Samsung Introducing New Quantum Dot Curved Monitors At CES 2017

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'll take three of these for a little surround gaming action. I wonder how that would actually look using triple curved monitors. I guess we'll all know soon enough, CES is right around the corner.

Designed specifically for professional and hardcore gamers, the 24- and 27-inch CFG70 curved monitors combine the visual refinement of Samsung’s Quantum Dot picture technology with the comfortable, ultrawide view of its curved monitors to create the ultimate gaming experience. The CFG70 offers a host of gamer-friendly features, such as the ‘Gaming UX’ user interface, as well as advanced calibration options to optimize picture presentation for any of the FPS, RTS, RPG and AOS game genres.
 

Iching

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,839
I grabbed PG348Q a couple of days ago. No g-sync no sale. I'm not interested in FreeSync at all. AMD doesn't even have a card that can push Freesync at high resolutions. Please, don't mention Fury. I don't like Samsung designs so I'll pass.
 

DarkStar02

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
2,113
I'm obviously in the minority here but I had a QNIX 2710 that overclocked to 120hz and I never saw the big deal. I am much happier with my 48" curved Samsung JU7500 running 4k@60hz with 4:4:4 chroma subsampling.
 

mat9v

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
106
This guy in the photo is sitting so close to those monitors that his neck is going to kill him soon from all that head moving :) Three monitors would be even worse. Don't really care for gsync/freesync but 144hz is a minimum, even better 200hz - at such speeds you won't even see any sync artifacts :)
And yes, I prefer framerate over high quality in action games :)
If I were an artist not a gamer color quality and resolution would be much more important.
High refresh rates also make for much smoother scrolling of webpages and is much easier on your eyes then normal skipping at 60hz.
 

Stimpy88

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,271
I simply don't understand why anyone would want a tiny curved monitor attached to a computer. Buy a 4K curved 55inch tv instead, and save the distorted geometry for that.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
As I as I dislike "gamer" branded anything, looking at that picture fills me with pride for owning a cases, gpus and mice with glowing lights (all turned off)

Quantum dot displays are gorgeous but anything below 120 Hz is a no no. Not making that mistake twice. Don't have anything against curved
 

Team Merica

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
83
No mention of variable refresh rate technology. No G-Sync = no sale.
I felt the same way for a while, but recently a lot of games I have been playing have a built-in non-controllable game engine requirment of V-Sync and act very poorly when it is tampered with - effectively ruining G Sync or the game behavior.

For example Skyrim Remastered will behave very strangely when I get all the options ticked correctly to actually enable G Sync, and Dark Souls 3 has all sorts of stutter problems and other issues when the built in V Sync is tampered with.

Also, Diablo 3 is a real PITA to get working with G Sync correctly without in-game micro stutter. It really really prefers to run at 60Hz with in-game V Sync set to On and not being override by Nvidia. All sorts of combos attempting to get G Sync working will result in screen clipping and other problems.

We see in the gaming industry more and more games coming out with built-in 30hz or 60hz limitations and game engine dependencies on internal V Sync code for game functionality.

Also... what's with 24 inch and 27 inch being the standard? I love my 30" Dell 3007 WFP for its dot pitch... why aren't we seeing more enthusiast monitors in the 30+ space?
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,021
I think the curved geometry is preferable when dealing with displays over 43". At 27" and smaller it makes no sense. After having owned 30" displays and larger for years, 24" or 27" models hold zero appeal for me. The other issues with refresh rate, lack of G-Sync and whatever else aren't even on my radar after the first couple of issues.
 

Dan UCF

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2003
Messages
1,087
I think it's another gimmick like 3D glasses. They need reasons to push you to get rid of your "crappy" circa 2010 LCD.

I like a subtle curve like my Ultra Wide 34 inch Acer has, but on a 16:9 monitor I don't think the curve makes sense. Especially on such small screens.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
I felt the same way for a while, but recently a lot of games I have been playing have a built-in non-controllable game engine requirment of V-Sync and act very poorly when it is tampered with - effectively ruining G Sync or the game behavior.

For example Skyrim Remastered will behave very strangely when I get all the options ticked correctly to actually enable G Sync, and Dark Souls 3 has all sorts of stutter problems and other issues when the built in V Sync is tampered with.

Also, Diablo 3 is a real PITA to get working with G Sync correctly without in-game micro stutter. It really really prefers to run at 60Hz with in-game V Sync set to On and not being override by Nvidia. All sorts of combos attempting to get G Sync working will result in screen clipping and other problems.

We see in the gaming industry more and more games coming out with built-in 30hz or 60hz limitations and game engine dependencies on internal V Sync code for game functionality.

Also... what's with 24 inch and 27 inch being the standard? I love my 30" Dell 3007 WFP for its dot pitch... why aren't we seeing more enthusiast monitors in the 30+ space?
Those two examples in your post are the only games I've had issues with G-Sync in. Fallout 4, surprisingly, worked fine for me with G-Sync on release day while SkyRE is based on the same engine. Have never had an issue in any other game that wasn't a driver related issue, and even then it was only one game (Modern Warfare Remastered).
 

ol1bit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
1,232
I love my G-Sync, I bought a refurb Asus PG278Q. I'l love an ultra-wide, but when g-sync cots $300 more than free sync, i'm not so sure. Nivida needs to support free-sync.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
No mention of variable refresh rate technology. No G-Sync = no sale.

They are currently selling a 34" with Freesync and said they might make a G-Sync version later in 2017.

In the mean time, at the 34" 21:9 format point, only the ACER Preditor X34 and ASUS Rog Swift 34" are available floating around the $1,200 price point +/- $100 and they both use the exact same panel from the same manufacturer. I am under the impression that the ACER has better QC and assembly going for it.

But neither is likely to drop much in price until someone comes out with a better solution. This looks to be Samsung in 4QTR 2017 but that depends on their pricing. The Samsung CF791 Freesync is priced at $999.99 flat across the market, add the usual $300+ G-sync license and the monitor will be about $1,400 + at launch. If it's any higher there will be no pressure for Acer and ASUS to drop their own pricing but if Samsung come swinging in with a newer prettier package at $1,200 the others would have to drop or see their already low sales numbers drop while getting loaded with old stock. Maybe Acer and ASUS can convince their panel maker to lower their price to give them some wiggle room and remain in a competitive position.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I love my G-Sync, I bought a refurb Asus PG278Q. I'l love an ultra-wide, but when g-sync cots $300 more than free sync, i'm not so sure. Nivida needs to support free-sync.

I don't think NVidia is going to undercut their own tech. They know they can sell G-Sync for more because G-Sync is a better solution and people will pay more for the best. It saves you money elsewhere and offers a better experience.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
I love my G-Sync, I bought a refurb Asus PG278Q. I'l love an ultra-wide, but when g-sync cots $300 more than free sync, i'm not so sure. Nivida needs to support free-sync.
No, thanks. Cheaper or not, I'm not going to waste my money on an inferior technology.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I simply don't understand why anyone would want a tiny curved monitor attached to a computer. Buy a 4K curved 55inch tv instead, and save the distorted geometry for that.

Cause I neither wish to sit with my nose 18" in front of a 55" TV nor do I wish to sit half way across the room from it.

I want a desk, with my mouse and keyboard, and my two monitors, one primary for the game, one secondary for Teamspeak, a browser, or whatever other app I want up at the time.

Since AMD no longer has a competitive product on the market and my 1070 is clearly a more capable and better engineered offering, I' am looking hard for ACER or AMD to drop their 34" G-Sync curved monitors to what I see as an acceptable price point. G-Sync costs $300 more per monitor, I have no intention of paying it three times when once will do it just fine and lose the bezels as well.

But that's just how I see it.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,021
Cause I neither wish to sit with my nose 18" in front of a 55" TV nor do I wish to sit half way across the room from it.

I want a desk, with my mouse and keyboard, and my two monitors, one primary for the game, one secondary for Teamspeak, a browser, or whatever other app I want up at the time.

Since AMD no longer has a competitive product on the market and my 1070 is clearly a more capable and better engineered offering, I' am looking hard for ACER or AMD to drop their 34" G-Sync curved monitors to what I see as an acceptable price point. G-Sync costs $300 more per monitor, I have no intention of paying it three times when once will do it just fine and lose the bezels as well.

But that's just how I see it.

I think 55" is too large. Hell 48" and 49" are on the edge of what I consider reasonable for a monitor. I think 40" to 43" is as large as you really want to go. That said after having a 48" for more than a year, I can't imagine gaming on a tiny ass 34" or smaller monitor.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I think 55" is too large. Hell 48" and 49" are on the edge of what I consider reasonable for a monitor. I think 40" to 43" is as large as you really want to go. That said after having a 48" for more than a year, I can't imagine gaming on a tiny ass 34" or smaller monitor.

You know this is a 34" Ultrawide right? 21:9 aspect ration.

Strap a cell phone in front of your face and all you can see is the screen and no background. I can easily position a 3440 x 1440 monitor at a distance that is comfortable and presentable. It's not without it's issues though. Not all games support 21:9 and even fewer movies. But a second monitor for the off-hand apps can also be the primary movie display or I could get a 40" 4K for that purpose and for when a game that doesn't do 21:9 needs something better than my old 1080P 28" screens.
 

Iching

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
1,839
If you can't afford superior g-sync then you buy a freesync display. I wish people stopped bitching and moaning about it in every thread. So many butthurt people.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Anyone have a spare Arm, Leg, and First Born I can borrow?
 

mr.Loma

n00b
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
40
I wonder how this technology ages, if you end up with brighter bluer light after x years or not. Might not be so good for your eyes/night's sleep
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
I wonder how this technology ages, if you end up with brighter bluer light after x years or not. Might not be so good for your eyes/night's sleep
Did I ever tell you my favorite color is blue?
upload_2016-12-29_16-38-33.png
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,830
I want a 42" 3840x2160 panel with 120hz and G-Sync....

I don't care abut curve. Could go either way.
 

Revdarian

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,612
I wonder how this technology ages, if you end up with brighter bluer light after x years or not. Might not be so good for your eyes/night's sleep

AFAIK you could fear the opposite, Blue is still the hardest light to generate in an energy level high enough for us to detect with our puny eyes.
 

elation

Gawd
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
792
Wonder if they will come with free, built-in ads like their TVs? Wouldn't surprise me.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,021
You know this is a 34" Ultrawide right? 21:9 aspect ration.

Strap a cell phone in front of your face and all you can see is the screen and no background. I can easily position a 3440 x 1440 monitor at a distance that is comfortable and presentable. It's not without it's issues though. Not all games support 21:9 and even fewer movies. But a second monitor for the off-hand apps can also be the primary movie display or I could get a 40" 4K for that purpose and for when a game that doesn't do 21:9 needs something better than my old 1080P 28" screens.

I am aware of the 21:9 aspect ratio and its limitations. I used 3x30" (7680x1600) displays for years. I know all too well how many games are limited to standard 16:9 / 16:10 ratios. Gaming is one thing but I wouldn't want to be limited to 3440x1440 for work. I had 3x27" ROG Swift (2560x1440) monitors and found the lack of vertical height extremely limiting and difficult to get used to. Even though my Samsung KS8500 is 16:9 as well, it has a vertical height of 2160 pixels which is an improvement over any sub-4K monitor. I can also setup a game to run in a 21:9 aspect ratio and get the same experience you get in a dark room. Many Samsung 4K owners have done this.

There is no perfect monitor. I've said that many times. Either because the definition is somewhat subjective or because the technology doesn't exist to satisfy everyone. So everyone needs to make concessions in order to get the bulk of what they want out of a monitor. In my case I sacrificed dot pitch, refresh rate, and G-Sync to gain size (49") and resolution. Also, arguments can be made for the VA panel vs. TN or IPS etc. In my case the panel type was less of a concern so long as it wasn't a TN panel. The viewing angles on those are terrible which doesn't work for such a large display, or for how I sometimes use it. Other people sacrifice size for higher refresh rates, G-Sync or whatever. Everyone has different ideas on which qualities are most important in a display.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I agree completely.

I do almost no productivity on my home machines. I know that is odd for an IT guy, but when you work on classified networks you just don't take work home with you. So at home, I either browse, watch movies, or play games. I have two ASUS MX278 1080P 27" displays at the moment, one for a primary display and one for additional apps and a browser while in game. I run them with a single NVidia 1070 card. For me, the addition of a 34" 21:9 display as the primary for most things works. I see G-Sync as a performance enhancer and should keep things playable with the 1070. I see the options like this, I could save money on the displays by forgoing G-Sync. but another 1070 and probably a stronger PSU would negate any savings and would not provide the same experience G-Sync offers. Perhaps I could buy a 1080 and sell the 1070 and come out a little better than with two 1070s, but it is essentially the same approach to a problem. Spending money for more horse power instead of spending it on better technology.

But as you said, the individual buyer has to set his own priorities.
 

Shaten

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
73
1) Not really curved enough, if the monitor sits 2 feet from your eyes then you need a lot more curve to maintain a constant 2 feet from the center of your eyes.
2) Smaller edges, make the edge of the monitor 1 mm thick I don't care about a lot else.
3) curve them vertically too so I can have a really big display all at the correct distance from my eyes ( or even a reasonable distance from my eyes.
4) Get game developers to add in a sphere projection mode to their viewports....
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
1) Not really curved enough, if the monitor sits 2 feet from your eyes then you need a lot more curve to maintain a constant 2 feet from the center of your eyes.
2) Smaller edges, make the edge of the monitor 1 mm thick I don't care about a lot else.
3) curve them vertically too so I can have a really big display all at the correct distance from my eyes ( or even a reasonable distance from my eyes.
4) Get game developers to add in a sphere projection mode to their viewports....


You want to know what the curved screen does for you?

It's not that it fills your peripheral as you have identified, it's because the curve imparts an effective increase in the realized width of the monitor, it "feels" wider. It's not by a lot but this is the effect. The other is that by lessening the angle of the eye to the screen edges you keep a better looking and more natural picture. The angel isn't so harsh out to the edges so it isn't so distorted as if it were flat.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,830
You want to know what the curved screen does for you?

It's not that it fills your peripheral as you have identified, it's because the curve imparts an effective increase in the realized width of the monitor, it "feels" wider. It's not by a lot but this is the effect. The other is that by lessening the angle of the eye to the screen edges you keep a better looking and more natural picture. The angel isn't so harsh out to the edges so it isn't so distorted as if it were flat.


I have a curved 48" Samsung JS9000 on my desk.

To me, the only thing the curve accomplished is it avoids viewing angle distortions at the edges, which I otherwise would have because I sit so close to a large screen.
 
Top