Tuesday, July 27th 2021

Samsung Announces Odyssey Neo G9 Gaming Monitor

Samsung Electronics, today announced the global launch of its next-generation curved gaming monitor, the Odyssey Neo G9, enhanced with Quantum Mini LED technology. The Odyssey Neo G9 joins the Odyssey lineup, taking gaming to the next level with Quantum Matrix technology, supported by Quantum Mini LED display and Quantum HDR 2000 for an immersive gaming experience.

With the previous launch of the Odyssey G9 in 2020, Samsung pushed the boundaries of premium gaming monitors with smooth and brilliant picture quality. Now with the industry's first Quantum Mini LED curved display delivering the most refined detail regardless of the game played, the Odyssey Neo G9 is catapulting the gaming monitor category forward. Featuring Quantum Matrix Technology combined with super-fast response and refresh rates, Odyssey Neo G9 delivers an unrivaled dynamic picture and premium performance for all gamers.
The Odyssey Neo G9 utilizes the same Mini LED technology built into Samsung's latest Neo QLED lineup. This next-generation display technology is enabled by a new light source, Quantum Mini LED. At 1/40 the height of a conventional LED,1 the Quantum Mini LED has incredibly thin micro layers filled with many more LEDs.

Additionally, Quantum Matrix Technology, which harnesses enhanced 12-bit gradation for greater control of the light source - the Quantum Mini LEDs makes dark areas darker and bright areas brighter with 2,048 dimming zones, ensuring viewers enjoy the content as it is meant to be seen. Quantum HDR 2000 offers a peak brightness of 2,000 nits, with certification received from VDE (Verband Deutscher Elektrotechniker), alongside a static contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1. In addition, Samsung's cutting-edge picture quality technology provides perfect black and white levels, for unparalleled contrast and immaculate detail.

Based on the high performance technology pioneered by the current Odyssey G9, the Odyssey Neo G9 features an ultra-wide 49-inch display with a 32:9 aspect ratio that offers Dual Quad High-Definition (DQHD; 5,120×1,440 resolution) with a rapid, 240 Hz refresh rate and 1 ms response time. The futuristic and immersive 1000R curvature of the monitor was certified by TÜV Rheinland, a leading international certification organization, awarding it their Eye Comfort certificate.

The Odyssey Neo G9 provides Adaptive Sync on DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI 2.1 VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) through HDMI 2.1 with NVIDIA G-SYNC Compatibility and AMD FreeSync Premium Pro, delivering dynamic and seamless action scene-by-scene for a groundbreaking gameplay experience.

The display seamlessly fits into any gaming setup or environment, with a glossy white exterior and futuristic rear infinity core lighting system, which includes 52 colors and five lighting effect options. The monitor also comes with the CoreSync feature, allowing users to personalize their setup with the multiple color mode, for world-blending immersion.

Samsung's Odyssey Neo G9 with Quantum Mini LED will be available for preorder from 29 July 2021 and be available globally by 9 August 2021.
Source: Samsung
Add your own comment

17 Comments on Samsung Announces Odyssey Neo G9 Gaming Monitor

#1
TheLostSwede
Only $4,999?
Although it's not G-Sync Ultimate, so it might only be $3,999...
Posted on Reply
#2
Asni
Is DSC over HDMI 2.1 already enabled on RTX 3000 and RX 6000 gpus? 5120x1440 @240hz 10bit RGB exceeds 40Gbps.
Posted on Reply
#3
Tomorrow
TheLostSwedeOnly $4,999?
Although it's not G-Sync Ultimate, so it might only be $3,999...
Where did you get that price from? Current G9 costs 1200€. Even if the successor would cost double that it would still be 2400€. Nowhere close to 5000.
That being said there is no "HDR 2000" spec and at 48" the LG OLED C1 is a viable alternative.
AsniIs DSC over HDMI 2.1 already enabled on RTX 3000 and RX 6000 gpus? 5120x1440 @240hz 10bit RGB exceeds 40Gbps.
DSC is a HDMI 2.1 feature. If a card supports HDMI 2.1 then it supports DSC too. HDMI 2.1 is 42,6Gbps to be precise.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheLostSwede
TomorrowWhere did you get that price from? Current G9 costs 1200€. Even if the successor would cost double that it would still be 2400€. Nowhere close to 5000.
That being said there is no "HDR 2000" spec and at 48" the LG OLED C1 is a viable alternative.
I didn't, but Asus charges charges $4,299 for their mini-LED ROG display.
Sure, that's a 32" 4k display, but it's "only" HDR1400, but G-Sync Ultimate.
www.amazon.com/dp/B09568W9GS/
This is why I expect Samsung to end up around the $4k mark as well.
Posted on Reply
#5
Asni
TomorrowDSC is a HDMI 2.1 feature. If a card supports HDMI 2.1 then it supports DSC too. HDMI 2.1 is 42,6Gbps to be precise.
I disagree because hdmi 2.1 features aren't mandatory.
Still, those cards implement DSC* over hdmi 2.1 but i'd like to know if that requires a fw update.

*from Nvidia website

[I]HDMI 2.1 Technologies Supported By GeForce RTX 30 Series GPUs[/I]


Our new GeForce RTX 30 Series graphics cards support key HDMI 2.1 technologies, including:
  • Fixed Rate Link (FRL): A new signaling technology that’s necessary to achieve higher uncompressed resolutions, such as 8K, and to enable 48Gbps ultra high speed bandwidth speeds
  • Display Stream Compression (DSC) 1.2a: A visually lossless compression algorithm that enables higher resolutions, faster refresh rates (e.g. 8K 60Hz), and greater color depths (e.g. 8K HDR 10-bit). DSC also eliminates the color artefacts introduced by older 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 Chroma Subsampling techniques
  • Variable Refresh Rate (VRR): VRR eliminates tearing for more fluid and better gameplay. Together with other supported technologies, high-resolution and high-refresh G-SYNC Compatible gaming is now a reality
Posted on Reply
#6
Valantar
I really wish Samsung would make their high end displays in non-stupid form factors. Sure, 49" 32:9 is neat, but ... how many people want or can fit that? And given that it's just two 27" panels side-by-side in terms of size, many people likely want more. Why no 32" 16:9 UHD variant? Is their VA production process really that limited in pixel density?
Posted on Reply
#7
Tomorrow
ValantarI really wish Samsung would make their high end displays in non-stupid form factors. Sure, 49" 32:9 is neat, but ... how many people want or can fit that? And given that it's just two 27" panels side-by-side in terms of size, many people likely want more. Why no 32" 16:9 UHD variant? Is their VA production process really that limited in pixel density?
That is what G7 is for.
Posted on Reply
#8
Valantar
TomorrowThat is what G7 is for.
But those are nowhere near the feature level of the G9. The 32" G7 Odyssey is a 240Hz 1440p 350-nit monitor. That's ... both too low resolution for that panel size and garbage-tier brightness. At least it's rated for HDR600, though I doubt it gives a good HDR experience with that low sustained brightness (and no doubt edge-lit "local dimming" to reach that 600-nit number). At the very least they could release a flagship 16:9 panel. But as I said, the low pixel density of their panels makes me wonder if their production tech isn't capable of delivering that.
Posted on Reply
#9
Tomorrow
TheLostSwedeI didn't, but Asus charges charges $4,299 for their mini-LED ROG display.
Sure, that's a 32" 4k display, but it's "only" HDR1400, but G-Sync Ultimate.
www.amazon.com/dp/B09568W9GS/
This is why I expect Samsung to end up around the $4k mark as well.
www.techspot.com/news/90563-samsung-reveals-49-inch-odyssey-neo-g9-mini.html
As you might imagine, the Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 is not a cheap monitor. At $2,499, it's almost $1,000 more than the previous model. Preorders start on Thursday, July 29, with global shipping set for August 9.
ValantarBut those are nowhere near the feature level of the G9. The 32" G7 Odyssey is a 240Hz 1440p 350-nit monitor. That's ... both too low resolution for that panel size and garbage-tier brightness. At least it's rated for HDR600, though I doubt it gives a good HDR experience with that low sustained brightness (and no doubt edge-lit "local dimming" to reach that 600-nit number). At the very least they could release a flagship 16:9 panel. But as I said, the low pixel density of their panels makes me wonder if their production tech isn't capable of delivering that.
How is 32" 1440p too low res? It's the same pixel density as 23" 1080p. Meaning just fine. 32" 4K is too small and has scaling issues under Windows.
Posted on Reply
#11
Tomorrow
Well that's Gsync Ultimate that raises the price on the ASUS's model. Plus ASUS has always overpriced their monitors compared to others.
Not a hater. Im currently using their PG279Q (5th year already).
Posted on Reply
#12
TheLostSwede
TomorrowHow is 32" 1440p too low res? It's the same pixel density as 23" 1080p. Meaning just fine. 32" 4K is too small and has scaling issues under Windows.
We all have different opinions here. I have a 27" 4K screen and I find it perfect for what I use it for. My previous screen was a 25" 1440p model and again was great. Higher pixel density is simply never bad.
Posted on Reply
#13
Valantar
Tomorrowwww.techspot.com/news/90563-samsung-reveals-49-inch-odyssey-neo-g9-mini.html


How is 32" 1440p too low res? It's the same pixel density as 23" 1080p. Meaning just fine. 32" 4K is too small and has scaling issues under Windows.
For someone used to 27" 1440p, 32" 1440p is pretty terrible. And, judging by my secondary 24" 1080p monitor, I would find that large and blocky even if I wasn't used to 27" 1440p. Text rendering is unsharp, blocky, overly large and doesn't look good. Graphics at best look okay. At desk viewing distances, that kind of pixel density is the absolute minimum acceptable IMO. You call it "just fine" yourself. For a premium monitor, the absolute minimum is not good enough. Kind of contradicts the premiumness of the monitor, no? Fine for a budget monitor? Sure. But nothing more. Even the relatively minor increase from 92 to 109dpi between 24" 1080p and 27" 1440p is very noticeable in desktop usage. I'd be more partial to 27" UHD (with some scaling applied) than 32" 1440p. And I have far from perfect eyesight.
Posted on Reply
#14
Tomorrow
Well i have bad eyesight but only when it comes to distant text. Near is good and using 27" 1440p i have to manually increase text size on many sites for example. 32" 4K would problably unusable for me. And using scaling kind of defeats the purpose of owning a 4K screen. That would be like a 3090 or 6900XT buyer starting to lower settings in all games.
Posted on Reply
#15
Valantar
TomorrowWell i have bad eyesight but only when it comes to distant text. Near is good and using 27" 1440p i have to manually increase text size on many sites for example. 32" 4K would problably unusable for me. And using scaling kind of defeats the purpose of owning a 4K screen. That would be like a 3090 or 6900XT buyer starting to lower settings in all games.
I can understand the former points, but you're wrong on the one about scaling: 4k with scaling equivalent to 1440p will render text sharper than 1440p at the same screen size. Why? Because there are more physical pixels present, so the shapes of the text can have more detail. It's that simple. Windows scaling is really good for those types of use cases, especially with properly tuned ClearType font rendering. Remember, fonts are vector shapes, they're built to scale, and will thus render sharply at any scaling level as long as the application isn't breaking something. It will look blurry and bad in very old applications (though most of those instead default to not scaling at all, and you can tune scaling behaviour in compatibility options if you want), but in any modern application 4k with scaling will look better than native 1440p.
Posted on Reply
#16
Tomorrow
Windows scaling does nothing to websites where i have to manually zoom in. And compared to MacOS or Linux scaling it's still bad overall.
What really annoys me actually are the color filters. Like blue light filter for example. I get why it exists but it's also stupid in the sense that everyone tries to produce accurate colors only to smear it with a filter (even if it's for a good cause) that ruins the colors.
Posted on Reply
#17
Valantar
TomorrowWindows scaling does nothing to websites where i have to manually zoom in. And compared to MacOS or Linux scaling it's still bad overall.
What really annoys me actually are the color filters. Like blue light filter for example. I get why it exists but it's also stupid in the sense that everyone tries to produce accurate colors only to smear it with a filter (even if it's for a good cause) that ruins the colors.
Well, thankfully low blue light modes are optional. Good calibration isn't IMO, but sadly that's a premium feature with little end-users can do to affect it (greyscale calibration can only do so much after all, and only hyper expensive pro monitors support hardware calibration or LUTs).

If Windows scaling doesn't help you in terms of web site rendering, either your browser is doing something odd or the websites are designed with smaller font sizes than most native apps - which isn't uncommon. I often find myself zooming sites to 110-120% despite my 1440p panel running without scaling and that never being an issue. Scaling will change everything equally, so if a site is set with a small font size, you'll obviously still need to zoom it further than what would be comfortable for desktop apps. You're entirely right that Windows scaling is worse than both MacOS and Linux (though the former comes with some reservations - there are situations where MacOS Scaling is significantly worse than Windows scaling), but it's much better today than a few years ago. The bigger problem IMO is that Windows still isn't color aware, which is a crying shame. But none of this changes the fact that even in Windows, a 4k 32" display at 150% scaling will look sharper in the vast majority of use cases than a 1440p 32" display at 100% scaling.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Copyright © 2004-2021 www.techpowerup.com. All rights reserved.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners.