Samsung is releasing an "8K" successor to the Odyssey Neo G9 next year

midian182

Posts: 8,463   +104
Staff member
Something to look forward to: AMD held its RDNA 3-reveal livestream yesterday, unveiling new graphics cards, technologies, and more. Among the announcements was news that Samsung is building a successor to the monstrous Odyssey Neo G9, its 49-inch, 5,120 x 1,440 display. This one, however, is said to be the first 8K ultrawide gaming monitor.

AMD's Together We Advance_Gaming livestream, which you can watch in its entirety here, focused heavily on the 8K capabilities of the Radeon RX 7900 XTX. Illustrating the benefits of DisplayPort 2.1, Team red showed off graphs claiming the card can hit 96 fps@8K in the next Assassin's Creed Valhalla expansion, though the caveat is that it is using FSR, not natively. With an 8K ultrawide display, that figure reaches 190 fps in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

AMD also confirmed that companies including Dell, Asus, Acer, and LG would be releasing high-resolution DisplayPort 2.1 monitors next year. It added that the first 8K ultrawide would be the next Odyssey Neo G9.

It's important to note that standard 8K on a 16:9 display is 7,680 × 4,320, or four times the total pixels of 4K. However, the 8K part in a 32:9 ultrawide monitor only applies to the horizontal dimension, making it 7,680 x 2,160, or about half the pixel count of true 8K.

We love the current "5K" Odyssey Neo G9, which features a 5,120 x 1,440 VA panel with a 1000R curvature, a mini-LED backlight, and a 240Hz refresh rate. It also carried a massive $2,500 price tag at launch, so this "8K" version will probably be even more expensive.

While having a monitor with twice (in the upcoming Odyssey's case) the number of pixels as 4K sounds impressive, there's the question of diminishing returns when reaching these FSR-enabled resolutions. YouTube tech channel Linus Tech Tips recently made a video on the subject and found that most people couldn't tell the difference between 4K and 8K in games. Still, some PC owners will just be happy with those all-important bragging rights.

Permalink to story.

 

yRaz

Posts: 4,951   +6,394
I have been waiting years for 8k120 mainly because I use a 65" TV for a monitor. I remember when 4k60(4:4:4) TVs came out I had a money is no object build(2017). The next milestone for me is 8k120.

Although, my issue is that HDMI doesn't support 8k120 yet and TVs don't have a display port
 

takaozo

Posts: 501   +802
I have been waiting years for 8k120 mainly because I use a 65" TV for a monitor. I remember when 4k60(4:4:4) TVs came out I had a money is no object build(2017). The next milestone for me is 8k120.

Although, my issue is that HDMI doesn't support 8k120 yet and TVs don't have a display port
You must have good eyesight to use 65", me I'm mid 40 and I begin to feel the need for glasses.
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 584   +1,087
We shouldn't condone AMD's attempt to newspeak 8K with this '8K ultrawide' nonsense that they are now pushing.

It isn't a thing.
 

tarsius

Posts: 8   +17
"8K" part only applies to the horizontal dimension for any resolution. The same as "2160p" part only applies to the vertical one.
 

defaultluser

Posts: 521   +392
You must have good eyesight to use 65", me I'm mid 40 and I begin to feel the need for glasses.


the larger the screen size you use (same resolution), the lower the effective PPI

if he wanted crispness, he should have gone c2 42 instead (same ppi as a 27 inch 1440p monitor), versus - 4k at 65 inches ( much lower ppi than a 24" 1080p monitor)
 

takaozo

Posts: 501   +802
the larger the screen size you use (same resolution), the lower the effective PPI

if he wanted crispness, he should have gone c2 42 instead (same ppi as a 27 inch 1440p monitor), versus - 4k at 65 inches ( much lower ppi than a 24" 1080p monitor)
I'm talking about viewing distance and eye strain. Of course the hi PPI will display a crisp image. I changed 27" to a 32" same 1440p for main PC screen and my eyes are not that tired after 8-9 hours. Also moving monitor back a little changed my focus distance. Reading an email with monitor any closer will make me act like on a Tennis court, moving head left-right
 

defaultluser

Posts: 521   +392
I'm talking about viewing distance and eye strain. Of course the hi PPI will display a crisp image. I changed 27" to a 32" same 1440p for main PC screen and my eyes are not that tired after 8-9 hours. Also moving monitor back a little changed my focus distance. Reading an email with monitor any closer will make me act like on a Tennis court, moving head left-right


oh well, oled has such low light levels, its way easier on your retina than a stock va TV - I can view my lg b7 65 " all day at 10 feet, and not get tired
 

VitalyT

Posts: 6,471   +7,334
Can't wait to see DELL UP3218K finally dethroned.

Almost 6 years since DELL released a real 8K monitor, and no competition ever since. So much for technology progress.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,951   +6,394
I'm talking about viewing distance and eye strain. Of course the hi PPI will display a crisp image. I changed 27" to a 32" same 1440p for main PC screen and my eyes are not that tired after 8-9 hours. Also moving monitor back a little changed my focus distance. Reading an email with monitor any closer will make me act like on a Tennis court, moving head left-right
I sit at the typing view distance. I use it as several small screens for work and productivity but it's also great for gaming and wating movies in my small apartment. Get 2 birds stoned with one bush.

But the ppi is one reason I want to goto 8k120. 65" 4k is just walking the line on clarity. It's also the reason I'm going to wait so long for exactly the display I want. I might upgrade my 4k60 samsung to a 4k120 display but I might just wait another year and see what the industry is doing. If AMD is going to push 8k120 then my dream screen might only be a few years away. I don't mind spending several thousand dollars on something that I'm going to use everyday and have for years. My current display is almost 6 years old now and it's still a joy to use everytime I sit down in front of it.
 

brucek

Posts: 1,344   +2,022
To me the draw for this "8K" resolution would be having the extra sharpness in non-gaming / productivity use. You'd then want games to be able to display natively in it which would be a challenge for many cards. If the format was more common I could see a version of DLSS / FSR etc that knew to prioritize the center portion of the screen. I end up gaming in 32:9 more than I ever thought I would but the value is not that I'm really paying attention to the edges of the screen, more just having them there even mostly unwatched really does add to the immersion.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,548   +1,450
Ludicrous. What is wrong with a simple DCI 4K 4096 x 2160 17:9 format monitor and please 32" for desktop as well as a larger version for people that want to game. EU is going to ban 8K monitors, so I wonder how they would treat something that is 8K horizontal resolution but not vertical?
 

nodfor

Posts: 333   +607
What's the point? The viewing distance where 4K makes sense is too short ... let alone 8K
I am using my 4K 55 Oled at 1440p, can hardly tell the difference in new titles with all those filters/ AA etc
 

Tams80

Posts: 174   +130
We shouldn't condone AMD's attempt to newspeak 8K with this '8K ultrawide' nonsense that they are now pushing.

It isn't a thing.

But... it is. If you don't like it, then you can blame for the industry in general for '4k' and '8k' (that aren't even 4k or 8k!)

If a display has '8k' horizontal pixels and a narrow aspect ratio, then is is 8k Ultrawide. It'll also be easier to run than a "full" 8k display due to fewer vertical pixels. Still '8k'.
 

NikoBB

Posts: 99   +60
The whole point of a high ppi is to make text and photos look like when printed from a laser printer.
The higher the ppi, the more detail in a smaller area the eyes can clearly distinguish. You can easily check this on a smartphone - take an old 5-6" 720p screen and display 6 webcams in a 2 rows (there is such software), and then do the same on a 5-6" smartphone with 1080p - if you have normal vision (and even myopia is not high degree, when nearsighted people (<25cm) see many times better than those with normal vision), you will immediately find that the details on a small 5-6" screen with 1080 in each window with a webcam are much more distinguishable from 25-30cm. Because ppi is higher than 440(5"). Monitors to such a level as long as walking to the moon...

Today, even 4k is a too small resolution, because. it is enough for 300 ppi only on laptop screens up to 16". Moreover, 8k, again, within the framework of the sufficiency of ppi (290+), a maximum up to 32" monitors and more on the desktop is usually uncomfortable and inconvenient.

The meaning of high ppi is that even if you move your head to the near 30 cm zone from the screen from a normal, working one, you will never get the vile effect of refocusing your vision from visual information to its pixel structure. This is what greatly tires the eyes and brain.

Moreover, let me remind you 100500 times that all versions of Chrome after 49(XP) intentionally spoil the eyesight of people all over the planet due to incorrect greyscale antialiasing (and it is intentionally not can disabled even in the settings, but it can be disabled in FireFox), which I wrote in detail here:
https://www.techspot.com/community/...e-for-chrome-on-windows-7.277605/post-1993340

Only starting from 8k, people all over the planet, especially those who work behind screens for 8-10 hours a day, will finally breathe a sigh of relief and stop spoiling their eyesight.

The only thing that 8k screens will lack is a native contrast of at least 2000:1 on IPS. miniLED is an abomination today with halos around the symbols on the borders of the zones. Until a microLED analogue of a nasty flickering AMOLED appears with a poor resource (actually about 1/2 in hours from IPS backlight, while color reproduction is still relatively stable), often with fake (less than IPS) resolution in RGB color and the problem of high consumption on a white background ...
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,406   +2,939
Staff member
EU is going to ban 8K monitors
Not quite. The EU is proposing to remove all exemptions for displays, regarding the maximum permissible energy efficiency index, and set new limits for them all too. From March next year, the EEI limits are proposed to be:

> Up to 2.138 Mpixels (e.g. 1080p) = EEI of 0.75 (current limit is 0.90)
> Between 2.138 and 8.294 Mpixels (e.g. 1440p, 4K) = EEI limit of 0.90 (currently 1.10)
> Over 8.294 Mpixels (inc micro-LED) = EEI limit of 0.90 (currently exempt)

The EEI is calculated using this formula:

resource.html


where A is the screen area in dm2 and Pmeasured is "the measured power in Watts in on mode in the normal configuration, in standard dynamic range (SDR)". The previous version of this formula included a correction factor for OLED displays which let them pass the limit; this will be removed next year.

However, it's not just 8K TVs and monitors that would be 'banned' - it's any display that exceeds the EEI limit, plus a whole host of other conditions as set out in the new directive. With regards to the monitor in this news article, its total pixel count is 7.372 Mpixels so it will need to have an EEI of 0.9 to be eligible for sale in the EU. The current Odyssey Neo G9, with its 40 dm2 screen and 55W typical power (Samsung's figure) has an EEI of 1.02, so even this will be hit by the changes.

As I understand it (and EU directives are an exercise in legal speak), it's not been voted into law yet and it could be repealed.
 

NikoBB

Posts: 99   +60
Most 8k monitors up to 32" will easily pass through these restrictions. But 8k TV is really crap and they will fall under them automatically. 8k is not needed in TV and cinema, 8k is needed only for monitors. This is a work standard, not entertainment, no matter how marketers try to turn the situation around.
Spectacles and entertainment for the population of the planet toiling from boredom (especially those included in the "golden billion") are the tenth thing and completely unimportant ..
 

TechSavy101

Posts: 16   +22
We barely got gpus that can consistently run games at 4k 144fps. I don't know who needs an 8k display. What's the point of going 8k then using FSR and DLSS just to get 60+ or 90+ frames. I rather have 4k 144fps or even 5k 144fps. Also 8k 144hz monitors will cost a fortune.
 

DonquixoteIII

Posts: 125   +73
I wish Samsung would give some more love to the 37" 3440 x 1440 monitors. I have the neo g9 and it is really too wide for me. My previous 37" was a much better fit, loved it until the backlighting crapped things up.