The Corsair Xeneon Flex is an interesting and unique monitor that provides an adjustable curvature, so needless to say, there are very few products on the market that can compare to it.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2645-corsair-xeneon-flex-oled/
Corsair Xeneon Flex 45" Review: Bendable OLED
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
I wish LG would make 34 or 38 inch panels instead. 45 with 3440x1440 is not optimalt in terms of ppi and sharpness, it's simply too big on the desk and sucks for many games as a result, shooters especially.
QD-OLED exist in 34 ultrawide, LG needs to react and it better have MLA/Meta tech.
I hope we will see 34" WOLED panels for monitors soon, and hopefully 38" from both Samsung and LG over time.
38" 3840x1600 QD-OLED or WOLED with MLA/Meta (3rd gen WOLED tech) at 144+ Hz is what I dream about. I will settle with 34" 3440x1440 tho...
It does not need to be bendable. A slight curve is okay but not a steep curve like LGs newest 45 OLED with 800R, that is just too much... 1800R is fine
QD-OLED exist in 34 ultrawide, LG needs to react and it better have MLA/Meta tech.
I hope we will see 34" WOLED panels for monitors soon, and hopefully 38" from both Samsung and LG over time.
38" 3840x1600 QD-OLED or WOLED with MLA/Meta (3rd gen WOLED tech) at 144+ Hz is what I dream about. I will settle with 34" 3440x1440 tho...
It does not need to be bendable. A slight curve is okay but not a steep curve like LGs newest 45 OLED with 800R, that is just too much... 1800R is fine
For that $$ I'd rather spend half the amount on a Samsung Odyssey 49" VA ultrawide.
yRaz
Posts: 6,372 +9,383
I dream about 8k120 on a 75" TV for my desktop display. Currently stuck with a 4k60 65" but it was top of the line 6 years ago.
It sounds like a weird setup until you hear what I use it for. I use it to have multiple windows open for productiviry instead of having multiple monitors. Having 6 windows open on screen at once is very helpful. It's also to scale up schematics to 1:1 size of the prints.
DPI is the one weak point with 60hz being a minor annoyance. I tolerate the low DPI but I understand where you're coming from. I needed size over quality and I think that's who this product is aimed at.
It has smearing for days, fast games are almost unplayable on those cheaper big VA panels IMO.
They target this for gamers, and I doubt it will be a hit, price is too high and size is also too big for most
Superconductor
Posts: 283 +341
Have you tried all the VA based gaming monitors recently?
Strange choice to make this 45". 38" is about as big as anyone usually goes if they're within 2 feet of their monitor, and the PPI would be much better.
As for fringing from the subpixel layout, many reviewers have brought this up but I don't notice it at all on my QD-OLED monitor. I think you'd need to be a real pixel peeper to notice. The infinite contrast and rich colors more than make up for it.
With low brightness, low PPI and no burn-in mitigation, this is going to be a hard PASS for most - especially at $2K.
As for fringing from the subpixel layout, many reviewers have brought this up but I don't notice it at all on my QD-OLED monitor. I think you'd need to be a real pixel peeper to notice. The infinite contrast and rich colors more than make up for it.
With low brightness, low PPI and no burn-in mitigation, this is going to be a hard PASS for most - especially at $2K.
Fringing is less on QD-OLED it seems. Which QD-OLED do you use? Alienware has 3 years warranty including burn-in which is great to see. LG have 1-2 years on these new OLED monitors, and no mention of burn-in which is kinda sad, considering how LG claims that WOLED is superior to QD-OLED when it comes to burn-in (I doubt that)
I am using QD-OLED TV myself and it's very good. I am considering 34" QD-OLED for my new monitor..
Nah, but I tried many.
I have tried Samsung CFG73, G7, the huge G9 49" and several other 240 Hz ones from diff brands based on "the good VA panels" and they still fall short.
VA is simply too slow, especially when the panel is cold. Smearing is very noticable. Gammashift. Bad viewing angles and black crush.
Also I hate the steep curve Samsung makes on VA panels, especially horrible for 16:9 monitors.
For me, it's IPS or OLED - TN and VA is out of the question.
I've had the Alienware AW3423DW since last May. Using it with an OC'd MSI RTX 3080 12GB. This monitor ticked all the boxes for me: perfect black levels, amazing HDR, high refresh rate, G-Sync Ultimate, and NO "IPS glow" (finally!). The build quality is excellent. Gets more than bright enough for my needs- I rarely run it above 50% contrast/ 25% brightness.
I'm glad it doesn't have a heavy matte finish - despite some reviewer's complaints. The semi-glossy coating just makes the blacks that much inkier, and I know that OLED panels are meant for light controlled rooms.
Dell has so many features built-in to mitigate burn-in, and QD-OLED is supposed to be much more resistant to it anyway. Of course, I have taken some precautions, like having the screen saver kick in after 5 minutes, auto-hiding the taskbar and using full screen when I'm not tab hopping.
Nobody's warranty is better than Dell's and I have been a loyal customer of theirs for 15 years. They know what they're doing when it comes to monitors.
Last edited:
I thought it was matte coating. I prefer glossy or semiglossy as well.
I am considering that monitor or the DWF version, still not sure yet (considering 4080 or 7900XTX, so it depends)
I understand. Used a WOLED TV for heavy PC usage (LG C9) for years at peak brightness, 4 years in now, and no burn-in. Also hide taskbar + dark theme + dark wallpaper that cycles and screensaver after 2 minuts + poweroff after 5 min
Last edited:
Actually you are correct, they do refer to it as a matte coating, but to my eyes it looks pretty glossy. Unlike my past monitors, this coating doesn't seem to affect black levels at all.
The DWF model would be a fine choice as well if you don't care about G-sync. It also has the ability to receive firmware updates, which the DW does not. Honestly, I've never heard of a monitor needing one. Maybe menu upgrades?
If you do decide to go for the Dell, watch for a sale. Some people are saying that between a sale price and some sort of American Express discount (if you have one) they've scored that monitor for $700.)
The DWF model would be a fine choice as well if you don't care about G-sync. It also has the ability to receive firmware updates, which the DW does not. Honestly, I've never heard of a monitor needing one. Maybe menu upgrades?
If you do decide to go for the Dell, watch for a sale. Some people are saying that between a sale price and some sort of American Express discount (if you have one) they've scored that monitor for $700.)
I would love for a review on the LG 45GR95QE-B to compare to this 45" Corsair Xeneon Flex. It would be interesting to see if, like ASUS with the 27" version, Corsair have made changes to the LG's image characteristics / performance compared to the original LG version.
According to another website's review, the LG version only has 658-675 nits @ 2% window in HDR while. While, according to Techspot's review, the Corsair has over 788 nits (2% window, HDR) - that's over 100 nits more for what's supposed to be the exact same panel.
On the other hand, the other website listed the LG's version as around 203 nits @ 100% window, SDR, while Techspot's review of the Corsair listed only around 130 nits 100% window SDR. Both, I'm assuming, were using the more colour accurate version setting - "Gamer 1" for the LG, "Standard" for the Corsair - so I don't understand the massive difference. The LG's recent firmware apparently only increases max SDR 100% window brightness by around 10 nits or so, so I don't think it's related to the firmware.
I believe both websites' reviews tested with the most recent firmware so are these differences down to Corsair's implementation of the panel VS LG's or just from different test equipment? Or?... We need the same website to test both, the LG 45GR95QE-B and it's Corsair version (45" Xeneon Flex OLED) - and soon it's Acer version, the Predator X45 - with their latest firmwares so we can see what the true image quality/performance differences are.
Aside from being interesting and curious, these tests are important for potential buyers.
According to another website's review, the LG version only has 658-675 nits @ 2% window in HDR while. While, according to Techspot's review, the Corsair has over 788 nits (2% window, HDR) - that's over 100 nits more for what's supposed to be the exact same panel.
On the other hand, the other website listed the LG's version as around 203 nits @ 100% window, SDR, while Techspot's review of the Corsair listed only around 130 nits 100% window SDR. Both, I'm assuming, were using the more colour accurate version setting - "Gamer 1" for the LG, "Standard" for the Corsair - so I don't understand the massive difference. The LG's recent firmware apparently only increases max SDR 100% window brightness by around 10 nits or so, so I don't think it's related to the firmware.
I believe both websites' reviews tested with the most recent firmware so are these differences down to Corsair's implementation of the panel VS LG's or just from different test equipment? Or?... We need the same website to test both, the LG 45GR95QE-B and it's Corsair version (45" Xeneon Flex OLED) - and soon it's Acer version, the Predator X45 - with their latest firmwares so we can see what the true image quality/performance differences are.
Aside from being interesting and curious, these tests are important for potential buyers.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Review: Quiet Release, Dodgy Name- captaincranky replied
-
These credit cards feature OLEDs that light up upon payment- Uncle Al replied
