Dual-UHD-Gaming-Monitor_dl2.jpg

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/



[Reply]

4. It's in your price range
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

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?
[Reply]

That would finally make swivel chairs truly useful.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

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?
[Reply]

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?
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

Cracking looking monitor indeed H....

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

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.
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.

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 ! ! !
[Reply]