MSI reveals a 34-inch QD-OLED curved monitor with a 175Hz refresh rate and UWQHD resolution

midian182

Posts: 8,003   +87
Staff member
Why it matters: MSI has unveiled a gaming monitor that uses the same QD-OLED technology found in one of our current favorite displays: the Alienware AW3423DW. Like that model, the 34-inch MSI MEG 342C has a 3,440 x 1,440 resolution, a 175Hz refresh rate, 1800R curve, and around 1,000 nits brightness for viewing HDR content.

MSI showed off its first QD-OLED monitor during the Computex 2022 conference in Taiwan earlier this week. It mixes Samsung's Quantum Dot technology with an OLED panel to create a monitor that should rival the Samsung Odyssey G8QNB and Alienware AW3423DW. We loved the latter, awarding it a score of 90 in our review.

Samsung says its QD-OLED panel offers the same benefits as standard OLEDs, such as perfect blacks, but with better quality colors and higher brightness. It also promises improvements to efficiency and less danger of burn-in.

The MSI MEG 342C is factory calibrated to a Delta-E of less than 2 and covers 99.3% DCI-P3, 97.8% Adobe RGB, and 139.1% sRGB color gamuts. It also has a 0.1 ms GtG response time to go with that 175Hz refresh rate, 1,000 nits of peak brightness, FreeSync Premium Pro, and VESA DisplayHDR 400 True Black certification.

MSI didn't give too many further details (no word on port selection), but it did say the monitor has a built-in smart processor that can be remote-controlled by a smartphone and includes Sound Tune AI noise canceling and gaming functions. It also features an ambient light sensor, PBP/PIP support, and built-in KVM capability.

Additionally, MSI said the MEG 342C QD-OLED is one of its first monitors with Human Machine Interface (HMI) 2.0. This allows the monitor's OSD menu to be controlled via an external 'Gamer Dial' found on desktops such as the MEG Aegis Ti5. MSI said the latest iteration of the technology will be available in the next-gen version of that gaming PC.

No word yet on the MSI MEG 342C's price or availability. The similarly specced Alienware AW3423DW is $1,300, so expect MSI's monitor to be somewhere around that figure.

Permalink to story.

 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,521   +2,493
I'm a big fan of the picture quality and performance of the QRF-QD. Three post launch firmwares are nothing to sneeze at either, so this new joint looks very promising.
 

bviktor

Posts: 889   +1,311
Still 1440p. It's 2022 and we're still talking about 1080p and 1440p monitors.

LG released the 34WK95U more than 3 years ago. In fact, I'm typing this comment from behind a 3 years old 34WK95U. Yet, still no sight of any other 34" 21:9 2160p monitor. Yeah, there's the MSI PS341WU, but it's the same panel with the same features, so whatever.

Anything below 2160p @ 27" (16:9) or 34" (21:9) is a fidelity compromise. Trust me. I was the one always mocking those "4K clowns", but really, one you get one, there's no turning back. Anything else will look like crap. Even the letters will look fugly on 1440p, let alone on 1080p.

From sane distances, 2160p makes perfect sense. Because the human eye's resolution is somewhere between 1440p and 2160p. So that means we should reach 4K and stick with it, anything above will be invisible details. Wasted computing power. So we only need to get there ONCE. And maintain it. Reach 2160p AT LAST and stick with it. At that point resolution will be DONE. Then we can do better refresh rates, colors, brightness, viewing angles, anything else.

Yet, we're still applauding 1440p monitors. I don't get it. It's such a no brainer, but nope, not today, buddy.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,826   +4,271
Still 1440p. It's 2022 and we're still talking about 1080p and 1440p monitors.

LG released the 34WK95U more than 3 years ago. In fact, I'm typing this comment from behind a 3 years old 34WK95U. Yet, still no sight of any other 34" 21:9 2160p monitor. Yeah, there's the MSI PS341WU, but it's the same panel with the same features, so whatever.

Anything below 2160p @ 27" (16:9) or 34" (21:9) is a fidelity compromise. Trust me. I was the one always mocking those "4K clowns", but really, one you get one, there's no turning back. Anything else will look like crap. Even the letters will look fugly on 1440p, let alone on 1080p.

From sane distances, 2160p makes perfect sense. Because the human eye's resolution is somewhere between 1440p and 2160p. So that means we should reach 4K and stick with it, anything above will be invisible details. Wasted computing power. So we only need to get there ONCE. And maintain it. Reach 2160p AT LAST and stick with it. At that point resolution will be DONE. Then we can do better refresh rates, colors, brightness, viewing angles, anything else.

Yet, we're still applauding 1440p monitors. I don't get it. It's such a no brainer, but nope, not today, buddy.
First you need to invent an affordable GPU capable of 60 FPS minimum at 4K then we'll get 4K monitors.
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,140   +1,769
Yes, that resolution should be a thing of the past with 34". I've been playing at 4K on 32" for the last 3 or 4 years. Are they joking?
 
Last edited:

Loli Pop Carbon

Posts: 44   +52
That's a sexy looking monitor. I hope it's priced below AW.

I don't mind 1440p for 34". It's sharp enough from normal distance and has plenty of room. Unnecessary 4k 5k res would just make it more expensive and hard to game on.
 

Adhmuz

Posts: 2,243   +1,060
First you need to invent an affordable GPU capable of 60 FPS minimum at 4K then we'll get 4K monitors.
I've been using an Aus PB287Q since 2016 and back then was able to run some games at 4K, others at 1440p with a heavily overclocked GTX 970, as new games came out that turned into 1440p and 1080p until I got a GTX 1080 which once again allowed for 4K for most, 1440p for the rest up until only a year or so ago with the newest games starting to force me once again to go 1440p-1080p.

So once again I upgraded, now with a RTX 3080 I can once again play any game I've thrown at it without much difficulty at 4K. I won't argue it was a very expensive upgrade, it actually cost more than the 970 I bought new and the 1080 I bought used combined... But I am still rocking a 5960x which in it of itself has been a tremendously good return on investment since all those years ago.

Note I am not overly interested in exceeding 60 FPS, hence my old *** 4K monitor which is capped at 60Hz without VRR, and the CPU which I more than know is a potential bottle neck if I wished to play games at over 60 FPS, so far it has not been however.
 

OortCloud

Posts: 766   +736
It looks like it has completely copied the terrible stand from the Alienware monitor. I had to VESA mount mine to a wall arm to get it back sensibly on my desk. The stand was so deep it meant the monitor was about a foot from the wall and eating far too much desk. If you don't have a deep desk or have it in a corner then avoid.
 

eTheBlack

Posts: 28   +108
When GPUs can reach 144Hz+ on 4K with you know, good graphics, then you can expect more monitors in that range and lower prices. I rather go with 1440p and 144Hz than 4K 60Hz. Yes there are 144Hz 4K monitor for like 600$, but good luck getting GPU that will run that as of now
 

dangh

Posts: 612   +962
From sane distances, 2160p makes perfect sense. Because the human eye's resolution is somewhere between 1440p and 2160p.
Are you serious? :D
If you are then please, stop;)
Let me correct you:
human eye receptors resolution is 576 megapixels. Where 8k tv 33.17 megapixels. So while we already know you're very wrong, please remember this actually do not matter in terms of screen resolution.
now - you're talking about resolution only, saying, that 'for sane distances 4k makes perfect sense'. Wow. So, if I watch a screen from 3 meters, no matter if this is 34 inch monitor, 240 inch TV or 6 inch smartphone, all of them needs to be 4k to be good, if any of them would be 1440p then you will see single pixels?:D you make no sense.
What you probably want to say is a pixel density. But this again makes no sense, because 42 inch 4k screen (110 ppi) will have less pixel density than 24 inch 1440p screen (122 ppi)... meaning, 4k actually will have easier to perceive pixels from the same distance... ;)

What you supposed to say in relation to perceivable quality of a image is human eye horizontal angular resolution. Which is around 1/60th of a degree. Which again means, if a screen is in a distance that angle between your eye and both sides of the screen is 40 degrees then you're able to differntiate maximum (6/6 vision) (40x60) 2400 columns (or horizontal pixels). if you're sitting veeery close to the screen and angle is 90 degree, then you can differentiate maximum of (90x60) 5400 columns. so, lower resolution of a screen which bit further away, and higher resolution of a screen with your nose nearly touching it, may be perceived identically by a viewer.

What you _should_ say is, the resolution of a device should be related to the screen size and distance and never be a single value of reference. And I recommend googling for viewing distance calculators;)

In case of this monitor resolution is exellent. I just wish it was already in 38'' ultrawide, to swap my lg 38gn950 for beautiful OLED screen;)
 

bandit8623

Posts: 391   +219
Still 1440p. It's 2022 and we're still talking about 1080p and 1440p monitors.

LG released the 34WK95U more than 3 years ago. In fact, I'm typing this comment from behind a 3 years old 34WK95U. Yet, still no sight of any other 34" 21:9 2160p monitor. Yeah, there's the MSI PS341WU, but it's the same panel with the same features, so whatever.

Anything below 2160p @ 27" (16:9) or 34" (21:9) is a fidelity compromise. Trust me. I was the one always mocking those "4K clowns", but really, one you get one, there's no turning back. Anything else will look like crap. Even the letters will look fugly on 1440p, let alone on 1080p.

From sane distances, 2160p makes perfect sense. Because the human eye's resolution is somewhere between 1440p and 2160p. So that means we should reach 4K and stick with it, anything above will be invisible details. Wasted computing power. So we only need to get there ONCE. And maintain it. Reach 2160p AT LAST and stick with it. At that point resolution will be DONE. Then we can do better refresh rates, colors, brightness, viewing angles, anything else.

Yet, we're still applauding 1440p monitors. I don't get it. It's such a no brainer, but nope, not today, buddy.
so I have the g7 32" samsung. and yes if you are a gamer that sits within 2 ft and games you can notice pixels when desktop browsing and productivity, but for gaming you dont notice.

personally I have my monitor back 2.5 - 3 ft and do more ralaxing gaming and its a great monitor.

this monitor at 34" actually has a higher dpi because of how wide the aspect ratio is. im sure it will look very good. the other problem is if you make a 4k monitor at the refresh would be limited to around 100 hz. need better displayport and hdmi to push that speed.
 

mgilbert

Posts: 76   +152
Still 1440p. It's 2022 and we're still talking about 1080p and 1440p monitors.

LG released the 34WK95U more than 3 years ago. In fact, I'm typing this comment from behind a 3 years old 34WK95U. Yet, still no sight of any other 34" 21:9 2160p monitor. Yeah, there's the MSI PS341WU, but it's the same panel with the same features, so whatever.

Anything below 2160p @ 27" (16:9) or 34" (21:9) is a fidelity compromise. Trust me. I was the one always mocking those "4K clowns", but really, one you get one, there's no turning back. Anything else will look like crap. Even the letters will look fugly on 1440p, let alone on 1080p.

From sane distances, 2160p makes perfect sense. Because the human eye's resolution is somewhere between 1440p and 2160p. So that means we should reach 4K and stick with it, anything above will be invisible details. Wasted computing power. So we only need to get there ONCE. And maintain it. Reach 2160p AT LAST and stick with it. At that point resolution will be DONE. Then we can do better refresh rates, colors, brightness, viewing angles, anything else.

Yet, we're still applauding 1440p monitors. I don't get it. It's such a no brainer, but nope, not today, buddy.

I, too, am a 2160p fan, for productivity work, but for gaming, 1440p is fine. I want a 32" 2160p 144 Hz QD-OLED that won't cost me a kidney.