Odyssey Neo G8 - 4K 240 Hz 32" Quantum Mini LED

xDiVolatilX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
460
Remember, its not 240 REQUIRED hertz, its 240 maximum hertz. with Adaptive Sync, you shouldn't need to ALWAYS hit 240FPS. hell, even 120-150FPS probably feels better on a monitor that can switch pixels fast enough to do 240.
Yes of course. It is very nice and is next level. As more power graphics cards come in and the size of the monitors get larger it will make me want one more, but not quite yet.
 

ssj3rd

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
126
The other issue I have with it is that even a 3080Ti can't push 240hz in 4k in pretty much any game if you want to turn the graphics up so the 240hz is not realistic unless maybe the new 4080Ti can do it even then I doubt it.
My last monitor stood here pretty much 8 years and looked upon 3 GPU Generations.
So if the 4k240 doesn’t run with the current generation, just wait patently for the next one ☝️
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
8,803
Can this monitor do 4k/240 over displaypprt? I only have 1 HDMI 2.1 port on my 3080 ti and is being used by a CX.
 

Zahua

n00b
Joined
Jun 6, 2022
Messages
33
Now that I'm used to a 50" 4k display I just can't go back to a small 32" after rocking a 32" for years already.

I wish I had this problem. I'd be able to move to a 4K 42" or 48" OLED and not worry.

I have tried TVs (40-50") as monitor but I just couldn't get used to it. For me, 32" 4K is perfection. Lets me sit close while not being too large. Resulting in great text for work due to high PPI but also great fov for immersive gaming. The problem is, there is no great 32" atm. They all have some sort of major problem or drawback. The current miniLEDs have insane blooming and the cheaper ones have very bad contrast and ips/va glow. TVs are in a MUCH better spot, but like I said I like high PPI and the monitor right in my face.

The Neo G8/G7 could be a good compromise, if it doesn't end up a Samsung QC disaster.
 

Zahua

n00b
Joined
Jun 6, 2022
Messages
33
Remember, its not 240 REQUIRED hertz, its 240 maximum hertz. with Adaptive Sync, you shouldn't need to ALWAYS hit 240FPS. hell, even 120-150FPS probably feels better on a monitor that can switch pixels fast enough to do 240.

Yes of course. It is very nice and is next level. As more power graphics cards come in and the size of the monitors get larger it will make me want one more, but not quite yet.

My last monitor stood here pretty much 8 years and looked upon 3 GPU Generations.
So if the 4k240 doesn’t run with the current generation, just wait patently for the next one ☝️

Well there's also the neo G7 variant for $1300 msrp which is the same in every way according to the Samsung page except 165hz max. But it's Samsung who knows what other downgrades it might secretly have.
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
3,445
First rule of G8 club is we don't talk about G7 club. Second rule of G8 club is we don't talk about G7!

PS there is an ol]d saying down in Tenesse....Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice....cant.....can't get fooled again.
Well there's also the neo G7 variant for $1300 msrp which is the same in every way according to the Samsung page except 165hz max. But it's Samsung who knows what other downgrades it might
 

ssj3rd

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
126
So they updated the G7 on the website, now the G7 has exactly the same Nits (2.000) as the G8, only the Hz is lower (165).

Very Very interesting indeed, I don’t need 240hz anyway and the price will be lower too. Nice 👍
 
Last edited:

Zahua

n00b
Joined
Jun 6, 2022
Messages
33
Samsung only likes to give early units to publications who don't do serious reviews. For obvious reasons.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,643
I wish I had this problem. I'd be able to move to a 4K 42" or 48" OLED and not worry.

I have tried TVs (40-50") as monitor but I just couldn't get used to it. For me, 32" 4K is perfection. Lets me sit close while not being too large. Resulting in great text for work due to high PPI but also great fov for immersive gaming. The problem is, there is no great 32" atm. They all have some sort of major problem or drawback. The current miniLEDs have insane blooming and the cheaper ones have very bad contrast and ips/va glow. TVs are in a MUCH better spot, but like I said I like high PPI and the monitor right in my face.

The Neo G8/G7 could be a good compromise, if it doesn't end up a Samsung QC disaster.
Having used the LG CX 48" for 2 years as a desktop monitor, I recently moved and decided the 48" was the right size for a living room TV and put it there. I want something smaller for desktop use as having the CX mounted on a floorstand was not the most practical setup. For me a single 4K display with scaling is too little desktop space so next setup will be two smaller displays. Maybe 2x 32" 4K. In the meantime going back to the Samsung CRG9 superultrawide for 2x 1440p equivalent setup.

I think the only other contender in the G8's category is the LG 32GQ950 for a non-curved IPS panel 4K 144 Hz option. But the details on that are slim and most likely it releases closer to Q4.
 

SoCali

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
882
So they updated the G7 on the website, now the G7 has exactly the same Nits (2.000) as the G8, only the Hz is lower (165).

Very Very interesting indeed, I don’t need 240hz anyway and the price will be lower too. Nice 👍
We've had 4K 144hz for 5 years starting with the PG27UQ.

It's about time we make some progress. I need 240hz.

4K performance is in a good spot especially with DLSS. Without any reconstruction like DLSS/FSR and games on super max dumbo settings:

Hardware Unboxed - Radeon RX 6950 XT vs. GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, RTX 3090 & RTX 3090 Ti Benchmark...png


3080 Ti+ are easy 120FPS+ cards with some settings tweaks and definitely so with DLSS. Next gens rumored 2x performance improvement will make 4K/120 a bottleneck IMO.
 
Last edited:

xDiVolatilX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
460
We've had 4K 144hz for 5 years starting with the PG27UQ.

It's about time we make some progress. I need 240hz.

4K performance is in a good spot especially with DLSS. Without any reconstruction like DLSS/FSR and games on super max dumbo settings:

View attachment 481647

3080 Ti+ are easy 120FPS+ cards with some settings tweaks and definitely so with DLSS. Next gens rumored 2x performance improvement will make 4K/120 a bottleneck IMO.
I would disagree. I have a 3080Ti and It's not ready for 240hz. Even a 3090Ti is hitting 91 average is further confirmation. To say next gen cards are going to be able to pull it off is yet to be seen also It is still jumping the gun, why not wait until next gen cards are out and we can see the performance data before assuming it can saturate the 240fps bandwidth. Also using DLSS makes running "4K" actually not run in 4K anymore so why bother trying to run "4K" with dlss on when you clearly need the help to get better frames because the cards can't natively run that high of a fps without gimping image quality. Then tweaking settings even further so now we are not running ultra and not even in 4k so there goes the entire point of running max settings on 2160p with medium/high settings and dlss cranking it down to 1440p res just to meet the higher frame rates of the monitor. It is definitely overzealous to say we are ready for 4k 240hz with max detail settings not even close but if you want to run dlss and tweak settings down then sure but that's not true 2160p and not high/ultra settings so yeah not really ready. Let's see how the 4080 & 4080Ti do in 2160p then It might be time to look at 240hz 4k when there will be a bigger variety of monitors in that speed to chose from because jumping on this one is borderline pointless when you can get one or another in the future no problem.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,643
I would disagree. I have a 3080Ti and It's not ready for 240hz. Even a 3090Ti is hitting 91 average is further confirmation. To say next gen cards are going to be able to pull it off is yet to be seen also It is still jumping the gun, why not wait until next gen cards are out and we can see the performance data before assuming it can saturate the 240fps bandwidth. Also using DLSS makes running "4K" actually not run in 4K anymore so why bother trying to run "4K" with dlss on when you clearly need the help to get better frames because the cards can't natively run that high of a fps without gimping image quality. Then tweaking settings even further so now we are not running ultra and not even in 4k so there goes the entire point of running max settings on 2160p with medium/high settings and dlss cranking it down to 1440p res just to meet the higher frame rates of the monitor. It is definitely overzealous to say we are ready for 4k 240hz with max detail settings not even close but if you want to run dlss and tweak settings down then sure but that's not true 2160p and not high/ultra settings so yeah not really ready. Let's see how the 4080 & 4080Ti do in 2160p then It might be time to look at 240hz 4k when there will be a bigger variety of monitors in that speed to chose from because jumping on this one is borderline pointless when you can get one or another in the future no problem.
I think of it as headroom. Most games I play can't run at 4K 120 Hz even but having a display capable of that means that I could run games at lower res or some less demanding games at those framerates. I wouldn't buy this just for 4K 240 Hz but for the whole package.
 

Bigmonitorguy

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
115
Doesn't the image need to be highly compressed at 4K/240Hz on DisplayPort? Does the monitor even support this resolution/refresh on DisplayPort, or only on HDMI 2.1?
 

xDiVolatilX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
460
I think of it as headroom. Most games I play can't run at 4K 120 Hz even but having a display capable of that means that I could run games at lower res or some less demanding games at those framerates. I wouldn't buy this just for 4K 240 Hz but for the whole package.
Yea I can understand having headroom absolutely why not if you want to have the first bleeding edge monitor that is the fastest 4k display to date, then yeah. Although running it at lower resolution than its native resolution might hurt image quality in some cases. Generally monitors like to be run at their native resolution I know the past 2 displays I have used looked very bad when stepping down from native res. If it can run at 1440p perfectly then sure the 1500 dollar cost for the headroom is valid definitely I would agree but then there is the issue of the thousands of enthusiasts now spoiled by 48"-50" beasts that stepping down to 32" for me personally is unacceptable at this point what if they release a larger 240hz 4k in a few months like a 40" or 42" or 50"? lol
 

xDiVolatilX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
460
Doesn't the image need to be highly compressed at 4K/240Hz on DisplayPort? Does the monitor even support this resolution/refresh on DisplayPort, or only on HDMI 2.1?
Yeah but to my naked eye I can't tell the difference of a compressed image at 4k when I had it at 2160P 144hz. As far as I know Displayport does DSC on 1.4 but not sure about hdmi 2.1 nowadays or how much compression the monitor does to hit 240 and how it affects image quality but on previous 144hz or 120hz it was imperceivable to me.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,643
Yea I can understand having headroom absolutely why not if you want to have the first bleeding edge monitor that is the fastest 4k display to date, then yeah. Although running it at lower resolution than its native resolution might hurt image quality in some cases. Generally monitors like to be run at their native resolution I know the past 2 displays I have used looked very bad when stepping down from native res. If it can run at 1440p perfectly then sure the 1500 dollar cost for the headroom is valid definitely I would agree but then there is the issue of the thousands of enthusiasts now spoiled by 48"-50" beasts that stepping down to 32" for me personally is unacceptable at this point what if they release a larger 240hz 4k in a few months like a 40" or 42" or 50"? lol
I like having options. If I were playing for example multiplayer shooters, running at 1080p 240 fps would be possible with integer scaling. Even some image quality loss from 1440p would not be particularly noticeable if you are playing very fast paced games or you could try to combat it with various sharpening options as that works decently. DLSS would be even better.

To me native resolution is no longer that relevant except for desktop use, which is where higher is better. For gaming give me the stable image and performance boost of DLSS any day, I can't tell it apart from native 4K when actually playing. My ideal display would be 8K that is capable of higher refresh rates at lower res. But they don't make that yet so compromises have to be made.

After two years on the LG CX 48" I'm ready to go smaller. I need more desktop space for work and on my desk it's not practical to have such a large screen, a pair of big studio speakers and trying to fit a side display. My previous setup had my 16" Macbook Pro doing that duty set on a small desk next to it. It was a bit awkward. 32" 4K and a smaller side display would probably do it. Still looking at my options. G8 is one option but because it's Samsung I'm waiting for real world experiences. Also waiting on the LG 32GQ950.
 

SoCali

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
882
I would disagree. I have a 3080Ti and It's not ready for 240hz. Even a 3090Ti is hitting 91 average is further confirmation. To say next gen cards are going to be able to pull it off is yet to be seen also It is still jumping the gun, why not wait until next gen cards are out and we can see the performance data before assuming it can saturate the 240fps bandwidth. Also using DLSS makes running "4K" actually not run in 4K anymore so why bother trying to run "4K" with dlss on when you clearly need the help to get better frames because the cards can't natively run that high of a fps without gimping image quality. Then tweaking settings even further so now we are not running ultra and not even in 4k so there goes the entire point of running max settings on 2160p with medium/high settings and dlss cranking it down to 1440p res just to meet the higher frame rates of the monitor. It is definitely overzealous to say we are ready for 4k 240hz with max detail settings not even close but if you want to run dlss and tweak settings down then sure but that's not true 2160p and not high/ultra settings so yeah not really ready. Let's see how the 4080 & 4080Ti do in 2160p then It might be time to look at 240hz 4k when there will be a bigger variety of monitors in that speed to chose from because jumping on this one is borderline pointless when you can get one or another in the future no problem.
Have you ever used DLSS? Its indiscernible from native 4K and basically a free 30-40% performance bump. I don't care what internal resolution its using or reconstruction method, as long as it looks the part I'm game. On a display this size I'd argue even DLSS balanced would be viable.

Nobody with any sense runs max settings. Most Ultra settings offer very little if any image quality gain at huge performance loss. Running optimized settings has always been the route to go as a 4K gamer. Its a free 15-20% performance improvement.

Nobody is saying next gen will "saturate" 240hz. All I said was 120hz will be a bottleneck and high end GPU's will be capable of pushing well beyond that.
 

ssj3rd

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
126
Have you ever used DLSS? Its indiscernible from native 4K and basically a free 30-40% performance bump.
In every Game with DLSS, every time? Always?

The answer is: sometimes
You make it sound like it’s a fact, that’s definitely not the case… unfortunately.
There are still many games that don't look as good with DLSS as native 4k.
 
Last edited:

SoCali

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
882
In every Game with DLSS, every time? Always?

The answer is: sometimes
You make it sound like it’s a fact, that’s definitely not the case… unfortunately.
There are still many games that don't look as good with DLSS as native 4k.
I agree pre DLSS 2.0. Beyond that there is 0 reason to not use DLSS on a 4K display.

DLSS on a 1440p display in comparison looks notably soft to me but at 4K it's so close that it's a wash for me and even superior in many ways like vegetation stability.
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
3,445
DLSS sucks...go native or go home. One of the reasons why the AW34 occupies the second place on my desk, at least until 4090 gpus.

There are plenty of older games to replay and enjoy 4k240 like Halo MCC, counterstrike, Remastered Call of Doodies, etc, etc.....and then for newer games you never have to worry about hitting the refresh rate headroom for frame rate capping.

The biggest question for this display is, will its image quality be good enough to make it the total package until we get a 4k240hz oled. If the image quality looks like a cheap gammery display vs the AW34 then its going back like the G9 did.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,643
I agree pre DLSS 2.0. Beyond that there is 0 reason to not use DLSS on a 4K display.

DLSS on a 1440p display in comparison looks notably soft to me but at 4K it's so close that it's a wash for me and even superior in many ways like vegetation stability.
This is my experience as well. DLSS 1.x games are pretty few now and several formerly DLSS 1.x games have upgraded to DLSS 2.x.

DLSS works better the higher your native resolution. Part of this is because the scale factors are shifted. With a 4K display DLSS performance mode is upscaling from 1080p, on a 1440p it would be probably 720p which is a lot less pixels to work with.

On a case by case basis some fine details may not work as well as native, in others you might see more fine detail. Most of the time the image will be a lot more stable with less shimmering effect for example. With each version ghosting issues seem to become less of a problem too. Given the option, I will always use DLSS balanced or quality over native 4K because the performance boost alone is worth it.

This sort of tech is really transformative as it becomes harder and harder for each GPU generation to achieve massive performance gains since scaling the chips down alone does not yield the same performance improvements and GPUs are becoming increasingly power hungry.

I just wish display tech kept up and we started to get higher than 4K resolution high refresh rate options where we could utilize integer scaling or DLSS more effectively.
 

Arkanian

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Messages
1,732
Hopefully we can get some good reviews in. I still have my Alienware 34" on order which won't arrive until late July. I might cancel that and get this instead.
 

SoCali

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
882
I'm still angry at the paper launch with real availability a month later. Bestbuy shows July 8th as release date which is probably realistic.
 

SoCali

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
882
Seems Neo G7 demand is way higher than G8 because it sold out on Samsung store a long time ago and is limited in quantity from Amazon currently.

Pretty interesting that a $200 savings is worth the sacrifice of 240hz and HDMI 2.1 to most.
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
8,803
Seems Neo G7 demand is way higher than G8 because it sold out on Samsung store a long time ago and is limited in quantity from Amazon currently.

Pretty interesting that a $200 savings is worth the sacrifice of 240hz and HDMI 2.1 to most.
When spending this much for a monitor already it is worth spending the extra $200 for the G8.
 

ssj3rd

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 30, 2021
Messages
126
When spending this much for a monitor already it is worth spending the extra $200 for the G8.
Maybe, but only if it’s the real deal.
Let’s wait and see, shall we?

There still isn’t a real review out there.
 
Top