Samsung 49'' inch monitor (CRG9) release date 22 April and cost about 1.400£

Appreciate if anyone can show the monitor and give some feedback at the following resolutions:
3840x1080 (reduced res for improved framerate)
2560x1440 (21:9 for games that do not support 32:9)
 
Sorry got mixed up on the 21:9 supported res. It does list 2560x1080 though.

Here are the supported res.
I am keen to find out how well the monitor is with lower res to support GTX 1070 / GTX 1080 users that may want higher frames over lower resolution.
Yet use the monitor at native for desktop.

IjN7dx6.png

Info on other forums Here
 
Last edited:
I have just bought the cheaper version of a samsung 49", 3840x1080 screen, reason for the 1080 version was for the larger text size. Anyway have you guys noticed the stretching at the sides of the screen when gaming?. Heres my lovely screen, looks identical to the HDR version..

Cnfa2Ie.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ive seen the old model go from £1000 to as low as £805 in the previous few weeks. Tempting indeed.
While much easier to run, it hardly looks identical as the new model starts with 600 nits and peaks at 1000 for HDR.

I think that has to be one of the interests to get this model (not just the resolution) if PC finally gets HDR properly supported and implemented in titles
Would like to get more peoples feedback on stretching but then again many triple screen users are used to it.
 
I dont get the need for these insanely high resolutions... I sort of get it for work stuff, because you have more room on the desktop but with tiny text? I am wanting more room on my desktop, but I would hate not being able to read the text easily. I was thinking Id love a wider screen, the full width of my desk would do very nicely, but keep it at 1080 highwise

Im guessing for gaming,, well I dont know the benefit for high res for gaming accept making things smaller and sharper.... For me gaming at 1080, it looks fine to me, I would much rather have higher gfx detail than higher resolution. Plus a lower res puts less processing power on your pc, so less upgrading is needed.
 
Last edited:
Phil2008 said:
I dont get the need for these insanely high resolutions... I sort of get it for work stuff, because you have more room on the desktop but with tiny text? I am wanting more room on my desktop, but I would hate not being able to read the text easily. I was thinking Id love a wider screen, the full width of my desk would do very nicely, but keep it at 1080 highwise

Im guessing for gaming,, well I dont know the benefit for high res for gaming accept making things smaller and sharper.... For me gaming at 1080, it looks fine to me, I would much rather have higher gfx detail than higher resolution. Plus a lower res puts less processing power on your pc, so less upgrading is needed.
Click to expand...


There's no problem with tiny text even at 4K when it comes to work stuff, as Windows scaling does a perfectly adequate job of dealing with that. I use a 4K 32" monitor (with 125% scaling) and have never had a single problem reading text. Of course, if someone has sight problems then this may be an extra consideration. Larger 40"+ 4K monitors will have a generous PPI similar to a 1440p monitor though, which at 27" don't require scaling unless eyesight is an issue for the user.

The benefit of higher resolution gaming is, as you say, sharpness. This makes for a graphically far more detailed and impressive experience... but always at the expense of frame rate. Depending on the GPU, this may not be such a big deal (if a high enough frame rate is still achievable), or it could result in a stuttering unplayable mess. In an ideal world, you'd want maximum resolution at maximum detail at maximum frame rate... that surely goes without saying. Certainly, the smoothness of a game is more important than how good it looks, up to a point of course.

I would say aiming for circa 100FPS+ is going to be the ideal for most gamers, so based on whatever GPU they have, they would probably want to be using a monitor resolution that would ensure such FPS levels are consistently hit. That said, it is often game dependent, and some people don't have any issues playing at 60FPS (slower RPG games for example), while others find 120FPS+ essential, especially for fast twitch shooters.

You are fortunate that 1080p gaming works for you. The fact you haven't been spoiled by 1440p or 4K certainly helps in that regard. For me, having not been at 1080p for many years now, I can no longer game on it. On a large TV sat some distance away, I find it acceptable, but just not on a PC monitor less than 1m away.
 
Last edited:
I use windows scaling on my 13" laptop as that is 1920x1080 I think and thats too small to read text without my eyes starting to hurt after a few mins.. But I dont really like using the windows scaling, as some stuff dont look right

For gaming, its like the saying "you dont miss what you never had" I think thats how it goes anyway. I have had a 28" 1920x1200 screen and the pixels are less noticeable, but other than that I didnt really notice much else going from the 1200 to the 1080
 
Last edited:
Phil2008 said:
I use windows scaling on my 13" laptop as that is 1920x1080 I think and thats too small to read text without my eyes starting to hurt after a few mins.. But I dont really like using the windows scaling, as some stuff dont look right

For gaming, its like the saying "you dont miss what you never had" I think thats how it goes anyway. I have had a 28" 1920x1200 screen and the pixels are less noticeable, but other than that I didnt really notice much else going from the 1200 to the 1080
Click to expand...


Hell yeah, at 13" lol! That's TINY! I'm talking about desktop monitors at 27" plus.

The jump from 1080 to 1200 isn't that big a leap. To 1440p it's far more so. In fact the difference from 1080p to 1440p is often more noticeable for people than 1440p to 4K, despite the fact you're adding a lot more pixels going to 4K from 1440p, than you are going to 1440p from 1080p. I have read theories as to why this is, something to do with human vision and pixel counts, and that 1440p breaks a certain threshold in detail that 1080p can't reach... therefore it's more of a 'WOW' thing. Something like that anyway. 4K is still impressive, but I've heard more than a few people less enthused with it having come from 1440p. I very rarely hear that with someone coming to 1440p from 1080p.
 
I have 2 LG 21.5" 4K screens which I am running at a scaled resolution of 2560 x 1440 and its amazing. The quality and clarity is stunning. This monitor would basically replace both of these and remove the bar in the middle of the 2 screens whilst keeping the same amount of content visible. I have no idea how people put up with rubbish resolutions on large screens. 1080 is horrible to look at on anything larger than 15" IMO unless your eyesight is mole-like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom