The first dual 4K resolution monitor

Attachment 1480

The Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 (G95NC) is now available for pre-order on Samsung.com. The 57-inch display is the world's first monitor to support Dual 4K UHD (DUHD) resolution of 7,680 x 2,160, the equivalent of two 32-inch 4K UHD monitors side-by-side.

1. The world's first dual UHD monitor wraps around you with a super-wide 57" screen and 1000R curvature.
2. The power of Quantum Mini-LED and HDR 1000 bring astounding levels of visual accuracy, definition and brightness.
3. With a 240Hz refresh rate, 1ms response time and FreeSync Premium Pro

https://www.samsung.com/uk/monitors/...s57cg952nuxxu/

4. It's in your price range :lol:

It is expensive, that's true. I definitely can't afford one at the moment, or justify it if I did.

However because it had full vertical 4K resolution it's very practical for design work. I've never bothered looking at curved monitors because they normally have silly vertical height of something like 900px. But this looks very nice.

The ring of coloured lights at the back around the stand mounting point is neat.

Looks great in the posed and stylishly set up display photos, but I do wonder how it'd look in a real world setting where, y'know, actual people actually live and work and make a mess.

- - - Updated - - -

How many of these would it take to make a complete and close to evenly shaped ring all the way around my head?

That would finally make swivel chairs truly useful.

The maths is probably simple-ish to work out but I probably won't bother.

I did spend time searching to see if anyone had _actually_ done it in the real world and didn't come up with much other than an obviously staged promotional video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LOC7Q7ag4o&t=108s

Perhaps it's not possible at this stage, I saw some mention of the limitation in OS ability to handle that many monitors or that much horizontal resolution. Would probably take some mega hardware to achieve too.

I saw someone had worked out how many in a circle of monitors with a 1900r curve and that was 7. But this one in 1000r so shallower, meaning it would need more. I think 7 is doable with multiplr high end graphics cards as some now support daisy chaining monitors using display port where you plug them into each other, rather then all video cables going directly into the card itself.

If you had unlimited money you could build a system with 4x RTX4090 GPUs, each with 4 monitor outputs, potentially driving 16 monitors. I hate to think the PSU requirements. Would even a 2KW PSU cope?

While we are in hypothetical land, Can multiple PSUs be used in one PC? Or will they sit idly by because only one is connected to the motherboard?

Server hardware can utilise multiple PSUs with load balancing, but not consumer gaming motherboards. Some workstation motherboards support 2 as well.

One Asus workstation motherboard I took a quick look at is quite mad, although it's £1000 before you add anything to it. And that's using the mad AMD Threadripper Pro 64 core CPU. It supports up to 2TB DDR4 ECC ram, and has 7 x16 PCI-E slots meaning it could have 7 GPUs iinstalled. Plus 2 PSUs. Mad.

Cracking looking monitor indeed H....

But you only game @ 60Hz so it wouldn't be any good for you would it. :lol:

The only put off for me is the VA panel technology they've gone for, but that also explains the 240Hz Refresh for such a mahoosive screen size.
After owning several IPS screens in recent years, I couldn't go back to VA how ever grand it might look or perform. - IPS just has a clarity & presentation quality that VA doesn't come close to.
That said & knowing how clever those devilish engineers are in Samsung, this could be a game changer for VA. - I would still like to see one running on a high spec Gaming PC, that's for sure & better still.....
No Bezel breaks in your 7680 wide desktop like three x 2560 sized screens. :yesyes:
Another thing once you're over the WOW factor for looks is quite simply this. The RTX 4090 is not going to perform very well in terms of FPS gaming @ a 7860 x 2160 resolution.
Examples:
Hitman @ 1920 x 1080 = 517fps
Hitman @ 3840 x 2160 = 247fps
Hitman @ 7680 x 2160 = ??? - (247 + 247 = 494 = 23fps less for doubling the screen size to 3840 x 2160 from 1920 x 1080) - So guessing circa 247 - 46 = 201 divided by two = 100.5 fps. - Taking 46fps off is 2 x 23's for doubling up again.
Gaming at this resolution with such poor fps rates isn't a very enjoyable experience, how ever big it all might look.
Check out the fastest & greatest 4090 available yet here; https://www.guru3d.com/review/asus-r...eview/page-11/
Perhaps the RTX 6090 series might be in with a chance. RTX 5090's if only half as fast again as their previous counterpart, aka the RTX 4090 might manage 150fps & then half as fast again on the next gen RTX 6090's might break the 200fps ceiling at that resolution.
Modular Gfx cards would be the answer for me as an engineer. Keep adding GPU's to the same memory ring bus & make it 512 bits wide. - 1024 Bits would be better still.

Being able to split the screen up into a variable sized multi screen also adds to the WOW factor for sure & would of course ease the lack of FPS @ 7860 x 2160. Shadow of the Tomb Raider is down to 191fps @ 3840 x 2160 with Far Cry 6 tumbling to 136fps @ 3840 x 2160. - You might be down to around 50fps here H & only if you have the fastest 4090 currently available on the planet. :D

I also see OLED monitors are also starting to show up for computers now, but the reviews are no where near the quality of the larger TV panels using OLED technology. - I expect they'll improve with development & time though....

But yeah guy's..... W O W ! ! ! :shades:

I hate ro break it to you but this monitor won't work with any current nVidia GPUs. For some reason they have stuck with Diaplayport 1.4a, and to drive that resolution requires 2.1. This means to use this monitor you have to go with AMD!

BTW, regarding the screen panel technoloy, it's urilising microdots the same as Samsung's high end TV panels. Many dismissed that technology compared to OLED, but once those TVs were released they blow LGs OLED screens away for depth of colour and screen brightness when the room is bright. So I suspect this monitor will look amazing.

BTW, yes I am perfectly happy gaming at 60fps. My interest in this monitor is from graphic design, video editing and post production motion graphics. For that I would be utilising 120fps for video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrison

I hate ro break it to you but this monitor won't work with any current nVidia GPUs. For some reason they have stuck with Diaplayport 1.4a, and to drive that resolution requires 2.1. This means to use this monitor you have to go with AMD!

BTW, regarding the screen panel technoloy, it's urilising microdots the same as Samsung's high end TV panels. Many dismissed that technology compared to OLED, but once those TVs were released they blow LGs OLED screens away for depth of colour and screen brightness when the room is bright. So I suspect this monitor will look amazing.

BTW, yes I am perfectly happy gaming at 60fps. My interest in this monitor is from graphic design, video editing and post production motion graphics. For that I would be utilising 120fps for video.

---

You're not breaking anything to me Harrison that I hadn't already read & understood. I remember the day when I could download in the background whilst playing Counter Strike on line, via a Pentium III 800EB using AGP Voodoo 3000 Graphics & all with a single bonded 7K/Sec ISDN line to the property.
23.96fps is all you need for smooth Video.

I guess AMD are just trying to enhance their crap Gfx cards by giving them unnecessary Display Port Bandwidth, while nVidia still bask in the glory of 1.4a bandwidth.

Such a lot of folk get sucked into unnecessaries. :shades:

I dont get that comment. 1.4a only supports 4K at up to 120hz, and a maximum resolution of 7680 x 4320 at 60hz,so can't drive this display at its full framerate, whereas 2.1 can. In fact 2.1 supports up to 16k resolution (15,360×8,640) which is mad.

Never mind H....

Bit like you saying you don't need more than 60Hz to play games on & that 30fps in Starfield is plentiful. :huh: :rolleyes:

But I'm not taking any games. I'm referring to running the monitor at its native refresh rate for design work and video editing. Not the same thing.

But the point you're missing is that nVidia cards don't need to run on version 2.1 Display Port to beat AMD in terms of FPS.

You're also missing the point that all panel monitors have their default Resolution & refresh rates remain variable. Once you reduce a 2560 x 1440 screen to 1920 x 1080, it does not perform the same @ it's native resolution & looks utter cr4p.

Feature's on 2.1 are greater than 1.4a for sure but take it or leave it how you want to, just wait till nVidia release their cards on Display Port 2.1 smoking AMD some more & all over again! :lol: :shades:

Joking aside H, the 80Gbps on Display Port 2.1 is completely overkill with up to 48 Gbps on HDMI 2.1. HDMI 2.0 was only up to 18 Gbps which is probably three times more bandwidth than you actually need for video editing.

I spent £700 on a Dune 4K Media centre that simply looks stunning on a Panasonic 55" OLED running 4K whilst locked & set at 23.96fps & you're wanting to edit @ 120Hz whilst happy to play games @ 60Hz & even 30 just to play Starfiled. - Just how Starry eyed are you bud?

HDMI 2.1 has more than enough bandwidth for Professional Video Editing.

Leave Display port 2.1 alone for the guys who want to play Games with High FPS @ High resolutions @ High Refresh Rates & where the bandwidth of 80Gbps is really required. ;)

I'm hoping to go RTX 50XX when they're released & really hope they go Display Port 2.1 if only to pi$$ AMD off some more! :lol:

& hopefully as a last point on this debate, I have a spanned desktop size of 7680 x 1440 running at 240Hz & I don't do video editing. I can see the difference of these Viewsonic IPS panels @ 240Hz over my old single predator @ 165Hz @ desktop level. It's awesome & when gaming, it's absolutely mentally impressive.

The reason regarding video editing is 4k video is normally 60fps for the majority, but some is now 120fps. So in order to edit video and create motion graphics you need a display that can show 60 and 120 fps accurately. Until recently 60fps was all that was needed, hence I wasn't that bothered about higher framerates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrison

So in order to edit video and create motion graphics you need a display that can show 60 and 120 fps accurately.

---

Are you actually doing that? I know that you don't have a lot of spare time.

That is part of the freelance work I do, so when I get a project yes.