With this being even larger than the 49" and with the same poor viewing angles, could perhaps that be a reason for it having worse blooming? Assuming you have probably mounted the 57" where the 49" used to be and thus perhaps the difference in size could mean that viewing angles perhaps got worse relatively speaking. Most local dimming tend to be much worse when viewing from the sides compared to head on.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 57" 7680x2160 super ultrawide (mini-LED)
- Thread starter kasakka
- Start date
Strange,
I fired up Jedi Survivor today and was getting 90+ fps with DLSS performance when yesterday I was only getting 55.
I don't know what changed, was there an update? The experience became a whole lot better now.
And after many tests of quickly switching back and forth between the C242 and this for gaming, I think I have finally made my mind up.
The G95NC wins for me.
The immersion factor and very good brightness is what did it for me. Even though the C242 has much smoother and better performance, the immersion factor of the G95NC is actually quiet empowering even though I lose a ton of fps in games.
I am keeping it. The C242 goes. It served me very well though and I will surely miss it.
I fired up Jedi Survivor today and was getting 90+ fps with DLSS performance when yesterday I was only getting 55.
I don't know what changed, was there an update? The experience became a whole lot better now.
And after many tests of quickly switching back and forth between the C242 and this for gaming, I think I have finally made my mind up.
The G95NC wins for me.
The immersion factor and very good brightness is what did it for me. Even though the C242 has much smoother and better performance, the immersion factor of the G95NC is actually quiet empowering even though I lose a ton of fps in games.
I am keeping it. The C242 goes. It served me very well though and I will surely miss it.
"Sure, but then I want that trip to Europe we have been talking about?"Oh my, with that price I have to ask the wife. I already know the answer.
Seems like you have kind of already answered this, but is this only or mostly for gaming? Impact of graininess etc should have far less impact on gaming that if you intend to use it also as a monitor for work etc. Not that the C2 is ideal for that either but at least it isn't grainy.
Nightman96
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2023
- Messages
- 6
The monitor is also up on Amazon US now. Like Best Buy, you can get a $500 e-gift card for ordering it:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0CDQM55C9/
EDIT: The Samsung.com listing is up as well; it has the same $500 credit promo, and the monitor is $1999.99 with a student discount.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0CDQM55C9/
EDIT: The Samsung.com listing is up as well; it has the same $500 credit promo, and the monitor is $1999.99 with a student discount.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
It's pretty ridiculous you get preorder deals like those. In Finland from any store or Samsung directly, it's 2599 euros, no deals.
Unless there's a tempting Black Friday deal, I'm likely to just wait until/if G95NC + Nvidia kinks get ironed out out and just game on my OLED TV instead and use the dual Samsung G70A setup for work.
Unless there's a tempting Black Friday deal, I'm likely to just wait until/if G95NC + Nvidia kinks get ironed out out and just game on my OLED TV instead and use the dual Samsung G70A setup for work.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,730
That's a bummer. Samsung even had a sale here on their 49" QD OLED for $1500 which is like $700 off? And the damn thing just barely launched like a month ago. I'm hoping Samsung announces their own 32" 4K QD OLED at CES next year to compete with the PG32UCDM then hopefully launch it around the same time as the Asus so I can just snag one on sale. Both Samsung and Asus are pretty meh when it comes to QC and firmware so I'd rather take my chances on a much cheaper Samsung than gamble on Asus.
Part of why people are perceiving more blooming is because it boosts highlights much brighter than the Neo G9 which still did that Samsung FALD ABL crap unless the stars aligned with the content you're viewing.
I got this monitor purely for gaming.
I don't use it for work or anything else.
The best deal I've seen here for Samsung displays was for the Neo G7/G8 the year they launched. On Black Friday sales the G8 sold for 1000 euros, normally about 1400-1500. I'm hoping to see something similar for the G95NC, closer to 2000.
What has the world come to when we are forced to continue gaming on our almost new OLEDs instead?
Such a cruel world. My 4090 is rendering more frames than my display can show!What has the world come to when we are forced to continue gaming on our almost new OLEDs instead?
And people say that us in the Nordic countries live good lives when we are in fact close to rock bottom! At least you guys might get the NATO-discount from Samsung
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Why not both?
Glad you like (love?) it.
. . . .
AG ~ matte abraded layer
----------------------------------------
Not trying to disparage it much as an overall display but I can't help imagining what it could have been if it were glossy. It's not really any technical limitation of the panel technologies themselves requiring matte to be forced on us.
Full disclosure that my legion5pro 1600p gaming laptop has AG which I suffer since it was such a good deal and rugged on all other facets, but I can hook it up to an external monitor or tv when I feel like it. I specifically remember when I had a glossy 27" 1440p 60hz screen in the early 1440p days and later added a 27" pg278q that was 1440p + 144hz + gsync module. Those specs were a big deal back then, but it had AG. Side by side in multi monitor setup with the glossy 60hz ips next to it the AG was a considerable tradeoff to me. I still have a legacy 32" 1600p g-sync VA screen on one utility system that has AG as well. I had upgraded/side-graded to that 32" from the 27" asus swift.
I wouldn't have AG on anything if I had the option on the same hardware when I bought them but you have to pick your poisons as always. When I got the 48cx glossy oled I was extremely happy with the lush glossy screen. I also have a 77" C1 in the living room.
The matte abraded outer layer on these super ultwawide screens is one of the few primary things making me question buying one down the line. However I realize most ~monitors~, esp. non-oleds, will have matte ag of some type. Also realize that monitors will eventually be the ones getting full 80gbs dp 2.1 in the long run as well so even if I waited on next screen cycles I doublt I'd be able to avoid it. 8k screens I want to look at in the next few years will probably all be FALD LCD with matte too, so from what I can tell I'll almost certainly, begrudgingly, be stuck with matte on my gaming screen for several years again at some point in the future. So it might be a moot point in that respect depending how you look at it.
. . . . . . . . . .
Viewing distance ~~> Perceived Height?
--------------------------------------------------------
I'm curious of how far away you've chosen to sit your eyeballs from the screen typically in regular 1st/3rd person or isometric games rather than racing/flight sims. How does the height of the screen feel? That 32" 16:10 I mentioned is probably close to the same height so I might have some idea but I'm curious of your take on it especially since you are coming from a 42" oled. I know that it is the nature of the aspect ratio somewhat but the narrowed height is concerning to me. I'd love a curved screen 20" tall or more, or alternately with a more aggressive curve so I could sit close enough for the height to be taller to my perspective with a better overall spacial design - but this 57" uw might be as good as it's going to get for my upgrade options until 120hz and higher 8k gaming tvs hit from multiple mfgs in a few years.
Viewing angles/curvature vs. center of circle
-------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the reason viewing angles are poor is probably b/c the way all of the ultrawides are designed you aren't sitting at the center of the curvature so the pixels are off axis from you by a greater and greater degree the farther away from the center of the screen. The farther pixels from center are pointed at a location well behind where you are sitting. You can't sit far enough away b/c of the overall screen dimensions either really b/c the screen height would shrink to your perspective to a short belt. They'd be a lot better at around 700R, 700mm ~ 28" inch to center of the circle imo. Then you could sit 28" away with a deep enough desk and have all of the pixels on axis so that it would be more uniform vs shading~darkening gradient at far ends, far edges and corners. You also having little to no distortion/warping/geometry issues when sitting at the center of the curvature (at least for desktop/apps but also for games as long as the game wasn't stretching/warping the content to fit the aspect ratio).
................
Last edited:
No need for both, as I mentioned I only game. I can't game on both at the same time lol, will be a waste of space if keep both.Why not both?
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,730
I only game as well but I keep two displays because there just isn't a single display that can truly do it all for me yet. I did have just an InnoCN 32M2V and nothing else for a few months but then I ended up grabbing a cheap 1080p 360Hz display for playing multiplayer stuff after my buddies kept clowning on me for getting slow and old (even though they are the same age as me lol). The InnoCN is a great monitor but for playing anything competitive it simply doesn't cut it, way too slow and laggy especially since I kept FALD + HDR on at all times because toggling it on/off is a hassle and I seriously felt like I was playing a lot worst than I normally would and everyone could see it as well. I think the upcoming Asus PG32UCDM or equivalent monitor might finally be the one monitor solution for me when it comes playing both single player HDR games and competitive multiplayer stuff thanks to being 240Hz + OLED.
I do have the PG27AQDM 240Hz OLED for competative stuff yes.
I meant for single players hdr games, no reason to keep both C242 and 57" G95NC.
Baasha
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 251
yeeeeeeeeeeeeee. just pre-ordered! can't wait to play with this baby! going to stack the 49" Neo G9 on top.. should be a doozy .
Did that 360 Hz monitor instantly turn you into Global Elite then?
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Did that 360 Hz monitor instantly turn you into Global Elite then?
Your reaction time is a pretty large number to start with. Most people locally tested on gaming pcs get about 180 - 200ms reaction time (or worse, up to 250ms). Some people can get close to the touch sensitive reaction time of 150ms at times, or under 160ms regularly when fed a visual reaction test but it's not common. In games people also reduce their reaction time by memorizing maps, memorizing specs of everything in game and how their properties play against each other, memorizing powerups/drops timings, and by forecasting other players behaviors (on both teams even, if in team games ~ cooperating synergy, etc), being aware of trends and new angles and exploits, patch effects, making decisions vs risks/reward at any given time, etc. plus "luck" - so it's not as simple as just your hardware or even your raw reaction time just considering those factors.
Monitors are marketed as if their local specs translate 1:1 to online gaming servers though. That's not true, it's marketing. You may get a little benefit from reduced FoV movement blur at higher fpsHz, but you also might get a slight benefit from higher resolution depending on the game style/dev (i.e. view distances) and mechanics. However - online gaming servers' tick rates, latency compensation and interpolated, biased coding decisions more than muddy the results of just having faster fpsHz. Most testing showing any appreciable difference is done locally on a lan and/or vs Bots locally where you are at like 3ms latency and servers don't have to interp, with bias, numbers 10x that or more and fluctuating pings at that, combined with limitations from tick rates much lower than your own fpsHz. Online is a completely different animal than LAN competitions. You'll usually get downvoted to hell for pointing out such heretical knowledge online though.
*there is also rampant cheating going on in online games, with popular games banning cheaters by the thousands. There are whole companies devoted to paid cheats as well. Popular game streamers who are known for being skilled at certain games have been caught during streams cheating, and high ranked players have even been caught at monied LAN competitions in person lol. Some employ "low key", less obvious cheats to augment their skill/scores without flagging themselves outright (laddering up, and even to help carry teammates depending). Mentioning that too because that also muddies the waters considerably.
Fortnite players cheat the most in any online multiplayer game, with over 26,822,000 searches for hacks
Four pro 'Fortnite' players have been banned after FNCS cheating controversy
https://us.blastingnews.com/gaming/...fter-fncs-cheating-controversy-003096277.html
https://fortnitetracker.com/article/1236/fortnite-cheating-crisis-reaches-new-highs
. . .
‘Call Of Duty: Warzone’ Has Now Banned Half A Million Cheaters (may 2021)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...rzone-has-now-banned-half-a-million-cheaters/
. . .
March 2021
Hundreds of high ranked Apex Legends players just got banned for cheating
april 2021
Apex Legends Devs Looking Into Compensation For Losing To Cheaters
Feb 2021
https://charlieintel.com/apex-legends-cheaters-hit-by-huge-ban-wave-with-more-to-come/85678/
. . . . . . . . .
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2021/03/...-game-cheating-ring-seize-millions-in-assets/
https://www.axios.com/2022/12/16/video-game-cheating-lawsuits
https://kotaku.com/xbox-automatically-banned-4-million-accounts-for-cheati-1849786570 (2022)
https://gamerant.com/overwatch-2-bans-cheaters/
Overwatch 2 First Hacker and Cheating Ban WaveOctober 26 2022, #Overwatch2 Korean Servers 3,486 player accounts using programs not authorized by cheating and Blizzard have ban
The Overwatch 2 ban wave is just the beginning and will ban more hackers and cheaters. 금지! pic.twitter.com/XIttLARwm0
— Naeri X 나에리 (@OverwatchNaeri) October 26, 2022
https://www.talkesport.com/news/csg...ted-cheats-but-valve-has-ignored-the-problem/ (september 2022)
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/y9ioza/hans_lawsuit_claims_that_chesscom_allowed_known/
. .
https://www.fragster.com/tencent-bans-over-450,000-pubg-mobile-players-for-cheating/ (sept 2022)
https://fanspace.gg/pubg-mobile-ban-pan-report-of-late-november-2022/
. .
https://pubg.ac/news/65909-one-of-the-top-5-squad-players-of-pcs6-suspected-cheating
. .
https://www.gaming.net/5-pro-gamers-who-were-caught-cheating-mid-tournament/
. .
10 Pro Gamers Who Were Caught Cheating During Live Streams and/or Tournaments
. . .
https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/5-twitch-streamers-caught-cheating-livestream
..
Police bust 'world's biggest' video-game-cheat operation
. . .
A popular Call of Duty player has quit its Warzone game over claims it is “saturated with hackers”.Vikkstar - who has more than seven million subscribers on YouTube - said the game was in “the worst state it has ever been”.
. . . .
https://time2play.com/blog/is-it-cheating/
. . . .
https://resources.irdeto.com/irdeto-global-gaming-survey/irdeto-global-gaming-survey-report-2
https://blog.irdeto.com/video-gamin...verything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-it/
Last edited:
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,730
Did that 360 Hz monitor instantly turn you into Global Elite then?
Course not. But everyone plays at a certain level and even Linus has shown that non pro players can benefit from higher refresh rates. I played at a certain level and once I started playing on the InnoCN full time I was dropping and no longer playing at the level I used to and it was noticeable.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,730
Your reaction time is a pretty large number to start with. Most people locally tested on gaming pcs get about 180 - 200ms reaction time (or worse, up to 250ms). Some people can get close to the touch sensitive reaction time of 150ms at times, or under 160ms regularly when fed a visual reaction test but it's not common. In games people also reduce their reaction time by memorizing maps, memorizing specs of everything in game and how their properties play against each other, memorizing powerups/drops timings, and by forecasting other players behaviors (on both teams even, if in team games ~ cooperating synergy, etc), being aware of trends and new angles and exploits, patch effects, making decisions vs risks/reward at any given time, etc. plus "luck" - so it's not as simple as just your hardware or even your raw reaction time just considering those factors.
Monitors are marketed as if their local specs translate 1:1 to online gaming servers though. That's not true, it's marketing. You may get a little benefit from reduced FoV movement blur at higher fpsHz, but you also might get a slight benefit from higher resolution depending on the game style/dev (i.e. view distances) and mechanics. However - online gaming servers' tick rates, latency compensation and interpolated, biased coding decisions more than muddy the results of just having faster fpsHz. Most testing showing any appreciable difference is done locally on a lan and/or vs Bots locally where you are at like 3ms latency and servers don't have to interp, with bias, numbers 10x that or more and fluctuating pings at that, combined with limitations from tick rates much lower than your own fpsHz. Online is a completely different animal than LAN competitions. You'll usually get downvoted to hell for pointing out such heretical knowledge online though.
View attachment 599754 View attachment 599755
View attachment 599756
*there is also rampant cheating going on in online games, with popular games banning cheaters by the thousands. There are whole companies devoted to paid cheats as well. Popular game streamers who are known for being skilled at certain games have been caught during streams cheating, and high ranked players have even been caught at monied LAN competitions in person lol. Some employ "low key", less obvious cheats to augment their skill/scores without flagging themselves outright (laddering up, and even to help carry teammates depending). Mentioning that too because that also muddies the waters considerably.
Bro how many times are you gonna bust out the tick rate argument? You saying playing on a more responsive monitor makes ZERO difference "becuz muh tickrate"? I bet you don't even play anything competitive at all lol.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Yeah idk how that specific monitor's input lag resolves. RTings says it has 25.6ms input lag when it's down to 60hz outright due to frame doubling, which is horrible, so idk what happens in game as it sinks fpsHz within variable refresh rates. The value at 60hz is bad but if it's doing variable/switching input lag it would also be bad, perhaps even worse in effect. That might be bad input lag on that specific screen for whatever reason.rather than fpsHz differences.
Input lag on that InnoCN per RTings:
Native Resolution @ Max Hz 3.7 ms
Native Resolution @ 120Hz 4.7 ms
Native Resolution @ 60Hz 25.6 ms
Backlight Strobing (BFI) N/A [/SIZE]
. . .
The input lag on the LG OLED gaming tvs for example, is also tied to the refresh rate. If you are playing at 60fpsHz on a LG oled tv you'll have higher input lag than if playing at 120fpsHz.
For reference, LG C2 Input Lag per RTings:
Native Resolution @ 120Hz
5.3 ms
Native Resolution @ 60Hz
10.0 ms
Backlight Strobing (BFI)
30.0 ms
Prevent Input Delay on Standard: 13.6 ms
VRR disabled: 5.2 ms
Game Optimizer disabled: 13.7 ms
Outside Game Mode but in PC Mode: 13.6 ms
Outside Game Mode and PC Mode: 47.8 ms
. . . .
There could have been several factors making a difference between your two screens performance online besides fpsHz. Switching to 1080p probably increased your frame rate a lot which could lower your input lag some compared to the innoc, which may have had high input lag for whatever reason though sure.
The only testing I've seen on LTT was done locally on LAN or vs bots. That's a completely different animal than online server gameplay.
Last edited:
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,730
RTings does NOT test local dimming with HDR. Input lag shoots through the roof when you enable FALD + HDR as hardwareunboxed has shown. It's SDR that's unaffected. Some people can play just fine on the InnoCN or any FALD monitor. 144Hz + FALD + snail slow response times does not affect their performance in any meaningful way. But for me having something more responsive did make a difference and the stupid tick rate had nothing to do with it. By your logic everyone should perform the same whether they play on a 60Hz monitor or a 1000Hz monitor all becuz tick rate.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Noted on the FALD+HDR. So what was the input lag you were getting on that screen with those enabled? I haven't had a fald screen other than a tv several years ago and I haven't gamed online in hdr either so I appreciate the info - especially since I was looking at this 57" FALD s-uw.
10ms to 3ms (1ms) input lag from a screen added to variable 150ms 1o 180ms ~ 200ms human reaction time pushed through server delivered interpolation from pings of say 25 - 45ms and a lower server tick rate for world state updates than your local frame rate isn't going to make enough difference in scoring across the board in dynamic games with a lot of other factors at play besides imo, no. LAN is a different story where it's probably 3ms latency and more direct and that's where the testing I've seen shows it. I'd love to see actual blind testing of 120fpsHz vs 360fpsHz by people in online games they've mastered and memorized, on remote online servers vs other players, and then some custom new map thrown at them to compare, maybe over several days of testing. That and several days on a LAN which takes some time to adjust to as LAN play operates differently in effect than playing on online servers.
I'm not arguing that your experience on that screen with those settings (with much higher input lag apparently, as I suspected,but with the reasons defined by you now = fald+hdr) was not adversely affected, I was responding to "360hz makes you top tier now" in online gaming competition comment.
Last edited:
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,730
It's not about being top tier. As I said everyone plays at a certain level, now downgrade their monitor to something much less responsive and they may not play at that level anymore. If you played at a specific level on a 144Hz TN then dropping down to a 60Hz VA might make you play worst. That's all I'm getting at. Moving back to a more responsive monitor just enables me to play at my old level again. I'm also not saying I absolutely NEED 360Hz, I've only gamed at 240Hz prior to this and only bought 360Hz because of how cheap it's gotten over the years. I picked it up for $299 and 240Hz monitors were going for $230 so $70 extra for the extra 120Hz seems like a bargain. I'm not sure what the exact increase in input lag is on the 32M2V but here's a few examples from HUB which shows it can be as bad as going from 0.2ms to 14ms increase as seen on the Cooler Master GP27U:
Also, you seem to be basing your argument around reaction times saying server tick rate and natural human reaction time would negate any benefit in higher Hz monitors. But in fact the majority of games that I play competitively aren't really about reaction times at all, it's more tracking focused like Apex and OW2. I can MUCH more easily track opponents while shooting when playing at a higher fps/lower input lag and I'm sure most people can too, reaction time and server tick rate has little to do with it. It's just simple fact that some people will have an easier time tracking targets while playing on a more responsive monitor.
Last edited:
Was a while ago since I looked at those LTT videos, but didn't they reach the conclusion that the most important factor was to play with a setup similar to what you were used to and had trained with? Kind of like a tennis player tends to play better with a racket they are used to rather than one that might actually be better from a technical point of view but still being different.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,730
That could be it too. I previously did any competitive gaming on a 240Hz TN panel while I used my LG CX for single player HDR gaming. After I got my InnoCN 32M2V I tried to use it full time for everything whether single player or competitive and the downgrade in responsiveness was actually affecting me. Going back to something that's more responsive like my old 240Hz TN allowed me to play as I used to. I only got a 360Hz because the price difference between 240Hz and 360Hz was $70 so I saw no point in saving $70 when I can get another 120Hz increase for that money. Does going from 240Hz to 360Hz make me any better? Nah absolutely not, just going from a snail FALD monitor to something a lot more responsive did though.
I agree, it is kind of funny that people in general seem to think that a ms on the monitor is more important than having an optimized network etc. Everything else equal though, the one with the quickest monitor will probably have a very slight advantage. And as you also mention, cheating is probably the biggest factor between who is winning and who isn't. I recall that I tried one of the better cheats a few years ago in CS GO and how easy it was to get away with it as long as you do it with some "care". There and then I kind of lost interest altogether as playing with cheats was completely pointless (at least to me) and playing without was kind of the same as there were so many obvious cheaters out there. But that is probably a discussion better suited elsewhere.Your reaction time is a pretty large number to start with. Most people locally tested on gaming pcs get about 180 - 200ms reaction time (or worse, up to 250ms). Some people can get close to the touch sensitive reaction time of 150ms at times, or under 160ms regularly when fed a visual reaction test but it's not common. In games people also reduce their reaction time by memorizing maps, memorizing specs of everything in game and how their properties play against each other, memorizing powerups/drops timings, and by forecasting other players behaviors (on both teams even, if in team games ~ cooperating synergy, etc), being aware of trends and new angles and exploits, patch effects, making decisions vs risks/reward at any given time, etc. plus "luck" - so it's not as simple as just your hardware or even your raw reaction time just considering those factors.
Monitors are marketed as if their local specs translate 1:1 to online gaming servers though. That's not true, it's marketing. You may get a little benefit from reduced FoV movement blur at higher fpsHz, but you also might get a slight benefit from higher resolution depending on the game style/dev (i.e. view distances) and mechanics. However - online gaming servers' tick rates, latency compensation and interpolated, biased coding decisions more than muddy the results of just having faster fpsHz. Most testing showing any appreciable difference is done locally on a lan and/or vs Bots locally where you are at like 3ms latency and servers don't have to interp, with bias, numbers 10x that or more and fluctuating pings at that, combined with limitations from tick rates much lower than your own fpsHz. Online is a completely different animal than LAN competitions. You'll usually get downvoted to hell for pointing out such heretical knowledge online though.
View attachment 599754 View attachment 599755
View attachment 599756
*there is also rampant cheating going on in online games, with popular games banning cheaters by the thousands. There are whole companies devoted to paid cheats as well. Popular game streamers who are known for being skilled at certain games have been caught during streams cheating, and high ranked players have even been caught at monied LAN competitions in person lol. Some employ "low key", less obvious cheats to augment their skill/scores without flagging themselves outright (laddering up, and even to help carry teammates depending). Mentioning that too because that also muddies the waters considerably.
Now, with all the above said, if I were to get back into competitive play seriously, would I live as I learn? Absolutely not, I would probably spend way to much money on getting a 500 hz monitor just to be on the safe side
Baasha
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 251
Are there any pics of the 49" Neo G9 stacked on top of the 57" Neo G9? I'm planning to use the Atdec AWMS-2-BT75-FS-B stand to mount both displays. That should work, correct? Any feedback on the stand or any other recommendations?
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
I'm pretty sure that is what this picture is showing. From r/ultrawidemasterrace on reddit. G49 vs 57 inch.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidem...5fx85/57_on_bottom_49_on_top_using_the_atdec/
I saw the mount you linked. Just so you know, another option that would probably work is a ceiling to floor pole mount which similar to that stand you linked. They can have multiple vesa "block" mounts with some tilt that go on the same pole. They seem pretty solid and don't put any foot on the desk, but they desk would be butted up against the pole at the closest for obvious reasons. They can be an investment though, ranging from $250 - $500 - $770 usd depending on the model, but that atdec desktop one pictured above is $450 on their site too.
These kinds of mounts slide onto the pole but you might be able to mount another short vesa bracket that has more articulation to these boxes if you needed to.
.
Hard mounted ones:
Peerless AV
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...00_b_modular_series_floor_to_ceiling_kit.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...stries_mod_fpms_single_display_mount_for.html (peerless brackets pictured above)
https://www.ergodirect.com/17633-peerless-mod-fcskit300-b-modular-series-floor-to-ceiling-kit.html
https://www.peerless-av.com/products/mod-fcskit300-b
Mount-it pro
https://mount-it.pro/products/dual-screen-single-pole-floor-to-ceiling-mount-top-to-bottom
. .
Non-permanent pressured pole:
This one seems to use pressure via a lock-down lever to squeeze it between floor and ceiling so could be a problem vs.breaking drywall ceilings or cracking porcelain floors, etc. However you could probably put a painted flat wooden panel with some toolbox drawer liner on it at the ceiling and/or floor to spread the pounds per square inch out, or mod the pole so that those are always on the ends. You'd have to see if they'd sell you a second mount for the 2nd screen, and if the weight would be supported. Says up to 64 pounds though.
https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Stand-Media-Height-Adjustable/dp/B079K7K6Y2/
https://mofopole.com/product/mofo-pole/
"pole extends from 7.1- 12.1 feet Pole diameter 1.5" Pole base 3" / NON PERMANENT / NO TOOLS! / Floor to ceiling Universal mount accommodates 32”-70” televisions with a VESA up to 600x400mm (VESA Includes 200x200mm, 300x300mm, 400x400mm, 600x400mm) Maximum weight capacity for T.V mount: 30kg/67lbs This option Includes: 1 Mofopole in black 1 Universal mount for LCD/LED televisions 32"-70" 1 Glass shelf 11''x13.5" and attachments (Black clamp & bullet bracket) 6 Clips for cable management Mount can be rotated to any position on the pole."
They claim that it's a 1.5 inch diameter pole so you could probably find 1.5 inch vesa pole mount hardware that could attach to it for the 2nd screen.
....
That or you might be able to fit pole hardware onto a suitably tall floor tv stand's pole, or buy a second mount for the rail spine types of tv stands. That way you wouldn't have any foot on the desk.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
This vid seems to have some info about it if you can parse the closed captions. Might be worth checking out anyway.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgE9pJ-OnXc
I believe it is already posted here https://hardforum.com/threads/samsu...er-ultrawide-mini-led.2024564/post-1045734058
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
yep I'm just saying if he hasn't seen it, it might have some info that helps with what he's asking about. Not trying to link snipe but I didn't page back to look for it to quote it.
We must all stand together in the fight of the horrible crime of link sniping
I actually meant it as a question if it was the same video or perhaps had been updated or similar.I ordered but am 75% sure I'll end up returning it due to the overshoot that both those reviewers measured as well as the reports of DSE. If the overshoot is only present at 240hz and not 120hz (4090) + by some miracle there isn't FALD grid or fat vertical DSE bands then It will be a keeper.
Really wish they let us select the overdrive mode with VRR enabled like Acer lets you.
Really wish they let us select the overdrive mode with VRR enabled like Acer lets you.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,730
From my understanding the general rule of thumb (assuming that are you keeping the same overdrive level across the entire refresh range) is that if a monitor has a bunch of overshoot at 240Hz then it will have even worst overshoot if you drop to a lower refresh rate and vice versa. If a monitor has a bunch of overshoot at 120Hz then increasing the refresh rate will typically reduce the overshoot. The only way to reduce overshoot by going to a lower refresh rate is by adjusting the overdrive level itself, so if the Neo G9 doesn't use any form of variable overdrive but maintains the same amount throughout the entire refresh rate then any overshoot at 240Hz will only get worst at 120Hz and below. From the countless reviews that HUB has done on monitors without variable overdrive I don't think I've ever seen a single one have it's overshoot get better by lowering the refresh rate.
The prior Neo G9 used the "fastest" OD setting when set to 240hz just like this 57" version does. For 120hz it used the next one down which reduced the overshoot significantly so I'm expecting the same here.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,730
So it isn't using variable OD across the whole refresh range but rather just picking a different OD setting based on what the refresh rate is set to. Well 120Hz should be plenty anyways as the 4090 and probably even the 5090 will not be hitting that consistently in the newest games.