MSi 49" Ultrawide 240Hz QD-OLED

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
20,320
They need to make a 40" 21:9 OLED. Superwide is just too wide.

1669278055842.png
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,900
The person who made those graphics really dropped the ball. That doesn't even look curved.

This seems like a 5120x1440 version of the 3440x1440 QD-OLEDs we had this year. With the announcement of Samsung making a 7680x2160 version of this form factor, I have little interest in the MSI.

QD-OLED is not for me until they are at 4K+ resolution because that weird pixel structure is there unless Samsung re-engineers their stuff for standard RGB. It means lower text clarity in Windows unless MS improves ClearType to support more pixel structure formats. With the LG OLEDs I did not find this as much of an issue.

Even if the Samsung 7680x2160 is LCD, I'd still take that if it's going to perform similarly to Neo G8 overall (e.g. 240 Hz, decent HDR...hopefully no scanlines tho) as most of the time I will be using it on the desktop and the higher res matters there. I sold my CRG9 eventually because I wanted higher res despite liking the form factor a good bit.

I totally agree we need more 40" 5120x2160 options though. That's a real sweet spot form factor.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,900
For sake of discussion, here's a little chart of HDR peak brightness between different panel tech using numbers from TFT Central reviews. I expect MSI will have similar performance to Dell AW3423DW.

Window size %Dell AW3423DW (Samsung QD-OLED)ASUS PG42UQ (LG OLED)Samsung Neo G8 (Samsung VA)
11013887821
2943885942
57188841074
104518801079
25361417884
50303208583
75273148420
100258123330

Like with everything display related it's a "pick your poison" situation.

LCD offers better brightness at bigger window sizes, better sustained brightness, no burn in or pixel structure issues but lower motion clarity and more haloing in HDR.

QD-OLED does a bit better than LG OLED at large window sizes but then the probably more frequent 10-25% sizes favor LG. Sustained brightness behavior is fairly similar at larger window sizes though QD-OLED has an edge at large window sizes while LG is better around the 10% size. Remains to be seen how these fare when shrunk down to the 27" 1440p size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xar
like this

Enhanced Interrogator

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
1,358
They need to make a 40" 21:9 OLED. Superwide is just too wide.
Guys, stop it with these these fucking comments every time a new monitor is announced

Not every monitor made by every manufacturer is for you.

Sometimes LG or Samsung will make a monitor you want, most of the time they won't

Some people like super duper ultra wide monitors. So they might like this.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,399
The person who made those graphics really dropped the ball. That doesn't even look curved.

This seems like a 5120x1440 version of the 3440x1440 QD-OLEDs we had this year. With the announcement of Samsung making a 7680x2160 version of this form factor, I have little interest in the MSI.

QD-OLED is not for me until they are at 4K+ resolution because that weird pixel structure is there unless Samsung re-engineers their stuff for standard RGB. It means lower text clarity in Windows unless MS improves ClearType to support more pixel structure formats. With the LG OLEDs I did not find this as much of an issue.

Even if the Samsung 7680x2160 is LCD, I'd still take that if it's going to perform similarly to Neo G8 overall (e.g. 240 Hz, decent HDR...hopefully no scanlines tho) as most of the time I will be using it on the desktop and the higher res matters there. I sold my CRG9 eventually because I wanted higher res despite liking the form factor a good bit.

I totally agree we need more 40" 5120x2160 options though. That's a real sweet spot form factor.

Not sure what the refresh rate is on that monitor but if it's too high then you might need DP 2.1 to drive it and the 4090 unfortunately lacks that.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,900
Not sure what the refresh rate is on that monitor but if it's too high then you might need DP 2.1 to drive it and the 4090 unfortunately lacks that.
HDMI 2.1 should be fine when paired with DSC. Even a 2x ratio compression could deliver 7680x2160 10-bit 144 Hz with a 48 Gbps port. At 3x compression 40 GBps port would still do probably like 180 Hz.

Still a bit pissed off about the lack of DP 2.1 support though. With the ridiculous speeds of the 4090 I could easily use this for years and years but most likely am going to swap for something in a few years just to get DP 2.1 ports.
 

undertaker2k8

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
1,968
Was hoping Samsung wouldn't continue their SUW obsession and release this instead of a 38-40" 3840*1600 or dream 5k2k, what a waste.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,900
Was hoping Samsung wouldn't continue their SUW obsession and release this instead of a 38-40" 3840*1600 or dream 5k2k, what a waste.
So far Samsung has not been interested in making either of those form factors. Honestly 3840x1600 seems pretty much dead at this point and manufacturers will just eventually make better 5120x2160 40" displays. Well, at least I hope they do.

Samsung factory setup probably allows making essentially a dual panel display with the same process as a single panel model so we get these super ultrawides. IMO it's a very good form factor for productivity uses but I don't love it for gaming except for racing/flight sim type games.
 
Top