Samsung 57" UWD Monitor

[Mr Latte]

- Supports 10Bit Colour with *12Bit depth in black for smoother graduation.

 

[Spinelli]

I think this is incredibly overrated and niche even for simracers. It only falls into a tiny category below for me, category "E":

A) if you only race = VR
B) if you only race, besides VR = triple screens
C) if you race and also play other games = 45" 21:9
D) if you don't race but play other games = 45" 21:9
E) If you only race and are hell-bent on avoiding both VR and triple-screens = 57" 32:9

 

[blekenbleu]

incredibly overrated and niche

Having sat about 800mm from a pair of now quite screen-burned 30-inch monitors which cost more than this 15 years ago, angled for approximately 1000mm radius, I consider this a credible upgrade.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

I think this is incredibly overrated and niche even for simracers. It only falls into a tiny category below for me, category "E":

A) if you only race = VR
B) if you only race, besides VR = triple screens
C) if you race and also play other games = 45" 21:9
D) if you don't race but play other games = 45" 21:9
E) If you only race and are hell-bent on avoiding both VR and triple-screens = 57" 32:9

Honestly, triple screens is pita to setup, not supported in all titles, have visible bezels, and add significant bulk to the whole setup.
UWDs like 49" Odyssey G9 has been gaining popularity as attractive alternative to triples (and to some degree VR) for a reason.
Can 57" really add much to what 49" can provide already immersion/usability wise?
I would wait for people to compare both, on diagram the main gain is the width, with curve in place that means only stuff filling your peripheral vision as it is with 49" already.
Headtracking like TrackIR already extends that dimension when you turn the head, personally I do not see this as an "upgrade" path esp. with that bulk and weight that would require separate monitor stand instead of bolting directly to the rig, which defeats the compactness of UWD in comparison to triples in the first place.
May be if it was OLED, I'd consider, but for essentially same display technology with additional requirements for DP 2.1 which no one supports yet, I'll pass.

 

[RasmusP]

Honestly, triple screens is pita to setup, not supported in all titles, have visible bezels, and add significant bulk to the whole setup.
UWDs like 49" Odyssey G9 has been gaining popularity as attractive alternative to triples (and to some degree VR) for a reason.
Can 57" really add much to what 49" can provide already immersion/usability wise?
I would wait for people to compare both, on diagram the main gain is the width, with curve in place that means only stuff filling your peripheral vision as it is with 49" already.
Headtracking like TrackIR already extends that dimension when you turn the head, personally I do not see this as an "upgrade" path esp. with that bulk and weight that would require separate monitor stand instead of bolting directly to the rig, which defeats the compactness of UWD in comparison to triples in the first place.
May be if it was OLED, I'd consider, but for essentially same display technology with additional requirements for DP 2.1 which no one supports yet, I'll pass.

100%.

I think Samsung should've created a 32:10 monitor with the same width of the 49" instead (or slightly wider to make it an upgrade in all directions).
The main downside of the 49" 32:9 is the height. 16:10 is still very popular for anything else than entertainment so having something like 2x 30" 16:10 might be awesome for everyone with the money for it.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

I think 21:9 ratio like on LG 38" UWD would be ideal, and not only for racing content, although having even 49" behemoth on a desk is ridiculous, can only imagine 57".
38" on the other hand is my daily non racing desktop setup.
Any Starfield players here?

 

[Mr Latte]

Honestly, triple screens is pita to setup, not supported in all titles, have visible bezels, and add significant bulk to the whole setup.
UWDs like 49" Odyssey G9 has been gaining popularity as attractive alternative to triples (and to some degree VR) for a reason.
Can 57" really add much to what 49" can provide already immersion/usability wise?
I would wait for people to compare both, on diagram the main gain is the width, with curve in place that means only stuff filling your peripheral vision as it is with 49" already.
Headtracking like TrackIR already extends that dimension when you turn the head, personally I do not see this as an "upgrade" path esp. with that bulk and weight that would require separate monitor stand instead of bolting directly to the rig, which defeats the compactness of UWD in comparison to triples in the first place.
May be if it was OLED, I'd consider, but for essentially same display technology with additional requirements for DP 2.1 which no one supports yet, I'll pass.

Most would agree that the single-screen experience can be less fuss/hassle. I know I certainly don't want triples again and the various configuration efforts for different titles, nah nah nah....

Some people may not want the *popular mod via magnifier strips to remove borders solution. To then have those hinder the image quality for general usage and look a bit daft.

We are seeing more and more large-screen options coming to the market. We are not seeing borderless monitors for improved multi-displays becoming a thing. To date, I think the closest thing to a borderless display is only available on Samsung's 8K / 900 series TVs.

PIXELS:
The PPI cannot be overlooked from the upgrade perspective, so not only can people have a large scale of image with this monitor. Offering, more in-your-face immersion with a taller screen area. I think it also offers the highest PPI of any widescreen monitor to date.

The 45" LG Oled = 84 PPI (similar to a 27" 1080p monitor)
The 38" LG 3840x1600 ultrawide monitor = 111 PPI
The 49" Samsung 32:9 monitors has = 109 PPI
The 57" Samsung 32:9 = 140 PPI

The 57" G9 also has the same horizontal desktop as 3x 1440p monitors, so yeah, HUGE and with the extra benefits of being a 21:9 + display if desired or dual 16:9 or dual input display and no borders. It would also be awesome with "Fancy Zones" for multi-window multitasking and combine that with PIP of an external source if desired.

Gaming:
Triple 1440p = 11,059,200
49" 32:9 = 7,372,800
4K 16:9 = 8,294,400
57" 32:9 = 16,588,800

With the 57" it will be possible to still game with the same resolution as the 49" which brings it below the GPU requirements of a 4K screen. Doing so with even better image quality than what 49" owners of previous models have already got used to experiencing.

A downside will be the blooming while reduced on this model (subtitles whites on blacks) are one of the areas the mini led has.

Yet triple 1440p is higher than 4K but without the benefits of its higher PPI and triple 4K is still rather silly if seeking to play many of the modern titles even with the best PC system possible.

More and more titles are coming with support for large screen 21:9 and 32:9 displays.
The scenario for multi-screen setups, is not always well supported or needs additional configuring not just from software but also installation with additional heat, cabling and additional power.

Those would be reasons I would upgrade and I think Samsung know a lot of their customers for this will be people who owned previous models in the past......

 

[blekenbleu]

Can 57" really add much to what 49" can provide already immersion/usability wise?

Not only that extra height, but its extra resolution makes G95NC viable for workstations,
so paying the bills as well as entertaining.
1600 lines was IMO merely adequate for 30 inch displays.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Not only that extra height, but its extra resolution makes G95NC viable for workstations,
so paying the bills as well as entertaining.
1600 lines was IMO merely adequate for 30 inch displays.

Are you getting one?
Regardless of the size, 32:9 is a ridiculous ratio for workstation and plain inconvenient to use.
But that's my opinion based on what I see, I would never transfer 49" 32:9 from rig to the desk to replace 38" 21:9 which in my view ideal size/ratio for desktop application.
May be only for very specific application when you need something really long for editing, like audio mix, still turning head around to see corners of the screen is getting tiring quickly, looking up with taller monitor is not fun either, reason 16:9 42" monitor got retired for good.

 

[Mr Latte]

Errr baffled, as for productivity or multitasking, dual 4k in a single screen has various benefits as well as an ideal physical size. Many people for professional applications like dual 4K monitors. Now they can have that with no borders, with 240Hz and it's only with this new G9 model do we get additional benefits.

Isn't a 38" 21:9 screen slightly shallower in physical size to a 32" 4K display?
With the 38" 21:9 offering 3840x1600 okay yes a decent resolution

Simply use this 57" monster with......
A 39" screen in 21:9 / 2:35 desktop/content layout.
Offering an increased resolution too with 5120x2160 while not quite a 5K Ultrawide resolution it's an increase over what a 38" 21:9 monitor has.

Yet it would be possible to do this and still have space for dual 1280x1080 beside it too, or make use of the monitor's PIP feature as well.

Combine the monitor with something like the S9 Ultra tablet as a secondary gorgeous screen/device (2960x1848 with 239 PPI) and you have crazy possibilities for productivity/entertainment.

 

[blekenbleu]

Are you getting one?

3 thing against:

• how to share between workstation and wheel stand
• how to not waste $500 rebate
• whether e.g. Somnium VR1 would work as equivalent monitor

 

[Spinelli]

Unless someone already has experience with super widescreens, I would be very wary of all these paid / sponsored / free-samples techtuber propagandists.

I was using triple 24" and then triple 27" 3D capable monitors for around 10-12 years. 1 year ago, I got rid of triples in order to move to VR (thanks to Pimax) and to decrease the footprint of my setup since it's in a tiny space. I went to a 32" 16:9 Samsung Odyssey non-Neo G7, then very, very briefly to a 34" 21:9 MSI, then to a 38" 24:10 (basically 21:9) LG 38GN950-B and now to a 45" 21:9 LG 45GR95QE-B...and let me tell you, for strictly sim racing.......THEY ARE ALL JUNK compared to even just triple 24" let alone triple 27" or 32".

57" 32:9 is an AWESOME size for a single-screen setup, don't get me wrong, but I think a 45" 21:9 offers a combination of horizontal & vertical size that, outside of specific sim racing use, will almost certainly offer a more enjoyable experience due to offering more height and a considerably larger and more immersive overall image.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

57" 32:9 is an AWESOME size for a single-screen setup, don't get me wrong, but I think a 45" 21:9 offers a combination of horizontal & vertical size that, outside of specific sim racing use, will almost certainly offer a more enjoyable experience due to offering more height and a considerably larger and more immersive overall image.

Just some perspective on sizes vs ratio.

BTW, 49" G9 viewing area is the same as three 16:9 21" monitors angled at 23 degrees.

 

[Spinelli]

[delete]

 

[Spinelli]

I really think Samsung messed up with the curve. For such a wide monitor, it should have way more curve. It should be something like equivalent to triples at least at the 40 degree mark (preferably somewhere in the 50-70 degree area but 40 would be very respectable for a single-screen solution).

Then again, a flat 57" 32"9 already has insane distortion - the more curve, the more that insane distortion will become even more ridiculous...except for the 0.0000001% of games that A) have true triple-screen support & adjustments and B) allow it's triple-screen setup to be used while using a single screen (eg. Assetto Corsa but not rFactor 2 from my testing) or C) has some sort of monitor-curve setting which effectively accomplishes a similar thing (eg. apparently iRacing).

I'm assuming these high-end 57" 32:9 monitors will sell a lot relative to their high price. Hopefully, this will start pushing idiot, lazy game-developers to start including settings which allows to A) minimize distortion, B) take advantage of monitor curves (meaning - all else being equal - the more curved the monitor is, the more h.FOV is rendered for the same v.FOV).

Just some perspective on sizes vs ratio.

View attachment 696275
View attachment 696276

That pic, although accurate, is a poor representation because it makes it look like the height of a 45" (actually 45.9") 21:9 is only a tiny bit more than that of a 57" 32:9. Vertically, the 45" 21:9 is actually 2.7" or almost 7 cm larger. When you actually have a screen in front of you - in the real world - almost 3" of extra height is a huge difference.

Going from 27" 16:9 to 32" (actually 31.5") 16:9 is only 2.2" vertically larger yet the real-world difference in height and overall size of the image displayed between a 27" and 32" - especially when the screen is fairly close to your face like with most PC gaming setups - is pretty staggering.

BTW, 49" G9 viewing area is the same as three 16:9 21" monitors angled at 23 degrees.
View attachment 696280

Any chance you can make a pic like this for a 45" 21:9 800R? According to one test, it's actually 45.9", so I guess we'll say meet in the middle at 45.5".

 

[Mr Latte]

Sim racing you want the wider screen resolution/view. 21:9 is still limited for this and 32:9 is in most scenarios other than cars directly beside you still effective compared to triples. 21:9 at @39" is nothing to scoff at neither and can be nicer for FPS titles. Yet the 57" G9 is clearly better for multitasking as well just doing it even better than the previous 49" models or the new OLED model from Samsung.

Other OLEDs with low PPI will suck for productivity and with the worries of screen burn.

Balancing everything I don't see a better option. The primary weakness of the 49" 32:9 is the size of the screens depth.

Each to their own...
I will buy one upgrade at some point and combine it with my 8K TV for my own rig build. This way it covers also having a large high res screen for 16:9 content in console gaming or movies.

 

[Spinelli]

49" 32:9 shouldn't even be in this convo. It's a glorified 27" monitor.

 

[Mr Latte]

49" 32:9 shouldn't even be in this convo. It's a glorified 27"

As an owner Id disagree....
That's like saying triples with 27" screens shouldn't be considered neither, yet that's the size many users have.

Considering the prior models have been dual 27" and increased in resolution from 1080p - 1440p they are still quite awesome for gaming/multitasking combined usage . On top of that even a 4090 High end PC cannot max out a G9 @240Hz on many titles inc new releases. For some triples is not the answer and with larger screens they just may not have the space. Also many budget monitors considered for triples or older models people may own will have limited HDR capabilities or older screen tech. So I don't see how a 49" 32:9 still is not a very good monitor to enjoy.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

49" 32:9 shouldn't even be in this convo. It's a glorified 27" monitor.

It's quite broad and highly opinionated statement from the person who haven't used one, especially considering sheer number of satisfied simracers using that particular monitor.
But it's in human nature to defend/justify what we have and talk down what we don't.

If 57" was available at the time I was building the rig, knowing myself I'd probably go for it, living with 49" for a few years that helped me get rid of VR completely, I just do not see it lacking in anything to require investment into rig expansion with standalone stand and increasing already significant footprint. May be if was OLED I'd given it more serious considerations.

BTW, what happened to bendable prototypes where you can manipulate curvature?

 

[Mr Latte]