Triple 32” 1440 vs 55” curved 4k?

[Mr Latte]

Why? What happens if you use it at "closer distances"? Will you suddenly go blind? Will the monitor explode? Will you be sent to prison?

Smart ass...
I think people can survive with it but the point is in the money being spent over what some alternatives may offer. A 4K 55" TV can be purchased for much less than the ARC even though it is a bit of a niche product.

Well if using it for productivity, based on reports of people that used/owned it.....
Having a 55" physical size display at less or @ 1 meter distance, which these days, has the same number of pixels used with popular 4K 32" monitors has certain drawbacks. We seen this also with those that rushed out to buy 48" OLEDS only to then consider that a year later the 42" model is more comfortable with desk usage.

At 55" in 4K, gives a PPI similar to a 27" 1080p monitor from about 15+ years ago. Pixel Density becomes a factor of detracting from the experience with productivity usage and its much too big at full-screen with typical monitor/desk seating distance.

Size / 4K / FULL HD

55"	80.11	40.05
50"	88.12	44.06
46"	95.78	47.89
40"	110.15	55.07
39"	112.97	56.48
32"	137.68	68.84
31.5"	139.87	69.93
30"	146.86	73.43
27.8"	158.48	79.24
27"	163.18	81.59

Currently, in comparison a Samsung 8K TV that may support 8K 60Hz but also 4K 144Hz / 4K 120Hz with VRR/HDR which can be bought on promotion for under £900 in the UK might be worth comparing or a better buy for much less money.

900 Series is the top model but the 700 series has less of the picture processing etc, yet based on same panel, some features may vary.

Review

As an owner of one, I would say it appears, these 55" TVs are too small to benefit from any benefits in 8K with movies and typical living room seating distances. This is why this size (now on 3rd generation) always sells less and gets cleared. Yet its more suited to being a pretty damn awesome monitor/TV combo as the review points out.

Being 8K @ 55" gives you a much greater PPI and really the ARC would have been better if it too was this resolution. Additionally having the ability to display 4x 4K windows within one screen is quite impressive.

SIZE / 8K / 4K / FULL HD

55"

160.21

80.11

40.05

 

[Michael Krone]

Why? What happens if you use it at "closer distances"? Will you suddenly go blind? Will the monitor explode? Will you be sent to prison?

Yes, yes, and yes. Youll then have an exploded monitor but that will be the least of your worries because youll be in prison and blind!

 

[njyeti]

Appreciate everyone's feedback here. I ended up buying the Odyssey OLED G9 49" for $800 off. Unfortunately, the new 57" 4k Odyssey was already sold out.

While not as immersive as my triples were, ease of use wins here for me.

 

[Spinelli]

Smart ass...
I think people can survive with it but the point is in the money being spent over what some alternatives may offer. A 4K 55" TV can be purchased for much less than the ARC even though it is a bit of a niche product.

Well if using it for productivity, based on reports of people that used/owned it.....
Having a 55" physical size display at less or @ 1 meter distance, which these days, has the same number of pixels used with popular 4K 32" monitors has certain drawbacks. We seen this also with those that rushed out to buy 48" OLEDS only to then consider that a year later the 42" model is more comfortable with desk usage.

At 55" in 4K, gives a PPI similar to a 27" 1080p monitor from about 15+ years ago. Pixel Density becomes a factor of detracting from the experience with productivity usage and its much too big at full-screen with typical monitor/desk seating distance.

Size / 4K / FULL HD

55"	80.11	40.05
50"	88.12	44.06
46"	95.78	47.89
40"	110.15	55.07
39"	112.97	56.48
32"	137.68	68.84
31.5"	139.87	69.93
30"	146.86	73.43
27.8"	158.48	79.24
27"	163.18	81.59

Currently, in comparison a Samsung 8K TV that may support 8K 60Hz but also 4K 144Hz / 4K 120Hz with VRR/HDR which can be bought on promotion for under £900 in the UK might be worth comparing or a better buy for much less money.

900 Series is the top model but the 700 series has less of the picture processing etc, yet based on same panel, some features may vary.

Review

As an owner of one, I would say it appears, these 55" TVs are too small to benefit from any benefits in 8K with movies and typical living room seating distances. This is why this size (now on 3rd generation) always sells less and gets cleared. Yet its more suited to being a pretty damn awesome monitor/TV combo as the review points out.

Being 8K @ 55" gives you a much greater PPI and really the ARC would have been better if it too was this resolution. Additionally having the ability to display 4x 4K windows within one screen is quite impressive.

SIZE / 8K / 4K / FULL HD

55"

160.21

80.11

40.05

Haha
For racing/gaming though, none of that matters.

Yes, yes, and yes. Youll then have an exploded monitor but that will be the least of your worries because youll be in prison and blind!

Lol, that was great, haha!

 

[Mr Latte]

Haha
For racing/gaming though, none of that matters.
Lol, that was great, haha!

If you say so, then...

LG 38" 3840x1600 / PPI 109.47
LG 45" 3440x1440 / PPI 82.87

"For racing/gaming though, none of that matters."


Samsung 55" 8K display with 10" larger screen size and 2x (DOUBLE the PPI) of the LG 45" monitor

"For racing/gaming though, none of that matters."

From what I see/read and have experienced, its very user dependent based on what you are used to. I will say it does matter for some, particularly not so good to adjust to, if coming from a resolution that's higher/sharper to an even larger size display that then has less pixels/ppi.

We know how much you like your LG 45" but it has a PPI thats well below a similar sized 4K TV. Having OLED and Mini LED tech etc is nice to see appearing for monitors for excellent image quality but regards high-end gaming monitors, dude seriously 1440p is becoming a bit dated.

At least the Samsung 49" Super Ultrawides have 108.54 PPI which is very similar to what the 38" LG has and people coming from that still found it decent.

Perhaps for you and others only 82 PPI is fine on a largish screen at close proximity, but I wouldn't be fully satisfied with the LG monitor you own and when you compare a screen that uses much higher PPI with increased resolution too, then its a lot harder to look past or not miss those benefits.

 

[Mr Latte]

Appreciate everyone's feedback here. I ended up buying the Odyssey OLED G9 49" for $800 off. Unfortunately, the new 57" 4k Odyssey was already sold out.

While not as immersive as my triples were, ease of use wins here for me.

View attachment 710306

Good deal and little doubt that the OLED image quality is a bonus over your old monitors too? I hope/think you will adjust rather well, as most coming from triples to 32:9 do. Kinda wish they would have made the OLED model 1000R though but maybe next year we might see that or even a 57" model?

Seems weird Samsung is offering great prices on the 49" OLED model and certainly in UK, they have no real discounts on the 57" G9.

 

[njyeti]

Good deal and little doubt that the OLED image quality is a bonus over your old monitors too? I hope/think you will adjust rather well, as most coming from triples to 32:9 do. Kinda wish they would have made the OLED model 1000R though but maybe next year we might see that or even a 57" model?

Seems weird Samsung is offering great prices on the 49" OLED model and certainly in UK, they have no real discounts on the 57" G9.

Yeah the OLED’s image quality is much better than my old IPS monitors!

 

[Spinelli]

If you say so, then...

LG 38" 3840x1600 / PPI 109.47
LG 45" 3440x1440 / PPI 82.87

"For racing/gaming though, none of that matters."


Samsung 55" 8K display with 10" larger screen size and 2x (DOUBLE the PPI) of the LG 45" monitor

"For racing/gaming though, none of that matters."

From what I see/read and have experienced, its very user dependent based on what you are used to. I will say it does matter for some, particularly not so good to adjust to, if coming from a resolution that's higher/sharper to an even larger size display that then has less pixels/ppi.

We know how much you like your LG 45" but it has a PPI thats well below a similar sized 4K TV. Having OLED and Mini LED tech etc is nice to see appearing for monitors for excellent image quality but regards high-end gaming monitors, dude seriously 1440p is becoming a bit dated.

At least the Samsung 49" Super Ultrawides have 108.54 PPI which is very similar to what the 38" LG has and people coming from that still found it decent.

Perhaps for you and others only 82 PPI is fine on a largish screen at close proximity, but I wouldn't be fully satisfied with the LG monitor you own and when you compare a screen that uses much higher PPI with increased resolution too, then its a lot harder to look past or not miss those benefits.

I came from a 1600p 24:10 (3840x1600) 37.5" LG monitor to the 45" 3440x1440. I also have a 31.5" 16:9 4K monitor as my top monitor.

I promise you, playing old DX9 games (GTL, GTR2, AMS1, etc.) at native res but with full-screen supersampling (4x MSAA + 4x SGSSAA or 8x of each) or DX10 and latter games with DLDSR looks incredible. With all the different forms of AA nowadays, sometimes I don't even enable DLDSR (if I'm desperate for framerates which is rare). Of course it's still not the same as native 4K but all the aliasing, the shimmering and crawling, the overall "dirty", "ugly" image you get with a low PPI monitor "magically" disappears. It's incredible. It's actually shocking how drastic of a difference it makes.

 

[Mr Latte]

I came from a 1600p 24:10 (3840x1600) 37.5" LG monitor to the 45" 3440x1440. I also have a 31.5" 16:9 4K monitor as my top monitor.

I promise you, playing old DX9 games (GTL, GTR2, AMS1, etc.) at native res but with full-screen supersampling (4x MSAA + 4x SGSSAA or 8x of each) or DX10 and latter games with DLDSR looks incredible. With all the different forms of AA nowadays, sometimes I don't even enable DLDSR (if I'm desperate for framerates which is rare). Of course it's still not the same as native 4K but all the aliasing, the shimmering and crawling, the overall "dirty", "ugly" image you get with a low PPI monitor "magically" disappears. It's incredible. It's actually shocking how drastic of a difference it makes.

I dont doubt that the monitor can look awesome

What it seems like your doing is, to take the perspective of defending your own purchase. Like with what you just did by, applying a gaming only usage scenario as an example and then downplay what is a potential disappointment in specifications for the LG 45" monitor. Just look at the PPI for tablets/laptops and even phones these days....

Some people may spend as much or even more time doing other stuff on their monitors than gaming and this is a relevant thing to take into consideration.

2024 Update?
I expect we will be seeing soon, new GPU to power DP 2.1 displays with possibly 6K res at 5120x2160 and the benefit with this on a 45" model, would be a PPI increase of about 50% and above 120. It also means for 4K video content (16:9) people would experience the full quality.

Happy that you do have a nice looking screen you do enjoy...
Recommend you check out GRID 2 and similar editions of that title. Its easy to enjoy as a nice arcade style, (Project Gotham era) looking racing title, but fully maxed out at 240Hz.

Im going to compare it at some stage on my G9 at 240Hz but then to my TV in full 8K at 60Hz. Just curious to see what my own impressions are. Im convinced more people would take the increase in resolution over the super high refresh rates. As really in racing titles how much of a benefit is it to the average person and I think their is a good article in that.

 

[Spinelli]

I dont doubt that the monitor can look awesome

What it seems like your doing is, to take the perspective of defending your own purchase. Like with what you just did by, applying a gaming only usage scenario...

Na, I'm not trying to defend my purchase. I don't need to. In fact, the monitor has way exceeded my expectations.

I was very vocal on RD and youtube videos about how the PPI is a joke before I bought it, very vocal indeed. Then I purchased it and "ate my words".

Of course I'm applying a gaming-only scenario. Isn't that what we're talking about? Gaming?

Some people may spend as much or even more time doing other stuff on their monitors than gaming and this is a relevant thing to take into consideration.

Absolutely. I'm one of those persons. I do video editing, web-browsing, video-watching, etc. on the monitor.

I expect we will be seeing soon, new GPU to power DP 2.1 displays with possibly 6K res at 5120x2160 and the benefit with this on a 45" model, would be a PPI increase of about 50% and above 120. It also means for 4K video content (16:9) people would experience the full quality..

Absolutely. I think it's ridiculous the Nvidia 4090 only has DP 1.4 instead of 2.1. You're right about 4K too. It would be nice to experience the full quality of 4K. Having said that, I have a 31.5" 4K screen as my top screen and, when comparing 4K content on the 2160p (4K) screen and 1440p screen, the difference is quite minor.

...but fully maxed out at 240Hz.

Im going to compare it at some stage on my G9 at 240Hz but then to my TV in full 8K at 60Hz. Just curious to see what my own impressions are. Im convinced more people would take the increase in resolution over the super high refresh rates. As really in racing titles how much of a benefit is it to the average person and I think their is a good article in that.

That's pretty subjective and I think heavily depends on refresh rate, resolution, and screen size.

I think a ton of people would pick 120 Hz over 60 Hz (as long as the resolution isn't horrendous) but if we're talking 240 over 120 then I think many more people would take 120 w/ higher res.

For me personally though, I can't stand anything under around 200-ish Hz. I've had 120 Hz monitors since around 2013 and couldn't stand the constant massive blurring I'd get and I've owned some of the fastest 120-165 Hz gaming monitors around. Even a not-so-lightning-quick pixel response time 240 Hz VA panel (eg. Samsung G7) absolutely destroys a much, much quicker 165 Hz TN panel (let alone 120 Hz) due to the sample-and-hold refresh method being much less of a motion-clarity bottleneck at 240 Hz. This is why even OLED has lots of motion blur at 120 Hz despite it's insanely fast pixel response times - because of the sample-and-hold refresh method regardless of how fast the actual pixel response times are.

Combine a fairly high 240 Hz with the ultra-fast pixel response times of OLED and you get the equivalent resulting motion clarity of a super-fast modern TN panel @ around 360 - 480 Hz/fps but while only having to achieve 240 fps + having all the other superior benefits of OLED. It's a win-win-win-win.

Again, though, if I was building a system for others, not myself, I would highly recommend 120 Hz over 240.

 

[TeddyBearx]

Hi, I currently have a triple screen set with 165hz 1440p 32” monitors. It works well but I do hate battling with Nvidia surround.

I can get a deal on the Samsung Ark 165hz 55” 4k monitor. With my 4090, it seems like I should be able to race in 4k comfortably.

It would be a simpler set up and an upgrade from 1440 to 4k. Thoughts?

I have the same, if you like playing with the bonnet view like for EA WRC, single screen is the god, if you like cockpit cam, triple screens are the god....