio.

I'm using a 40" Samsung MU6300 and it's great for both work and play. I just can't see myself going to something like that. Am I missing something?

 

[fenixv]

32:10? Let's hope that means the :10 aspect ratio is making a comeback.

 

[Peter2k]

How many games support the res?

That being said, no RGB, no sale. /s

 

[DarthBeavis]

Is this 43" or 49"?

"The diagonal length of the 32:9, 49-inch curved screen is a whopping 124cm! The first thing we thought was, "Can we see everything on screen without turning our heads?" But our doubts vanished quickly once we sat in front of it. The usual procedure with dual monitors is to turn one’s head to and fro. With the CJ89, however, we could see everything effortlessly."

 

[Overblod]

meh... will take all the positives with a grain of salt... I have worked on curved wides before... don't see how it can magically be any better...

 

[Patton187]

Off topic but after buying a 2560 ips 144 hz, I realize that fast refresh doesnt impress me much. I want color accuracy and resolution with refresh rate that is adequate for single player.

 

[_l_]

I really don't get the point of these, even for gaming. I'm using a 40" Samsung MU6300 and it's great for both work and play. I just can't see myself going to something like that. Am I missing something?

I don't think you're missing much. I have a 55" Vizio 4K and games look great even at 1080p (as long as all texture and related settings are maxed) because I sit 10-15 away from the screen (no need for much AA, etc). It may not run as "smooth" as others say their sync monitor does but I don't miss what I haven't seen ... works for me and I don't have to drop $1400.00 on a sync monitor then $600 on a GPU to drive it

 

[Spidey329]

meh... will take all the positives with a grain of salt... I have worked on curved wides before... don't see how it can magically be any better...

This is just like having two 1920x1200 monitors side by side, but without the bezel in the middle.

So I'd say that it's marginally better. The advantage of two separate monitors is how the OS's handle them as separate desktops.

I currently have a 40" 4k monitor (traditional 16:9) which replaced a 28" HP IPS 1440p monitor. It was a hard decision. The 4k is good for screen real estate, but you have to shift your head a lot (sucks for graphics work because you get color shifting) or sit farther back. If you sit farther back, you have to up the OS's DPI zoom which negates the advantages of the bigger resolution. Advantage of 4k is that you can play gfx demanding games at 1920x1080 without pixel blurring because it's a true 4:1 conversion.

I would have probably switched back to the HP had it not been stolen from me by a roommate. I think my ideal setup would be the 28" 1440p in the middle and a left/right secondary monitor on both sides.

 

[Taldren]

3840 x 1200 @ 120 Hz ... Why would you give up 220 (17%) vertical height for 400 (10%) more horizontal? 16x10 was nice because of the extra vertical resolution over 16x9 ... but this monitor is giving us a vertical resolution of the 1990s in an era where we are seeing 1440 to 2160 regularly.

 

[DoubleTap]

I really don't get the point of these, even for gaming. Why wouldn't you want to take up as much of your FOV as possible? I get the allure of variable / high refresh rates, but not the wonky aspect ratio.

I'm using a 40" Samsung MU6300 and it's great for both work and play. I just can't see myself going to something like that. Am I missing something?

The point is that a triple screen setup is too wide, but a 21:9 isn't wide enough (for me). This is the ideal aspect ratio for wide gaming, in my opinion.

The problem is that so far, all the 32:9 / 32:10 monitors are Freesync.

The most promising one is the LG version that's like two 2560x1440 panels merged, but of course - still Freesync

3840 x 1200 @ 120 Hz ... Why would you give up 220 (17%) vertical height for 400 (10%) more horizontal? 16x10 was nice because of the extra vertical resolution over 16x9 ... but this monitor is giving us a vertical resolution of the 1990s in an era where we are seeing 1440 to 2160 regularly.

Worrying about vertical resolution is for programmers and content developers - the point of these screens is the aspect ratio and a resolution that can be driven fast.

 

[M76]

This is what I want: 3840x1440, 100Hz, 38" with the least amount of curvature possible.

 

[dandirk]

So I'd say that it's marginally better. The advantage of two separate monitors is how the OS's handle them as separate desktops.

This is my opinion... Wide monitors are probably great for gaming but for work having multiple monitors is just easier for this old geezer.

For a while I was angry at the 1080p lock of monitors... then I found my eyes were starting to get old and now I prefer it... next I will want crt back!

 

[tetris42]

Off topic but after buying a 2560 ips 144 hz, I realize that fast refresh doesnt impress me much. I want color accuracy and resolution with refresh rate that is adequate for single player.

The Gsync tax + panel lottery made me want go the other route, with a 2560 IPS with great color, but only 60Hz. I really have no complaints. Especially when you consider a lot of games can still get framecapped at 60, so running it higher isn't always a sure thing.

 

[jnemesh]

The point is that a triple screen setup is too wide, but a 21:9 isn't wide enough (for me). This is the ideal aspect ratio for wide gaming, in my opinion.

The problem is that so far, all the 32:9 / 32:10 monitors are Freesync.

The most promising one is the LG version that's like two 2560x1440 panels merged, but of course - still Freesync



Worrying about vertical resolution is for programmers and content developers - the point of these screens is the aspect ratio and a resolution that can be driven fast.

Get used to it. The overpriced and proprietary gsync is dying. .especially considering Samsung TVs and the xbox now support Freesync. HDMI's support of VRR will be the final nail in the coffin.

 

[Bigc208]

For flightsimmers it’ll be nice. I have an older Flight training device with three 19 inch monitors. Connected with a Tripplehead to go box for a combined 5760x1080 resolution. There’s a Samsung 49 inch, 5120x 1440 coming this fall that will nicely replace all this ancient tech.

 

[jnemesh]

This is my opinion... Wide monitors are probably great for gaming but for work having multiple monitors is just easier for this old geezer.

For a while I was angry at the 1080p lock of monitors... then I found my eyes were starting to get old and now I prefer it... next I will want crt back!

I just bought an ultrawide 1440p lg monitor for my gaming rig...and made the mistake of bringing it to work...I had to buy another monitor for home! Ultrawide monitors are GREAT for work...especially when you learn how to use them properly. (Windows key plus right or left arrow will snap your current window to the right or left side of the screen) FAR more enjoyable than dual monotors!

 

[Mut1ny]

Why wouldn't you want to take up as much of your FOV as possible?

Is this a typo or something? Why would you not want to take up as much FOV as possible when gaming? I don't get this...

How many games support the res?

Most, my buddy has the 3840x1080 49 inch version and most games work just fine.

don't see how it can magically be any better...

Having the curve on monitors this large and wide make them not just more immersive but honestly easier to use. Having used Virtual Desktop in VR I can tell you that practicality wise the bigger the screen the better and more sense the curve is. I still think it's stupid on smaller monitors or TV's that you sit far away from.

Why would you give up 220 (17%) vertical height for 400 (10%) more horizontal?

Gaming?

 

[Mut1ny]

(Windows key plus right or left arrow will snap your current window to the right or left side of the screen)

You can also click and drag the title bar to the left or right edges for the same effect. Much quicker and intuitive IMO. You can also drag them to the corners of your monitor if you want a 2x2 setup as well.

 

[travisty]

i have a 21:9 32 inch curved samsung monitor mounted on the wall with a corner desk. The curve is perfect and i dont even see it. It's just like having two monitors w/o the hassle of having two monitors. I'm a programmer and being able to have multiple full size windows up side by side w/o having to move my head is a huge plus.

I may look into one of these. The immersion in-game of having a monitor fill my entire peripheral would be amazing.

 

[GNUse_the_force]

32:10? Let's hope that means the :10 aspect ratio is making a comeback.

The existing 38" ultra-wide IPS 3840 x 1600 / 75hz is already .10 aspect.

This is what I want: 3840x1440, 100Hz, 38" with the least amount of curvature possible.

3840x1600 @ 38" with 144hz is expected from LG early next year. There is already a fake-HDR 75hz version on sale.. although the curvature is there and will probably be on the newer versions given it's width.

 

[Taldren]

Worrying about vertical resolution is for programmers and content developers - the point of these screens is the aspect ratio and a resolution that can be driven fast.

Gaming?

3440x1440@120 /144Hz would be far superior for both gaming and productivity. HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4 have been released for a long time now, its time for monitor companies to stop milking old tech. 3440x1440 is 40% less pixels to push and they are already introducing 4k100/120Hz panels ... like any GPU will drive that right now. Yet 21:9 has been stuck in limbo the last 2 years and these novelties like 32:9 and 32:10 keep popping up.

 

[Mut1ny]

3440x1440@120 /144Hz would be far superior for both gaming and productivity

You forgot the "in my opinion" part. Some people want this super ultra wide aspect ratio... What can ya do? I like it, playing games is much more immersive than 21:9 and definitely more so than 16:9.

 

[jnemesh]

3440x1440@120 /144Hz would be far superior for both gaming and productivity. HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4 have been released for a long time now, its time for monitor companies to stop milking old tech. 3440x1440 is 40% less pixels to push and they are already introducing 4k100/120Hz panels ... like any GPU will drive that right now. Yet 21:9 has been stuck in limbo the last 2 years and these novelties like 32:9 and 32:10 keep popping up.

Name a SINGLE product on the market, available to buy today, that has HDMI 2.1.

 

[Taldren]

You forgot the "in my opinion" part. Some people want this super ultra wide aspect ratio... What can ya do? I like it, playing games is much more immersive than 21:9 and definitely more so than 16:9.

Adding more pixels to you peripheral, less sharp, vision at the expense of already anemic vertical resolution you can clearly see seems like a horrible trade off. That missing 240 pixels of height is far more noticeable as a loss of realestate than what you gain at the far edges of your vision. The game UI taking up more of the screen, as an example.

 

[Taldren]

Name a SINGLE product on the market, available to buy today, that has HDMI 2.1.

See the "milking old tech" statement.

 

[Mut1ny]

Adding more pixels to you peripheral, less sharp, vision at the expense of already anemic vertical resolution you can clearly see seems like a horrible trade off. That missing 240 pixels of height is far more noticeable as a loss of realestate than what you gain at the far edges of your vision. The game UI taking up more of the screen, as an example.

Some people want this super ultra wide aspect ratio... What can ya do? I like it, playing games is much more immersive than 21:9 and definitely more so than 16:9.

 

[Armenius]

3440x1440@120 /144Hz would be far superior for both gaming and productivity. HDMI 2.1 and DisplayPort 1.4 have been released for a long time now, its time for monitor companies to stop milking old tech. 3440x1440 is 40% less pixels to push and they are already introducing 4k100/120Hz panels ... like any GPU will drive that right now. Yet 21:9 has been stuck in limbo the last 2 years and these novelties like 32:9 and 32:10 keep popping up.

The spec for HDMI 2.1 was just finalized a few months ago. I don't think the spec for DisplayPort 1.4 has even been finalized, yet. So, no, they have not "been released for a long time now."

 

[jnemesh]

See the "milking old tech" statement.

Sorry bub, you are talking out of your ass here. Manufacturers are rushing to implement HDMI 2.1...but it takes months if not YEARS between the time the specification is finalized and when products actually ship! First the engineers have to figure out how to implement it in their own products, this involves software AND hardware engineering. THEN the technology has to be tested, with their own products, and then everyone else's to ensure it's compatible and working properly. THEN it can start being integrated into the latest displays, AVRs, switches, cables, and source devices (including consoles and video cards). The ONLY manufacturer, that I am aware of, who is even promoting HDMI 2.1 is Marantz. They are offering a hardware upgrade on their flagship pre-amp/processor, the AV8805 ($4499 retail price) to HDMI 2.1 WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE. They are not stating when that will be, either.

But I am sure you have multiple degrees and know better than the literally THOUSANDS of engineers working on this, right?

 

[DoubleTap]

Adding more pixels to you peripheral, less sharp, vision at the expense of already anemic vertical resolution you can clearly see seems like a horrible trade off. That missing 240 pixels of height is far more noticeable as a loss of realestate than what you gain at the far edges of your vision. The game UI taking up more of the screen, as an example.

The thing is, the market is saturated with 4k monitors and 21:9 monitors and 1440p monitors.

I think only one 32:9 ("double wide") monitor has come out and 90% of the comments are people who don't understand why it's not like every other monitor.

Some people don't care about vertical resolution and want more horizontal - perhaps not you, but then the other 99.9% of the monitor market is out there for you to explore and enjoy.

I've been using NV Surround for around 7 years and while I like it, I also think it's too wide. I always thought it would be perfect if they had a mode that only used maybe 50% of the side monitors, but that hasn't happened.

One of my main issues with 21:9 is that a lot of games push the HUD against the outer edges of the screen and on a 21:9, that requires me to turn my head or move my gaze.

On most games in NV Surround, the HUD is only on the center, 16:9 screen and it's much easier to glance at.

Some games have a fix for this, but a lot of them don't - it seems like it wouldn't be a big deal, but for me, it is.

Anyway, last year, I had to decide between 3x 16:9 monitors or one 21:9 - it was roughly the same price but it came down to three monitors being better for work.

A double wide seems like the perfect compromise to me - two monitors would be enough real estate for work and gaming except for the center bezel issues - which the 32:9 formal solves.

 

[Taldren]

Sorry bub, you are talking out of your ass here. Manufacturers are rushing to implement HDMI 2.1...but it takes months if not YEARS between the time the specification is finalized and when products actually ship! First the engineers have to figure out how to implement it in their own products, this involves software AND hardware engineering. THEN the technology has to be tested, with their own products, and then everyone else's to ensure it's compatible and working properly. THEN it can start being integrated into the latest displays, AVRs, switches, cables, and source devices (including consoles and video cards). The ONLY manufacturer, that I am aware of, who is even promoting HDMI 2.1 is Marantz. They are offering a hardware upgrade on their flagship pre-amp/processor, the AV8805 ($4499 retail price) to HDMI 2.1 WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE. They are not stating when that will be, either.

But I am sure you have multiple degrees and know better than the literally THOUSANDS of engineers working on this, right?

Displayport 1.4 was finalized in Q1 2016. HDMI was finalized in Q4 2017.

While you may have a point about hdmi, what's your excuse for displayport? You know, the port of choice for gaming monitors.

Still no 3440x1440 144hz monitors ... and the only 100Hz ones are sold as overclocked 75Hz which you have to do manually and at your own risk.

 

[jnemesh]

Displayport 1.4 was finalized in Q1 2016. HDMI was finalized in Q4 2017.

While you may have a point about hdmi, what's your excuse for displayport? You know, the port of choice for gaming monitors.

Still no 3440x1440 144hz monitors ... and the only 100Hz ones are sold as overclocked 75Hz which you have to do manually and at your own risk.

Why dont you ask the engineers who make them...or maybe you have the answer as to how to achieve the results you are looking for when they dont. You really should apply at one of these companies, since you are obviously smarter that the teams of engineers currently working on these products!

 

[Armenius]

Displayport 1.4 was finalized in Q1 2016. HDMI was finalized in Q4 2017.

While you may have a point about hdmi, what's your excuse for displayport? You know, the port of choice for gaming monitors.

Still no 3440x1440 144hz monitors ... and the only 100Hz ones are sold as overclocked 75Hz which you have to do manually and at your own risk.

I actually got confused. Both the ASUS PG27UQ and Acer X27 have DisplayPort 1.4. NVIDIA recently release a firmware update for cards with DisplayPort 1.2 to be updated to 1.3/1.4 with the release of these monitors, and updated those already with DisplayPort 1.4 to support the newer features with them. 1.5 is the DisplayPort spec that is yet to be finalized.

You're also correct about the time the HDMI 2.1 spec was finalized, but more specifically it was the beginning of December. However, there is a big push in the industry to get HDMI 2.1 devices out quicker than usual since the 2020 Summer Olympics wants to be broadcast globally in 8K. The first device to support HDMI 2.1 will be the Xbox One X with the fall update coming before the end of the year. It may be a predictor that Microsoft expects HDMI 2.1 displays not long after.

You are incorrect on your last point. The ASUS XG35VQ, Philips 349X7FJEW, AOC AGON AG352UCG, and Dell AW3418DW are all natively 100 Hz. The Dell supports overclocking up to 120 Hz.