Samsung Electronics announced it will “up the game” at Gamescom with the launch of the Samsung CHG90 QLED Gaming Monitor, the world’s largest gaming monitor that deliver... Samsung Launched Largest QLED Gaming Monitor at Gamescom 2017
I think the fact that it's only 1080 in one of the dimensions helps with the fact that it's a 144Hz monitor - you've got to be able to drive games reliably to 144fps to take advantage, so if it was a higher resolution then this would be very hard to achieve. I quite like this monitor by the looks & specs.
While this is great screen for what ever Wouldn't agree to that. Things I personally see wrong with this screen: a) Aspect ratio - Sure screen has great workspace, however this monitor tries to be a gaming monitor, not a Work oriented one. After using 21:9 for a while, I find this aspect ratio as a must have now, but there are some older games (or even new ones - example Resident Evil 7 with its horrid fixed aspect ratio) that have troubled running anything over 16:9. There are plenty of tools, hacks, guides to fix those issues for most of the games, however some just refuse to work. And that is for 21:9, this monstrosity has 32:9, I can't imagine how many games won't run in 32:9. b) 1080p for a screen of such size, indeed that is a disadvantage. I do understand where it comes from, dev's try to make it playable on 1080 / 1080Ti as an example, however still that is a drawback. c) 144hz - Ideally for that you need to achieve 142fps stable. Single 1080Ti won't allow you to do that on modern AAA games, hence you need second one. Two GPU's = SLI. SLI has a whole truck of its own issues, add 32:9 issues on top of that and you receive a monitor that will probably work with 2-5 games that natively support it out of the box. d) Down the road usability potential of such screen is also a big question, what will be the percentage of market that will use this screen? 0.1%? Many developers will as always simply ignore the need to implement support for such aspect ratio.
Looks like Samsung is trying to get rid of some of the unwanted large curved TV panels no one wants any more, so they just sliced them into two horizontally and sell them as ultra-wide monitor panels
am i the only one... i wonder... I don't see a gaming purpose for this monitor (other than the racing sims or maybe some competitive fps gaming) For what type of games is a monitor this wide actually usefull....? i use a 43" 3840x2160 60hz as my main monitor. For most games i use 2560x1440 to get a solid 60fps since i only have a single gtx 1070 (i disable antialiasing and DSR and enable triple buffering and Vsync) I also disable depth of field and motion blur if possible but that is personal preference ok mine is only 60hz but put that aside for a moment... 16:9 monitors have twice the height and none of the 32:9 issues.... What is the gaming purpose of this monitor...?
A 54" 4K 144hz would give you the posibility of playing games at 32:9 3840x1080 49" or 4K 16:9 as well lower resolutions 16:9 as well. That would give you more options. 4K 144hz HDR 27" panels are coming Q1 2018, so maybe a massive one (even with lower dpi) would be available next year.
Technical Specifications, Brightness: 350 cd/m² (Typ.), 250 cd/m² (Min.) http://www.samsung.com/us/computing...g90-qled-gaming-monitor-lc49hg90dmnxza/#specs Another false advertised "HDR" monitor which can't produce high-dynamic-range (HDR) image. There are two popular HDR standards. "HDR10" and "Dolby Vision". Lower quality one - HDR10, have minimum requirements of 1000 cd/m² brightness and 10-bit color depth. This monitor doesn't meet even lowest requirements for HDR.
8° (degrees) of Field-of-view (FOV) of human eye contains 60% visual cortex and most of the time, players are looking at the center of the monitor. This means that immersion and perceived quality of the game depends mostly on what players see in the center of the monitor. Basically, it makes sense to invest into monitor with highest DPI in the center at expense of peripheral area. This is the main reason why I prefer 16:9 AR monitor with higher resolution instead of wider monitors with lower resolutions. There is a reason why Imax 3D cinema screen, best immersive and most expensive system in the world, have 1.89:1 aspect ratio (close to 16:9). Note: Large 16:9 4K monitors will be excellent for the gaming and it will be easy to pull 144Hz ultra quality look on them with old GPU cards by using eye tracking and rendering parts in maximum quality where player is looking only. Some relevant info: Human eye Field-of-view (FOV) - acuity (6/x metric): 2° - 6/3 - foveal, piont of fixation. 5° - 6/6 - central, parafoveal, can tell difference (for example: between letters). 8° - paracentral (60% visual cortex) 18° - macular, strong colour perception. 60° - near peripheral, focus area (good night vision, highest density of photo receptor cells in the retina) 120° - mid peripheral, binocular/depth/3D vision (overlapping images from eyes) 220° - far peripheral, peripheral vision and free eye movement in its socket. Combined visual field of human is 220° horizontal (right away+left away) and 135° vertical (up + down). Perfect monitor should cover maximum area of your field of vision in order to acquire full immerse effect. Basically, perfect aspect ratio for monitor is 220°:135° ~= 1.63 ~= 16:10.
Main reason for curved screens is because samsung made so many, they had to push them. except for watching tv/movies, its virtually useless, as any line/square etc will be warped. and even then, watch sports and look at the outlines of tennis/soccer/football fields etc... not even talking about the low res, no real hdr, no sync for gpu, nor true 10 bit panel. i might have to get a curved screen as the next one, as no one offers screens larger than 39" without it. but hey, at least its the largest gaming moni in that aspect ratio.
This 3840 x 1080 looks like very good replacement for my current triplemonitor eyefinity setup (5040x 1050). Luckily most of my favourite games are tweakable and run well at any custom ultrawide resolutions. Vertical 1080 is still suficient and not so taxing on GPU like 2160 lines.
Usability of wider FoVs is matter of personal preference in particular scenario/game. Someone prefer narow Fov , another prefer wider FOV to use periperal vision.
