Samsung CRG9 - awesome monitor, totally ignored so far

[mikegray]

Since no one else seems to be giving this thing the hype it deserves, I'll just throw a post out and see if I can generate a little interest - maybe even get a comment tomorrow from Linus and the lads:

 

As best I can tell, this monitor is only out in Europe, Asia and Africa. Since it hasn't been been officially released in North America, the major tech reviewers don't even seem to be aware that it exists - although almost all of them DID comment on it back in January when Samsung first showed a preview. Anyway, it's been out for a good month now here in Switzerland - I just ordered a returned unit at a sweet discount from the Swiss online company digitec.ch.  

 

Availability

• digitec.ch is where I ordered my unit. (BTW, that's a HIGH price for the Swiss market. I got mine from them because a return unit popped up with a discount.)
• If you're in Europe (including UK and Switzerland), the monitor is easy to find and price shop. I don't know much about the Asian and African markets.
• US folks on reddit have often gotten theirs from B&H.

Here are some reviews:

• Currently, searching "ultrawidemasterrace" subreddit for crg9 is your best bet!
• This UK dude on youtube did I nice job
• This other guy gives a lot of actually relevant information, even if his video isn't super-cool

I haven't got mine yet - but here are the factors I took into account in making the purchase:

 

Basically, it is one hell of a display - at a remarkably good price, considering that it's the ONLY monitor currently able to do what it does: 

• 1440p over 49". I.e., super-ultra-wide, like two QHD monitor side-by-side, only no bezel. That alone puts it in a VERY small class. (Linus did a review of Dell and LG units that offer 1440p 49" screens - but, while their's are only a little cheaper than the crg9, they can't tick the following boxes.)
• HDR10 - i.e., the real thing, with sustained brightness at 600 nits, peak brightness at 1000 nits. None of that hdr 400 nonsense
• up to 10 bit color
• up to 120 hz - more if you overclock. (NOTE: NO official 144 hz. And reddit folks have had mixed OC experience)
• Freesync 2
• G-Sync compatibility established, so far no problems or glitches reported at reddit ultrawide
• VA, QLED, edge-based local dimming, 4ms response time, 1800R. 

Here are the drawbacks I'm aware of so far: 

• It isn't specced for HDMI 2.1 - which means your best possible connection is DP 1.4. Consequence: You're not going to get uncompressed 10 bit color at 120 hz. EITHER you keep 120 hz and compress the colors OR you reduce to 8 bit at 120 hz OR you use compressed 10 bit colors at 120 hz (which can work for games or media stuff but is not good for text). This is not so much a limitation of the monitor per se as a limitation of DP 1.4's bandwidth. I REALLY wish they'd added HDMI 2.1, though - or at least found a way to guarantee a firmware update. Also: AFAIK, even a super-high end monitor like the Predator x27 has to deal with the same trade-offs.
• It has edge-based dimming, not FALD. (Which would be required for G-Sync certification, I believe.) It's hard to get specifics about the crg9's local dimming, but I get the impression that it only has, like, 7-10 horizontal zones and no vertical ones. Basically, not much more than nothing. OTOH, reviewers SO FAR have said that they're very happy with the contrast and aren't seeing halos and glow. But this is specifically the kind of thing I'd like to see professional tech reviewers weigh in on. VA + QLED probably help here.
• It's VA - not necessarily a drawback, but also not everyone's cup of tea. I'd say the 1800R curvature should offset issues with VA-related viewing-angle - but however big it is, this monitor is meant to be used a "one-seater."
• 5.120 x 1.440 is a WHOLE lot of pixels - so have realistic expectations. OTOH, that's actually less than 4k ...

 

EDIT

 

Something I should have added to the positives/negatives section:

POSITIVE:

• This monitor offers PBP - i.e., picture by picture. Which means you can attach two different sources and give each one its own half of the screen. OR - I THINK - you can make Windows recognize the screen as two separate QHD monitors instead of a single, big one.

NEGATIVES: When you use Samsung's PBP functin, you lose somethings: To the best of my knowledge, you lose basically all the good gaming settings. To wit:

• max 60 hz
• no freesync
• Also you have some other limitations:
  • max. two "virtual screens" - you can't create three or four
  • you can't put a PBP screen in the middle of the monitor.
  • No built in KVM switching to use one keyboard/mouse with two different sources - If you want KVM you'll need to get a separate one.

More about these pros and cons from this guy on youtube.

 

NOTE: Tell me in the comments, and I'll be happy to update and correct this information.

[duncannah]

39 minutes ago, mikegray said:

1440p

not worth it

[mikegray]

10 minutes ago, duncannah said:

not worth it

Because it's too much or because it's too little?

 

In terms of PPI, we're talking about what you'd have on a typical 27" QHD screen. Personally, I'd actually like a little more sharpness on text - but since I'm a gamer, too, I'd say it's a reasonable compromise between PPI and GPU-ability. (And even that requires a high end GPU.)

[schwellmo92]

I have honestly never understood ultrawides, and especially not for that price. Just buy two monitors and put them side by side?

[WereCat]

9 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

I have honestly never understood ultrawides, and especially not for that price. Just buy two monitors and put them side by side?

This is literally two monitors in one... without two bezels in the middle 

[TomvanWijnen]

7 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

I have honestly never understood ultrawides, and especially not for that price. Just buy two monitors and put them side by side?

Some people like bezels between their tasks (for example, me, who has 4 monitors), while others prefer not having any bezels between their tasks and/or like gaming in ultrawide (that seems awesome to me, I have to admit... though I can do surround (but my GPU doesn't have enough VRAM, unfortunately...), which is cool as well). This does really sound like a great monitor for those who fall in the second category, and also happen to possess a fair amount of money they're willing part with.

[LAwLz]

I've had it for ~3 weeks now.

It's a fantastic monitor, but not worth the price.

 

Spoiler

 

 

3 hours ago, schwellmo92 said:

I have honestly never understood ultrawides, and especially not for that price. Just buy two monitors and put them side by side?

This is what I would recommend as well.

For gaming, and editing I would understand wanting a really wide monitor, but for most other things I think having multiple monitors is a lot easier.

I can never fullscreen a program ever again.

[mikegray]

11 minutes ago, TomvanWijnen said:

Some people like bezels between their tasks (for example, me, who has 4 monitors), while others prefer not having any bezels between their tasks and/or like gaming in ultrawide (that seems awesome to me, I have to admit... though I can do surround (but my GPU doesn't have enough VRAM, unfortunately...), which is cool as well). This does really sound like a great monitor for those who fall in the second category, and also happen to possess a fair amount of money they're willing part with.

Yup. It's expensive. I might mention that this screen does, imho, bring a lot to the table for the price. I might also mention that I've been rocking my current Dell u2711 (27", QHD) for almost 10 years now and dreaming of a replacement for the last 2-3 years. But that doesn't change the facts: The sort of problems this screen solves are VERY first world problems!

[Master Disaster]

Why is this tech news?

[mikegray]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Why is this tech news?

 

My thinking: This release SHOULD have been in the news - only it hasn't been, at all. I'm trying to get it there.

 

No intention of abusing the new/reviews section - if I have, mods should feel free to move this thread to the displays sections.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, mikegray said:

 

My thinking: This release SHOULD have been in the news - only it hasn't been, at all. I'm trying to get it there.

 

No intention of abusing the new/reviews section - if I have, mods should feel free to move this thread to the displays sections.

I totally understand your intentions were honest.

[Sharp_3yE]

1 hour ago, schwellmo92 said:

I have honestly never understood ultrawides, and especially not for that price. Just buy two monitors and put them side by side?

Why would you buy two monitors and put them side by side when you can buy one monitor and NOT have a bezel? One continuous screen. 

[mikegray]

13 minutes ago, TheCMan said:

Why would you buy two monitors and put them side by side when you can buy one monitor and NOT have a bezel? One continuous screen. 

Devil's advocate here, since I just bought the thing - but: if you have two separate screens, you can snap windows more easily. Also, you can run a game in fullscreen in one (with all the gaming settings on - like adaptive sync) while the other is in s standard mode - with chrome or whatever else running. Also: I'm pretty sure you can get a single QHD screen with all these characteristics for less than $750.

[Sharp_3yE]

6 minutes ago, mikegray said:

Devil's advocate here, since I just bought the thing - but: if you have two separate screens, you can snap windows more easily. Also, you can run a game in fullscreen in one (with all the gaming settings on - like adaptive sync) while the other is in s standard mode - with chrome or whatever else running. Also: I'm pretty sure you can get a single QHD screen with all these characteristics for less than $750.

But, that's not the same capabilities. Ultra Wide is for 2 things. Plenty of windows apps. One continues screen for something like gaming. 2 monitors is def used for other scenarios like having something full screen while having other apps. 

 

My personal preference that I will have someday. 1 Ultrawide monitor as my main monitor. 1. Touchscreen monitor for a second screen probably on an adjustable arm where I can have easy access to it. 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, mikegray said:

I'm pretty sure you can get a single QHD screen with all these characteristics for less than $750. 

If you don't care about DisplayHDR1000 then it's easy to find.

If you do care about it then it's very difficult to find anything comparable.

 

 

But with that being said, I am really disappointed by how Windows handles HDR so I don't even have it enabled.

[mikegray]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I've had it for ~3 weeks now.

It's a fantastic monitor, but not worth the price.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

This is what I would recommend as well.

For gaming, and editing I would understand wanting a really wide monitor, but for most other things I think having multiple monitors is a lot easier.

I can never fullscreen a program ever again.

Hey - did you steal my mouse AND my old keyboard AND my future monitor? (Nice setup!)

[xboxonthego3]

Amazon has had it for sale a times but it sells out quickly. And i'm not talking third party seller actually amazon.com.

 

Also seen it available straight from Samsung once. 

 

I've only seen it available for Pre-order from BH video.

 

Newegg has/had it on backorder.

 

So you can get it here in the US from a few places. But they don't appear to be getting enough QTY to keep available to sell for very long.

 

Which is frustrating. After my research this is the monitor I want. But I sadly finally made that decision after seeing it on sell at a few places...… which they no longer have available. 

Heck I got an email just this morning from Amazon about it being available again at 4am. Woke up at 7am to see they didn't have any stock left again. They really need to make this more available than it is. I'm ready to purchase this. 

[mikegray]

3 hours ago, xboxonthego3 said:

Amazon has had it for sale a times but it sells out quickly. And i'm not talking third party seller actually amazon.com.

 

Also seen it available straight from Samsung once. 

 

I've only seen it available for Pre-order from BH video.

 

Newegg has/had it on backorder.

 

So you can get it here in the US from a few places. But they don't appear to be getting enough QTY to keep available to sell for very long.

 

Which is frustrating. After my research this is the monitor I want. But I sadly finally made that decision after seeing it on sell at a few places...… which they no longer have available. 

Heck I got an email just this morning from Amazon about it being available again at 4am. Woke up at 7am to see they didn't have any stock left again. They really need to make this more available than it is. I'm ready to purchase this. 

If you want to come visit me in Switzerland, you can take one home with you in your ... umm ... hand luggage?

 

P.S. From what I've seen following related threads on reddit, BH has had it in stock a few times, but it sells out super fast - same thing with Samsung 's site. I appreciate that Samsung has prioritized my market, but I do wonder what drives their decision making.

[xboxonthego3]

2 minutes ago, mikegray said:

If you want to come visit me in Switzerland, you can take one home with you in your ... umm ... hand luggage?

If you want to pay for the airfare! LMAO. 

 

This isn't considering any kind of customs fees I need to account for because this thing is $1500. Lol. 

[Kemox]

Just ordered it from Amazon.it, can't wait :).

Also planning to pair it with the new 2080ti super (if it will ever exist).

I really would have liked a LTT review.

[xg32]

TLDR, no way it's true hdr10. , only worth it if you are already looking for a monitor of that size. Not the best in either gaming (hardware limitations) or hdr content (92% RGB, not WCG), and for 1499 it needs to excel at something.

 

I just did some research on this monitor, it's closer to a hdr600 spec, there's no way it actually does hdr10 and it doesn't have WCG, so likely washed out colors even with hdr on (only 92% RGB coverage). So with that established, the resolution and the rest of the specs effectively makes it possibly like 2 of those 1440p/144hz monitors (the samsung one is admitted better than those in image quality), worth about 600dollars a piece atm, so 1499 isn't horrible if it's the exact specs you are looking for. 

 

This monitor falls into a weird category, since it offers better image quality than existing 1440p/144hz monitors, but also requires the additional hardware horsepower to run 5120x1440 @120hz (probably can't really use this as a gaming monitor for AAA games), for hdr content it isn't the best either, but it does offer a 49inch screen. Otherwise I think the PG27UQ dropping to 1499 soon is a better deal, for both gaming and hdr content (1649 atm).

[mikegray]

1 hour ago, xg32 said:

I just did some research on this monitor, it's closer to a hdr600 spec, there's no way it actually does hdr10 and it doesn't have WCG, so likely washed out colors even with hdr on (only 92% RGB coverage). So with that established, the resolution and the rest of the specs effectively makes it possibly like 2 of those 1440p/144hz monitors (the samsung one is admitted better than those in image quality), worth about 600dollars a piece atm, so 1499 isn't horrible if it's the exact specs you are looking for. 

I'm hardly an expert on this stuff, so PLEASE feel free to correct me. But at least on brightness (HDR600 vs. HDR10): From what I've gathered so far, the monitor PEAKS at 1000 nits, but sustains at 600 - and that, apparently, is the criterion it needs to meet for HDR10 certification.

 

Again - that's my knowledge to date!

[xg32]

15 minutes ago, mikegray said:

I'm hardly an expert on this stuff, so PLEASE feel free to correct me. But at least on brightness (HDR600 vs. HDR10): From what I've gathered so far, the monitor PEAKS at 1000 nits, but sustains at 600 - and that, apparently, is the criterion it needs to meet for HDR10 certification.

 

Again - that's my knowledge to date!

if that's the criteria of hdr10, then it is frankly too loose, the first hdr10 monitors from last year dell 2718up, x27, pg27uq all have better color coverage,  (92% RGB is way too low to be charging 1500usd for, and at that point it doesn't matter if it's hdr10 (the colors will look a bit off). Samsung is known for better marketing, that's how they are slaughtering LG with QLED vs OLED in the TV space, despite oled looking ALOT better (OLED's gonna die soon). Samsung in general does a very good job at marketing a worse product and overpricing it. Again, the monitor's only selling point i'd consider at 1500usd is a 49inch gaming monitor that has above average colors for content, if that's what you are looking for, then it's decent, but it's by no means a good deal.

 

HDR10 should really require a monitor to have 1000 nits peak + 99%~+ RGB coverage, <1 delta E, and a 12 or 14bit LUT, but it's really a failure of marketing by the other brands.

[xboxonthego3]

2 hours ago, xg32 said:

TLDR, no way it's true hdr10. , only worth it if you are already looking for a monitor of that size. Not the best in either gaming (hardware limitations) or hdr content (92% RGB, not WCG), and for 1499 it needs to excel at something.

 

I just did some research on this monitor, it's closer to a hdr600 spec, there's no way it actually does hdr10 and it doesn't have WCG, so likely washed out colors even with hdr on (only 92% RGB coverage). So with that established, the resolution and the rest of the specs effectively makes it possibly like 2 of those 1440p/144hz monitors (the samsung one is admitted better than those in image quality), worth about 600dollars a piece atm, so 1499 isn't horrible if it's the exact specs you are looking for. 

 

This monitor falls into a weird category, since it offers better image quality than existing 1440p/144hz monitors, but also requires the additional hardware horsepower to run 5120x1440 @120hz (probably can't really use this as a gaming monitor for AAA games), for hdr content it isn't the best either, but it does offer a 49inch screen. Otherwise I think the PG27UQ dropping to 1499 soon is a better deal, for both gaming and hdr content (1649 atm).

 

Here's VESA's site. It shows certified monitors at different HDR levels and how they are rated. 

 

https://displayhdr.org/certified-products/

 

I see the term HDR10 used. But then see HDR400, HDR600, HDR1000. I'm no expert either. But their site does list this monitor has certified for HDR1000. 

 

EDIT: Not finding good info for HDR10 requirements. From the looks of it VESA just gave us different levels of HDR that play HDR10 content. But I cannot find any hard requirements for HDR10. The 2 set of standards are talked about briefly in this article. https://www.anandtech.com/show/12144/vesa-announces-displayhdr-spec-and-tiers

 

If anyone one can find HDR10 specs/requirements from a legitimate source I would be interested. But as far as I can tell VESA's standards will play HDR10 content. 

[LAwLz]

On 6/15/2019 at 6:49 PM, xg32 said:

TLDR, no way it's true hdr10.

On 6/15/2019 at 8:09 PM, mikegray said:

I'm hardly an expert on this stuff, so PLEASE feel free to correct me. But at least on brightness (HDR600 vs. HDR10): From what I've gathered so far, the monitor PEAKS at 1000 nits, but sustains at 600 - and that, apparently, is the criterion it needs to meet for HDR10 certification. 

On 6/15/2019 at 9:19 PM, xboxonthego3 said:

If anyone one can find HDR10 specs/requirements from a legitimate source I would be interested. But as far as I can tell VESA's standards will play HDR10 content.  

 

The VESA standard is called DisplayHDR, not just HDR.

DisplayHDR has three different levels. 400, 600 and 1000.

 

HDR10 is an open standard for HDR content. It defines what color space the video should be in (Rec. 2020), the bit depth (10 bits) and the EOTF (SMPTE ST 2084 PQ).

 

 

DIsplayHDR is a standard for hardware which means the display is of a certain quality and has certain capabilities.

 

HDR10 is a standard for how HDR content is packaged, and a HDR10 monitor supports and understands those formats. For example in HDR content which uses EOTF it will tell the display "produce this color at 400 nits of brightness" while if we used the regular gamma standard it would tell the display "produce 50% of your max brightness" (which in this case would be 500 nits, but on another monitor it might be 200 hits).

 

 

Yes, this monitor is a HDR10 monitor because it supports and understand all those formats defined in the HDR10 standard.

 

Yes, this monitor is a DisplayHDR1000 monitor because it supports all the things specified in the VESA standard as well.

 

 

 

 

On 6/15/2019 at 6:49 PM, xg32 said:

Not the best in either gaming (hardware limitations) or hdr content (92% RGB, not WCG)

Dude... What? I think you're using words you don't understand.

RGB and WCG are two different things. RGB is a collection of different color spaces which uses red, greed and blue, including things like sRGB, Adobe RGB, Adobe Wide Gamut RGB, ProPhoto RGB, etc, etc...

WCG is just a generic term for "wide color gamut", which this monitor has because it has 95% coverage of the DCI-P3 gamut.

The 92% coverage is for AdobeRGB, which is a wide color gamut used for printing.

The standard color gamut used by computers is called sRGB. Most monitors can't even fully reproduce that color space, but this monitor has a 125% coverage of it.

 

On 6/15/2019 at 6:49 PM, xg32 said:

I just did some research on this monitor, it's closer to a hdr600 spec

No it isn't. It's within all the criteria necessary for DisplayHDR1000 certification. It's even listed on VESA's website, along with the other 8 monitors which achieved that certification.

 

On 6/15/2019 at 6:49 PM, xg32 said:

there's no way it actually does hdr10

It does.

 

On 6/15/2019 at 6:49 PM, xg32 said:

and it doesn't have WCG

Depends on what your definition of WCG is (since that's just a generic term and not a standard with rigid definitions). I'd say 95% DCI-P3 coverage is WCG.

 

On 6/15/2019 at 6:49 PM, xg32 said:

so likely washed out colors even with hdr on (only 92% RGB coverage)

Again, it has 95% DCI-P3 coverage. What you're talking about is AdobeRGB, which is far wider than sRGB (which this monitor has 125% coverage of).

AdobeRGB is a color space meant to include most of the colors printable by a CMYK printer, but mapped to RGB colors.

92% sRGB coverage would have been really meh.

92% AdobeRGB coverage is really impressive.

 

Here is a picture showing AdobeRGB, DCI-P3 and sRGB against each other.