OcUK Staff
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 2,518
- Location
- Overclockers UK HQ
Requested an ETA on our order. Will post here if I have any info back!
Samsung 49'' inch monitor (CRG9) release date 22 April and cost about 1.400£
- Thread starter BlackDragon888
- Start date
Requested an ETA on our order. Will post here if I have any info back!
Also man sorry to bug you but is the difference not black and white then to which is better?
I'm unsure on which way to go. I did try a 49'' ultrawide and it seemed a lot more immersive.
![[ui]ICEMAN](/styles/overclockers/avatars/5.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,612
- Location
- Florida/UK
A 34” ultrawide is just as tall as the 49”. Worst case if the game doesn’t play nice with then 49” then it’s basically playing as a 34” screen.
Yup true! I got my 34 inch alienware in.. I think its big enough. I need some desk space for other stuff haha.
I am still in two minds but gsync is gorgeous.. not sure if freesync is the same. also i think my 2080 might just burn when trying to power a CRG9.
im havign to my head to one end of the screen just with this.
im also a bit concerned about huds going to the corner in 32:9.
Some of the games that natively support 32 9 actually put the hud stuff towards the middle of the screen
Yup I've seen a bit of variability from my googles.
I've got the AW and oh man it just seems like a perfect all rounder. Doesn't use up too much desk space to the extent I can still position some speakers somewhere, its still a pain trying to do something at one edge of the screen so i imagine i'd find it even harder in 32:9.
For comfort it seems on point and the gsync is just incredible. I maxed out witcher 3 on a 2080 and didn't feel a framerate dip despite hairworks being on.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
nm, I'm wrong.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
unfortunately yes
With my 49" If the huds are too far away to look at, I just lower the resolution so the screen isn't so wide.
Hello guys,
I have a quick question.
When I try to run the monitor in a custom resolution that is not 32:9 like 21:9 and I enable freesync the monitor does not respect the aspect ratio and stretches the image. When I disable freesync it works as expected.
Anyone had this issue and fixed it?
I am running a radeon vega 64
.
Thank you.
I have a quick question.
When I try to run the monitor in a custom resolution that is not 32:9 like 21:9 and I enable freesync the monitor does not respect the aspect ratio and stretches the image. When I disable freesync it works as expected.
Anyone had this issue and fixed it?
I am running a radeon vega 64
.Thank you
.
On some FreeSync models interpolation (scaling) on the monitor is not supported with FreeSync active. You should be able to use GPU scaling instead as covered in this article - https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/gpu-68. So you'd need to set 'Scaling Mode' to 'Maintain aspect ratio' (or whatever they call it in the new AMD Radeon Settings).
Thanks a lot for the reply.
I have set the preserve aspect ratio settings in the amd dashboard but it doesnt seem to respect it.
Could be a driver issue, I will try to see if there is an update tonight
.Well for some weird reason it only work in centered mode not in preserve the aspect ratio.
Not a big deal since I will always keep the 1140p resolution for height. Hopefully it will be fixed in a future software update :0.
Thanks again.
my 2080 just about powers my 34 inch ultrawide to decent graphical fidelity so...
next generation of card upgrades, i'll definitley think about 32:9 although hopefully by then the 38 inch ultrawides will be here which i think i'd prefer.
i've seen one in person. did an A/B comparison for a very very long time in a store. the 21:9 seems perfect balance of a fit for use monitor. i googled 32:9 for a few games and programs i used and too many of them required edits of files and i just know i'll end up fiddling more than i will enjoying it.
32:9 felt horrible to work on though but felt amazing for gaming. if i had a 2080ti, i think i may have went for this but as it is, i don't want to give up ultra or high fps for it just yet. also i felt hard-done by paying the extra resolution cost which was for most games huge distortion in games (i demo-ed many games).
also price wise played a small factor. alienware for <800, samsung £1,100 with QA issues (too many dead pixel cases) which i don't trust online retailers to reliably sort out.
in short, i'm totally sold on a 32:9 monitor.. but i'd rather more intelligent, tech-savvy people sort out the teething problems much like 21:9 a few years ago.
I might eventually swap to one though if i move place and get a bigger desk and a 2080ti.
also i really really fancy more vertical real estate.
My experience is actually the opposite 32:9 is amazing to work on ( I use it as a 16:9 main central window with two smaller on each sides ) but way too big for gaming.
I have played a bit of the division AC Odyssey and the latest tomb raider in 32:9 and the extra width is not really bringing anything to the table, to the point that now that I got it to work I find playing in 21:9 more enjoyable.
I agree with you that there a re still a lot of quirk to work out and that a 21:9 might just be better to game on.
Ah I hated it for working on but maybe its because I don't have any work that really requires such a big real estate. I was constantly just looking at like one third or one half of the monitor for productivity. If I did maybe video editting and exporting into after effects, i could imagine it being incredible, but similarly 21:9 is quite nice for that too.
I think if I had a work flow that could take advantage of it.. it would be a TOTAL game changer. At present I really really really struggle to use a 21:9 screen for much. Maybe when I start photo or video editting again I'll enjoy it a lot more but atm, chrome + itunes just isnt that intense for me.
Hahahhaa you are surprising me to much with ur honesty re: 32:9 gaming. Most 32:9 owners will never undersell it for gaming. I found it fullstop more immersive for gaming than 21:9. Was it worth the extra FPS to render distorsion at the sides rather than having higher FPS or higher graphical fidelity? I think thats more debatable and I'd take the higher refresh rate 100%. Also for HUDs it was just worrying that I'd have to maybe black bar myself for most games with huds. Also for emulators like CEMU, they can't scale HUD elements to ultrawide aspect ratios so they're stretched. In BOTW hearts are therefore really stretched and menu items are stretched. That would look even more ridiculous in 32:9.
But I still loved my time with one and felt like the immersion was amazing. I'm not gonna be that 21:9 owner who says 32:9 is "too wide" because I don't think it neccesarily is and it has distinct advantages. However when we get the 38 inch 21:10s from LG. I'm not sure if what we really want is higher FOV or just a slightly bigger screen. Most games aren't made for 21:9 but can accomdate it but at 32:9 I ran a fair few ammount of games that didnt make very good use of the periperhies (basically treating it as an eye finity display with distorted edges.