Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 57" 7680x2160 super ultrawide (mini-LED)

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
3,332
Last edited:
This is likely to be my next display if it can run over DP 1.4 or HDMI 2.1 at high refresh rates and doesn't have other weirdness. Even if it has the scanline issue I think this will be an acceptable compromise.

I expected that Samsung would just make the equivalent of two 27" displays but dual 32" displays? That's awesome.

There are of course some concerns worth noting here:
  • FOV distortion in games is very real and reduces the benefit of this form factor. When the very sides of the display are stretched it seems like waste to render those pixels.
  • My 4090 will become pretty relevant considering gaming at 7680x2160 will be very demanding! I think instead it might be more sensible to play at 6144x2160 or 5120x2160. I hope those can be added with CRU or custom resolutions. Obviously DLSS will be needed to drive those resolutions and for other games it might be better to run at 16:9 3840x2160.
  • Gaming and having other stuff open will be more problematic than running separate dual monitors. Borderless fullscreen at a less than native resolution works but getting it positioned can be its own challenge. I will probably try to see if I can do this with my new Stream Deck Plus combined with Fancyzones or DisplayFusion.
  • HDR and VRR are likely to be disabled in Picture by Picture mode like on previous G9 models. Refresh rate is probably limited to 120-144 Hz too.
  • I have to think how much physical desktop space a 57" screen takes!
 
Some possible port limitations, DSC is needed for all of them. This is based on LTT bandwidth calculator + some margin

Port type and version10-bit color8-bit color
DP 2.1240 Hz240 Hz
DP 1.4120 Hz~144-175 Hz
HDMI 2.1~200-220 Hz max240 Hz

THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAL SPECS! Just my guesses for how port support will work. Ideally custom resolutions at say 5120x2160 could allow for higher refresh rates.

I really hope Samsung doesn't gimp HDMI 2.1 to 144 Hz or something like they did for their previous Neo G9.
 
Last edited:
All I want is a God damn 34" 5K2K with gaming specs, but I will settle for this 8K2K rather than continuing to wait in vain.
 
Is this VA? That's usually a deal breaker for me.

Don't know what it is, but Samsung VA create this really weird effect on my eyes. Tried both G7 and Neo G7, the bottom 30% of the screen is faded/washed out and so different from the top 70% that it looks like TN. Nothing I did fixed this. Tried multiple of each. Not only does it look bad but I get strain after a few minutes due to it. Not sure if everyone's eyes pick up on this.
 
Is this VA? That's usually a deal breaker for me.

Don't know what it is, but Samsung VA create this really weird effect on my eyes. Tried both G7 and Neo G7, the bottom 30% of the screen is faded/washed out and so different from the top 70% that it looks like TN. Nothing I did fixed this. Tried multiple of each. Not only does it look bad but I get strain after a few minutes due to it. Not sure if everyone's eyes pick up on this.
You mean their terrible antireflective coating?
 
This for the first time with a high end Samsung monitor is VESA DisplayHDR1000 certified so it will actually produce good HDR.
 
Is this VA? That's usually a deal breaker for me.

Don't know what it is, but Samsung VA create this really weird effect on my eyes. Tried both G7 and Neo G7, the bottom 30% of the screen is faded/washed out and so different from the top 70% that it looks like TN. Nothing I did fixed this. Tried multiple of each. Not only does it look bad but I get strain after a few minutes due to it. Not sure if everyone's eyes pick up on this.
Yes it is a VA panel. VA does have pretty crappy viewing angles and being curved helps. But it should still not be massively noticeable if you are watching the screen from the front.

Eye strain is hugely individual. If you feel VA panels give you eye strain and you are not running them at high brightness, then try a different panel type.
 
You mean their terrible antireflective coating?
Different Samsung models have different antireflective coatings. I don't know why some use a worse one than others. But it's not just something specific to Samsung.
 
I'm not interested in Samsung mini LED monitors. I'll blink once the OLED model has this monitor's resolution.
 
I expect this is basically two Neo G8 panels put together.

I vaguely recall one of the first 60hz 4K monitors released being two panels glued together and requiring two DP connections. I can't find any details of it anymore so not sure if I a dreaming it up or confusing it with something else.
 
This is likely to be my next display if it can run over DP 1.4 or HDMI 2.1 at high refresh rates and doesn't have other weirdness. Even if it has the scanline issue I think this will be an acceptable compromise.

I expected that Samsung would just make the equivalent of two 27" displays but dual 32" displays? That's awesome.

There are of course some concerns worth noting here:
  • FOV distortion in games is very real and reduces the benefit of this form factor. When the very sides of the display are stretched it seems like waste to render those pixels.
  • My 4090 will become pretty relevant considering gaming at 7680x2160 will be very demanding! I think instead it might be more sensible to play at 6144x2160 or 5120x2160. I hope those can be added with CRU or custom resolutions. Obviously DLSS will be needed to drive those resolutions and for other games it might be better to run at 16:9 3840x2160.
  • Gaming and having other stuff open will be more problematic than running separate dual monitors. Borderless fullscreen at a less than native resolution works but getting it positioned can be its own challenge. I will probably try to see if I can do this with my new Stream Deck Plus combined with Fancyzones or DisplayFusion.
  • HDR and VRR are likely to be disabled in Picture by Picture mode like on previous G9 models. Refresh rate is probably limited to 120-144 Hz too.
  • I have to think how much physical desktop space a 57" screen takes!
Doesn't the 4090 lack DP 2.1?
 
You mean their terrible antireflective coating?

Nope, primarily the vertical gamma/color shift. Horizontal is fine due to the curve. Only way it somewhat goes away, for me, is raising the monitor so my eyes line up with the bottom 30-40% (which is very unergonomic).
 
Last edited:
Some possible port limitations, DSC is needed for all of them. This is based on LTT bandwidth calculator + some margin

Port type and version10-bit color8-bit color
DP 2.1240 Hz240 Hz
DP 1.4120 Hz~144-175 Hz
HDMI 2.1~200 Hz max240 Hz

THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAL SPECS! Just my guesses for how port support will work. Ideally custom resolutions at say 5120x2160 could allow for higher refresh rates.

I really hope Samsung doesn't gimp HDMI 2.1 to 144 Hz or something like they did for their previous Neo G9.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TFTCentral/status/1610642466981437441
 
Pretty expected considering AMD only supports UHBR13.5 so there is no full speed DP2.1 product on the market.

I hope someone manages to find out what is supported over HDMI 2.1 or Samsung releases full specs and manual with resolution and timing tables.

If this ends up being 144 Hz over HDMI 2.1 it might be better to just get say a Neo G7/G8 and a side monitor for both cost and refresh rate, even if you give up the ultrawide options.
 
Pretty expected considering AMD only supports UHBR13.5 so there is no full speed DP2.1 product on the market.
Where did you get that from? https://www.techpowerup.com/300632/...5nm-rdna3-displayport-2-1-fsr-3-0-fluidmotion
The new AMD Radiance Display Engine introduces native support for DisplayPort 2.1, with 54 Gbps display link bandwidth, and 12 bpc color. This enables resolutions of up to 8K @ 165 Hz with a single cable; or 4K @ 480 Hz with a single cable.
 
Ahh , I wasn't familiar with the naming scheme. Jeez even 54gbps is not enough for 4k/240.
Not without DSC. Pretty much any of these new 240+ Hz monitors will require DSC to work. DP 2.1 UHBR13.5 just gets away with a lower compression ratio.
 
I have only used TN and IPS, so I can't really appreciate how much of a problem viewing angles would be on this type of monitor.
It pretty much has to be curved to be a sensible thing to use. I had the CRG9 with a 1800R curve and feel the 1000R curve of the G9 is more appropriate for the form factor. It looks insane but in practice it's far from it. To me VA viewing angles benefiting from it is just a positive side effect.
 
My problem with these 32:9 display is that in 75% of games the sides are super stretched/warped and a complete waste of the real estate. The games that do allow you to adjust FOV properly which seems to be more and more a rarity, you have to reduce it to mitigate the stretched sides.
 
I think this will actually be better for work than for gaming. I hope it doesn't suffer from the scanlines problem which is seen in some other Samsung monitors.
 
My problem with these 32:9 display is that in 75% of games the sides are super stretched/warped and a complete waste of the real estate. The games that do allow you to adjust FOV properly which seems to be more and more a rarity, you have to reduce it to mitigate the stretched sides.
Assuming I get it, my plan for any unsupported games is just to run them at 21:9 with black bars on the sides. No biggie from my perspective given that 21:9 is already plenty wide for gaming, and 32:9 will more than suit me for productivity.
 
Assuming I get it, my plan for any unsupported games is just to run them at 21:9 with black bars on the sides. No biggie from my perspective given that 21:9 is already plenty wide for gaming, and 32:9 will more than suit me for productivity.
Same plan. I felt that using a custom resolution of 3840x1440 on a 5120x1440 screen effectively mitigated the FOV distortion while giving you a bit better performance, so I plan to game at either 5120x2160 or 6144x2160. Plus DLSS of course.

The cool bit about the form factor is that you have options for a variety of ultrawide aspect ratios or 16:9 if you want for performance or because games just don't work well with super ultrawide. I feel that running 3840x1600 on a 42" 16:9 OLED TV is not the same because of the lack of a curve and the difference in form factor where 16:9 is larger, but ultrawide is just narrower vertically whereas it's the opposite on superultrawide.

But the real hero of the superultrawide form factor is that center space on the desktop. For me at least with two 27-32" 4K displays side by side, one of them is always a bit awkwardly to the side if one of the screens is in the center of the desk or you have a bezel right in front of you if you just put them left/right. The superultrawide solves that and makes that center area so much more usable.

Scale is not quite right here but gives you the idea what I'm trying to explain.

1673522373055.png


The drawbacks are mainly in how fullscreen works. YT videos etc like to just show in a 16:9 portion wasting most of the desk space. It's generally more useful using e.g a PiP feature in some browsers, just run stuff in a window, use PbP mode etc. For work I regularly just used a 21:9 + 11:9 PbP setup because that gave me two virtual desktops and a good split between big and side display.

For the record this is what my current work setup of 28" 4K Samsung G70A + 16" Macbook Pro + 12.9" iPad Pro 2017 looks like:

1673523204075.png


It works pretty well as a "many high res screens" that doesn't take too much desk space and can be easily dismantled when not needed but I did find the superultrawide setup more practical overall. If the Samsung Neo G7/8 was a bit better I might have just replaced the G70A with that, I still might give it a try if it goes on another sale at around 800 for G7 and 1000 for G8.
 
The problem is that prior G9 models 3440x1440 @ 240hz doesn't even work (it isn't even a option in the EDID). These DSC monitors aren't really happy with custom resolutions. You can read on reddit all the work arounds people have had to use or try but it ends up breaking HDR or VRR.
 
Anything over 21:9 is a waste. It's the perfect AR for DT use, just create bigger/dense panels using QD-OLED for it. Everything else is a waste of silicon.

lol, no? I mean just like 21:9 vs 16:9 or 16:9 vs 4:3. It just makes for a more enveloped experience. Will it make you a better gamer? No, but these sort of advancements in aspect ratio never really have. It's just another layer to pull you further into the game.

Hardly a waste. But needed? Definitely not.
 
lol, no? I mean just like 21:9 vs 16:9 or 16:9 vs 4:3. It just makes for a more enveloped experience. Will it make you a better gamer? No, but these sort of advancements in aspect ratio never really have. It's just another layer to pull you further into the game.

Hardly a waste. But needed? Definitely not.
Making things wider is not an advancement.
 
A mini LED that wide is gonna be atrocious in terms of uniformity for DT use, look at how bad the G7/G8 versions are already. QD OLED is the end game, all efforts should be on improving it, polarizer for better bright room performance, higher size/resolutions (a 40 inch 5k2k at 120 Hz with higher refresh for lower resolutions would be near perfect).Anything else is like focusing on ICE engine only cars, shortsighted and of limited use.
 
A mini LED that wide is gonna be atrocious in terms of uniformity for DT use, look at how bad the G7/G8 versions are already. QD OLED is the end game, all efforts should be on improving it, polarizer for better bright room performance, higher size/resolutions (a 40 inch 5k2k at 120 Hz with higher refresh for lower resolutions would be near perfect).Anything else is like focusing on ICE engine only cars, shortsighted and of limited use.
Can we please not turn this thread into another OLED vs everything else and focus on the display at hand? I made a separate thread for the OLED G9 for specifically this reason.

Companies can focus on multiple technologies at the same time. I don't want QD-OLED until its text rendering issues can be solved, that's a major drawback for me considering I'm looking at the new Neo G9 for maybe 70% work, 30% gaming reasons. With neither Samsung or LG being able to make smaller 4K res OLED models at this time, we will have to compromise and choose from what we can get.

Sure, I'd like a 40" 5120x2160 120+ Hz model as much as the next guy, but when manufacturers don't want to make that, this Samsung 57" seems like the next best thing.
 
Back
Top