Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by Azzan, Jan 4, 2020.
isnt qled garbage?
I don't think so .
Carry on using a TNT if that rocks your boat
I have TNT and IPS and the latter is 100% better
I've used 3 Samsung Gaming QLED monitors(CFG70, CFG73, CHG70) and imo they are awesome, best part is probably the Quantum Dot VA panel with 125% sRGB, therefore better color/image quality than your typical monitor(TN, PLS, VA, IPS), i.e. great for movies/games.. and they all have 144Hz refresh rate and 1ms response time so also great for fast paced games.
I think only advantage of new G7 over CHG70 is the faster refresh rate(144Hz vs 240Hz) and higher curvature(1800R vs 1000R), but I'll probably still upgrade to G7 to check out the new curvature and faster refresh rate if it's not too expensive..
aight boyz so my question is now how many thousands of aud will this be ?
They shouldn't cost too much because they are basically identical to existing CHG70(~$680, released May 2018) and CRG9(~$2300, released Jun 2019) with faster refresh rate(240Hz) and higher curvature(1000R).
27" Samsung RG50(240Hz 1080p) is ~$430, and 32" Samsung JG51(144Hz 1080p) is ~$440, so looks like Samsung can produce 240Hz panel at reasonably low price too, despite RG50(released Oct 2019) being Samsung's first 240Hz gaming monitor.
So hopefully 27" Odyssey G7 will sell for ~$650-$700(and replace CHG70), and 49" Odyssey G9 will sell for ~$2300 and drop the price on CRG9 to ~$1900..
But 27" Odyssey G7 & 49" Odyssey G9 might sell for $800-$900+ & $2600-$2800+ RRP since they are 240Hz, 1ms, 1000R.
Won't touch until rtings tell me to. The panel gods must recommend!
TFTCentral are also my go-to
Wow - just wow wow wow. Now that's a monitor!
1152 zone FALD
Jebus. On the downside, RRP is $3,599 USD (or AUD $5,171).
A high end VA be better. Local dimming on IPS looks horrible at times.
1400 nit peak brightness.. So useless, gaming in a dark room you will need sunglasses haha.
4k 144hz is always cool but the clarity isn't that noticeable in FPS etc during action so I still can't justify halving fps over 1440p.
We just need affordable OLED monitors haha.
1400 nit with a mini-led FALD is very useful actually. It significantly increases the contrast ratio that this IPS panel will be able to hit. Besides - it's not like you're going to sit there in a dark room staring at a white screen cranked up to 100% brightness so that argument is silly. It'll make HDR gorgeous.
Also, the difference in clarity between 4k vs 1440p at 32" and up is massive. I've have 32" 1440p and 32" 4k monitors before, and the low pixel density of 32" 1440p makes me want to vomit.
How does 1400 nits peak brightness increase contrast ratio? Mini-led maybe but the fact it still has predefined zones for dimming implies its no OLED/Microled. I would have thought itl still be 1000:1 native or has the smaller LED's improved this? From what I've read mini-Led is only being picked up by TCL in the TV game. Samsung will continue with LED + Quantum Dot layer until they move to their new Q-OLED or whatever it was.
And no, nobody is going to crank the HDR signal to be white and full screen but a 1400 nit spotlight or something in a dark room will cause you to squint for sure. People whined that the 400nit SDR signal of the PG279Q was too bright, I dimmed mine. Brightness is nice in HDR but colour gamut + contrast are where it truly shines and IPS lacks in contrast big time. Local dimming saves it when there is lots of zones but it suffers from very noticeable blooming around things like crosshairs over dark backgrounds, lots of people with the $3000 4k 120hz HDR IPS screens like the Acer X27 Predator turn down the local dimming as much as they can. (hybrid mode IIRC). This is why the only TV's that get close to OLED's are all VA's. However the fact these new panels have tripled the dimming zones blooming will be far less noticeable, but they are never perfect, even on the best TV's out so a low native contrast hurts it.
As for 32" yeah 1440p is a bit low PPI, 4k would be better however for multiplayer FPS 32" and over is just not going to be competitive enough and 4k will be too hard to get nice high fps for smoothness and low input lag. Comparisons were done @ 27" and some people couldn't tell difference between shooters @ 1440p & 4K. Not worth halving the FPS.
27" 1440p is the sweetest spot for gaming, best compromise between performance and looks. Even once the GPU's can easily handle 4k 144fps ill stick to 1440p and might be able to go mid range GPU's for once. Each to own of course but having to move eyes/head for multiplayer is a disadvantage and I look to be somewhat competitive. As for immersion in single player, 32"+ is nice. I have a 55" 4K QLED for my games like Witcher 3, I sit about 1.5m away, lovely!
I think Odyssey G9's gonna be mad for Diablo 4
How much is that baby
who cares? i'm gonna sell my 3 kidneys to buy this monitor.. that's why god gave us 4, right?
lol VR the fuck that even mean in reguards to the monitor?
1000R curvature = built-in VR
thats some DUMB marketing
lol I only made that up on the spot..
thats pretty much what their getting at tho