Samsung to release 21:9 34" 100hz HDR Freesync monitor *UPDATE*

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, Notional said:

And how do you think the laptop market look? People upgrade their pc's far more than their tv's.

well apple seems to source most from samsung and sharp. So count macs out.

 

And i dunno for Acer (which is biggest laptop seller of all). Prob whichever is cheapest.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

well apple seems to source most from samsung and sharp. So count macs out.

 

And i dunno for Acer (which is biggest laptop seller of all). Prob whichever is cheapest.

All IPS panels are LG. But I guess they count mobile panels too. I think Samsung pretty much only makes OLED's for mobile now (good riddance). Acer and Asus seems to focus on LG only, but these things can always change at any time/for any model, so it's not necessarily one brand = one panel supplier.

[vanished]

17 minutes ago, Prysin said:

RAM is made by 4-5 big manufacturers.

 

Micron, Samsung, SK Hynix, Elpida and one more i cannot remember.

Most RAM makers doesnt make the chips.

 

Crucial = "Microns house brand"

KLEVV = SK Hynix's "house brand"

Kingston source both Samsung and Hynix.

Corsair i dont know.

G.Skill uses Hynix and Samsung. Mostly Hynix.

Team uses whatever.

 

 

As for SSD FLASH and controllers. its made by 4-5 companies

Samsung

Sandisk

Toshiba

Intel/Micron

 

Everyone else uses Flash and controllers from these sources

 

 

Hm I really thought corsair did their own.  Well whatever I was right about the SSD thing though.  Samsung makes the chips and are the most popular (for a reason).  It would make sense that for any product, making it yourself is going to be better than buying it from another company and rebranding it, since that other company could just sell it themselves at a lower cost.

[Prysin]

9 minutes ago, Notional said:

All IPS panels are LG. But I guess they count mobile panels too. I think Samsung pretty much only makes OLED's for mobile now (good riddance). Acer and Asus seems to focus on LG only, but these things can always change at any time/for any model, so it's not necessarily one brand = one panel supplier.

i bet samsung laptops uses samsung flash, samsung memory and samsung LCD panels.

I could be wrong though.

[Prysin]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Hm I really thought corsair did their own.  Well whatever I was right about the SSD thing though.  Samsung makes the chips and are the most popular (for a reason).  It would make sense that for any product, making it yourself is going to be better than buying it from another company and rebranding it, since that other company could just sell it themselves at a lower cost.

the majority of other brands uses Sandforce controllers with Toshiba flash.

Intel uses Intel-Micron Flash.

[jubair194]

Yasssss

Bring it on

[BingoFishy]

iirc LFC can triple/quadrouple frames

[kaylexmorgana]

Not like i'll be getting 100fps on it anyway. nty I like my ultra wideS

[sadtaco]

So how does this compare to the acer predetor x34?

 

100hz instead of 75hz, 25% wider color gamut, and 10bpc instead of 8bpc?

 

I've been thinking of a new monitor, but it's hard to decide on what to get. I have an HP ZR24w right now. I want something roughly the same height but wider I guess, at least 100 ppi, and at least 1440 vertical pixels.

But I worry that 3440x1440 is going to be a lot harder to run in games at 100fps than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 even.

[Sky Daddy]

good thing i held off from buying other monitors lol

[ThreePinkApples]

4 hours ago, sadtaco said:

So how does this compare to the acer predetor x34?

 

100hz instead of 75hz, 25% wider color gamut, and 10bpc instead of 8bpc?

 

I've been thinking of a new monitor, but it's hard to decide on what to get. I have an HP ZR24w right now. I want something roughly the same height but wider I guess, at least 100 ppi, and at least 1440 vertical pixels.

But I worry that 3440x1440 is going to be a lot harder to run in games at 100fps than 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 even.

Just note that this monitor does not have HDR, that's just a missunderstanding from earlier this year that is still being reported someplaces. 

[sadtaco]

20 hours ago, aerandir92 said:

Just note that this monitor does not have HDR, that's just a missunderstanding from earlier this year that is still being reported someplaces. 

So it has 10bpc input, 125% of sRGB, but it's not actually HDR?

 

Or it doesn't even have 10bpc RGB?  That sucks if true... I'd really like to have an ultrawide, 100hz, 1440p monitor with around 100% of Adobe RGB support, that's at least slightly better than my HP ZR24w for gaming still.

 

It's also weird that the press release on this was from so many months ago an still nothing.

 

I think I'll probably just end up getting a 2560x1440 27" 16:9 monitor

[BuckGup]

At a low price of $999

[sadtaco]

$999 would be perfectly fine for a 1440p ultrawide, near 100% of Adobe RGB color gamut, 100hz freesync, assuming the black levels are also good and it doesn't have that backlight halo that curved IPS have and the response time is also decent.

[Notional]

2 hours ago, sadtaco said:

So it has 10bpc input, 125% of sRGB, but it's not actually HDR?

 

Or it doesn't even have 10bpc RGB?  That sucks if true... I'd really like to have an ultrawide, 100hz, 1440p monitor with around 100% of Adobe RGB support, that's at least slightly better than my HP ZR24w for gaming still.

 

It's also weird that the press release on this was from so many months ago an still nothing.

 

I think I'll probably just end up getting a 2560x1440 27" 16:9 monitor

Not sure if it has 10bit colour, although it would be odd if it didn't (or 12/14bit). Problem is that HDR also needs a very high lumen, and thus a very high contrast ratio. 3000:1 native is very high, but it might not be bright enough. Honestly it's all very odd considering Samsung makes SUHD HDR tv's. So why not use the same panel type for this?

[vanished]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

Not sure if it has 10bit colour, although it would be odd if it didn't (or 12/14bit). Problem is that HDR also needs a very high lumen, and thus a very high contrast ratio. 3000:1 native is very high, but it might not be bright enough. Honestly it's all very odd considering Samsung makes SUHD HDR tv's. So why not use the same panel type for this?

3000:1 isn't anything special really.  Most displays are around 1000:1.  Mine is 3000:1, and it's nothing fancy (it was $130 CAD so...) and I've even heard of one that's 5000:1 (but I haven't seen a product page to prove this).  I would imagine that to do HDR well you'd want values in the tens of thousands to 1 at least.   But then again, I'm just guessing here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[2FA]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

3000:1 isn't anything special really.  Most displays are around 1000:1.  Mine is 3000:1, and it's nothing fancy (it was $130 CAD so...) and I've even heard of one that's 5000:1 (but I haven't seen a product page to prove this).  I would imagine that to do HDR well you'd want values in the tens of thousands to 1 at least.   But then again, I'm just guessing here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You know this topic is from July right? Did it come back from the dead to be a zombie for Halloween?

[vanished]

Just now, DeadEyePsycho said:

You know this topic is from July right? Did it come back from the dead to be a zombie for Halloween?

Yeah I thought it seemed old... looks like @sadtaco is our resident necromancer du jour

[sadtaco]

2 hours ago, Notional said:

Not sure if it has 10bit colour, although it would be odd if it didn't (or 12/14bit). Problem is that HDR also needs a very high lumen, and thus a very high contrast ratio. 3000:1 native is very high, but it might not be bright enough. Honestly it's all very odd considering Samsung makes SUHD HDR tv's. So why not use the same panel type for this?

Ah.  Well I'm not concerned with brightness. > 200cd/m^2 is fine.  Just having more than 8bpc and a wide color gamut is fine.

 

I don't really see the benefit of a wider brightness range.  How would brightness even be determined?  RGB8 and RGB10 are still just color outputs, not brightness outputs.  You can't assume that a value of 1000 for green is supposed to be super bright. It's just supposed to be a very deep green near the corner of the gamut.

 

3000:1 is actually what my HP ZR24w has but the blacks aren't especially dark.  Lots of 10,000:1 displays have poor image quality, too.

 

At the moment, I think manufacturers are simply calling monitors HDR when they have more than 8bpc of input and display.  And then these vary, sometimes you still see lines in gradients with HDR10(10bpc), especially with grey and green. Often they don't support more than ~100% of sRGB, either, though that's what I would want as well.

I have not seen or heard of anything that does more of a true to life HDR with a range of brightness. That simply can't work without a different color format than RGB, from what I figure.

 

1 hour ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

You know this topic is from July right? Did it come back from the dead to be a zombie for Halloween?

Yeah.  I was looking through monitors and didn't find much on this one besides this topic. It's been a while since it was announced, and I don't see much on it.

[Notional]

1 hour ago, sadtaco said:

Ah.  Well I'm not concerned with brightness. > 200cd/m^2 is fine.  Just having more than 8bpc and a wide color gamut is fine.

 

I don't really see the benefit of a wider brightness range.  How would brightness even be determined?  RGB8 and RGB10 are still just color outputs, not brightness outputs.  You can't assume that a value of 1000 for green is supposed to be super bright. It's just supposed to be a very deep green near the corner of the gamut.

 

3000:1 is actually what my HP ZR24w has but the blacks aren't especially dark.  Lots of 10,000:1 displays have poor image quality, too.

 

At the moment, I think manufacturers are simply calling monitors HDR when they have more than 8bpc of input and display.  And then these vary, sometimes you still see lines in gradients with HDR10(10bpc), especially with grey and green. Often they don't support more than ~100% of sRGB, either, though that's what I would want as well.

I have not seen or heard of anything that does more of a true to life HDR with a range of brightness. That simply can't work without a different color format than RGB, from what I figure.

 

Yeah.  I was looking through monitors and didn't find much on this one besides this topic. It's been a while since it was announced, and I don't see much on it.

10000:1 is dynamic contrast ratio, this monitor uses a fixed ratio. The only panel, that can be near is OLED, which is essentially infinite contrast ratio, due to absolute black.

 

Most Samsung SUDH (HDR) tv's uses 12 to 14 bit colour afaik. To be HDR you need a wide colour gamut (93% of DCI3 min), which also means a high bitrate. The brightness (nits) needs a high number too, but seems to be more lenient. 

 

Samsung doesn't call this monitor an HDR monitor (yet). So it seems there are no HDR monitors on the market at all. I don't understand why TV's are now better than the monitors you make content on.

[ThreePinkApples]

6 hours ago, sadtaco said:

So it has 10bpc input, 125% of sRGB, but it's not actually HDR?

 

Or it doesn't even have 10bpc RGB?  That sucks if true... I'd really like to have an ultrawide, 100hz, 1440p monitor with around 100% of Adobe RGB support, that's at least slightly better than my HP ZR24w for gaming still.

 

It's also weird that the press release on this was from so many months ago an still nothing.

 

I think I'll probably just end up getting a 2560x1440 27" 16:9 monitor

It's not HDR as in it doesn't support the HDR signals. HDR in it self is just the display being able to tackle a brightness range of more than 100 nits (HDR premium defines it to need to handle a range of at least 0.05 nits to 1000 nits). 
This monitors does have good contrast, and it has good colour, but the peak brightness is 300, far from the 1000 specced in HDR premium. 

So to make it simple: HDR Premium defines minimum static contrast of 20 000 : 1 (if it is correct to calculate it by dividing peak lumen to min lumen)
This monitor has 3000 : 1

I think the monitor is 10bpc though, so that's nice. 
We was "promised" HDR monitors by the end of the year, so I hope they show up soon..

[Notional]

Updated post with new official specs and release from Samsung.

[MrDynamicMan]

On 12/07/2016 at 3:06 AM, TheAmazingCookieFromSquare said:

*cough cough* acer predetor x34 *cough cough*

 

There aren't too many companies that make ultra wide..

Lemme list them all and tell me if I missed one 

 

Asus

Dell

Acer

Samsung

LG

 

AOC

[VerticalDiscussions]

Yeah well, its just not good enough it would seem :p. Usually Samsung and LG charge way too much for theyr displays, same goes for Acer and Asus. Displays are too expensive nowadays, costing more than a Titan XP for a pleasant experience. Come on people, get real .-.

[Notional]

Just now, VerticalDiscussions said:

Yeah well, its just not good enough it would seem :p. Usually Samsung and LG charge way too much for theyr displays, same goes for Acer and Asus. Displays are too expensive nowadays, costing more than a Titan XP for a pleasant experience. Come on people, get real .-.

Yeah, especially with these ultrawide displays, the pricing has just skyrocketed. Considering they are just standard displays at that, it seems unreasonable. I thought this monitor would be a huge leap in the right direction, with HDR, but it seems to be a dud. And I don't understand why, since Samsung has everything they need.