MSI teases super-ultrawide 240Hz QD-OLED gaming monitor

Tudor Cibean

Posts: 172   +11
Staff
Something to look forward to: MSI teased its upcoming super-ultrawide gaming monitor aimed at enthusiasts on Twitter. Details around "Project 491C" are scarce at the moment, with the company only confirming that it will feature a QD-OLED screen with a 240Hz max refresh rate.

MSI's monitor will have a 32:9 aspect ratio and, judging by its name, will measure 49 inches diagonally. This would make it have the same form factor as two 27-inch 16:9 panels placed side by side, with the benefit of not having bezels down the middle.

Samsung Display will manufacture the panel, making it the company's fourth QD-OLED screen size after the 55-inch and 65-inch TV panels and the 34-inch ultrawide panel found in the excellent Alienware AW3423DW.

MSI's monitor will also be curved, although the company didn't mention how aggressive the curvature will be...

When it comes to the resolution of the Project 491C, there are a few possibilities. It could be limited to just 3,840 x 1,080, but that's highly unlikely, considering the high-end nature of QD-OLED displays at the moment.

It's also possible it will have a resolution of 5,120 x 1,440, just like some of Samsung's latest super-ultrawide VA panels of the same size. Lastly, the most exciting option: this could be one of the "8K ultrawide" monitors with DisplayPort 2.1 support AMD talked about at its RDNA 3 reveal livestream, giving it a 7,680 x 2,160 resolution.

Whatever the case, the MSI Project 491C will likely end up being a fantastic gaming monitor due to having the highest refresh rate on a QD-OLED panel yet. Expect to hear more details about it, including pricing and availability at CES in January.

In related news, LG has finally listed the UltraGear 45GR95QE OLED monitor on its website. For a quick refresher (pun intended), the upcoming 45-inch ultrawide screen features a 3,440 x 1,440 resolution and a 240Hz refresh rate.

We have learned that LG will open pre-orders for the monitor on December 12, slated to start shipping on December 28. However, it won't come cheap, with LG's site quoting a $1,700 price tag in the US.

Permalink to story.

 

m3tavision

Posts: 1,111   +941
I have had a 3440x1440p for 6 years.... and I am done with it. It is too narrow and moving to 1600p.

But if this is a 4k ultrawide, that would be legit..
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 9,363   +8,581
I've got a couple of LG monitors that I've had for several years ..... still going strong, no need or desire to upgrade and the bezel? I just never noticed it ......
 

bandit8623

Posts: 459   +251
Anything over a 120hz is really a gimmick. Is not going to make one bit of difference ever.


not true,
on a good low ms monitor you can easily see the difference. well people with good eyes can see the difference.

on a oled it will be even more notiticable because oled can do the transisions so much faster. less muddy.

I have a 3 monitor setup. my 12 year old 60 hz. my 6 year old 165 hz, and my 240hz va panel. EZ to tell the difference even with mouse movement.

if you are not a fps gamer though you are correct really no need for more than 144hz.
 
Last edited:

ZedRM

Posts: 1,406   +987
What's next? Super-duper-deluxe-ultra-wide with a resolution of 12288x1440? FFS, this crap needs to stop..
 

ZedRM

Posts: 1,406   +987
U have bad eyes then or don't have the use case.
Oh please. That is god-awful smack talk. The human eye has been proven to not be able to actively distinguish between individual frames above 30hz. We can see the difference in smoothness but that ability diminishes as frame rates increase. Above 100hz most human beings can not articulate a difference even if they can tell there is a bit more smoothness.

This is medical fact. Deal with it.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 459   +251
Oh please. That is god-awful smack talk. The human eye has been proven to not be able to actively distinguish between individual frames above 30hz. We can see the difference in smoothness but that ability diminishes as frame rates increase. Above 100hz most human beings can not articulate a difference even if they can tell there is a bit more smoothness.

This is medical fact. Deal with it.
It's not actually... smack talk??? ok snowflake...

I have 3 monitors ive used over the decade. and all 3 are currrently connected. oldest is a 1ms 60hz samsung tn. 2nd is a 165 hz dell tn 1ms. lastly a samsung g7 240hz va 1ms.

can easily see the the difference on moving windows/mice/ anything accross the screen. even mouse pointers you see many more of them when tracing the screen.

all your studys you will post are about average people that dont game and dont care the framerate. the eye is analog. frames are digital.

the more frames the lower the latency. the quicker the response as well.


this test I can see 60. 120. and 240 . clear difference that 240 is much better my friend. and if you dont have a monitor that shows true 240 or higher you wont see the diff.
 
Last edited:

ZedRM

Posts: 1,406   +987
Really with that "PCGamer" link? We're not talking about pixel refresh times, we're talking about actual frames per second that the human eye can perceive. That's a fail for you.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 459   +251
Really with that "PCGamer" link? We're not talking about pixel refresh times, we're talking about actual frames per second that the human eye can perceive. That's a fail for you.
the eye is analog. all perceptive . if you cant see it its ok. its all ok
 

bandit8623

Posts: 459   +251
Don't spout that condescending twaddle at me. The science of vision has been proven. Your denial of it does not make it invalid.

again you need a 240 hz monitor to see how much better it is.


stroboscopic display effects were still visible even at 480 Hz

facts
 

ZedRM

Posts: 1,406   +987

again you need a 240 hz monitor to see how much better it is.

facts
You assume I have never had one. That's your mistake.

TestUFO is for testing pixel response rates. Do you get where your understanding is failing yet?
 

bandit8623

Posts: 459   +251
Context is very important. Try reading further.
even if that was the case and its not... all my monitors have very similar response time the 240hz motion is twice as clear as the 120hz. my va panel actually has slower pixel response compared to my 120hz and still looks twice as good. also I see twice as many mice on mouse stroboscopic test with 240 hz.

how about you read before you keep posting garbage
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-12-08 201732.png
    Screenshot 2022-12-08 201732.png
    302.7 KB · Views: 0