Samsung 4K 24", 28" and 32" PLS 60Hz freesync displays

B

Biostud

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
79
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-217-SA&groupid=17&catid=948

Samsung U24E850R
Samsung U28E850R (Uses TN panel)
Samsung U32E850R

The Samsung UE850 UHD monitor offers stunning Ultra HD picture quality that is ideal for a diverse range of professionals. Creative and analytical work alike will benefit from superb high-resolution images boasting a staggering 8 million pixels for that extra detail. Images are delivered at a resolution 4x greater than Full HD to make your viewing experience at work clearer than ever. Make your workspace more comfortable and productive with Ultra High Definition clarity

Samsung's UE850 includes several simple but useful features that help to organize your professional workspace and let you focus on your work. VESA 100x100 compatibility enables wall mounting, while the built-in power supply means you don't need an additional adaptor. Also the integrated cable holder, conveniently located on the rear of the stand, keeps all your monitor cable connections in place


Features:
- sRGB supported: Expresses approximately 97% of sRGB color gamut for almost exact reproduction of digital image colors on screen.
- Highest Brightness Level: With the highest brightness level of 370 cd/?, the picture quality is more vivid and brilliantly clear
- PBP: Picture-by-Picture lets you view 2 different input sources on one screen while maintaining the picture quality of the original source.
- PIP 2.0: Multitask while you watch a variety of content, thanks to support for even more inputs with Picture-in-Picture 2.0. Resize the second picture to cover up to 25% of the screen and position it anywhere you please, and even control the sound settings with ease
- HAS Stand: An ergonomically designed Height Adjustable Stand allows for flexible height adjustment up to 130mm.
- 90° Pivot & Auto OSD Rotation: Change your monitor perspective from horizontal to vertical with 90° pivot rotation. When the screen pivots, Auto OSD Rotation automatically adjusts the OSD to the screen.
- Tilt: Easily and smoothly tilt the screen forward 20° and backwards 5° for comfortable viewing.
- Premium Design: Features a premium titanium silver & black metallic body with a sophisticated matte finish
- Eye Saver Mode: Unlike other colors emitted from screens, blue light wavelengths have a more stimulating effect on the retina, causing eye fatigue. Eye Saver Mode optimizes your viewing comfort by smartly reducing blue light emissions at the touch of a button.
- Flicker Free: Flicker Free technology reduces screen flickering for a more comfortable viewing experience
- AMD FreeSync: Dynamically syncs the screen refresh rate with the frame rate of your content to minimize input latency and dramatically reduce image tearing and stutter during gaming.
- Upgraded HDMI Support: With an upgraded HDMI that supports UHD resolutions at a 60Hz refresh rate, 4K content plays smoothly without delay, even when connected to AV devices.
- Game Mode: Instantly adjust your monitor settings for an optimized gaming experience through the on-screen display. Game Mode improves the darkness of the picture so that you can see all the action vividly.
- Fast 1ms Response Time: See even the fastest on-screen motion clearly without any motion blur, judder or ghosting
- Quad Interface: Provides seamless connectivity with your PC and AV equipment with 2 different HDMI ports, DisplayPort 1.2, and Mini DisplayPort (also supports Thunderbolt).
- USB 3.0 Hub: 4 fast USB connections replace the need for a docking station.
- USB Super Charging: Charge mobile devices 3x faster with USB 3.0
- PVC Free: Monitor mechanisms and circuits are constructed without PVC* making for an eco-friendly device, lessening environmental impact.
- Recycled Plastics: All Samsung business monitors are made of 30% recycled plastics.
- Eco Certifications: Meets the latest environmental standards, including TCO Certified Displays 6.0, ENERGY STAR® and EPEAT Gold.


Specification:
- Height adjust, pivot, swivel & tilt
- 60Hz
- Display Screen Size: 31.5"
- Panel Type: PLS
- Brightness: 300cd/m2
- Contrast Ratio: 1000:1 (Typ)
- Dynamic Contrast Ratio: 100,000,000
- Resolution: 3840x2160 (Only over DisplayPort at 60Hz)
- Response Time: 4ms (GTG)
- Color Support : 16.7M
- Viewing Angle (H / V ): 178 ° / 178 °
- Connectivity: 1x HDMI (30Hz), 1x DisplayPort (60Hz)
- USB Hub: Yes
- Speakers: NO
 
Last edited:
What's the aspect ratio? Is this more "ultrawide" garbage?

I'm sure 16:10 would be too much to expect.
 
Samsung U32E850R - What panel does it have?

Panel Lookup does not list any matching Samsung panels in existence.
 
32" is way way too small for 4k.

Ask any 4k owner.

40" is the very minimum you want to use.

$1,300?

You can get a 40" Samsung JU6500 4:4:4@60hz for $799
 
Huh? Never heard that. 30" was perfect for 1600p - still is IMO.
 
I'm not saying I agree with it. :p

I just got a lot of flack about it from my web designer friends when I bought a Dell 3008, back in 2008. They swore I'd go blind from squinting. I thought everything looked great on it.
 
Brahmzy said:
TOO SMALL for 4K
Click to expand...
SixFootDuo said:
32" is way way too small for 4k. Ask any 4k owner. 40" is the very minimum you want to use.
Click to expand...

I am happy owner of 32" BenQ and can tell you that 32" is absolutely NOT TOO SMALL. Quite opposite, the height of the 32" display is MAXIMUM for the standard desktop use. I have been intrigued by the 40" monitor but its height concerned me so before buying the 32" I investigated the height problem in detail by raising my 27" monitor (same resolution as the 40") to have upper edge located at the height of the 40". Conclusion was crystal clear: 40" is TOO HIGH for any standard prolonged use, it forces to raise head and eyes to see the upper part of the screen which is very unpleasant. Moreover, in my tests I was gradually lowering the 27" monitor to see what is the maximum height at which the display feels comfortable and without risking neck/back pains. This height turned out to be corresponding to the 32" monitor lowered to touch the desk. Based on this, I kissed goodbye 40", bought the 32" and placed it in such a way that it touches the desk. I can now fully confirm my observations, the 32" is optimal and maximal from the height point of view. The only thing to add is that with the height at maximum I see still possibility for a wider monitor, 21:9 curved with the same height as the 32".
 
Last edited:
32" is the minimum if you want to use 4K at 100% scaling.
It's not too small, but bigger is better ofc.
 
wirk said:
I am happy owner of 32" BenQ and can tell you that 32" is absolutely NOT TOO SMALL. Quite opposite, the height of the 32" display is MAXIMUM for the standard desktop use. I have been intrigued by the 40" monitor but its height concerned me so before buying the 32" I investigated the height problem in detail by raising my 27" monitor (same resolution as the 40") to have upper edge located at the height of the 40". Conclusion was crystal clear: 40" is TOO HIGH for any standard prolonged use, it forces to raise head and eyes to see the upper part of the screen which is very unpleasant. Moreover, in my tests I was gradually lowering the 27" monitor to see what is the maximum height at which the display feels comfortable and without risking neck/back pains. This height turned out to be corresponding to the 32" monitor lowered to touch the desk. Based on this, I kissed goodbye 40", bought the 32" and placed it in such a way that it touches the desk. I can now fully confirm my observations, the 32" is optimal and maximal from the height point of view. The only thing to add is that with the height at maximum I see still possibility for a wider monitor, 21:9 curved with the same height as the 32".
Click to expand...

I have a 40" and I don't buy that it's too tall. You don't need to turn your head up and down. You only need to glance up and down. It's the same concept as glancing left and right with a 21:9, it's about the same width as a 40". I have absolutely no issue programming on a 40" for hours on end. The way it works is this, you have your primary workspace in the bottom area where you look at most of the time. Then you have supporting documents at top, another one at the right, and another one at the left. Most of those are glances away. There's no reason to look at the top edge of the screen for any longer than glances at a time. That's how I use mine. But to each their own. There's no wrong or right way to use a monitor but to say that 40" is too big is false.
 
Why does every 4k thread have to involve a huge amount of bickering of it being "too small for 4k"?

So many variables to consider like

1. Distance from screen
2. Use of screen
3. GUI Scaling? On a Mac, 27-32" is simply sensational (or really any size) since their interface scaling is so good.

Just pointless to get into the "too small" or "too big" for 4k thing. Way more complicated than just the size of the screen.
 
wirk said:
the height of the 32" display is MAXIMUM for the standard desktop use.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Unless you are physiologically way outside the norm or your workstation is ergonomically unfit, this is not true. The following table lists the industry's ergonomic recommendations for how high one's eyes should be above the top surface of their desk when sitting, relative to a person's standing height:

5'0” - 19 inches
5'2” - 20 inches
5'4” - 20.5 inches
5'6” - 21 inches
5'8” - 21.5 inches
5'10” - 22 inches
6'0” - 23 inches
6'2” - 23.5 inches
6'4” - 24.5 inches

If you must know, these measurements are based on the distance between the bottom of one's elbow to the mid-line of the eyes with one's head tilted slightly downward and the fact that one's arms should be bent at a 90° angle when seated.

As you can see from the table above, even a 40” monitor, which is about 21” tall (less actually as the top bezel doesn't count towards height for positioning), is actually too short for the overwhelming majority of men in the world when sitting at an ergonomically correct workstation without raising it up several inches off the surface of the desk and/or applying an appropriate level of backward tilt to compensate.

An exception to the above would be if one uses an under desk keyboard tray. You will need to measure from the tray surface instead of the desk surface then. Of course, using such a tray can drastically reduce the size of the monitor you can use, but if this is what limits your monitor size, you have no one to blame but yourself as you have deliberately created an unnecessarily restrictive environment. The problem lies entirely with you, not with the monitor's height.

As such, virtually all complaints about certain displays being too tall simply aren't true and are instead misdirected complaints about the unergonomic and/or less than ideal environments people are putting them in and/or testaments to their terrible posture or freakishly small bodies.

Buy a nice mechanical sit/stand desk and ergonomic chair, put your keyboard and mouse on the desk surface, adjust the desk and monitor to the proper height, and even a 50” display can be used on the desktop by a person of average size, whether standing or sitting, with absolutely no vertical ergonomic issues whatsoever, assuming a proper viewing distance.
 
Geez why are Sammy's 4k monitors so much more expensive than their larger 4k TVs despite not having all the extra TV crap?:mad:
 
MistaSparkul said:
Geez why are Sammy's 4k monitors so much more expensive than their larger 4k TVs despite not having all the extra TV crap?:mad:
Click to expand...

Economies of scale. Samsung can sell many more TVs than monitors. There is fixed cost associated with changing production to produce a certain kind of unit. The fixed cost must be absorbed into each unit sold. High end monitors are unfortunately a niche product.
 
Sigh....well Acer's been stepping up their game lately when it comes to gaming monitors. Hopefully they release a Freesync capable version of their 32 inch 4k IPS at a much lower price than Samsung.
 
Will a Freesync monitor work on nVidia GPUs without issues? I know I won't be able to FreeSync it, but would I at least be able to use it as an ordinary 60hz monitor?

I am considering a 24" 4k monitor
 
chenw said:
Will a Freesync monitor work on nVidia GPUs without issues? I know I won't be able to FreeSync it, but would I at least be able to use it as an ordinary 60hz monitor?

I am considering a 24" 4k monitor
Click to expand...

No problem at all.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
What's the aspect ratio? Is this more "ultrawide" garbage?

I'm sure 16:10 would be too much to expect.
Click to expand...

I think this time around a 4k 16:10 display is going to be tough to come by. There is a spec for it (5120 × 3200) but I can't find any. All most everything looks to be 16:9 or 21:9. It makes my display setup of one horizontal and on portrait undoable in 4k I think. :(


Ultra high definition television 3840 × 2160 1.78:1 (16:9) 8,294,400
Ultra wide television 5120 × 2160 2.33:1 (21:9) 11,059,200
WHXGA 5120 × 3200 1.60:1 (16:10) 16,384,000
DCI 4K (native resolution) 4096 × 2160 1.90:1 (256:135) 8,847,360
DCI 4K (CinemaScope cropped) 4096 × 1716 2.39:1 7,028,736
DCI 4K (flat cropped) 3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360
 
Tyler-Durden said:
^^ Meh... eye of the beholder. A lot of people used to say 30" was too small for 1600p.
Click to expand...

Well my U3011 at 2560x1600 is doable, 30-ish inches at 2560x1600 is pretty well balanced and games run well and all that stuff but the same screen at 5120×3200 would be a concern.

Windows 10 should finally help with font scaling but I don't know.
 
Bastich said:
Nonsense. Unless you are physiologically way outside the norm or your workstation is ergonomically unfit, this is not true. The following table lists the industry's ergonomic recommendations for how high one's eyes should be above the top surface of their desk when sitting, relative to a person's standing height:

5'0” - 19 inches
5'2” - 20 inches
5'4” - 20.5 inches
5'6” - 21 inches
5'8” - 21.5 inches
5'10” - 22 inches
6'0” - 23 inches
6'2” - 23.5 inches
6'4” - 24.5 inches

If you must know, these measurements are based on the distance between the bottom of one's elbow to the mid-line of the eyes with one's head tilted slightly downward and the fact that one's arms should be bent at a 90° angle when seated.

As you can see from the table above, even a 40” monitor, which is about 21” tall (less actually as the top bezel doesn't count towards height for positioning), is actually too short for the overwhelming majority of men in the world when sitting at an ergonomically correct workstation without raising it up several inches off the surface of the desk and/or applying an appropriate level of backward tilt to compensate.

An exception to the above would be if one uses an under desk keyboard tray. You will need to measure from the tray surface instead of the desk surface then. Of course, using such a tray can drastically reduce the size of the monitor you can use, but if this is what limits your monitor size, you have no one to blame but yourself as you have deliberately created an unnecessarily restrictive environment. The problem lies entirely with you, not with the monitor's height.

As such, virtually all complaints about certain displays being too tall simply aren't true and are instead misdirected complaints about the unergonomic and/or less than ideal environments people are putting them in and/or testaments to their terrible posture or freakishly small bodies.
Buy a nice mechanical sit/stand desk and ergonomic chair, put your keyboard and mouse on the desk surface, adjust the desk and monitor to the proper height, and even a 50” display can be used on the desktop by a person of average size, whether standing or sitting, with absolutely no vertical ergonomic issues whatsoever, assuming a proper viewing distance.
Click to expand...

These eye-desk recommendations seem to me bit
stretched, I wonder what they recommend for the height of the desk from the floor???

Your claim that there are no ergonomic issues even with the 50" is way overblown. Optimal viewing position is considered when the eye level is closer to the upper edge of the screen. It makes head in a bit downward position which is ergonomically healthy with zero risk of neck/back pains. This is why I am saying 32" is optimal in this regard. I also tested this experimentally by changing height of my 27"@1440 monitor. Somebody says here that 40" is OK since he is normally looking at the lower part of the screen and only sometimes at the upper part. I tested this too and there was strange effect of light from the upper part kind of disturbing when I looked down. All in all I wanted to buy 40" curved but after testing it came out 32" fits much better. I advise everybody to test first and then decide and not follow blindly the bigger-is-better.
 
wirk said:
Your claim that there are no ergonomic issues even with the 50" is way overblown. Optimal viewing position is considered when the eye level is closer to the upper edge of the screen. It makes head in a bit downward position which is ergonomically healthy with zero risk of neck/back pains. This is why I am saying 32" is optimal in this regard. I also tested this experimentally by changing height of my 27"@1440 monitor. Somebody says here that 40" is OK since he is normally looking at the lower part of the screen and only sometimes at the upper part. I tested this too and there was strange effect of light from the upper part kind of disturbing when I looked down. All in all I wanted to buy 40" curved but after testing it came out 32" fits much better. I advise everybody to test first and then decide and not follow blindly the bigger-is-better.
Click to expand...

40" was too big for me too. The extra space didn't help me because I seemed to have a lot of trouble focusing on a window.

I was pretty excited about trying the 32'' UE850 but I'm not sure I'm $1300 excited.
 
Cheerwines said:
40" was too big for me too. The extra space didn't help me because I seemed to have a lot of trouble focusing on a window.

I was pretty excited about trying the 32'' UE850 but I'm not sure I'm $1300 excited.
Click to expand...

Samsung is the only one coming out with a 32 inch 4k monitor with any kind of adaptive sync so I guess that's why they're charging whatever they feel like. Hopefully Asus, Acer, or BenQ release something to compete with it and lower prices.
 
wirk said:
It is AMD Freesync, no NVidia G-sync.
Click to expand...

Right. It's the only 30+ inch monitor coming out with ANY kind of sync whether it's freesync or gsync which is kind of annoying, the other manufacturers need to start making some 4k g/freesync monitors larger than 30 inch.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Right. It's the only 30+ inch monitor coming out with ANY kind of sync whether it's freesync or gsync which is kind of annoying, the other manufacturers need to start making some 4k g/freesync monitors larger than 30 inch.
Click to expand...

Surely they are coming, Samsung is just the first to market. What is really annoying is the split into two sync camps. If I understand correctly any monitor manufacturers has to select only one camp(?).
 
wirk said:
Surely they are coming, Samsung is just the first to market. What is really annoying is the split into two sync camps. If I understand correctly any monitor manufacturers has to select only one camp(?).
Click to expand...

Acer has freesync and g sync monitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top