Samsung Unveils a $1,500 49" HDR Ultra-wide Gaming Monitor

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,087
Samsung has unveiled the C49HG90; a new 49" HDR ultra-wide gaming monitor. The monitor has a 3,840 x 1,080 resolution, 1ms response time, 144Hz refresh rate. 32:9 aspect ratio and AMD's FreeSync 2. The price on this monster VA panel has been set at $1,500 which seems excessive even though it has HDR. Personally I'll keep my 50" Samsung 4K TV for awhile longer as Zarathustra's excellent setup guide on how to optimize it for use as a monitor makes it a great productivity screen.

Samsung also announced similar smaller monitors in their new lineup without HDR. The 27" C27HG70 and 32" C32HG70 are also VA panels with the same 1ms response time as it's massive brother. Both have resolutions of 2560x1440 and feature FreeSync 2. The official press release is found here.

The 49-inch CHG90 is now available for pre-order on Amazon.com and at local Micro Center retail stores for $1499. The 32-inch CHG70 is available for pre-order exclusively on Newegg.com for $699, and the 27-inch display is available for pre-order on Samsung.com for $599. For more information on all products, please visit Samsung.com.
 
Last edited:
Bandalo said:
If this was 1440p I might be more interested. I can't go back to 1080p though.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Even 1440p is tough for me after viewing 4K for the last two years. LG and Acer have a 3840x1600 monitor that looks interesting.
 
Commander Shepard said:
Exactly. Even 1440p is tough for me after viewing 4K for the last two years. LG and Acer have a 3840x1600 monitor that looks interesting.
Click to expand...

I went from a couple Dell 2560x1600 screens to my current 3440x1440 screen, and that was the hardest part to adjust to. The extra side-to-side was nice, but that up-and-down part was invaluable in any kind of non-gaming use. If never bothered me in-game though.
 
I think given that it has FreeSync 2 that a slightly higher resolution would have resulted in a much better productivity monitor. Something like a 4 or 50??x1440p resolution.

For gaming this should be alright...however the common issue with lack of support still looms. My best friend is a 21:9 PC gamer and even he's talked several times about ditching it due to the lack of support for the ratio, even in current games.

So yeah, interesting product with good features but it'll be lacking desktop/UI use wise and gaming should be interesting...if the game supports it.
 
Considering the tech (UWA, VA Panel and Free Sync 2, HDR) I consider this a good price for a 46" A decent standard 46" 1080p IPS television screen will run you about $350 and up.

Can I afford that with even my income? Nope.

But Kudos to those who can.
 
AMD Freesync? ........ totally and completely useless now ... to A LOT OF PEOPLE ...... fkking Nvidia ... I swear to god. Why can they just have something free for once for it's customers.

People want fastest GFX card possible so it's the 1080 ti or nothing. Since when does AMD have a card that faster than nVidia? Never ....

I would totally get this if it were G-Sync. No questions asked.

Luckily my Samsung KS8000 49" is stomping ass.
 
This looks a lot like the equivalent of two 27? 28? inch monitors sandwiched together without a central bezel. Shame about the 1080 pixel height.
 
SixFootDuo said:
AMD Freesync? ........ totally and completely useless now ... to A LOT OF PEOPLE ...... fkking Nvidia ... I swear to god. Why can they just have something free for once for it's customers.

People want fastest GFX card possible so it's the 1080 ti or nothing. Since when does AMD have a card that faster than nVidia? Never ....

I would totally get this if it were G-Sync. No questions asked.

Luckily my Samsung KS8000 49" is stomping ass.
Click to expand...

G-Sync has additional hardware that Freesync doesn't. Most namely a frame buffer on the input scaler that re doubles the frame when the frame rate drops below a certain amount. This has advantages and disadvantages:

1. Pro: Allows the monitor to have a lower effective frame rate for frame matching. This is why during subjective test G-Sync monitors are reviewed as superior at low frame rates.
2. Con: Using an inbetween buffer creates additional lag.
3. Con: Additional cost

Plus it's NVIDIA, of course they are going to charge a premium for their tech. Do I think it's right they don't open source it? Damn skippy I think it's wrong, as it fragments the hardware community just like f'n PhysX. And it's one of the reasons I really don't want to support NVIDIA.

PhysX:
1. Buy companies original technology that sold hardware to enthusiast.
2. Drop support for that old hardware. Handicap all other versions.
3. Keep it closed source so no one can use it without EXHORBORANT licensing fees
4. When enthusiast find a way to get PhysX to work with the competition, intentionally disable them without a choice.

And NVIDIA continues to play this cat and mouse game with both hardware and software API's like their !@#$%#@ doesn't stink or we won't notice or care because they have the fastest cards.
 
Teenyman45 said:
This looks a lot like the equivalent of two 27? 28? inch monitors sandwiched together without a central bezel. Shame about the 1080 pixel height.
Click to expand...
Yes, two 27" panels. PPI is 81, which is pretty horrible for a PC monitor. If it were a double-wide 1440p (5120x1440) the PPI would be pretty good (108).
 
What garbage... 1080 vertical resolution? 1440 is the minimum i'll accept AND it's $1500???

Why don't you take me out to dinner first before you bend me over?
 
When I first saw the picture of it with the words "QLED Gaming Monitor" I thought it said "OLED Gaming Monitor" and got really excited. Then when I realized it really said "QLED" my excitement was dashed. Not saying it won't be a fantastic monitor but an OLED gaming monitor would be so sweet!
 
I absolutely love ultra-wide screens. Currently have a 21:9 but if the price came down a bit I would upgrade to that one.
 
Bandalo said:
If this was 1440p I might be more interested. I can't go back to 1080p though.
Click to expand...

It's a gaming monitor. 1440p is way to demanding for alot of new games. 1080p is perfect for gaming.
 
Dion said:
It's a gaming monitor. 1440p is way to demanding for alot of new games. 1080p is perfect for gaming.
Click to expand...

"Perfect for gaming" is entirely a subjective statement.

1920x1080 is good for games on mid-to-low range hardware.

2560x1440 is easy for most mid-range gaming hardware.

This is 3840x1080, which is about 4.1M pixels, or only about 10% more than a regular 1440p display. Far less than a 3440x1440, or a 3840x2160 (4k display). A 1070 or faster would be able to run this display just fine. Of course, it's FreeSync, and AMD doesn't currently have anything in the 1070 performance range...but maybe they will soon.

I personally think 3440x1440 is "perfect for gaming".
 
I have a 3440x1440 LG 32" display. I love the resolution. I used to game on three 1920x1200 at 5760x1200. I found that I like the single widescreen over the expansiveness of the multimonitor setup.
I have been thinking about getting a new monitor. I have not had much luck with AMD cards over the years and I currently am using a 980ti. With all these monitors that support Freesync, is there an issue with pairing a Freesync monitor with an Nvidia card?
 
cocheese256 said:
I have a 3440x1440 LG 32" display. I love the resolution. I used to game on three 1920x1200 at 5760x1200. I found that I like the single widescreen over the expansiveness of the multimonitor setup.
I have been thinking about getting a new monitor. I have not had much luck with AMD cards over the years and I currently am using a 980ti. With all these monitors that support Freesync, is there an issue with pairing a Freesync monitor with an Nvidia card?
Click to expand...

No issues using a freesync monitor on Nvidia, but no benefit either. Coming from a 980ti you need to be looking at the 1080ti though ($600+), anything lower might not be a big jump. You could also try to find a matching 980ti and SLI it, it's still a good card.

I agree with the other 1440p comments, once you get there you don't want to go back. And 4K is still a pricey proposition since I would "need" a 1080ti.

Hell right now you couldn't even find a good AMD card if you wanted to. The miners snatch them all up as quick as they hit the shelves. And AMD doesn't have a good GTX1080 or better alternative card yet. Vega this and that, but it's not out yet.
 
What.
The.
Actual.
Fuck.
3840 X 1080 pixels for $1500
As others have stated numerous times, 1440p or more please.
Also throw in triple multiple client display options at this price and increase the rez a bit then you might just have something.
 
Samsung - does it have ads built-in for your gaming pleasure? Cause everyone needs more ads. Especially on a $1500 monitor.
 
No thanks.

2560x1080, 34 or 35" was wide enough.

And 1080 pixels tall is a failure to launch at $1500.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Plus it's NVIDIA, of course they are going to charge a premium for their tech.
Click to expand...
That's not the problem. The problem is that you're being brand locked. As soon as you buy a g-sync monitor all you can buy is nvidie for 5 cycles, because usually that's how long a person keeps their monitors. And synce nvidia is being a dick of not supporting freesync, you're brand locked the other way as well. At least if you care for this garbage.
 
jologskyblues said:
This myth has already been debunked with actual testing.



Both G-Sync and FreeSync add a similar amount of negligible input lag.
Click to expand...


Anytime you sync a frame buffer you introduce lag. The buffer is locked till you have filled it, else you get tearing. It doesn't matter if it's freesync or g-sync.
 
Anytime you sync a frame buffer you introduce lag. The buffer is locked till you have filled it, else you get tearing. It doesn't matter if it's freesync or g-sync.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't even bother to really check input lag test results the video.....

Tests over at Blurbusters confirm it.
 
I wonder if it would hurt your neck to watch tennis on this from your desk chair. . .
 
I like the size of it and the idea of being able to have several applications open at the same time on the same screen.

Are there alternatives to this size that have 1440p and are better all around?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top