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

[kasakka]

The 57" 32:9 screen's height vs. curvature amount makes it so that it's not realistic to sit at it's center of curvature, but there is probably a sweet spot where the screen height still looks decent to your perspective and the effects I talked about are at least minimized compared to sitting closer than that sweet spot.

I sit a bit over an arm's length away, and I've got gorilla arms. I find that to be totally comfortable with this thing for desktop use.

I think it's a good sweet spot where it doesn't feel too tall, or too short. I don't feel there's any benefit to it being any taller or wider. Sharper? Sure, but it'd be tough running say a 10240x2880 (dual 5K) or 12288x3456 (dual 6K).

 

[Happy Hopping]

hello Samsung 57" owners:

the height of the Samsung is 392 mm or approx. 15.5" in height, w/ 392mm being the actual display height.

My current 4K 43" Viewsonic is 52.5 cm or 20.5" in height.

Do you people find your Samsung 's height too narrow being only 15.5" in height or are you happy w/ it?


2) On this link, they said if you use 60Hz, it is blur, that you need to jump to 240Hz, is that so?

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/odyssey-neo-g9-g95nc-s57cg95

3) Also, I haven't bought any PC games since the days of Sierra Pinballs or Virtua Fighter 2. Am I correct that as long as windows 11 can display 7680x2160, then your game can? even if it's an old game, for e.g. say R-Type Dimension EX?

 

[Dan_D]

I went from an Acer CG437K (43") to the Samsung 57" and I'm happy with it.

 

[Happy Hopping]

I went from an Acer CG437K (43") to the Samsung 57" and I'm happy with it.

I need a lot of width space, as I need to open a lot of windows. At 4K, I can do 3 windows at 1440 wide. But 3 windows isn't enough, and some application at 1440 is not wide enough. So I don't have a lot of choice

However, I would imagine the text is more condensed vertically at 15.5" height vs. my own screen at 20.5" in height.

 

[elvn]

I need a lot of width space, as I need to open a lot of windows. At 4K, I can do 3 windows at 1440 wide. But 3 windows isn't enough, and some application at 1440 is not wide enough. So I don't have a lot of choice

However, I would imagine the text is more condensed vertically at 15.5" height vs. my own screen at 20.5" in height.

I'm guessing that the screen you are talking about when you said 20.5" tall screen is a 42" 4k? In that case, if viewing the screen in the central human viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, you'd be getting around 64 to 77PPD. Someone viewing the central 4k portion of this 57" s-uw screen in that same viewing angle would get the exact same PPD. The length of the 57" 32:9 allows some wiggle room to sit farther, but the farther away you'd sit, the more the height would shrink to your perspective, just like a 32" 16:9 4k screen would, since it is similar to two 32" 4k screens side by side. When taking a 42" 4k, or my 48" 4k, viewed at say 70PPD, compared to viewing the 57" 32:9 screen's central 4k portion at the same viewing angle and it getting 70 PPD (with the 32:9 viewed from around 27" away), they'd all have the same perceived height in degrees as well, ~ 32 degrees vertical.



I have a basic ultrawide 49" on my wife's side our pc room split, which I've used from time to time off of my legion pro laptop. Even that height isn't too bad, for text based stuff, sitting near enough, but at my setup I have 3x 4k screens I view at around 70PPD and a lot more physical height. The 49" samsung is also only 1440 high, and it's not great for media or anything, but for text, spreadsheets, etc, it's fine and it can do 3 windows across easily.

The 4k / 2160h based screen of the 57" 7680x2160 would have a lot more space, double the space of a single 4k as long as scaling text larger isn't involved. The screen spec is like having two 32" 4k screens side by side, but without a central bezel. That or you could look at it as a central 4k viewing space, with another 4k split into "wings", extensions on the sides, 1920 wide x 2160 high.

For pixel density, rather than desktop/app real-estate wise, you have to go by the PPD, which is the pixel density you actually perceive after taking ppi/screen rez+size, and viewing distance into account. The old PPD calculator site I used is down but you can still use nvidia's "automotive display" PPD calculator since it calculates in the same way (could also just ask google gemini what ppd any given screen size + resolution gets at any given distance).

I usually go by having a 16:9 landscape screen, or the 16:9 middle portion of an ultrawide, as being at a distance where it would be within the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees. Any 4k 16:9, of any size (or any central 4k portion of an uw) gets around 64 to 77 PPD when viewed at those viewing angles. I consider 60PPD a baseline at my main rig, personally. Any 1440p screen at the same 60 to 50 deg human central viewing angle would get a lower ~ 41 PPD to 51 PPD, which isn't as tight for text and imagery (but can have other benefits like less stress on gpu for games, less bandwidth restrictions/problems from some devices, less expensive price in many cases).

. . .

I use 3 screens personally, so that avoids the two-screen scenario of having a central bezel. I had considered getting a big 8k tv for 4x4k worth of space, but I realized I would mostly keep the same types of window arrays and columns on the sides anyway most of the time, so the bezels of the side screens really isn't a big issue, plus it allows me to bend the side screens inward so that their pixels are directly on axis, pointed directly at me, while keeping an oled in the array as the main "stage" for media and games.

. .

Having used the 49" samsung 1440p high ultrawide and enjoying it for desktop/app use, I can see where the 57" 7680x2160 screen's greatly increased desktop real-estate, screen size, and FALD zones, HDR, etc. would be nice when viewed suitably near enough where it's height wouldn't seem too short. The 49" screen we have is like two 27" 16:9 1440p screens minus central bezel, and the 57" 32:9 screen is like two 32" 4k screens minus central bezel. I've used a 32" (1440p) screen on a desk before, and still have it on a server rig, but considering the length of these 57" 32:9 screens, I think I'd prefer they were based on something like a 36" 16:9 screen , esp.(physical) height wise since I prefer a more spaced out setup, and with a more aggressive curvature - especially for media and games, but I can still see their overall appeal. I also briefly had a 45" 21:9 I gamed on, and I've played around with uw resolutions on my 48CX 4k screen - so uw gaming aspect on the 57" also sounds appealing for some games, even if the curvature on the 32:9 at ~ 27" view distance isn't as enveloping as the 800R at 32" view distance, and the height of the 32:9 is a bit short by comparison, physically (it would be the same as any 4k 16:9's perceived height if viewed at the same PPD relationship to viewing distance, though). The specs are pretty impressive overall. Wife's usage case just couldn't justify the price of such a flagship FALD s-uw. 1440 uw is already huge compared to her work laptop screen.

 

[zandor]

I need a lot of width space, as I need to open a lot of windows. At 4K, I can do 3 windows at 1440 wide. But 3 windows isn't enough, and some application at 1440 is not wide enough. So I don't have a lot of choice

However, I would imagine the text is more condensed vertically at 15.5" height vs. my own screen at 20.5" in height.

20.5" high sounds like a 42-43" 16:9 4k monitor or TV. My outgoing/dead 43" 16:9 ratio 4k screen was about 103 pixels per inch, so pretty close to the 100dpi standard. 57" Samsung G9 is about 140ppi, and the 52" Dell U5226KW I have is about 129ppi. So yes, everything is smaller at the same distance. You can plant your face in a screen and make things appear bigger. So get the degrees per pixel about even with a 100ppi screen at normal distance. With the heavily curved Samsung G9 you may well be basically in the monitor and have to turn your head a lot to use the whole thing for work/desktop/productivity jobs. My Dell screen is barely curved and I can't see that working. High PPI can be ok if you have good eyes. I've been running the 129ppi Dell 52" with scaling off at roughly the same distance I used my previous 43" 4k screen at. I've increased font sizes in some apps, but other than that it's ok for me. Not so good eyes? That's me outside of the 1.5-4' range. I need glasses for driving since my long distance vison has gotten fuzzy and readers for anything really close up. 2.5-3' to a monitor? My vision is perfect. You know how as you age your eyes get worse at focusing? Before my early 40s I didn't need glasses at all. Now I'm nearly 50 and spent almost my entire adult life staring at a screen most of the day M-F so I'm not surprised my eyes seem to be slowly getting focus locked on monitor distance.

15.5" high for the Samsung G9 isn't too short. There's a big difference between "too short" and "I'd like more height and I'm willing to pay for it". I know in another thread or two I said one of the reasons I got the Dell over the G9 was it was taller and that's true, but it's not about the G9 being too short. I was just willing to pay more for the Dell to get more height and a bunch of Thunderbolt dock features the G9 doesn't have. It's a case of I like it and I'm willing to pay for it rather than the other option is no good. I ran 3x27" 1440p for years. That was pretty good. Too wide to use all of it, but pretty good. The Samsung G9 is taller and less stupid wide than 3x27" 1440p. That 3x27" setup was massive. Aside from surround gaming I used the center screen and 1/2-2/3s of the side screens. The outer edges of the side screens were just too far away off to the side. Also, Skyrim was glorious running in surround mode on 3 27" screens with GTX 680 4GB cards in SLI. Now not so much, but it was off the chain in 2012-2013.

 

[elvn]

As I got older I got farsighted after never having worn glasses (my arms started becoming outstretched trying to read phone), so the opposite of yours. I use a different magnification glasses for my pc setup than I do my near-viewed laptop, so switching which glasses I use could work for any screen distance scenario.

This 57" 32:9 or the new dell 39" 21:9 tandem OLED screen both have the physical height of a 32" 16:9 screen, so if you sat where the central 4k portion was at your human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, like you probably would on an actual 32" 4k screen, then either of them should look suitably tall enough to your perspective, while still getting 64 - 77 PPD thanks to the 4k-based pixel height grids. They are sort-of like a 4k 32" screen, with the 57" 32:9 adding a 1920x2160 panel wing to each end, and the 39" alienware 21:9 adding a 640x2160 panel wing to each end (so to speak).

For reference, using typical desk-like depths:

32" 4k screen space at 23" view distance (62 deg viewing angle) = ~ 62 PPD
32" 4k screen space at 24" view distance (60 deg viewing angle) = ~ 64 PPD
32" 4k screen space at 27" view distance (55deg viewing angle) = ~ 70 PPD

In the end, the PPD is the density you will see. PPI is a good starting metric, but it being an issue on somewhat larger 4k screens or "4k-based" (pixel grid height count) screens is more of a thing when you stubbornly are fixed on keeping any screen in the exact same place/viewing distance regardless of it's size, or where you can't get a better viewing angle with some small distance gap behind your desk due to whatever constraints on your setup, layout, or personal preferences you might have. Otherwise, generally, 4k is 4k, and it's more about having a viewing distance problem without applying (or being able to apply) a viable solution at that point. This 57" 7680x2160 or the dell 39" 5120x2160 are like 32" 16:9 screens centrally , so they can achieve that kind of expected PPD of a 4k resolution even when put directly on a deep desk without a separate stand. Their central 4k portion of the screen would be within your human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees when either screen was around 24" to 27" away from you (~ 2.25 feet), delivering 62 - 70 PPD which is a tight perceived pixel density for a 4k-based screen. My 48" OLED gives the same 60+ to 70 PPD at those same viewing angle widths, and the other screens in that scenario would have same height in degrees to my perspective - but my screen lacks the extended screen area of the 4k-based ultrawides for gaming, which would be really nice to have. I use side screens for more desktop/app real-estate, not gaming, so desktop/app real-estate is not a big concern to me. I have no interest into doing triple screen gaming with bezels like people did in the eyefinity days.

,

 

[zandor]

In the end, the PPD is the density you will see. PPI is a good starting metric, but it being an issue on somewhat larger 4k screens or "4k-based" (pixel grid height count) screens is more of a thing when you stubbornly are fixed on keeping any screen in the exact same place/viewing distance regardless of it's size, or where you can't get a better viewing angle with some small distance gap behind your desk due to whatever constraints on your setup, layout, or personal preferences you might have.

I run into a lot of that at the office. I have a "hybrid" schedule we book desks at the office rather than having a permanent assignment. At any rate it's common to sit down at a desk I used last week and find everything completely rearranged. Someone who tends to use this one particular desk likes the monitor as low and far away as it can go. My guess is whoever it is wears progressives or bifocals and wants that monitor in the "distance" range for their glasses. So how much PPD you can handle has a lot to do with your eyes and corrective lenses, if any. I'm good with doing a face plant in a 130DPI screen, but whoever uses that desk I like at work obviously doesn't want to sit too close, and the office monitors are a little over 100DPI. If I get to the point where computer distance isn't so good the first thing I'll try is the same thing you're doing - get out my tape measure, see just how far my screen is from my head, and get an eye doc to come up with a prescription for single vision lenses set for that distance. For now I don't need glasses if I'm sitting up straight, and somehow my very first pair of glasses work great if I want to lean way back. I got them in 2019, just kinda walked into a Lens Crafters not knowing what I was doing and ended up with an ugly pair of frames since they were the only ones I could find that were comfortable. I have a big, thick Neanderthal skull apparently. Now I know better and just order my frames from Fatheadz.com.

Samsung G9 is about 140DPI, which is too much for some people I think. Again, depends on eyes, lenses and scaling settings. Some people just don't want to get dedicated computer glasses. I'm pretty sure my Dad would run a G9 at 150-200% scaling. He's almost 73, wears the same set of progressive lenses all the time, uses a 27" 1440p screen with 125% scaling and has it pushed pretty far back like whoever uses my usual desk at the office when I'm not there. That person at work who pushes the screen all the way back probably wouldn't like 140DPI either. At any rate I think some people are probably better off with a larger, lower density screen farther away.

 

[elvn]

Some people just don't want to get dedicated computer glasses.

If anyone who uses corrective lenses is going to be using stereotypical "screen on a pc desk" setups anywhere, they should probably have a pair of full frame correction lenses that work to magnify enough for them to use the computer comfortably at that kind of distance, which is a pretty standard view distance for computers, and usable for most reading of things "at hand" in general.


In relation to using an atypical screen config like "oversized" 4k screens like gaming tvs, or particularly oversized (incl. height) "4k based" ultrawides like a (45" 21:9 or a 55" 1000R ark), and avoiding the "low PPI" and bad viewing angles you'd have if you plopped one right on top of a desk - by instead putting them somewhat farther away to get back to the same kind of viewing angle (~ 60 to 50 deg) and the kinds of PPD (64 - 77) expected of a typical 4k desktop sized gaming monitor (compared to a 32" 4k for example) , combined with, in my case, still benefitting from eye comfort provided by corrective lenses ....

- I just keep a few pair of glasses at my home PC rig desk that have a very comfortable magnification for my setup. I take them off before I get up out of my pc chair and leave them on my keyboard upside down. (Think of it kind of like putting on and taking off headphones).

. . . . . .

My point in saying "4k is 4k" generally, was that as long as your viewing distance isn't locked for whatever reason, screens the G95NC 57" 32:9 of this thread and the alienware 39" 32:9 OLED due out (both based on a 32" 4k centrally in essence), and "oversized" 4k gaming tvs, would all have the same PPD and perceived height if their 4k central portion was viewed at the same viewing angle width. Specifically, or imo optimally, where the 4k grid would fill the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees width.

If your viewing distance is not locked for whatever reasons (there are some valid ones to be fair), then generally, outside of drastic extremes - no 4k is too short (to your perspective, even tiny VR screens seem huge), and no 4k has pixels that look too large, regardless of PPI, because they are all equalized to your perspecive by having the same viewing angles (going by width typically, but also results in their viewing angle heights being the same to your perspective).

The issue I have is that I'd prefer ultrawides had a more aggressive curvature like 700 - 800R so that I could sit at the screen's center of curvature, where all of the pixels all the way to the ends of the screen would remain on-axis, pointed directly at me. I'd also still like them larger and taller so that the same perspective could exist farther away and physically larger in my room, just out of my own personal preference. Despite was I said about equalization, which would make them perfectly usable and not short/narrow to my field of view, things the same # of degrees to my perspective don't always hit the same as having a larger thing in the room in relation to me as a person.

Screens all have their pros and cons though. If I was looking for a FALD to avoid OLED precautions and to do more static desktop/app stuff all on the same screen instead of using multiple screens, and still get very good high nit HDR and in ultrawide format for games (at 240Hz no less) , the 57" 32:9 samsung has held the crown for that. Manufacturers seem to be downsizing screens currently, focusing on 32" 4k and even 27" sizes, so I don't know if anything larger than that 32" 4k height format, any true large format gaming monitors, will happen for a year or two.


. .

 

[kasakka]

I need a lot of width space, as I need to open a lot of windows. At 4K, I can do 3 windows at 1440 wide. But 3 windows isn't enough, and some application at 1440 is not wide enough. So I don't have a lot of choice

However, I would imagine the text is more condensed vertically at 15.5" height vs. my own screen at 20.5" in height.

I run mine with MacOS with an effective desktop space of 5760x1620. This is the 3840x1620 + 1920x1620 HiDPI option that it maxes out on for Macs. It has to be run in PbP mode to achieve this, but on Windows you can just run it via one input and 125% scaling seems pretty spot on for 6144x1728 desktop area.

I think it works very well for 3-4 windows side by side. I tend to run it typically with 2 windows on the 21:9 side and a 2x2 grid of smaller windows on the 11:9 side. Things like Slack, calendar, terminals etc.

 

[Happy Hopping]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw2s_x7AUGg&t=15s

out of interest, Pete Matheson at youtube really did a review of buying a 65" 8K Samsung, and use it on his Mac.

 

[kasakka]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw2s_x7AUGg&t=15s

out of interest, Pete Matheson at youtube really did a review of buying a 65" 8K Samsung, and use it on his Mac.

It is exactly as ridiculous as I expected. It's too damn large to be usable without putting it on the other side of the room. I remember I felt the LG CX 48" I used to use at 1m viewing distance was just about usable if treated like an ultrawide - ignoring the top 1/3 or 1/4 exists because full height windows were just awkward to use.

Now I use that TV in my living room from the sofa and in Windows with 175% scaling it's totally fine, but obviously doesn't have a ton of desktop space or anything.

Then the Mac issues. I love MacOS but it's such a god damn turd for external display support. The best case scenario would likely be running 4x 4K 120 Hz or something to get proper HiDPI scaling options beyond the "looks like 3840x2160" option. Such a setup likely requires the M5 Max which is super expensive. Also because MacOS does not allow windows to overlap between "monitors" you can't use that grid naturally but have to have things in corners at all times.

But the dumbest shit is that wireless One Connect box. I quite liked the wired One Connect box on a Samsung TV I used to have, because I didn't have cables poking out the sides of my TV in all directions like I do on my LG, so connecting stuff was really easy and convenient. But making it wireless without a wired option is the dumbest idea. That option seems to exist entirely for people who buy one of these to show off in their McMansion and then want to hide every cable possible. It's like Samsung totally missed what kind of people might want an 8K 120 Hz TV.

If I were buying something now, I'd probably buy a couple of those 6K monitors. But as it is, I see zero reason to change from the G95NC unless it breaks.

 

[elvn]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw2s_x7AUGg&t=15s

out of interest, Pete Matheson at youtube really did a review of buying a 65" 8K Samsung, and use it on his Mac.

Yeah I saw that awhile back now but thanks for posting it. He's got some quality videos about displays.

It is exactly as ridiculous as I expected. It's too damn large to be usable without putting it on the other side of the room. I remember I felt the LG CX 48" I used to use at 1m viewing distance was just about usable if treated like an ultrawide - ignoring the top 1/3 or 1/4 exists because full height windows were just awkward to use.

Now I use that TV in my living room from the sofa and in Windows with 175% scaling it's totally fine, but obviously doesn't have a ton of desktop space or anything.

Then the Mac issues. I love MacOS but it's such a god damn turd for external display support. The best case scenario would likely be running 4x 4K 120 Hz or something to get proper HiDPI scaling options beyond the "looks like 3840x2160" option. Such a setup likely requires the M5 Max which is super expensive. Also because MacOS does not allow windows to overlap between "monitors" you can't use that grid naturally but have to have things in corners at all times.

But the dumbest shit is that wireless One Connect box. I quite liked the wired One Connect box on a Samsung TV I used to have, because I didn't have cables poking out the sides of my TV in all directions like I do on my LG, so connecting stuff was really easy and convenient. But making it wireless without a wired option is the dumbest idea. That option seems to exist entirely for people who buy one of these to show off in their McMansion and then want to hide every cable possible. It's like Samsung totally missed what kind of people might want an 8K 120 Hz TV.

If I were buying something now, I'd probably buy a couple of those 6K monitors. But as it is, I see zero reason to change from the G95NC unless it breaks.

He sat wayyy too close to that screen. The lean back like he was in a dentist's chair was ridiculous imo , .
In my opinion, any screen that is larger than around 36" 16:9 or same height uw should be on it's own stand with a gap between it and the desk, even if they have extreme ppi -- > PPD where the PPD would be good sitting with your nose touching the screen.


Extrapolating the chart below, for 16:9 4k screens, to a

55" screen: You don't hit 60 PPD* until you are ~38" away. 60 deg to 50 deg human central viewing angle = 41.5" to 51.5" = 3 1/2 ft to 4' 4"

65" screen: You don't hit 60 PPD* until you are ~45" away. 60 deg to 50 deg human central viewing angle = ~49" to 61" = 4 ft+ to 5 ft+

* Since a 8k would have double the PPD of a 4k screen, that would be more about the human central viewing angle for an 8k screen, and avoiding making pixels on the sides off-axis and with bad viewing ergonomics - especially since the 8k screens don't have an aggressive curvature and are completely flat.

. . . . . .


The remote connect box is silly to me, especially since as I mentioned, using a pole/rail spine TV stand would be the scenario and in that case, routing cables is no problem. Just design the display housing so that the ports are easily channeled to a central stand's trunk. The only reason for a remote box like that imo is if you are flush wall mounting. Even if you designed a screen with a one connect / remote breakout box, it could be manufactured as an option - in addition to ports on the back of the screen, overriding/disabling them when the one connect box is connected, or on a per port basis when each is connected.

Probably repeating myself from earlier in this thread, but a few of the main problems with the 8k tvs is that they are very expensive for what you get, and yet their PQ is inferior to the PQ of 4k flagship TVs. There are some pricey 4k displays now like the G6, but there is also the fact that there are a number of 4k displays which beat the PQ of the 8k definitively which cost considerably less money. So like a lot of displays, like ultrawide monitors, and the first glasses-free 3d monitors, pulsar monitors, you are trading away your best PQ for one niche aspect of the screen, in this case the 8k resolution, mainly for desktop/app real estate since you'd probably be using the 4k upscaling to "4k+" ~quasi 8k for gaming.

In my case, I realized that most of the time I would be using windows in saved window position profiles in similar positions to where they aready are now on my side screens, so removing the bezels in a single 8k screen really wouldn't be that big of a gain a large % of the time, and I'd be getting an inferior PQ for a lot of money. Sure would be nice if a curved ark-like OLED screen was 6k or 8k, with more advanced upscaling on the screen even better, and if it allowed 1:1 pixel mapped resolutions letterboxed in the middle at full native Hz of the screen even better (e.g. a 48" to 55" 6k or 8k 16:9 that could run an uw rez in a strip on the screen at the screen's full native Hz when desired).

.

 

[kasakka]

The remote connect box is silly to me, especially since as I mentioned, using a pole/rail spine TV stand would be the scenario and in that case, routing cables is no problem. Just design the display housing so that the ports are easily channeled to a central stand's trunk. The only reason for a remote box like that imo is if you are flush wall mounting. Even if you designed a screen with a one connect / remote breakout box, it could be manufactured as an option - in addition to ports on the back of the screen, overriding/disabling them when the one connect box is connected, or on a per port basis when each is connected.

The bigger issue is that once you have your TV on a stand or mounted, it just becomes really awkward to get to the ports no matter what. So a breakout box makes sense and probably causes no real issue if it wasn't wireless. I think most people want to hook up an AV receiver/soundbar, games consoles, maybe a BluRay player or PC. Being able to connect those without fiddling around with the back of the TV is real nice. Then you just stuff the breakout box somewhere out of sight.

Manufacturers are always cheap when they can be, so they aren't going to do ports on the TV and a breakout box.

 

[elvn]

The bigger issue is that once you have your TV on a stand or mounted, it just becomes really awkward to get to the ports no matter what. So a breakout box makes sense and probably causes no real issue if it wasn't wireless. I think most people want to hook up an AV receiver/soundbar, games consoles, maybe a BluRay player or PC. Being able to connect those without fiddling around with the back of the TV is real nice. Then you just stuff the breakout box somewhere out of sight.

Manufacturers are always cheap when they can be, so they aren't going to do ports on the TV and a breakout box.

If you are a fan and it works for you that's great.

Cheap factor - From my perspective, as a consumer, the breakout box is adding to the cost unnecessarily in the first place. (Edit: It can also become an additional point of failure risk)

Access - my heavy duty tv stands tilt left/right so they make it somewhat easier to access the port panel than "climbing behind" a TV or reaching blindly. Even a flat footed free standing stand can have that capability. If you had one with a flat looking foot that also had small caster wheels on it or other wheeled stand, (or a flat footed one on carpeting) it would be even easier. Wall mounting/more permanent and solidly "flush" options, I'd agree with you more.

Access for Hot-swapping regularly I guess? - The vast majority of those components would be connected more or less "permanently" once you got them connected in the first place. There are 4 hdmi ports on the breakout box, but you typically sacrifice one (HDMI 3) for eARC uncompressed hdmi sound to a receiver or sound bar (if you don't want to push video through your receiver, use a dummy "ghost" display sound port on your reciever, or use other more compressed sound options like optical audio, or you are using the integrated OS apps on the tv). So with your tv connected to a uhd player and/or streaming box "for good", and a eARC out, you are left with 1 or 2 hdmi ports. If you want to swap your console or a laptop between displays, just leave a hdmi cable connected and free. routed hidden behind the stand's post, and use the cable's far end, not the end at the tv port. I don't see the need for a whole remote box, or ever reaching behind the tv after that (other than to clean) personally.

. . .

Worth noting that the 8k screen with the breakout box apparently still has a mini hdmi 2.1 port on the display that can be used to a full sized hdmi on the other end for 4k 240hz / 8k 120hz.

.

 

[kasakka]

If you are a fan and it works for you that's great.

Cheap factor - From my perspective, as a consumer, the breakout box is adding to the cost unnecessarily in the first place. (Edit: It can also become an additional point of failure risk)

The point is that manufacturers might see a breakout box as a value adding feature, but doubling ports as an unnecessary expense.

Access - my heavy duty tv stands tilt left/right so they make it somewhat easier to access the port panel than "climbing behind" a TV or reaching blindly. Even a flat footed free standing stand can have that capability. If you had one with a flat looking foot that also had small caster wheels on it or other wheeled stand, (or a flat footed one on carpeting) it would be even easier. Wall mounting/more permanent and solidly "flush" options, I'd agree with you more.

On my LG CX the ports on the side and back can be reached, but they are definitely hard to see the way they are mounted, with not a whole lot of space to my speakers to fiddle in the back. The one HDMI port poking out from the back is also really crap design.

Access for Hot-swapping regularly I guess? - The vast majority of those components would be connected more or less "permanently" once you got them connected in the first place. There are 4 hdmi ports on the breakout box, but you typically sacrifice one (HDMI 3) for eARC uncompressed hdmi sound to a receiver or sound bar (if you don't want to push video through your receiver, use a dummy "ghost" display sound port on your reciever, or use other more compressed sound options like optical audio, or you are using the integrated OS apps on the tv). So with your tv connected to a uhd player and/or streaming box "for good", and a eARC out, you are left with 1 or 2 hdmi ports. If you want to swap your console or a laptop between displays, just leave a hdmi cable connected and free. routed hidden behind the stand's post, and use the cable's far end, not the end at the tv port. I don't see the need for a whole remote box, or ever reaching behind the tv after that (other than to clean) personally.

This is pretty much what I do. I never needed dummy plugs on my AV receivers, but used TV -> optical -> old Denon, and now use TV -> HDMI eARC -> Onkyo receiver. Only my Nintendo Switch is connected to the Onkyo because I'm wary of input lag from receivers. The old Denon adds a lot of it. The Onkyo seems to be a non-issue.

Worth noting that the 8k screen with the breakout box apparently still has a mini hdmi 2.1 port on the display that can be used to a full sized hdmi on the other end for 4k 240hz / 8k 120hz.

Yeah and that's probably the dumbest port choice as well since it's pretty rare. But it doesn't seem to help much with the TV having like twice the input lag of a typical 4K TV.

But I think we are getting way off track here. This is the thread for the Samsung superultrawide and should remain as such.

 

[elvn]

the input lag of a typical 4K TV.

But I think we are getting way off track here. This is the thread for the Samsung superultrawide and should remain as such.

Yes, to be honest when I clicked on the Bell icon and replied to HappyHopping's reply here I wasn't really paying attention and assumed it was in the 8k thread when I did that first reply, but after you engaged on the sub topic/off-topic I figured it was something to chat about a bit.

. . . . .

I only have a 1440p 49" uw on my wife's side of the pc room. The 32:9 uw are nice for productivity. She had a few of my old 27" 1440p screens on monitor arms before that, but I got a 49" samsung 1440p G91F uw on discount later. For her purposes the 1440p ultrawide is a lot more real-estate than just using her laptop screen, and the 57" 7680x2160 would have been overkill at this point. However, me having used my laptop on her desk before, connected to that 1440p uw, I can see where the 57" 7680x2160 would be a huge upgrade not only in usable area but also in picture quality.

.

 

[kasakka]

I only have a 1440p 49" uw on my wife's side of the pc room. The 32:9 uw are nice for productivity. She had a few of my old 27" 1440p screens on monitor arms before that, but I got a 49" samsung 1440p G91F uw on discount later. For her purposes the 1440p ultrawide is a lot more real-estate than just using her laptop screen, and the 57" 7680x2160 would have been overkill at this point. However, me having used my laptop on her desk before, connected to that 1440p uw, I can see where the 57" 7680x2160 would be a huge upgrade not only in usable area but also in picture quality.

I had the Samsung CRG9 at one point and you are totally right, the 57" is an upgrade in every way. The larger dual 32" 16:9 size and higher resolution are really nice. It's sharp enough to look good in MacOS too, even if it's a pain in the ass for HiDPI scaling without using two inputs.

It would not be my first choice for gaming as I'd rather go for a 21:9 ultrawide that is more compatible with less FOV distortion issues. 5120x2160 is also way easier to run than 7680x2160.

I use mine purely as a productivity display and it's been great so far, but realistically if I was shopping today I'd heavily consider the new 5K-6K 16:9 models purely for productivity.

 

[Happy Hopping]

on my 43" 4K, 1 tiny thing that I can't fix is the resolution marker. My resolution is 43", so I use 3 x windows at 1280 wide. Now to mark 1280 wide per windows, I try Dymo tape as well as 3M book marker (sticker) to tape every 1280 width at the top edge of the monitor. But months later, it fell off.

So what I did next is to use any software icon to mark the spot of ea. 1280 wide on my screen, but windows does not allow me to put that icon to the exact spot I want, so it's off by 3 to 4 mm, but that's the best MS Windows can do.

do you guys use some sort of marker to mark every 1280 width per application windows?

 

[elvn]

on my 43" 4K, 1 tiny thing that I can't fix is the resolution marker. My resolution is 43", so I use 3 x windows at 1280 wide. Now to mark 1280 wide per windows, I try Dymo tape as well as 3M book marker (sticker) to tape every 1280 width at the top edge of the monitor. But months later, it fell off.

So what I did next is to use any software icon to mark the spot of ea. 1280 wide on my screen, but windows does not allow me to put that icon to the exact spot I want, so it's off by 3 to 4 mm, but that's the best MS Windows can do.

do you guys use some sort of marker to mark every 1280 width per application windows?

If you can spring for DisplayfusionPro - the easiest thing I would do for your scenario would probably be to set a function up using their easy function builder template to assign the active window to be 1280 width, and specify the height if you want to as well if they are all going to be the same height - and then set a hotkey for that function. Then activate that hotkey when each of your windows is active, one at a time. Then arrange the windows exactly where you want them with your mouse, manually. Then right click the displayfusion icon in your system tray. Go to the "Window Position Profiles" heading in the right click menu and save that profile. Then open the main settings of displayfusion and set a hotkey to that windows position profile.




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



I typed out some more info in the quote below about displayfusion and also about using a stream deck. If you can spring for even a small stream deck, they can be very useful and are even easier to set up than displayfusion functions, plus the integrated stream deck plugins/function don't take up hotkeys in your system or require you to memorize hotkeys since they are all on visible graphic display buttons.

You can use displayfusion to assign a hotkey that will trigger the active window to the exact window coordinates you specify. You can also set a function to do that by instead naming a specific app instead of whatever generic app is the active window at the time. There are ton of things you can do with it, but you don't have to get into the weeds with it and can stick to some of the cookie cutter easy to use templates displayfusion provides.

Alternately, if you spring for a stream deck, stream deck has a lot of plugins with the same functionality, where you just drag the function to one of it's hardware keys. It's more straightforward than using hotkeys in displayfusion but they are both easy to use once you get your feet wet a bit.

You can also tie displayfusion function hotkeys to a stream deck. The most useful one to me is the "saved window position profiles" function. I set a profile A and a profile B to a different hotkey each, and I added an action on the stream deck that makes one of it's buttons a hotkey toggle so that on one press it shuffles all of my saved window positions to the first layout I saved them in, and when I press the same button again it shuffles all of my saved window positions to the other layout I saved them in.

You can do a lot of other things like setting up a button dedicated to specific app that will - check to see if app is open, if not, launch it - minimize/restore the app any time you hit that button if the app is running (and it prevents multiple instances of the app running/launching if you check a box in the stream deck interface for that function).

This is a screencap of how to make a cookie cutter individual window assignment in DisplayFusion. You can just drag that reticle to the window you've already sized manually and drop it on that window's title bar, and displayfusion will fill in the coordinates automatically. This function will operate on whatever window is active at the time you hit the hotkey combination.

If you have a stream deck, you can do the same kind of thing with it's window sizing and position plugins, assigning one to a button. There are a few different plugins that can manage window movement and sizing, but the "Windows Mover" plugin by barraider works well on it's own. Here is a screencap of it's setup interface for a single button, where it was set to a specific application, firefox,

Details on setting up one or more saved window position profiles in DisplayFusion, separate from the "window sizing" functions I just talked about.

The menus rolled out from the right to the left in this image.

You set up the hotkey in the main settings panel. When you double click the profile name on the right side (Work or Steam in the example), another window will pop up where you can set the key combination for the hotkey you want (click the "Set Hotkey" button shown on the upper right in the second image). Key Combination heading in this main panel will show the hotkey after you have assigned one:

After setting up two different saved window position profiles in DisplayFusion, this is how I set their hotkeys to a toggle switch on a stream deck button on my stream deck. Each time I press the button that HotkeySwitch is assigned to, it swaps between the two different profiles of window positions.

. . .



. .

There are a ton more things you can do with displayfusion and/or a stream deck if you put in a little time to learn how, but even the surface functionality of them is very useful in my opinion.

Some of the more useful yet simple things to add when using a stream deck are: setting up a toggle key to alternate between two actions, or seting up a 3 stage action button (single press, double press, or hold). You can also set up multi actions where one button activates a bunch of actions (typically you put a small delay action in milliseconds between each action in a multi-action to prevent overstepping/tangles).

If you have a smaller stream deck with fewer keys, you can keep the main "page" with some icons that act like "folders" on it for different categories (e.g. "system" , "gaming") - so that you can drill down to new pages of button actions. Setting it up like that, you can have a lot more actions where you aren't limited to only the number of buttons the stream deck has on it's main face.

.

 

[iByte]

on my 43" 4K, 1 tiny thing that I can't fix is the resolution marker. My resolution is 43", so I use 3 x windows at 1280 wide. Now to mark 1280 wide per windows, I try Dymo tape as well as 3M book marker (sticker) to tape every 1280 width at the top edge of the monitor. But months later, it fell off.

So what I did next is to use any software icon to mark the spot of ea. 1280 wide on my screen, but windows does not allow me to put that icon to the exact spot I want, so it's off by 3 to 4 mm, but that's the best MS Windows can do.

do you guys use some sort of marker to mark every 1280 width per application windows?

I'll second the Display Fusion recommendation. But I would recommend looking at the Monitor Configuration setup. You can split a monitor virtually into a number of different virtual monitors and they will pretty much function as distinct monitors for most programs and you can easily override to display across the entire display or exclude programs that have issues (usually ones that do fancy / unusual windows). Here's my primary setup (you can have multiple monitor profiles):

An alternative to DisplayFusion is Fancy Zones in Microsoft PowerToys (which is free). It has similar capabilities.

 

[elvn]

Yes I've messed with viirtual monitors but personally I just prefer to map window positions. It's certainly an option, though. The way I do it, I don't have to drag anything anywhere practically ever. The set window tile areas are the "zones" essentially, either by app or generically teleporting the active window to different set locations I have mapped on stream deck keys, or every window all at once with the saved window position profiles. I'm using 3 different screens, but I'd do the same even if it was one huge screen.

There are a lot of ways to go about it with different solutions.

The easiest starting point imo is to set all of your apps where you use them the most and save it to a window position profile in DisplayFusion and hotkey it. Then set up an alt setup for whatever other workspace/game space you use part of the time and save that to another hotkey. You can get more involved from there, but that already does a lot for you. If you ever move something intentionally or accidentally, you just hit the hotkey again and everything goes back to their "home positions".


Edit: Worth noting that even with virtual monitor space software, windows usually overrrides that and ignores it when you click fullscreen in apps or games, but there are ways to maximize the window without title bar or window framing (maximizing in respect to the virtual monitor space, that is).

.

 

[iByte]

We probably have different use cases. About the only things that occupy semi-static locations on my monitors are a browser and email. Everything else shifts in priority depending on what I'm focused on at the moment. But I agree, a few programs do have issue and anything that goes full screen vs maximized window is basically outside the ability of Display Fusion to control.

Still, Display Fusion is a great program with tons of features that are not mutually exclusive.

 

[elvn]

It's just a matter of which way you prefer to do it. There are lots of angles you can come at it from.

I can hit any app button on my stream deck to focus that specific app window, or I can click my mouse on any window to focus it, and then hit any one of a number of generic window position buttons I previously set up, which teleport said app/active window to any of those predefined generic locations. So with my method, even though I have set "home locations" , I can also teleport apps around to predefined generic locations just as well as if I were throwing things into virtual monitor spaces, and later rubber-band them back to one of the saved global window positions if I want to or click individual app buttons to send an app back to it's own home position individually.

The saved window position profile(s) functionality is great and very useful, but I'm not limited to that. I stressed that method because it's an easy starting point for what happy hopping was asking about. It's a great way to "store" various workspaces / arrayed app window positions to individual profiles that you can swap between, without using virtual screens or configuring much of anything else. You just arrange one workspace, with a focal app + satellite apps for example or SBS, 1 / 2 /3 splits of different ratios, etc. then click save in the window position profile interface, giving it a name and assigning it a hotkey. Then do the same for your alternate focus apps so that you can shuffle between those layouts depending what you are focusing on at the moment, letting displayfusion do the shuffling for you.
.

 

[Happy Hopping]

1) so what if you want 1 of the windows to be wider than 1280? what would display fusion pro do to that window?

2) does most of you bunch of Samsung 57 users use Display Fusion pro? I wonder if an older version is cheaper

 

[elvn]

I put a reply to what you just asked zipped up in a quote here, but I'm not going to bomb this thread with info about it anymore after this. There are a lot of tutorials online for both DP and stream deck window management, and a bunch of youtube videos. There is a lot you can do if you want to get into the weeds, but you don't really have to. The surface things you can do using templates aren't that deep to learn to use.

Idk what it has without going pro because I bought it so long ago and the license lasts forever. It's $34 for one pc, or $50 for all of your pcs now I guess, and it never expires.

The displayfusion function template lets you input the values shown here manually typing them in (where it says width value, heigh value). That - OR - you can set your window size and location yourself manually using your mouse, and then drag the reticle in the template to the window title bar of that window you just set up. To have different windows different sizes, you'd use a different function for the other one with it's own hotkey combination.

. . .




I can't speak for them , but I know a lot of people just drag stuff around using fancy zones etc., which does work.

Windows also integrated a drop menu of window layouts at the top of the screen a long time ago, but it's pretty generic sizing wise without any ability to customize it afaik.

Personally, I'd recommend getting a 16 key stream deck when they go on sale for $100 - $120 over the holidays if you could swing it. The mini 6 key one is regularly $50 though. Then you could have buttons to set window spaces easily. Either DisplafyFusionPro or a stream deck can do the trick though.

This is the windows mover interface in stream deck. As you can see, you can retrieve the window size and position information, or you can enter/modify the values manually into that template yourself. You can use that dropdown to set that button to only operate on a specific app, or you can select "current focused window" so that it moves whatever window is the active window at the time.

You can make a number of generic window position buttons that operate on the active window, and name them the sizes you want, and/or you can set up a bunch of buttons, one for each app, etc.

 

[iByte]

1) so what if you want 1 of the windows to be wider than 1280? what would display fusion pro do to that window?

With respect to the virtual display feature, it just works normally when a window is not maximized (just like it was one monitor). When you maximize, it will maximize to the virtual display it is on. A shift (?) Maximize will go to the whole physical display. There is a 30 day trial with the pro features, so you can just try it.

2) does most of you bunch of Samsung 57 users use Display Fusion pro? I wonder if an older version is cheaper

There are alterntives that do some of the similar functions. List here: https://alternativeto.net/software/displayfusion/

Windows PowerToys are free and it's Fancy Zones feature has similar functionality to the virtual display function in DF. Better in someways. For the 57 Samsung Monitor, I think there is a utility that is available on the downloads page that has some type of similar function.

 

[zandor]

There are alterntives that do some of the similar functions. List here: https://alternativeto.net/software/displayfusion/

Windows PowerToys are free and it's Fancy Zones feature has similar functionality to the virtual display function in DF. Better in someways. For the 57 Samsung Monitor, I think there is a utility that is available on the downloads page that has some type of similar function.

If you're using a Dell monitor the Dell Display and Peripheral Manager app can do similar things with dividing a monitor up into chunks. At any rate there are a bunch of options for slicing a screen up and snapping windows to the slices.

 

[Happy Hopping]

With respect to the virtual display feature, it just works normally when a window is not maximized (just like it was one monitor). When you maximize, it will maximize to the virtual display it is on. A shift (?) Maximize will go to the whole physical display. There is a 30 day trial with the pro features, so you can just try it.


There are alterntives that do some of the similar functions. List here: https://alternativeto.net/software/displayfusion/

Windows PowerToys are free and it's Fancy Zones feature has similar functionality to the virtual display function in DF. Better in someways. For the 57 Samsung Monitor, I think there is a utility that is available on the downloads page that has some type of similar function.

I never heard of Samsung has a utility s/w that can do this too. This is the 1st time I come across this piece of information. Well, I have been using Dymo tape, and they keep falling off, as the edge of most monitor is only 3 to 4 mm thick, so it's hard to stick anything there

thank you everyone, I"ll check out these software

 

[improwise]

Been away from the monitor and gaming market for....quite a while now...and for whatever reason decided to upgrade my G95NC to latest firmware version. Seems like I no longer have the option to get GSync going on HDMI above 120 hz any more, and not even a reset of the monitor as well as reintallation of NVidia drivers via DDU seem to fix that. Seems like this has been an issue for others as well. Before I go down the rabbit hole, are there some known easy fixes for this? Have not yet tried DP as that is sadly needed for my worklaptop, but I am quite certain that 240 hz over HDMI via Gsync used to work.

HDMI 2.0+ is enabled on the monitor and things seem to work in HDMI at 240 hz, just not with Gsync. Adaptive sync is enabled for the monitor as well. In fact, Nvidas App even tell me Gsync isnt available. Sporting a 5090 BTW.

Are you even supposed to use GSync anymore? Tried to play Crysis Remastered thinking the answer to the famous question must finally be a yes, but apparently, not even the 5090 OC was enough for that

Edit:

Apparently, just connecting a second HDMI cable to the monitor from the same GPU (have ASUS with dual HDMIs) made the GSync come back again. Well, at least assuming that second HDMI port was not changed to 240 hz, in which case it went away again

I should add that I don't know if GSync actually worked or not, only know of the Pendlum demo and that seems to be legacy these day. I am guessing GSync probably never worked, just that the NVidia app is even worse than the NCP giving me false info.

Is there a reliable way to test GSync these days? The GSync indicator also seem flaky.

 

[Happy Hopping]

if you don't need that 2nd HDMI cable, and now you do. Could this be at the beginning of the failure of 5090? or do you think this is just a firmware bug?
are you really using 5090? as many 5090 over heat at the 12Vpwr port.

P.S. if you are stuck at any rabbit hole, let me know, as rabbit is my specialty

 

[improwise]

if you don't need that 2nd HDMI cable, and now you do. Could this be at the beginning of the failure of 5090? or do you think this is just a firmware bug?
are you really using 5090? as many 5090 over heat at the 12Vpwr port.

P.S. if you are stuck at any rabbit hole, let me know, as rabbit is my specialty

Pretty sure this is yet another Samsung firmware bug, maybe in combination with the new Nvidia App replacing the NCP. Not sure if the latter is still available? Should probably just be a different UI but who knows.

Seems like I am far from the only one

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidem.../samsung_g9_57_gsync_not_working_after_10070/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/comments/1o5nc4y/samsung_g95c_hdmi_21_g_sync_problem/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidem...c9/57_can_no_longer_do_240hz_and_gsync_since/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidem...sey_neo_g95nc_and_rtx_50_series_display_port/

Should add that I am starting to wonder if I just imagined it having working GSync at 240 hz over HDMI before, have not had time to game for quite some time...

Can see that kasakka was involved in on of the threads as well, how did it turn out?

 

[Happy Hopping]

assuming it's a firmware bug, this is the reason that I never flash my PC BIOS w/ the latest, only the 2nd latest.

On related matter, I wonder where does people like this guy has $ and space to have 2 of these Samsung, must be Elon Musk's children


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnC73dtQjaY

 

[kasakka]

2) does most of you bunch of Samsung 57 users use Display Fusion pro? I wonder if an older version is cheaper

I just used the free MS Powertoys because I mostly just want to have fixed window placement areas rather than try to make virtual monitors. You can build overlapping zones too.

On MacOS I use MacsyZones. It's a bit buggy, but I like it. There's tons of other window management programs with their own pros and cons. Lasso, Moom, Rectangle etc.

 

[kasakka]

Can see that @kasakka was involved in on of the threads as well, how did it turn out?

I don't have a 50 series GPU so can't test 240 Hz in the first place at native res. I also don't use my G95NC at all with Windows at this point. I do my gaming from the sofa with my LG CX 48" and for everything else use the Samsung as a desktop display.

So unfortunately I cannot say. It could be a Nvidia driver or Samsung firmware bug.

I've kept up this Reddit thread with links to firmware and all kinds of stuff, but since I mostly use MacOS it's not very up to date with any Windows issues:

https://old.reddit.com/r/ultrawidem...msung_neo_g9_57_g95nc_everything_you_need_to/

1009.2 seems to still be the latest firmware, and for some reason that's not available on all Samsung region websites. Here's the download link if you didn't install that already.
https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/FM/202511/20251112115545623/M-C9557GGPA-1009.2.zip

The Reddit link also has 1007 and 1008.2 in case you want to downgrade. I haven't noticed any relevant difference between the firmwares and nobody knows what the actual changes are since Samsung is stupid and does not have release notes anywhere.

 

[improwise]

I don't have a 50 series GPU so can't test 240 Hz in the first place at native res. I also don't use my G95NC at all with Windows at this point. I do my gaming from the sofa with my LG CX 48" and for everything else use the Samsung as a desktop display.

So unfortunately I cannot say. It could be a Nvidia driver or Samsung firmware bug.

I've kept up this Reddit thread with links to firmware and all kinds of stuff, but since I mostly use MacOS it's not very up to date with any Windows issues:

https://old.reddit.com/r/ultrawidem...msung_neo_g9_57_g95nc_everything_you_need_to/

1009.2 seems to still be the latest firmware, and for some reason that's not available on all Samsung region websites. Here's the download link if you didn't install that already.
https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/FM/202511/20251112115545623/M-C9557GGPA-1009.2.zip

The Reddit link also has 1007 and 1008.2 in case you want to downgrade. I haven't noticed any relevant difference between the firmwares and nobody knows what the actual changes are since Samsung is stupid and does not have release notes anywhere.

I went directly to 1009.2
But my conclusion is that it probably never worked regardless of what the NCP or Nvidia App might say. At least I have not found any good way to verify it. Pendlum demo never seem to say I have GSync, even at a lower resolution and 120 hz. That said, I am pretty sure I got it working with 4K@240hz over HDMI but that PC has been transformed now into probably the most overpowered HTPC in a long time and has moved into the living room

Yet to try via DP though (as I was unable to get my work laptop to work with HDMI).

 

[improwise]

So, seems like there is a bug either in Samsungs firmware or Nvidias latest drivers. If you connect something via HDMI at 120 hz, even if it isn't even the active input used, the GSync options shows up at machine level. At monitor level however, I have only been able to get GSync to work with DP, ie where it shows up as an option to enable GSync for that particular monitor. If you do that, GSync works as expected at 8K@240hz (and also in the Pendlum demo). I am 90% certain though that I have seen the "Enable GSync compatible for this monitor" show up for my monitor when doing HDMI2.1 via my 3090 though, now I can't seem to ever get it to work, even when doing something like 4K@120hz over HDMI.

TL;DR; GSync only works via DP.

Edit:

Correction, not sure what I did but now I got GSync to work for 8K@120hz as well. But at 240 hz it is still a no go so basically 240 hz = No GSync for HDMI.

 

[elvn]

assuming it's a firmware bug, this is the reason that I never flash my PC BIOS w/ the latest, only the 2nd latest.

On related matter, I wonder where does people like this guy has $ and space to have 2 of these Samsung, must be Elon Musk's children


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnC73dtQjaY

If he got one of them used it might not have been quite that extreme, but everything is relative. According to L88 in another thread recently regarding the 57" 7680x2160 samsung :


. . .

There literally was a guy selling a mint one in Facebook marketplace. I watched it go from $1,100 asking all the way down to $450 over the course of a month and a half....finally sold at $400.

I primarily use mine for work productivity and UW gaming novelty and it's priceless for that and not having to worry about burn in issues.

Back on topic.... seems like this Alienware is gonna have annoying ABL dimming.... ughhhh

.

 

[improwise]

How ironic, as I was looking for way to free up the DP port on my G95NC which was taken by my 5 year old Dell docking station (as it only has HDMI 2.0) I decided to give a try to that never used outgoing USB-C port on the back. Turns out it was some kind of pass through that worked even with my brand my Zbook so now I have 8K@120 hz 4:4:4 from my laptop via that same old docking station and the DP port free to use for my gaming PC

 

[Happy Hopping]

I went directly to 1009.2
But my conclusion is that it probably never worked regardless of what the NCP or Nvidia App might say. At least I have not found any good way to verify it. Pendlum demo never seem to say I have GSync, even at a lower resolution and 120 hz. That said, I am pretty sure I got it working with 4K@240hz over HDMI but that PC has been transformed now into probably the most overpowered HTPC in a long time and has moved into the living room

Yet to try via DP though (as I was unable to get my work laptop to work with HDMI).

to make you feel any better, I made the same mistake on a Gigabyte B150M motherboard. They have a BIOS 10 yr. newer than the old BIOS, which is strange, as the motherboard has been discontinued for many yr. I flash that motherboard w/ that 10 yr. newer BIOS, the PC won't boot up since. I then removed the battery, try to go back to the old BIOS, but can't get rid of the new BIOS.