Samsung ups the resolution and brightness in its new 49-inch super-widescreen gaming monitor

[midian182]

Something to look forward to: With so many pre-CES product reveals, it’s surprising that companies have anything left to show at the event. This time, Samsung has unveiled the second generation of its 49-inch curved monitor. The latest version ups both the resolution and brightness, while continuing to support AMD’s FreeSync 2 and HDR.

Although the CHG90 super-widescreen monitor Samsung launched in June 2017 certainly looks impressive, not everyone loved the 3840 x 1080 resolution that essentially makes it two 1920 x 1080 displays merged into one.

With its new CRG9 monitor, Samsung has increased the resolution to a satisfying, if more demanding, 5120 x 1440, which is the same as two 27-inch 1440p monitors next to each other—only without the annoying central bezels getting in the way. The previous version's 600 nits peak brightness has also been increased, up to 1000 nits, and it comes with HDR10 support, meaning it will likely be VESA DisplayHDR 1000 certified.

The increase in resolution and brightness has come at a slight cost: the CRG9’s refresh rate is now 120Hz instead of the 144Hz seen in the previous model.

Just like its predecessor, the new monitor uses quantum dot LED technology, which Samsung says can improve picture quality and gameplay with crisper colors and sharper contrast. Users of AMD's graphics cards, meanwhile, can take advantage of the FreeSync 2 support.

Other specs include a 1800R curvature, an HDMI port, two DisplayPorts, two USB 3.0 Type-A connectors, and one USB 3.0 Type-B input. No word on the price, but the CHG90 launched with a $1499 price tag, so the successor will probably cost even more.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/78107-samsung-ups-resolution-brightness-new-49-inch-monitor.html

 

[madboyv1]

Man that is a beast of a monitor...Too bad for me that I wouldn't be able to take advantage of freesync (which is probably a necessity for the games that I would actually attempt to play in full screen) on account of owning a 1080.

 

[amstech]

That's a 1440p height?!
They should have went 1600 for height, looks thin although I am sure its just the insane width that tricks the eye.

 

[netman]

The base design really sucks! Takes the whole desk! And the price is too high! Two 1440p 27-inch monitors cost $700. Go figure!

 

[senketsu]

I'm sure it's nice, but having used a Dell 34" ultrawide I sure miss the height. Per another poster, I don't think the length of the monitor makes a 1440p height look small, it actually is small. My visible screen is 31.5 in wide, but only 12.5 inches high. That CHG90 monitor is likely about 48.5 inches wide and 12.5 inches tall. When you add in windows header bars, taskbar, etc, it really is not enough space IMHO. I wouldn't buy it again even though I've enjoyed it. Just not enough height.

 

[Morris Minor]

That's a 1440p height?!
They should have went 1600 for height, looks thin although I am sure its just the insane width that tricks the eye.

that's what puts me off these ultra wide monitors, never enough height.

 

[sac39507]

That's a 1440p height?!
They should have went 1600 for height, looks thin although I am sure its just the insane width that tricks the eye.

that's what puts me off these ultra wide monitors, never enough height.

Even wide monitors that have been around for the past 10 or so years have been annoyingly narrow vertically. I loved the look of 2 or more 17" or 19" standard view monitors but they have such low resolution.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I'm assuming all these comments come from people using either portrait mode or 4K and 5K monitors because those are the only monitors with substantially more vertical resolution than this UW monster.

 

[Lew Zealand]

And, well, this is a very forward-looking monitor as there's no AMD card which can run AAA titles at high detail at 5120 x 1440 at 120Hz, so FreeSync is somewhat wasted. Unless FreeSync extends down to 20 FPS.

Ok ok, maybe Rocket League.

 

[Xtreme gamer]

I'm pre ordering this!

 

[ShagnWagn]

While I see the advantage of ultrawide in gaming, there is also a disadvantage of not seeing objects above in buildings in view. What is the natural height vs width of the human eye? That is what they need to mimic to be a most natural viewing comfort. At least for me personally.

They say a similar thing on screen height viewing for home theaters - your eyes should be 1/3 from the bottom of the viewing screen. Similar to how we view the natural world. Least amount of eye strain.

 

[Lew Zealand]

While I see the advantage of ultrawide in gaming, there is also a disadvantage of not seeing objects above in buildings in view. What is the natural height vs width of the human eye? That is what they need to mimic to be a most natural viewing comfort.

Most games base the FOV on screen height, so if you're playing at 900x1440, 2560x1440, 3440x1440, or 5120x1440, the height and size of everything on the screen is identical. The only variation is how much you see in width. Our vision system is generally tailored towards a wide horizontal view as that's where the natural world usually presents most of our information.

What's the optimum ratio? I have no idea. However I game at 3440x1440 and find the extra view on the sides to be generally helpful and for the one game that my card can't manage good FPS at full rez, I play at 2560x1080 as opposed to 2560x1440 or 1920x1080. IMO wider is better.

I dunno about this monitor, however. If you could tell everything outside the central 2560x1440 to render at 1/4 resolution or lower, that would be better as you simply do not need full rez at the edges since you'll almost never be looking there directly. Peripheral vision is very useful but also very low rez and that's just wasted power and wear on your video card.

 

[senketsu]

I'm assuming all these comments come from people using either portrait mode or 4K and 5K monitors because those are the only monitors with substantially more vertical resolution than this UW monster.

they may be, but mine isn't. It's the only display I own (no TV etc). I use it for gaming, Netflix, regular computer use plus the so-called 'productivity software'. I'm using a 34 in diagonal at 3440 x 1440 and as you say it is generally o.k. The same 1440 height at a diagonal of 49 in. (15 in. greater than my monitor) just has no interest for me.

 

[m3tavision]

I have several 3440 x 1440 and they suck for use as a Windows desktop monitor, because it doesn't display a full page, etc. And for gaming, it really is only good for driving games and MMORPGs.

There is not even enough vertical height for proper FPS gaming, or games that have vertical space.


I paid $1,400 for my 3440 x 1440 display 3 years ago and would reluctantly pay close to that for a 3840 x 1600p freesync2 monitor @ 120hz. But I would not pay, nor want/desire this extra-ultra wide 49", it is essentially my monitor with but 7" wider... I am stuck with stupid "widescreen gaming", because there are no 4k displays that are 100Hz or higher.

16:9 aspect ratio is much better than 21:9 for every day use, or gaming IMO. Me and several of my friends are waiting for the new round of displays and stacking two 27" displays side-by-side is not what anyone I know is looking for.

Even so, I know several of my friends who will buy this on day one, because it is still better than 3440, and also they will be able to free themselves of G-sync.

 

[Mister_K]

Man that is a beast of a monitor...Too bad for me that I wouldn't be able to take advantage of freesync (which is probably a necessity for the games that I would actually attempt to play in full screen) on account of owning a 1080.

Load of bullshit from Nvidia. So many great monitors but majority of the market is flooded with Freesync. I went for the 38UC99 but can't take advantage of the Freesync (went in knowingly). Wish Nvidia would make its tech open-source. Take a note from Google.

 

[Morris Minor]

I have several 3440 x 1440 and they suck for use as a Windows desktop monitor, because it doesn't display a full page, etc. And for gaming, it really is only good for driving games and MMORPGs.

There is not even enough vertical height for proper FPS gaming, or games that have vertical space.


I paid $1,400 for my 3440 x 1440 display 3 years ago and would reluctantly pay close to that for a 3840 x 1600p freesync2 monitor @ 120hz. But I would not pay, nor want/desire this extra-ultra wide 49", it is essentially my monitor with but 7" wider... I am stuck with stupid "widescreen gaming", because there are no 4k displays that are 100Hz or higher.

16:9 aspect ratio is much better than 21:9 for every day use, or gaming IMO. Me and several of my friends are waiting for the new round of displays and stacking two 27" displays side-by-side is not what anyone I know is looking for.

Even so, I know several of my friends who will buy this on day one, because it is still better than 3440, and also they will be able to free themselves of G-sync.

Acer and Asus have 4k 144hz monitors

 

[cliffordcooley]

"not everyone loved the 3840 x 1080 resolution that essentially makes it two 1920 x 1080 displays merged into one."

The price was more than likely what "not everyone loved".

 

[captaincranky]

I'm assuming all these comments come from people using either portrait mode or 4K and 5K monitors because those are the only monitors with substantially more vertical resolution than this UW monster.

Not really. 16:9 itself is the current standard, and the height is going to depend on the diagonal measurement.

At 27" diagonal, the viewable vertical is a bit over 13". My 55" TV has 27" of viewable vertical. But then 2 X 27" = 54" and 2 X 13 = 26". So no real difference. What the hell, let's throw a little bit of the inverse square law into the narrative, which dictates that when you double the size of the horizontal and vertical, the area squares. So, a 55" TV equals the area of 4 27" screens.

Well anyway, I grew up with 4:3 for standard TV. 1.5:1 for 35 mm camera film, and 16:10 for monitors until mass standardization set in. All of which, BTW, (save for 4:3), I prefer to 16:9.

I honestly don't know anything about 5K resolution, but it sounds like it could be 16:10

I was mentioning the other day about having bought a cheapo 8" tablet. It's resolution is 1920 X 1280 which happens to be 1.5:1. Now why we can't have that for our desktops is a disgrace.

 

[m3tavision]

Acer and Asus have 4k 144hz monitors

Listen, I would spend well over $2k+ for a proper monitor.

Acer and Asus are feeding us crumbs and jacking up the price. Their 4k Gaming Monitors (144Hz) are only offered in 27" inches. (The 32" are only 60Hz = scam). I have zero desire for a small monitor that I have to keep close to my face. (ie I do not want to, or have to compromise how I sit, while I game.)

Most people who have a deep desk, use that space to push their Monitors farther away. For my gaming and desk arraignment, a 32" ~ 39" OLED 4k @ 144Hz is what I desire. I would buy several.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Not really. 16:9 itself is the current standard, and the height is going to depend on the diagonal measurement.

At 27" diagonal, the viewable vertical is a bit over 13". My 55" TV has 27" of viewable vertical. But then 2 X 27" = 54" and 2 X 13 = 26". So no real difference. What the hell, let's throw a little bit of the inverse square law into the narrative, which dictates that when you double the size of the horizontal and vertical, the area squares. So, a 55" TV equals the area of 4 27" screens.

Well anyway, I grew up with 4:3 for standard TV. 1.5:1 for 35 mm camera film, and 16:10 for monitors until mass standardization set in. All of which, BTW, (save for 4:3), I prefer to 16:9.

I honestly don't know anything about 5K resolution, but it sounds like it could be 16:10

I was mentioning the other day about having bought a cheapo 8" tablet. It's resolution is 1920 X 1280 which happens to be 1.5:1. Now why we can't have that for our desktops is a disgrace.

I was referring just to raw pixel resolution (1440px) in my OP. I agree about the 1.5:1 ratio or thereabouts. The Surface tablet screens are 1.5:1, which is their best feature, and I very much like the iPad for it's 4:3 ratio, which makes it just as useful in portrait mode as opposed to the emaciated 16:9 tablets.

 

[Mister_K]

This monitor can't compete with my 1080p 60hz monitor oh boy its a beast it can show 60 frames so fast like every second its one of the fastest there is. Not to mention the insane high resolution of 1080p I can see a lot of stuff. /sarcasm (I don't know the command)

This is 5120x1440

 

[Gezzer]

The base design really sucks! Takes the whole desk! And the price is too high! Two 1440p 27-inch monitors cost $700. Go figure!

Yeah and they make those screens in that resolution in large quantities too because they have the demand. OTOH this is a single model screen specifically made for this application. So it's like you're comparing two Dodge Challengers to one McLaren 540C.

 

[Mister_K]

I know that this screen is 2k and 1080p is lower quality. Thats the joke.

Well I can safely say;

 

[cliffordcooley]

I know that this screen is 2k and 1080p is lower quality.

Not by much though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution
Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) defines 2K resolution standard as 2048×1080.