Samsung 34" QD-OLED

Seyumi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
367
Alienware's QD-OLED seems to be offering 3 years warranty against burn-in.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/with-qd-oled-gaming-monitor-alienware-claims-first-at-ces-2022/

It will also have DisplayHDR 400. It's either 1st gen QD-OLED is dim as hell or they purposedly kept it low to reduce burn-in.
May be like their first 55" OLED panel with the gimped non-existant HDR, but there may be some hope from that article:

"DisplayHDR 400 True Black certification, though it can hit 1,000 nits peak brightness, and like most OLED panels"

This is similar to even the LG OLED's, where full screen HDR is very dim, but like 3% windows can get pretty high to around 800 nits.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,104
DisplayHDR X requires a 10% window, so if it can hit 1000 nits at 3% but only 400-500 at 10% it wouldn't qualify for DisplayHDR 600 or greater. So that's probably the case.
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,874
That's 3440x1440p for those that are curious. The 175hz refresh is awesome but fuck the curved display. I had a curved 32 inch samsung for a while and I hated it. Not a fan of ultrawide either.

Alienware is making one too: https://www.displayspecifications.com/en/news/b1c66f0

The aspect ratio is terrible as well, 24x10, who asked for that? If they were going to change the aspect ratio, why not go back to 16x10 with a 3840x2400 WQUXGA resolution?
 

Surly

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Messages
357
The aspect ratio is terrible as well, 24x10, who asked for that? If they were going to change the aspect ratio, why not go back to 16x10 with a 3840x2400 WQUXGA resolution?

Its the standard 21:9 aspect ratio on all 34" ultrawides no? Perfectly fine/normal for a 34".

What I found surprising was the curvature was rather subdued for a samsung panel at 1800r. Much better than samsungs normally insane 1000r.
 

Pastuch

Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
624
Its the standard 21:9 aspect ratio on all 34" ultrawides no? Perfectly fine/normal for a 34".

What I found surprising was the curvature was rather subdued for a samsung panel at 1800r. Much better than samsungs normally insane 1000r.
Curved screens are awful. I genuinely do not understand why they exist and I owned one for 6 months
 

ND40oz

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
12,874
Its the standard 21:9 aspect ratio on all 34" ultrawides no? Perfectly fine/normal for a 34".

What I found surprising was the curvature was rather subdued for a samsung panel at 1800r. Much better than samsungs normally insane 1000r.

CNET states:

With a 3,440x1,400-pixel resolution, its aspect ratio of just off 24:10 is unusual, but it's close enough to the more common 3.440x1,440-pixel curved display that native game support shouldn't be rare. Over HDMI it can hit up to 100Hz refresh, while DisplayPort goes up to 175Hz. One reason I wish it supported HDMI 2.1 is because since some of us have our consoles on our desks rather than by the TV.

Did they get the resolution wrong?
 

Choopyplz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
360
Curved screens are awful. I genuinely do not understand why they exist and I owned one for 6 months

Which one did you have? And does it not help with viewing the edge portions of the screen vs a wide & flat screen? Serious question, because I was thinking to transition to an ultrawide from my old 25" 1440p Asus Designo. Just from research I don't think I would like a crazy curve like on most Samsung curved monitors, but the mild curve on like LG ultrawides seems like it'd be ok, but I definitely dont have any hands-on experience with one.
 

burburbur

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
112
At 1440p this thing looks like a huge loser. Its going to be north of $2k and even if the picture quality and brightness is better, that's a lot more money than an LG 42" is going to cost. Combine that with the legendary samsung (lack of) QC and its a hard pill to swallow. If they released a flat 40" 4K panel of this technology I'd pay a bundle for it.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2005
Messages
2,095
On the plus side, it's much easier to drive than 4k. And with 175Hz, it's going to feel a good bit more fluid. And come on, it's ultrawide. Ultrawide is awesome, especially for sims. I know you can run a custom ultrawide resolution on the LGs, but that's just a recipe for uneven panel wear.
 

xDiVolatilX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1,230
On the plus side, it's much easier to drive than 4k. And with 175Hz, it's going to feel a good bit more fluid. And come on, it's ultrawide. Ultrawide is awesome, especially for sims. I know you can run a custom ultrawide resolution on the LGs, but that's just a recipe for uneven panel wear.
I run my 50" QN90A in either 2160p, 3840x1080, or 2560x1080. Whichever resolution I choose there is no risk of burn in so I essentially have a 3 in 1. A huge 4k display, an ultra wide high resolution for ultra wide plus image quality with more performance, or the very high performance 2560x1080 if I really want fast response and lowest lag. This QN90A should last me 5-10 years easy. All the color contrast and light without the risk of burn in at all. Also I have not once ever noticed blooming. Never. For these reasons I could care less what LG & Samsung release for the next 5+ years no looking back and not worried about "what's coming next".
 

Pastuch

Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
624
Which one did you have? And does it not help with viewing the edge portions of the screen vs a wide & flat screen? Serious question, because I was thinking to transition to an ultrawide from my old 25" 1440p Asus Designo. Just from research I don't think I would like a crazy curve like on most Samsung curved monitors, but the mild curve on like LG ultrawides seems like it'd be ok, but I definitely dont have any hands-on experience with one.
Samsung CHG70 - It had horrible color banding, shit input lag and the curve is pointless. I never struggle to see the edges of any of my displays, just put the monitor on an arm and adjust viewing distance accordingly. Don't get me started on ultrawides... the only games they are good for are FPS and even there you'd be better off with a 16:9 display for anything with verticality (New warzone map, Apex, etc).
 

WilyKit

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
500
At 1440p this thing looks like a huge loser. Its going to be north of $2k and even if the picture quality and brightness is better, that's a lot more money than an LG 42" is going to cost. Combine that with the legendary samsung (lack of) QC and its a hard pill to swallow. If they released a flat 40" 4K panel of this technology I'd pay a bundle for it.
I disagree. I'll take this over a 42" 4K any day. 42" is too large for me (34 is pushing it tbh) and performance @ 4K in demanding games just isn't there. From a gaming perspective, this shits all over a 42" 4K screen.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,104
Don't forget this will have an RGB subpixel layout, which means none of the text rendering issues the white subpixel creates. And it also has a higher PPI than either the 42 or 48" OLEDs do(110 vs 92 or 105). So this will likely be a better general purpose computer monitor.
 

Choopyplz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
360
Samsung CHG70 - It had horrible color banding, shit input lag and the curve is pointless. I never struggle to see the edges of any of my displays, just put the monitor on an arm and adjust viewing distance accordingly. Don't get me started on ultrawides... the only games they are good for are FPS and even there you'd be better off with a 16:9 display for anything with verticality (New warzone map, Apex, etc).

It sounds like your monitor was maybe just not a very good example, but eh if you don't like the curve then you don't.
 

Mizzer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
240
I run my 50" QN90A in either 2160p, 3840x1080, or 2560x1080. Whichever resolution I choose there is no risk of burn in so I essentially have a 3 in 1. A huge 4k display, an ultra wide high resolution for ultra wide plus image quality with more performance, or the very high performance 2560x1080 if I really want fast response and lowest lag. This QN90A should last me 5-10 years easy. All the color contrast and light without the risk of burn in at all. Also I have not once ever noticed blooming. Never. For these reasons I could care less what LG & Samsung release for the next 5+ years no looking back and not worried about "what's coming next".
We get it: you wish you bought an OLED.
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
369
Don't forget this will have an RGB subpixel layout, which means none of the text rendering issues the white subpixel creates. And it also has a higher PPI than either the 42 or 48" OLEDs do(110 vs 92 or 105). So this will likely be a better general purpose computer monitor.
Windows font is designed for 96 PPI, so the 48" would be most optimal choice in that regard. If we ignore subpixel layout issues.

Which makes me kinda sad there isn't any 30,6" 1440p monitors available. It would hit exactly 96PPI and have less distinctive pixels than 32" 1440p offerings.
 

TrunksZero

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2021
Messages
300
Samsung CHG70 - It had horrible color banding, shit input lag and the curve is pointless. I never struggle to see the edges of any of my displays, just put the monitor on an arm and adjust viewing distance accordingly. Don't get me started on ultrawides... the only games they are good for are FPS and even there you'd be better off with a 16:9 display for anything with verticality (New warzone map, Apex, etc).

erhmm... Apex and Warzone are +hor implementations. The bolded is just incorrect. Ultrawides in anything with proper +hor is going to see the same on the vertical and extra horizontal. Which is the correct way to handle a Ultawide. They also rock in Racing, SIM's, RTS, side scollers and honestly... if you don't like ultrawide fine. But I think you're misinformed. They provide the most enveloping experience you can get short of multi-monitor, VR or other more exotic displays types.
 

Pastuch

Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
624
erhmm... Apex and Warzone are +hor implementations. The bolded is just incorrect. Ultrawides in anything with proper +hor is going to see the same on the vertical and extra horizontal. Which is the correct way to handle a Ultawide. They also rock in Racing, SIM's, RTS, side scollers and honestly... if you don't like ultrawide fine. But I think you're misinformed. They provide the most enveloping experience you can get short of multi-monitor, VR or other more exotic displays types.
Interesting, so the game either adds +horizontal realestate or it doesn't, I didn't know that so I'm definitely misinformed. What about games like Xcom, Civ, Rocket League and Hades? Would those just stretch?
 
Last edited:

TrunksZero

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2021
Messages
300
Interesting, so the game either adds +horizontal realestate or it doesn't, I didn't know that so I'm definitely misinformed. What about games like Xcom, Civ, Rocket League and Hades? Would those just stretch?
Completely game dependant. Key sites would be PCGamingWiki and WSGF (Widescreen Gaming Forum). As they maintain lists on support, fixes and etc.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown - seems kinda broken. So you would just play it pillar boxed probably.
https://www.wsgf.org/dr/xcom-enemy-unknown/en
XCOM 2 - Requires applying a fix
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/XCOM_2#Video
XCOM: Chimera Squad - Looks like it as proper support built in.
https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/XCOM:_Chimera_Squad

CIV IV - Proper support. Looks kinda nuts in Super Ultrawide. RTS's often support it properly, even going back before ultawide existed because multi-monitor support was often supported.


Rocket League - Proper Support. Also looks kinda nuts in Super Ultrawide


Hades - Odd support. It pillar boxes the sides with some cool 2D art past 16:9. This is kinda unique. Apparently you can grab a fix to change that to just +hor. Link has screens shots.
https://www.wsgf.org/dr/hades/en

To me, applying fixes and modify stuff feels like second nature and is part of why I love PC gaming. Some people hate it though.
 
Last edited:

xDiVolatilX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1,230
I disagree. I'll take this over a 42" 4K any day. 42" is too large for me (34 is pushing it tbh) and performance @ 4K in demanding games just isn't there. From a gaming perspective, this shits all over a 42" 4K screen.
Difference with smaller screens is you need to be right in front of it with superman vision. With larger screens & higher resolutions you can lean back in you chair further stretch your legs maybe even on the couch and still have an immersive high resolution experience you can easily see without struggling on a smallerish screen. With my 32 I felt like I needed to be pulled into the desk with my gut close to the desk. 42 is a good balance 32 or 34 is rather small & 50 is huge but very immersive.
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
369
Difference with smaller screens is you need to be right in front of it with superman vision. With larger screens & higher resolutions you can lean back in you chair further stretch your legs maybe even on the couch and still have an immersive high resolution experience you can easily see without struggling on a smallerish screen. With my 32 I felt like I needed to be pulled into the desk with my gut close to the desk. 42 is a good balance 32 or 34 is rather small & 50 is huge but very immersive.
It depends on PPI, not screen size.

42" 4K is equivalent to a 27" 1440p monitor -> it should be noticeably worse experience than the 32" you used (if it was 1440p).
 

Mizzer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
240
lol no you wish I did. I couldn't be happier I dodged that bullet hah!
Shhh. It's okay. I won't tell anyone. Just let it out... :angelic:

In full disclosure my brother has the tv you have and loves it. I tease him about it because I have a OLEDs.

I'll say, "That's okay, OLEDs can be intimidating, I get it." He then punches me in the arm.
 

Pastuch

Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
624
It depends on PPI, not screen size.

42" 4K is equivalent to a 27" 1440p monitor -> it should be noticeably worse experience than the 32" you used (if it was 1440p).
PPI is mostly irrelevant for competitive FPS, we run all low settings anyway. 27 inch 1440p with native windows scaling is the smallest font I can stand. I'm actually concerned the 42" will be too small for native windows scaling @4k but I'll have it on an arm so I can move it closer. Non-standard windows scaling causes input lag increases on a lot of games which is totally unacceptable. I play warzone on a 280hz 1080p 27 inch with only 35 PPI, it's terrific.
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
369
PPI is mostly irrelevant for competitive FPS, we run all low settings anyway. 27 inch 1440p with native windows scaling is the smallest font I can stand. I'm actually concerned the 42" will be too small for native windows scaling @4k but I'll have it on an arm so I can move it closer. Non-standard windows scaling causes input lag increases on a lot of games which is totally unacceptable. I play warzone on a 280hz 1080p 27 inch with only 35 PPI, it's terrific.
Hmm? 27 inch 1080p is 81 PPI.

But yeah 27" 1440p is definitely sub-optimal, even though it's bearable.

Windows fonts are designed for 96 PPI, it's a shame monitors don't aim for that. 30.6" 1440p would be much nicer than 32" 1440p.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,104
Windows font is designed for 96 PPI, so the 48" would be most optimal choice in that regard. If we ignore subpixel layout issues.
Not really how it works, higher PPI always makes Windows text look better if there's no subpixel issues. That's why people even buy 4K 27" monitors at all.

I can't think of any good reason to want a 96 PPI monitor for Windows desktop use. Maybe eyesight issues and can't deal with the slight decrease in sizes? Scaling is there for you though and works perfectly fine for all truly high PPI displays, but 1440p isn't high PPI anyways.
 

TrunksZero

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2021
Messages
300
Not really how it works, higher PPI always makes Windows text look better if there's no subpixel issues. That's why people even buy 4K 27" monitors at all.

I can't think of any good reason to want a 96 PPI monitor for Windows desktop use. Maybe eyesight issues and can't deal with the slight decrease in sizes? Scaling is there for you though and works perfectly fine for all truly high PPI displays, but 1440p isn't high PPI anyways.
It doesn't always work properly as not all programs take the scaling into consideration or obey it.

*edit* Although I've never had much of an issue that I can remember in recent history when using high res tiny monitors.
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
369
Not really how it works, higher PPI always makes Windows text look better if there's no subpixel issues. That's why people even buy 4K 27" monitors at all.

I can't think of any good reason to want a 96 PPI monitor for Windows desktop use. Maybe eyesight issues and can't deal with the slight decrease in sizes? Scaling is there for you though and works perfectly fine for all truly high PPI displays, but 1440p isn't high PPI anyways.
Input lag issues, doesn't always work properly... 100% native scaling still has it's benefits.

And with 32" being the standard size for 1440p computer monitors for some stupid reason, you would only get benefits for shrinking towards the 96PPI reference point at 30.6".
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,104
It doesn't always work properly as not all programs take the scaling into consideration or obey it.

*edit* Although I've never had much of an issue that I can remember in recent history when using high res tiny monitors.

This really isn't a problem anymore unless you are using some extremely old ass shit that hasn't seen updates in years. Which, yeah, I am sure some people do, but I don't and if using ancient apps for work/etc is a major use case for you probably $3000+ OLED monitors are not super important :p
And with 32" being the standard size for 1440p computer monitors for some stupid reason, you would only get benefits for shrinking towards the 96PPI reference point at 30.6".

I don't think it is the standard? It's arguable but to me the standard and most common 1440p size is 27". I hate the 32" 1440p monitors, that's an abuse of the resolution, agreed. But in any case, this monitor has a PPI of 110 so it's not directly relevant.
 

Pastuch

Gawd
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
624
Hmm? 27 inch 1080p is 81 PPI.

But yeah 27" 1440p is definitely sub-optimal, even though it's bearable.

Windows fonts are designed for 96 PPI, it's a shame monitors don't aim for that. 30.6" 1440p would be much nicer than 32" 1440p.
My mistake, 27inch 1080p is 35 PPD (Pixels per Degree) at 23 inches viewing distance.
 

xDiVolatilX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
Messages
1,230
Shhh. It's okay. I won't tell anyone. Just let it out... :angelic:

In full disclosure my brother has the tv you have and loves it. I tease him about it because I have a OLEDs.

I'll say, "That's okay, OLEDs can be intimidating, I get it." He then punches me in the arm.
lol I find it funny also. I actually returned a C1 & have a completely burned in oled phone also I genuinely hate oled technology lmao. Meanwhile I'm guarding my QN90A like a bulldog for years absolutely love this bulletproof panel =D
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
369
Maybe they'll reintroduce 4:3 as well?
16:9 doesn't need "reintroduction", it's the standard. 21:9 is more of a curiosity than a new standard, it doesn't even fit on most desks with decent vertical height.
 

TrunksZero

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 15, 2021
Messages
300
16:9 doesn't need "reintroduction", it's the standard. 21:9 is more of a curiosity than a new standard, it doesn't even fit on most desks with decent vertical height.
That is very very quickly changing. Just like it did when we moved from 4:3 to 16:9. No stopping it now either as other media like shows on Streaming Services and Cable TV start to use it.(The Mandalorian, StarTrek Discovery etc etc). The creep to it be coming the new common standard has already started and it's not going to stop.

What has happened before, will happen again :p
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
369
That is very very quickly changing. Just like it did when we moved from 4:3 to 16:9. No stopping it now either as other media like shows on Streaming Services and Cable TV start to use it.(The Mandalorian, StarTrek Discovery etc etc). The creep to it be coming the new common standard has already started and it's not going to stop.

What has happened before, will happen again :p
But it's not the same thing. The creep into 16:9 happened because 4:3 didn't take into account the fact that humans have two eyes.

21:9 is additional luxury for a niche, wanting extra field of view. Like those eyefinity multi-monitor setups.

If you don't have desk space for the super wide setups, 16:9 will be much more immersive with the vertical coverage you get with it.
 

sethk

2[H]4U
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
2,051
Top