I'm kind of a big fan of the pass-through DP support in USB-C and Thunderbolt for laptops, especially combined with a dock or monitor that supports power delivery. Just plug in one cable and boom, video output, keyboard, mouse, webcam, Ethernet, whatever other USB stuff and it charges the laptop.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
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 57" 7680x2160 super ultrawide (mini-LED)
- Thread starter kasakka
- Start date
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,922
I just recently replaced one of my old 4k 60hz samsung VA side screens with a more modern FALD mini LED LCD that has hdmi 2.1 and 120hz - 144hz, HDR and DV. Over my existing high bandwidth hdmi 2.1 cable with a dp to hdmi 2.1 adapter on my gpu, windows/nvidia panel would only default to a generic monitor at 1024x768 at 60hz and no features, no hdr etc. The single hdmi output on my 5000 series gpu is already taken by my OLED gaming tv.
I had to update my dp-to-hdmi2.1 adapter to a newer dp to hdmi 2.1 active cable which has a newer (or at least a different) chip in it.
Just mentioning it since you are talking about handshaking and recognition issues.
This cable seemed to do the trick:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FRSFHVF5
Apparently it uses the Synaptics VMM7100 chip.
.
I had to update my dp-to-hdmi2.1 adapter to a newer dp to hdmi 2.1 active cable which has a newer (or at least a different) chip in it.
Just mentioning it since you are talking about handshaking and recognition issues.
This cable seemed to do the trick:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FRSFHVF5
Apparently it uses the Synaptics VMM7100 chip.
.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Yeah that seems to be the chip that works the best. Some vendors offer some customized firmware to make it more compatible with Macs somehow. For example CableMatters adapter has such a firmware you can install but that might make it work less well on Windows.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,495
I am hoping for an update for those PC desktop users, as to what's their current GPU and how many GB of Video RAM on their video card, while they are using this 57" monitor.
If you don't do gaming on it, you can run it off probably most reasonably modern GPUs just fine.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,495
I only do a small amt. of gaming: I never play first person shooter, I only do 3rd person shooting, and so far, it's 2D only, such as R-Type Dimension EX Final. The lowest Video RAM that I can see is 8GB for the RTX 5060, and the highest for RTX 5060 is 16GB. So I most likely would choose btwn. 8 to 16GB.
Yeah, as mentioned above, my new Zbook laptop apparently could run it at native resolution at 120 hz even. This has me tempted of trying out if it could even drive my 8K TV that used to be my monitor until the previous laptop said no can do to drive that even in 60 hz so I had to downsize to the 57"
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,495
I think the HP Zbook only has 4 GB of RTX 500 Ada DDR6 video RAM, in that case, I'll settle for RTX 5060 Ti at 8GB of RAM, because the RTX 5060 Ti w/ 16GB of RAM used to be in the $469 range, then it jumps to $800, and just now , it jumps to the $1100 range. Although the white color version is $200 cheaper (don't understand that neither). So I have no choice but to downsize my purchase to the 8GB of video RAM version
It could do 8K@60hz as well.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,495
well, can you confirm your laptop has 4GB of video RAM? meaning, if 4GB of video RAM works for you, it should work for me. The only website that I need a lot of graphics load up fast, is https://www.deviantart.com/
I can't see a GPU being unable to support a 7680x2160 screen just because it's only got 4GB vram. At 32bpp it only needs ~64MB for a framebuffer. ~128MB for full 8k. Add 25% or 50% for 10 or 12bpp. Still a small slice of 4GB. I had a GTX680 running 7680x1440 back in early 2013. Played games on it too. Of course surround didn't work so well until I got a second 680 for an SLI setup.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,495
well, in that case, I'll hold off to any new video card unless it's on sale or a good 2nd hand price. I still have some hope on the embedded Intel video module can work w/o slowing down. So far, it's working on 16GB of Sys. RAM, but that's on my current screen, which is only 4K
The big question is what kind of connection does your integrated video on your current system support? HDMI & DP versions. That's the main thing that controls what resolution you can run on the desktop. Actually limits 3D gaming res too, but the practical limit of GPU performance vs. res is usually the more important factor. According to NVidia's specs an RTX 5050 can run an 8k display at up to 165Hz. Way more than you need for a G9. Game on a 5050 at that res? No, not really. But it can do it if you just want to run desktop apps.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,495
I have a Asus Z890 Apex, its integrated video module only support 8K at ThunderBolt port. So I have a Ugreen Thunderbolt 4 to DP 2.1 cable at 40 Gbps rated, or 8K at 120Hz rated. The thing is, 8K is supposedly 7680x4320, and Samsung 57 is 7680x2160. So how do I calculate at what max. frequency can the cable support? Is it based on the no. of pixels?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,495
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB4dunHdUrU
this person said when he uses this monitor, he feels like he is "INSIDE the monitor" instead of "in front of the monitor. However, he also has complaint that the viewing angle is not good at 6:35 of the video. He said "moving your head side to side by 1 ft., you can notice significant shift in color and contrast"
It's a VA panel so it's not going to have perfect viewing angles. I don't find this to be a real issue in everyday use.
I've had mine for quite awhile and I've not found it an issue either.
Actually if you put a OLED or even IPS right beside it the color/gamma loss is pretty bad. Not really so much the horizontal but the vertical. There is basically no way to position yourself as desktop distance so that something either at the top or bottom doesn't wash out.
I realized this when comparing it in Forza Horizon 6. I was like wow OLED color is great and then moved my head down and all of a sudden the cars vibrance returned.
I realized this when comparing it in Forza Horizon 6. I was like wow OLED color is great and then moved my head down and all of a sudden the cars vibrance returned.
Lets not kid ourselves here, the viewing angles are horrible and I have always said that they are the main reason for the massive curve. Even my 65" 8K has better viewing angles even being flat. That said, the massive curve mitigates a lot of the problem, assuming you can accept or even prefer a massive curve of course (I would much rather prefer a flat monitor with good viewing angles myself).
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,495
please describe in more details on your viewing angle problem
It's based on # of pixels and DSC support.
A G9 is half the pixels of 8K and twice the pixels of 4k, so you can pretty much just double the max 8k refresh or halve the max 4k refresh. GPU specs are frequently incomplete as far as what they can actually do goes since they tend to just list standard resolutions. But it doesn't matter because it's all about bitrate & pixel count. It's been this way for a long time. Back in the mid 1990s I was running custom modes on 1993 hardware. As long as you had a multisync CRT what mode you could run was pretty much all about how much Hsync the tube could take and how many pixels the ramdac on the vid card could pump out. Vsync could be a limitation, but that only mattered at low resolution or eye-bleed slow refresh rates at high res, so it didn't really count. Vid cards/GPUs never lost that ability to spit out whatever res. If they have the bitrate they can do it.
Your cable is 40Gbps so UHBR10. The Z890 Apex specs say it can support up to UHBR20 on one port at a time. Best I can tell the 57" G9 does UHBR 13.5 (54Gbps). Samsung just says "Displayport UHBR 13.5 or better" or HDMI 2.1. Either way 13.5 should be fine. You might need a better USB-C/TB to DP cable for 240Hz. I'd expect it'd still work at 40 but maybe not at full speed. Too bad that board doesn't have an HDMI 2.1 port. Might be easier & cheaper than dealing with ThunderBolt to DP2 adapter cables. I'm thinking what you have will be fine for a non-gaming setup. Might not get 240Hz, but my Dell P5226KW does 120Hz over DP1.4. UHBR10 with a few more pixels should do at least 120 on a Neo G9.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,495
well, w/ the price of these video card going up again, if I end up needing to buy a video card, I don't have a chance but to downsize to a lower price video card at 8GB of video RAM. So I'll go w / the monitor, since so many of you are happy w/ it. And see if I can put up w/o a new video card. As the old video card can only be used on my 2nd monitor, a 15 yr. old , 60" sharp TV at 1080p
To me a superultrawide that is not curved would be a terrible product. If anything, I wish this had an even tighter 800R curve to it.
I've had TN panels even at laptop size where I was moving my head like an owl because even minor position shifts make the colors go out of whack.
I've had VA panels that had unsolvable black crush and major color shifting, paired with awful dark color response times.
TCL/CSOT's VA panels like used in the Samsung are about as good as VA panels get, which is that they don't have major response time or viewing angle issues IMO.
No, they are not OLED or even IPS by any means, but it's not like you have options for other panel types for these.
At the same time I'm happy that this is NOT OLED because I don't have to worry about how I use it. For me it's 100% only a display for desktop use nowadays. I play games with my LG CX 48" from the sofa because my 4090 is much better suited at handling 4K @ 120 Hz and I don't have to deal with ultrawide issues in games - or the superultrawide FOV distortion.
Don't take me wrong, the Samsung far from perfect but it's still pretty good. I've had mine for close to 2 years now and don't see much reason why I would change this to anything unless it fails. So far I've had a couple of times that it has not woken up and I had to cut the power, wait a bit and turn power back on. Then it works just fine again. This is a very rare case too.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,922
I agree about 800R, having used the 45gx950a. I was able to sit at it's center of curvature which for 800R = 800mm Radius = ~ 32 inch view distance. At that distance all of the pixels, at least horizontally, were pointed directly at me. Similar to turning side screens in a 3 screen array inward to point to directly at you, but with a smooth curve with pixels on axis to you all the way across instead of being faceted. It was a MLA OLED though, not VA. I think that 800R curvature is perfect, I just wasn't satisfied with the picture quality.
Regarding VA, considering the way FALD works, a VA ' s native contrast works better (than IPS) for media and games since it is falling back on the native contrast of the panel :
Last edited:
If people want a massive curve or not is a matter of personal preference - the difference is that this monitor probably would be unusable without it because of the viewing angles. Unless you pushed it far away of course, but that would kind of defeat the purpose. I am talking mostly about productivity here, immersion is another thing.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,922
I'd still want 800R ' s 800mm / 32" center-of-curvature for desktop app use. It's like if you had a big portrait mode screen on a giant selfie stick and rotated sitting in your chair like a compass. The whole arc of the screen remains on axis to you.
I can see why people - who are in a middle ground where the curvature of a particular screen, and/or it's physical height, isn't enough to allow them to sit at the center of curvature - might shy away from such imperfectly viewed curves and want retreat back to completely flat, but in my opinion, on large format screens, I'd want to go in the opposite direction until the curve is enough that I'm sitting in the exact center of the imaginary circle the screen is an arc of. To me, it doesn't make sense to curve "halfway". If I had a choice I'd want completely flat within 60 degree viewing angle width, or dimensions that allow me to sit at the center of curvature.
Even flat screens, especially larger ones, can have larger areas with pixels off axis from you ("bad viewing angles") when you sit too close, and it also lowers your PPD.
A makeshift example that can be used to represent a curve's screen's pixels pointing directly at you, all the way to the ends of the screen.
...........................
this says 1000R but it looks the same sitting at these relative distances in relation to any center of curvature / circle radius. The nearer you sit than the center, the more the pixels become progressively off-axis toward the ends of the screen, almost like a gradient.
When you sit near a curved screen like the example directly above this, getting those large red areas off axis from you, you might decide you want flat instead, but I'd go for the first animated gif example, fully on axis, if I had a screen with good enough PQ at 800R.
Even flat screens can have larger areas with pixels off axis from you when you sit too close (and it also lowers your PPD).
..........
A screen designed to allow you to sit at the center of its curvature makes the most sense to me. 800R(adius) = 800mm = around 32" inches to the center of curvature.
This fencing is the equivalent of a 1500R (1500mm, 5' radius) curve:
Last edited:
I think it would be unusable without the curve even if it was an OLED panel. It's so wide that at a sensible viewing distance for effectively two 32" 4K displays, using the sides of the screen would be just awkward to use.
I used to have my LG CX 48" mounted at 1m distance, and I used it like an ultrawide because using the full height was uncomfortably tall. From what I remember, I still struggled using the edges because it was flat, like it was just awkward to work with anything in the corners of the display.
The Samsung 57" even when curved is about as wide as a 60" flat TV. As a flat display it would be as wide as a 63" TV. Now imagine looking at that at a little more than an arm's length.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,922
From reddit today, someone's attempt to capture the 57" 1000R (~39" radius) screen's curvature in a near-profile image.
This also highlights how bad this monitor is for speaker placement. I have my big Genelecs on poles behind my desk, raised above the display and tilted down. If I were to put them to the sides, the stereo image would be excessively wide and will sound weird. I ran into this problem already on the 49" models.
Otherwise my setup is similar, just on a deeper desk. Viewing distance is a little over arm's length for me.
I have two Macbook Pros (work + personal) on a vertical stand in clamshell mode about where the closest speaker is in this image.
One thing worth noting about the curvature is that it's not a consistent 1000R curve, but straightens out a bit at the very edges. You can kinda see this on the side closest to the headphones where the panel stops curving. I guess this is because they can mostly bend the display in the center but can't quite do it all the way.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,922
I keep my front R/L and center surround speakers below my array instead of on the sides. Since there is a gap between the desk and the screen, the center horizontal speaker is clear. The L/R bookshelf speaker ones are about half above board of my desk from my perspective, and half below, each on their own short speaker stand. My desk is an open frame adjustable height dense wooden table top but it's only around an inch thick, (plus a horizontal metal beam down the center that might be down another inch total) - so it's not really being blocked on the bottom half of the L/R channel speakers. The way I have it set up allows them to be spaced appropriately horizontally along with other klipsch desktop size speakers for 7 surround radially + 1 large old wooden polk sub I have, all running off of a yamaha 7.2 receiver. It works for me. I do need to get some soundproofing for behind me though, since I sit in a corner facing outward and the walls reflect. Sounds great for bass though in the meantime /s . 
}}}}}}} {{{{{{{{
I also have a decent set of open can headphones, AKG712 I keep on a hiby R3 pro saber dual DAC. None of that audio eqiupment is extremeophile audio but it has pretty decent sound quality.
. . .
I think they probably could curve *a* screen all of the way if they wanted to, at least if it were oled. I don't know if the ends being flat was a technical hurdle, flex breaking concern, or just a design decision (or packaging/shipping consideration even) on these.
. .
Idk if accurate, but according to google, the screen portion is actually curved the whole way and the "flattening" of the sides is a sort of optical illusion :
.
..
This titanium ring is around 2000mm diameter, so is similar curvature. You can see how if you look at parts of the arc of the curve and focus/isolate them in how you are looking at it, it might look a little flatter in places even though it isn't. I don't have one of the 57" 7680x2160 screens though so I really can't say.
}}}}}}} {{{{{{{{I also have a decent set of open can headphones, AKG712 I keep on a hiby R3 pro saber dual DAC. None of that audio eqiupment is extremeophile audio but it has pretty decent sound quality.
. . .
I think they probably could curve *a* screen all of the way if they wanted to, at least if it were oled. I don't know if the ends being flat was a technical hurdle, flex breaking concern, or just a design decision (or packaging/shipping consideration even) on these.
. .
Idk if accurate, but according to google, the screen portion is actually curved the whole way and the "flattening" of the sides is a sort of optical illusion :
.
..
This titanium ring is around 2000mm diameter, so is similar curvature. You can see how if you look at parts of the arc of the curve and focus/isolate them in how you are looking at it, it might look a little flatter in places even though it isn't. I don't have one of the 57" 7680x2160 screens though so I really can't say.
Last edited:
I think what you're doing with it also matters. I like some curve on an ultrawide for desktop uses. Desktop apps operate on pixels and some curve helps keep sizes consistent. For gaming & video I don't like a curve at all. Games and videos assume a flat projection. Curving the screen warps the image. I use a flat OLED for that. Personally I think the Samsung 57" has too much curve for my liking while my Dell P5226KW (52" IPS) work monitor could use a bit more.
That's not how any of it works. No applications "assume" any projection regarding the physical characteristics of the display. The curve exists to bring the sides closer to you on a display that is very wide, so when sitting at the center looking at the sides looks about the same as looking at the center. On a flat display at the same viewing distance the sides would look awkward as the viewing angles on a VA panel would be an issue. Looking at the sides from an angle even on an OLED will feel awkward if the viewing distance is not increased to accommodate for the large width.
99% of games on ultrawide and superultrawide monitors suffer from field of view distortion because no games on the market use projection methods that are suited for wide aspect ratios. The wider the aspect ratio, the more the FOV distorts at the edges of the screen. It's less noticeable on 21:9 screens but still there. You could set a large flat TV to a superultrawide custom resolution and get the same problems.
That's what makes gaming on superultrawides a bit pointless IMO, the extra width on the sides is just severely stretched and you get reduced performance as well. Much more sensible to game at 5120x2160 21:9 instead.
Applications don't use a projection, just 3D stuff like 1st or 3rd person games.
For 1st/3rd person 3D games the projection assumptions have changed over time. Back in the old days it was common to use a fixed horizontal FOV and scale the vertical FOV based on the aspect ratio. That worked for 4:3 and 5:4 CRT resolutions. Then as widescreens started becoming popular they switched to scaling based off the vertical FOV instead.
If you think 24:9 is stretched, I've run 48:9. Well, 3x16:9 using NV Surround on 3 27" screens. 7680x1440. SLI was involved. A lot of 1st/3rd person 3D games could actually handle it, even back in 2013 when I set it up. Some games needed some tweaking, others just worked. Games that just worked calculated FOV based fixed vertical FOV and scaled the horizontal FOV. On a good day you could fix it with an FOV adjustment in the game settings. Often you had to hand edit some config file. I had an app that could set up quite a few. I think it was called Flawless Widescreen or something like that. In any game running like that the image on the side screens gets really stretched out horizontally if you look at the side screen. The solution is not to look at them directly. They look correct in your peripheral vision while you're looking at the center screen. Ultrawides do the same thing, just not as much.
Running 12:3 (36:9) with 3 4:3 CRTs in 2002 was more messy. Yep, tried surround on a Matrox Parhelia. Then a lot of FPS games didn't work. By 2012 16:9 and 16:10 widescreen had been common for a while, so game devs apparently switched to using fixed vertical FOV to deal with a mix of 5:4, 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 monitors. In 2002 a lot more games used a fixed horizontal FOV and scaled the vertical FOV to the aspect ratio. The ones that did work, usually after some manual config file hacking, displayed the same distortion on the side screens.
In both cases 1st & 3rd person 3D games looked better with the side screens arranged in a straight line. The down side is angling the side screens toward you worked much better for desktop apps. That was also better for a top down game like an RTS. It's the same with ultrawides, just not as extreme.