Samsung Odyssey G7 32" Monitor Review

[MaxSmarties]

Hmm. I don’t think I would like it. Also it would take up more space on my desk, a 32” monitor needs to be as far back as possible on most desks, it’s enormous! I still want to see this in person. I wonder what a triple monitor setup would be like, could be some use for this there?

I’m using a dual monitor setup, with two curved monitors (not that curved !), but for a triple monitor I would use flat screens I think.

 

[neeyik]

Is there any specific reason to go higher than 144 Hz in your opinion ?

Samsung could have easily locked them to 144 Hz and sold them as such, so there's definitely some marketing reasons behind the decision, but a panel that can refresh at, say, 240 Hz as an absolute maximum, may have better colour change timings at lower refresh rates than a panel that has a maximum of 144 Hz. Put it like this, one doesn't have to run at a max and it would be interesting to see this particular panel does perform better at lower refresh rates. I'm sure Tim wouldn't mind giving up sleep and food for a couple of days

 

[MaxSmarties]

Samsung could have easily locked them to 144 Hz and sold them as such, so there's definitely some marketing reasons behind the decision, but a panel that can refresh at, say, 240 Hz as an absolute maximum, may have better colour change timings at lower refresh rates than a panel that has a maximum of 144 Hz. Put it like this, one doesn't have to run at a max and it would be interesting to see this particular panel does perform better at lower refresh rates. I'm sure Tim wouldn't mind giving up sleep and food for a couple of days

I see your point but... 300+ Hz panels are appearing on the market, so I strongly think this is just a marketing move. But you are right: you can just lock the refresh to 144 Hz and stay there.
I’m wondering if they are spending money in developing high refresh rate forgetting other areas, for instance.

 

[BoboOOZ]

Right but my point was that there’s absolutely no reason to go that high with refresh rate. You are rising manufacturing costs (and price) for marketing reasons (mostly).
Is there any specific reason to go higher than 144 Hz in your opinion ?

You buy graphic cards for 1 to 4 years, but you buy the monitors for 4-8 years.

Anyway, in high refresh competitive games, you can have that resolution with those refresh rates right now, you will just turn down some setting which are no use to you, anyway, if playing competitively.

 

[MaxSmarties]

You buy graphic cards for 1 to 4 years, but you buy the monitors for 4-8 years.

Anyway, in high refresh competitive games, you can have that resolution with those refresh rates right now, you will just turn down some setting which are no use to you, anyway, if playing competitively.

Completely no sense... my eyes aren’t going to improve in the next 8 years (quite the contrary...) and even if new graphic cards are going to be better, games are going to be more complex so frame rate won’t charge much.
You are right about “competitive games “ at low details, but above 144 Hz there is no gain since we still are human.

 

[BoboOOZ]

Completely no sense... my eyes aren’t going to improve in the next 8 years (quite the contrary...) and even if new graphic cards are going to be better, games are going to be more complex so frame rate won’t charge much.

Completely nonsense. Ever heard of DLSS? It allows playing at 1440p with the same performance of 1080p. In 3 years from now, everyone will be using DLSS 4.0 or whatever the AMD equivalent for playing 4k 120Hz.
That's why HDMI 2.1 exists, because the industry actually believes that it will be needed in the coming years.

You are right about “competitive games “ at low details, but above 144 Hz there is no gain since we still are human.

Right, and you know what is always true about humans? They always want more. 25 years ago 25fps was great, nowadays 60 fps becomes barely enough. In 10 years, 144fps will be the norm, while the richer of us will probably play at 8k/240fps. It's progress, it's inevitable.
Of course, there's always the guy who says that "640K Ought to be Enough for Anyone", but it seems society has a tendency not to listen to him.

 

[MaxSmarties]

Completely nonsense. Ever heard of DLSS? It allows playing at 1440p with the same performance of 1080p. In 3 years from now, everyone will be using DLSS 4.0 or whatever the AMD equivalent for playing 4k 120Hz.
That's why HDMI 2.1 exists, because the industry actually believes that it will be needed in the coming years.

I know and I tried DLSS. It’s not a miracle, and I don’t like the results at 1440P. Will it improve over the time ? Maybe, but it won’t be a miracle nevertheless. It is speed over quality.
HDMI development is for video contents, not for videogames.

Right, and you know what is always true about humans? They always want more. 25 years ago 25fps was great, nowadays 60 fps becomes barely enough. In 10 years, 144fps will be the norm, while the richer of us will probably play at 8k/240fps. It's progress, it's inevitable.
Right, and you know what is always true about humans? They always want more. 25 years ago 25fps was great, nowadays 60 fps becomes barely enough. In 10 years, 144fps will be the norm, while the richer of us will probably play at 8k/240fps. It's progress, it's inevitable.
Of course, there's always the guy who says that "640K Ought to be Enough for Anyone", but it seems society has a tendency not to listen to him.

Nope. You may desire what you want, but your eyes and your brain can’t see any difference between 144Hz and 240Hz. It is marketing, nothing else.
Regarding 8K, it could be nice on a 60” TV, but on a 27” gaming monitor ? Welcome to earth, Superman

 

[BoboOOZ]

HDMI development is for video contents, not for videogames.

Really? What gave you that notion? And the low input lag is also for videos, not for gaming? Here's an already obsolete article.

[2019 Update]: Best 4K Gaming TVs with Low Input Lag | DisplayLag

<strong>Affiliate Disclosure</strong> This post may contain affiliate links. Clicking these links will redirect you to Amazon.com, and we will receive a small commission on purchases made through this link. Another year, another set of TVs to wade through to find the best one for gaming! It’s...

displaylag.com

Nope. You may desire what you want, but your eyes and your brain can’t see any difference between 144Hz and 240Hz. It is marketing, nothing else.

Marketing or not it's coming. Again, more important is the input lag than the framerate.

Regarding 8K, it could be nice on a 60” TV, but on a 27” gaming monitor ? Welcome to earth, Superman

Thank you, although you're a bit late, I arrived here in 1948.
Where did you read about a 27” gaming monitor in my post? I was talking about an 8k 240Hz TV.
You might want to try reading this article, too, it is about a 32-inch monitor. Maybe difficult to read on your 360p monitor...

 

[MaxSmarties]

Really? What gave you that notion? And the low input lag is also for videos, not for gaming? Here's an already obsolete article.

[2019 Update]: Best 4K Gaming TVs with Low Input Lag | DisplayLag

<strong>Affiliate Disclosure</strong> This post may contain affiliate links. Clicking these links will redirect you to Amazon.com, and we will receive a small commission on purchases made through this link. Another year, another set of TVs to wade through to find the best one for gaming! It’s...

displaylag.com

That’s not related. You don’t need a refresh rate higher than 144 Hz for that (even 100 Hz is more than your ”brain lag”).

Marketing or not it's coming. Again, more important is the input lag than the framerate.

And , again, input lag has nothing to do with insanely high refresh rates.
Going from 60 Hz to 144 Hz ? It does make a difference. Going from 144 Hz to 240 or 300+ Hz ? A marketing gimmick.

Thank you, although you're a bit late, I arrived here in 1948.
Where did you read about a 27” gaming monitor in my post? I was talking about an 8k 240Hz TV.
You might want to try reading this article, too, it is about a 32-inch monitor. Maybe difficult to read on your 360p monitor...

How many users are using a 60” TV connected to a PC ?
According to every statistics the most common form factor is 24-27” for PC monitors. And even on a 32” as the one in the article, 8K is ridiculously high.

And I’m using a PC setup with dual display using a 24” and a 27” gaming monitors (144 Hz, VA 1 ms, 1440P). Not exactly a “360P monitor” dude...

 

[watsonjames7175]

Whelp, I was hyped for this monitor, still am in some ways with it being king the fastest on the chart, but since not all the boxes are checked for a high end monitor with its price tag, I'll give this one a pass. That backlight bleed was pretty off putting for me since I tend to do playthroughs of darker games like RE2, and other reviews seemed to have the same problem with the backlighting. But still a nice step in the right direction to see what else kind of competition there will be.

 

[Tom Sunday]

All things considered the G7 seems to be a well delivered 32-inch quality monitor. For sure many new 240Hz panels are set to hit the market later this year and competition will abound. The 'ambitions' curve of the G7 I think is not a big deal because the eyes will get used to it and especialy if the G7 is used as a dedicated gaming display. As to costs for around $800 the G7 is a bargain. For many of us there will also be a new standard of 2-monitors sitting on the opposite edges of our to be 'expanded' desks. For me at home a gaming and a second productivity monitor with both in the 32"-34" plus ranges. Interesting times ahead and with NVIDIA introducing the new RTX 3080 Ti in a few months. Not to forget a fully ergonomic and 'mobility' designed 'Mesh Task Chair' zipping between the monitors on five caster wheels will need to be employed. Amazing what a new monitor consideration or addition will bring to the table.

 

[SilentMarket]

I always say Samsung hardware is like Volkswagen. When guys decide to run, they own the Bugatti.

 

[Tom Sunday]

More about curves: I thought that the Samsung G7 (1000R) curving may just be the way forward for many of the new and upcoming monitor offerings. Gaming more specifically. But with any type of more expensive monitor purchases one has to experience these in person. The majority of gamers usually sit about 24-28 inches away from the screen and I would think that the G7 so-called 'exaggerated' curve and thus the user experience will provide a much more immersive experience. I also welcome that the G7 will probably make a better fit on many desks while still providing a 32 inch experience.