lg 48cx oled vs samsung odyssey g9

srphoenix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
186
I've read both threads specifically about each monitor but I'm still split on them. I have a c7 65" oled in my basement theater room and adore the thing while meanwhile for my pc I have a 40" 60hz seiki (with transitions so slow it's the perfect monitor to educate people on how pixels transition).

The 48cx oled has these pros in my mind:
-oled panel with all it's glory, individual pixel dimming, perfect viewing angles, amazing color rendition
-instant pixel transitions
-easier display ratio for most things
-$200 cheaper
-120hz

negatives:
-oled burn in (not super worried about this, but it's something you have to be a little mindful of)
-input lag seems to be at 10ms in native resolutions
-no displayport 1.4 (won't matter once new cards come out)
-not 240hz


The odyssey G9 features:
-2-5ms input lag
-240hz panel
-ultrawide aspect ratio
-1000r curve

negatives:
-va panel, black smearing historically (maybe fixed here), colors don't pop like ips or oled based on my eyesight
-$200 more
-much slower pixel transitions
-"hdr" 1000 but edge lit so I'm not expecting a whole lot there


So I guess in the end it comes down to the comparison of speed between the slower input lag and 120hz panel but instant pixel transitions of the oled vs the faster input lag and 240hz panel but slower pixels of the VA G9.

I know the oled panel will realistically do the 120hz, but will the input lag of it coupled with the slower refresh rate be a worse choice vs. the VA 240hz?

On the other hand, will the G9's 240hz VA panel even be able to handle that refresh rate, in the past that was easily a no for VA panels. Then couple in the pixel transitions, will it just be a blurry mess?

The great news is there are at least two or even just one great monitor options on the market, something we haven't had in sometime.

I'd love to hear what some of you think about the comparison above.

Thanks!
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,020
You pretty much have the pros and cons nailed there except I would say input lag on the CX is not a concern at all. With its immediate pixel response I would expect it does pretty decently even against 240 Hz LCDs.

I have both the LG CX 48 and the Samsung CRG9. To me the CRG9 is a better desktop display and the CX a better gaming display. You can run ultrawide resolutions like 3840x1600 if you want which avoid some of the FOV distortion issues of 5120x1440 and of course OLED provides a far better HDR experience. The CX also has a better range for VRR, 20-120 Hz according to Rtings.com whereas CRG9 is 48-120 Hz and the G9 is an even worse 60-240 Hz. I don't care all too much about VRR when you are above 60 fps but under it definitely can help smooth things out.

Gaming performance is better on the CRG9 since 5120x1440 has less pixels than 3840x2160. When the wide aspect ratio works it can be very immersive. When it doesn't, it has an annoying fisheye effect. I feel like the ideal resolution for gaming on it is 3840x1440. But as said, you can use custom resolutions for ultrawide on the CX too, thus mitigating the performance gap.

With the CRG9 on the desktop I used 100% scaling with font sizes increased to 110% in browser. I found this was a comfortable configuration in terms of text size. On the CX I instead use 120% custom scaling as to me it gives a good compromise between text size and desktop space. This does mean that overall I have less usable desktop space than on the CRG9 and putting several windows side by side is a better way to work for me than tiling them in a grid or having very tall windows. Generally due to the CX's massive size I work on the bottom 1/2 or 2/3 of the screen, using effectively something like 3840x1600 size of the desktop regularly.

Curved vs non-curved is also an issue, curved to me is more comfortable. But because the CX is so big, it has to be put further away which somewhat diminishes the need for the curve. That said I would not mind if it was curved just a little bit.

I don't think there is a better all purpose monitor on the market right now than the CX 48. Compared to other displays, its main drawbacks are burn-in, size and a crappy stand. Those to me are not that bad problems. If you can fit it somewhere around 80-100 cm away from you then it can work. If you can wall mount it, even better.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,558
The Samsung G9 has sort of been "soft recalled" IIRC. You couldn't even purchase it anymore. I dunno if the situation has changed and the monitor is now for sale again, but even if it was, I still pick OLED!
 

Absalom

Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
858
Yep, the G9 is in holding pattern right now as retailers were instructed to not sell them due to alleged QA issues. They are probably sitting in backs of stores or warehouses until Samsung gives the green light. Only way to get one right now is second-hand from someone who snagged one during that first week of sales. Just keep in mind that, for now, the G9 is theoretical.

That said, most popular review sites have been praising the G9. None of them have been directly comparing it to the 48CX though. The G9 inevitably gets compared to its LCD contemporaries, which it seems to be holding up fairly well.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,209
I would go with the OLED.

240hz on the VA isn't going to be a "blurry mess", but you aren't going to get a true 240hz in regards to most pixel transitions if that's what you mean by it. Probably not even 120hz in a lot of transitions. Running the OLED at 120hz would probably look clearer than 240hz on the VA.

I think the small advantages the G9 has are dwarfed by the vastly superior image quality you'll get with the CX.
 

realworld

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
306
Honestly I’m surprised people would even consider a PC monitor nowadays. Even among Samsung, their TVs outclass their PC monitor offerings by a huge margin. For the same money, I’ll grab the 55” q90t no questions asked if one was to use it as a PC monitor and gaming. I’ll choose the OLED any day if it’s purely for gaming,
 

Rainstar

n00b
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
37
considered the same exact thing. I chose the LG CX48 I'm glad and happy for my pick. The blacks are amazing. Super ultra wide resolution not sure how many games will adopt 32:9. Friend did buy the G7 and when I saw his backlight bleed I knew I made the right choice. The CX is super Glossy and reflective. My dad's 77 inch Samsung Qled loses to this

G9 was recalled recently will prob resell update/fix.
Both will need one hell of a GPU to run especially CX needs the new cards with HDMI 2.1 to do 4k 120 HDR.

And one last thing. I got the CX48 on sale brand new around $1200.
 

Rainstar

n00b
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
37
Where did you find it for that price? I'd buy it right this second for 1200.

B&H, probably a rare one off discount price they don't do too often

B&H.jpg
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,558
^Amazing deal! Even without any discounts, at $1500 it is still cheaper than the Samsung G9 which is $1700, and it was much cheaper than my $2000 Acer X27 and it completely destroys it in every possible way. I feel like the CX even at MSRP is an amazing value as it is, any discounts you can get on it just makes it even sweeter.
 

InaDaise

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 13, 2016
Messages
80
I don't think there is a better all purpose monitor on the market right now than the CX 48. Compared to other displays, its main drawbacks are burn-in, size and a crappy stand. Those to me are not that bad problems. If you can fit it somewhere around 80-100 cm away from you then it can work. If you can wall mount it, even better.
Is there any noticeable difference in graphic detail in games between screen size comparing the 48" to a 40"? The PPI on my 40" Samsung 4k ips TV is at a nice high 111 or 110 PPI (3840x2160). It's not the money, I can get the CX or other TV or monitor. But the PPI goes down on the 48" and on a 55" it goes down to 80 PPI in 4k.

So if I'm on the wrong track and I hope I am then let me know. I'm concerned the CX may look less detailed because of lower PPI and that's assuming I would be sitting at the appropriate distance from the TV. Maybe the colors and contrast on the CX are so much better that it's nothing to worry about.
Edit: again this is just for pc games, like for the texture detail and overall graphics in games like RDR2 and Horizon Zero Dawn, not so much for movies unless you or anyone want to touch on that.
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,558
Is there any noticeable difference in graphic detail in games between screen size comparing the 48" to a 40"? The PPI on my 40" Samsung 4k ips TV is at a nice high 111 or 110 PPI (3840x2160). It's not the money, I can get the CX or other TV or monitor. But the PPI goes down on the 48" and on a 55" it goes down to 80 PPI in 4k.

So if I'm on the wrong track and I hope I am then let me know. I'm concerned the CX may look less detailed because of lower PPI and that's assuming I would be sitting at the appropriate distance from the TV. Maybe the colors and contrast on the CX are so much better that it's nothing to worry about.
Edit: again this is just for pc games, like for the texture detail and overall graphics in games like RDR2 and Horizon Zero Dawn, not so much for movies unless you want to touch on that.

My previous gaming monitor was an Acer X27 so 4k at 27 inches...quite the difference in PPI going from 163 all the way down to 91. At proper viewing distance, texture detail does not look any worst to me. I mean the actual rendering resolution is the same so I don't see why it would. If anything, gaming at 1440p @ 27 inches which is 108 PPI vs gaming at 4k @ 48 inches which is 91 PPI, 4k looks a lot better despite having a worst PPI. PPI is, IMO, something you shouldn't pay too much attention to for games. Obviously for desktop work you'd want high PPI since high PPI = sharper, clearer text. For games though, I gotta say there really isn't a massive benefit to going for extremely high PPI levels besides reduction in jaggies without needing to use anti aliasing solutions. Just ask yourself, do you think 720p at 14 inches would have better texture detail than 4k at 48 inches because the PPI is better?
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,020
Is there any noticeable difference in graphic detail in games between screen size comparing the 48" to a 40"? The PPI on my 40" Samsung 4k ips TV is at a nice high 111 or 110 PPI (3840x2160). It's not the money, I can get the CX or other TV or monitor. But the PPI goes down on the 48" and on a 55" it goes down to 80 PPI in 4k.

So if I'm on the wrong track and I hope I am then let me know. I'm concerned the CX may look less detailed because of lower PPI and that's assuming I would be sitting at the appropriate distance from the TV. Maybe the colors and contrast on the CX are so much better that it's nothing to worry about.
Edit: again this is just for pc games, like for the texture detail and overall graphics in games like RDR2 and Horizon Zero Dawn, not so much for movies unless you or anyone want to touch on that.

Graphic detail no, resolution is what matters most for that as more pixels = more fine detail resolved. For PPI it's all about the viewing distance. Low PPI is fine even for 4K if you are sitting a couple meters away on a couch. If the viewing distance is same, higher PPI will look better. But since 40 vs 48" is a significant difference, you would simply put the 48" further away from you which negates some of the 40" PPI advantage. If the CX was available in 40" I would rather pick that size but since it isn't, I just make do and put the 48" as far as it goes on my desk.
 

InaDaise

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 13, 2016
Messages
80
My previous gaming monitor was an Acer X27 so 4k at 27 inches...quite the difference in PPI going from 163 all the way down to 91. At proper viewing distance, texture detail does not look any worst to me. I mean the actual rendering resolution is the same so I don't see why it would. If anything, gaming at 1440p @ 27 inches which is 108 PPI vs gaming at 4k @ 48 inches which is 91 PPI, 4k looks a lot better despite having a worst PPI. PPI is, IMO, something you shouldn't pay too much attention to for games. Obviously for desktop work you'd want high PPI since high PPI = sharper, clearer text. For games though, I gotta say there really isn't a massive benefit to going for extremely high PPI levels besides reduction in jaggies without needing to use anti aliasing solutions. Just ask yourself, do you think 720p at 14 inches would have better texture detail than 4k at 48 inches because the PPI is better?
It's about time I got a LG Oled after reading various forums about the C8, C9 and other models over the years. I'll go for the 48" CX, I'll feel better about it rather than a 55" although apparently I shouldn't have to worry about that size either for texture detail.
 

srphoenix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
186
B and H has the G9 down to $1479 now on preorder with the redone monitor, went ahead and ordered it after seeing the two LTT videos on it. Appreciate all the replies but the way I use the monitor for work during the day I'm willing to give up a little bit of picture fidelity to not have to remember to hide the taskbar or leave certain windows or icons up. Plus, daytime is when I have time for gaming so the night benefits I see when watching my 65" oled in the living room wouldn't apply the same way.

Here's the link: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1578217-REG/samsung_lc49g97tssnxdc_49_monitor_hdr_color.html


Turns out that link is for some new business model, all the stats look similar but no one knows if it's missing any of the crucial things yet...
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,558
Fair enough. I don't use my CX as a monitor either so I can sort of see where you're coming from. As for daytime viewing not being as beneficial, while that's true and all, it's still going to be a massive leap over a 2000-3000:1 contrast VA panel. I definitely wouldn't consider it to be just a little bit of extra picture fidelity.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,770
Thanks for the post, however, personally speaking, I don't get the narrow top and bottom format. Had one of these super duper ultrawide monitors for about 5 mins on my desk after it was hooked up and configured and turned on, played around with, after about 5 mins I turned it off and returned it to Microcenter.

What I would really really love is the same ultrawide format layout but scaled up to a degree that the monitor was about 5 feet long so the top and bottom wasn't so narrow. Something with a curve. Now that would be awesome.
 

Skott

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
4,184
The G9 isnt even a contender right now. It got pulled from the race. Maybe once they re release it but right now the LG 48Cx is the obvious choice.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,020
Thanks for the post, however, personally speaking, I don't get the narrow top and bottom format. Had one of these super duper ultrawide monitors for about 5 mins on my desk after it was hooked up and configured and turned on, played around with, after about 5 mins I turned it off and returned it to Microcenter.

What I would really really love is the same ultrawide format layout but scaled up to a degree that the monitor was about 5 feet long so the top and bottom wasn't so narrow. Something with a curve. Now that would be awesome.

It's a goldilocks issue. The super ultrawides would work better if they were a bit taller (x1600 or x1800 for example) while the OLEDs would work better if they were less massive vertically. For me desktop space is further reduced on the CX because I find 120% scaling (3200x1800) gives the most comfortable text size and sharpness overall. On the CRG9 I used 100% scaling with apps increased to 110% font size where possible.

I use my CX 48 mostly like a 3840x1600 screen or something like that as I find it more comfortable. I mostly just leave the extra space left over black as it's not that useful to cram wide but narrow windows in there. I tried putting things like an RSS reader or Gmail in there but neither were that pleasant to use like that as they just felt cramped. By comparison on my CRG9 I always either used all the space or had 1/3 of the screen left over for the afore-mentioned apps to fit comfortably.

When working I favor the 4x4 grid with virtual desktops instead but for personal use I prefer a bit bigger windows for web browser, YouTube etc that I typically use so now it's basically two 1920x1600 windows side by side.
 

D-Wiz

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 17, 2012
Messages
122
So I have been rocking the 55" C8 (open-box at microcenter for $1200) for a while now and I can say I will never go back to panel lighting if I can help it. You should get the largest LG OLED that you can fit in you space, not just the 48". I love large displays and inky blacks, in fact before this my main display was a JVC HDA-1 1080p projector with a 120" screen. Amazing for immersion less like a window into the action and more like the entire wall (cause it was). One thing I have found is the percieved sharpness of pixels is a combination and screen size and distance, so that basically as long as you are not too close the difference between a 4K 55" at 5 feet and a 4k 32" at 2 feet is negligible, the perceived sharpness is the same. However what you can't fake is size (without VR tricks). Think about it, most phones have 4k or 2k screens now, why not use that? Because you cannot fake size, as beautiful and vibrant (my god OLED HDR is amazing) my 55" is I still miss my projector for the size, nothing else has been as immersive and made me feel part of the game. Was it competitive, not a chance, input lag was like 80ms, but it was so worth it with, for example Homeworld Remastered, I felt less like I was playing a strategy game and more like I was in another ship following the Hiigarans.

TL;DR Get the LG and get it as big as you can.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
Nothing like combining the gimmicks of Ultrawide and ultra-curved to really make me want a monitor. ;)

48CX all day, every day. I just hope the demand for this monitor pushes LG to make an even smaller one. 40" would be a bit more manageable for a desktop monitor, or pushes Samsung into the desktop OLED market with it's new Quantum dot OLED design.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,020
Nothing like combining the gimmicks of Ultrawide and ultra-curved to really make me want a monitor. ;)

48CX all day, every day. I just hope the demand for this monitor pushes LG to make an even smaller one. 40" would be a bit more manageable for a desktop monitor, or pushes Samsung into the desktop OLED market with it's new Quantum dot OLED design.

There is nothing gimmicky about ultrawide or very curved monitors. They make perfect sense to combine at a super ultrawide aspect ratio.

Don't expect a smaller OLED anytime soon. According to HDTVTest, CX 48 are cut from the 4K 77" size sheets for yield reasons and to make something smaller, they would need to use the 8K 77" sheets for 38.5" models. While that would be great, the 8K models as is are incredibly expensive and a smaller display would require LG to redesign their internals to fit the smaller frame instead of just the back chassis like on the 48" model.

I don't think we will see a smaller OLED until LG has an inkjet printing production line up and running to reduce costs and thus makes them viable to produce and sell at a price the market will bear. I am sure some of you will say they would buy a $3000-5000 40"-ish OLED but you are a niche.
 

srphoenix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
186
So that link that I posted for the G9 is for a new business model of it. Everything looks similar but I'm not willing to be a guinea pig to find out. Certainly not willing to do it through B and H with their return policy. Probably going to get the LG 48 oled in the end, more of a known commodity and far less confusion going on with no recalls.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
There is nothing gimmicky about ultrawide or very curved monitors. They make perfect sense to combine at a super ultrawide aspect ratio.

Of course it's a gimmick. May as well combine the gimmicks because more gimmicks for people that like gimmicks.
 

srphoenix

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
186
It makes sense for the panel that it is. It seems like they developed this generation of va panels to be able to be as fast as possible while knowing that the viewing angles would be terrible. The curve allows the viewing angles to function in spite of the deficits of the panel.

I do worry always worry about draw distances on ultrawides. I had a 3x 23" eyefinity setup back in the day and the bottom left and right corners of the setup was a mess due to fisheye effect.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,020
It makes sense for the panel that it is. It seems like they developed this generation of va panels to be able to be as fast as possible while knowing that the viewing angles would be terrible. The curve allows the viewing angles to function in spite of the deficits of the panel.

I do worry always worry about draw distances on ultrawides. I had a 3x 23" eyefinity setup back in the day and the bottom left and right corners of the setup was a mess due to fisheye effect.

Viewing angles are more of an issue of VA panel tech itself, that's why nowadays most are curved. They are nowhere near as bad as TN but still worse than IPS or OLED.

You will have the same FOV distortion issues with super ultrawide. It's just how FOV is implemented in a lot of games. Control is one of the few games that does not have it and that needs a 3rd party patcher to support super ultrawide in the first place.
 
Top