CHG90 is soon to be released!

Right, 3840x1080 at $1500 USD is a bit of a stretch. It would be a lot better value at half the price (and I still wouldn't buy it).

If they went any higher on resolution, though, they would have to cut back hard on the refresh rate or use DisplayPort 1.4, so I can see why they did that.
 
bp2008 said:
Right, 3840x1080 at $1500 USD is a bit of a stretch. It would be a lot better value at half the price (and I still wouldn't buy it).

If they went any higher on resolution, though, they would have to cut back hard on the refresh rate or use DisplayPort 1.4, so I can see why they did that.
Click to expand...

yep. its a gaming monitor especially for sim racers. i think more hz lower res is better than higher res and low hz for a gaming screen. pixel density is like 27" full hd, so its better than these 35" 1080p screens. i think for gaming it doesnt make so much difference, smoothness is more important here.
 
bubulus said:
yep. its a gaming monitor especially for sim racers. i think more hz lower res is better than higher res and low hz for a gaming screen. pixel density is like 27" full hd, so its better than these 35" 1080p screens. i think for gaming it doesnt make so much difference, smoothness is more important here.
Click to expand...

You can buy a vive or Oculus for less than half the price and it's going to be better than any widescreen monitor for sim racing.
 
$1500 for literally a half panel 55" 4k, way too much stupid ultrawide tax going on. Ironically they could replace the stupid smart crap in their high end tvs (that are 120hz internally) with a no-nonsense DP 1.4 input that doesn't add latency or mess with the signal and own a good portion of high end monitor market for very little effort. (this would have worked as early as 2015 too)

However $700 for a 32" 1440p 144hz HDR using their very excellent panels was so tempting I preordered it. I was going to wait for the 4k HDR monitors but they are far out and going to be $2000. Also gpus really are not ready for 4k@120hz+ even with the next bump but if you can do smooth 4k@60hz you can do 1440p@120hz+.
 
Aluminum said:
$1500 for literally a half panel 55" 4k, way too much stupid ultrawide tax going on. Ironically they could replace the stupid smart crap in their high end tvs (that are 120hz internally) with a no-nonsense DP 1.4 input that doesn't add latency or mess with the signal and own a good portion of high end monitor market for very little effort. (this would have worked as early as 2015 too)

However $700 for a 32" 1440p 144hz HDR using their very excellent panels was so tempting I preordered it. I was going to wait for the 4k HDR monitors but they are far out and going to be $2000. Also gpus really are not ready for 4k@120hz+ even with the next bump but if you can do smooth 4k@60hz you can do 1440p@120hz+.
Click to expand...

what 32" 1440p are you referencing?
 
Aluminum said:
However $700 for a 32" 1440p 144hz HDR using their very excellent panels was so tempting I preordered it. I was going to wait for the 4k HDR monitors but they are far out and going to be $2000.
Click to expand...

No local dimming on these Samsungs means they just support HDR input, they do not have the minimum 1000 nits brightness and maximum black levels of the FALD displays that is required for good HDR. So they're not comparable to the 4K 144hz displays.
 
Personally I'm not impressed by the resolution but that's just me.
 
If this monitor was <$800 I could see it being a thing, but that is a steep premium to pay for the novelty.
This monitor just needs a community of hardcore Dariusburst Chronicles Saviors fans (the game's main mode is designed around dual 16:9 screen output, as it was in arcades). Unfortunately, the game won't benefit from 60hz+, so they'd still be better off with a 55+ inch 4k screen :(
 
Don't you just wish Samsung would do some sort of community outreach over say 6 months and ask gamers on all the forums what they want?

Take that information and apply it to them wanting to introduce a larger display to consumers and then go from there.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Don't you just wish Samsung would do some sort of community outreach over say 6 months and ask gamers on all the forums what they want?

Take that information and apply it to them wanting to introduce a larger display to consumers and then go from there.
Click to expand...

They know exactly what people want, but what they're doing is MILKING it to try to sell people as many paper weights as they possibly can. I had a 2560x1600 monitor in 2009, and I wasn't even an early adopter. They had been around for years before that. Here we are in 2017, and the average resolution is LOWER than that. It's a fucking joke. 3840x2160 @ 144hz should have been standard by now, but it probably won't be until at least 2020. What a shitty glacial pace this industry moves at--all because people are willing to bend over and continually buy pieces of shit. Consumers need to say no. Not buying ANYTHING until they deliver something that's actually good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HA5
like this
I only just noticed this display.

32:9 is ridiculously wide in my opinion. This has exactly half as many pixels as a typical 4K display. It's only 81dpi.

A 49" 21:9 with ~8M pixels would be great. At 49" with 4352x1906, it would be 97dpi and 44.9''x19.7''. That would have the same number of pixels as 4K (3840x2160) except in a 21:9 aspect ratio (actually 21.33:9).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top