Comments Locked

50 Comments

Back to Article

  • jjj - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Would rather see 21:9 2160p but Samsung chooses this AR and low res for financial reasons- cheap to produce, easy to charge a premium.
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Also easier for more people to realistically use. Glad to see them push 144Hz instead of only 60Hz.
  • Xajel - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    I've talking for years now about such panel, but no manufacturer seems interested. no need for Curved panel, but focus on color quality like HDR10, DCI.. and features like minimum 100Hz, FreeSync 2... and please please please.. Type-C port and built in USB 3.1 Gen. 2 hub.
  • Solandri - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Um, this is exactly what gamers are doing when they run two 1920x1080 monitors side-by-side. Except Samsung's new offering will not have bezels in the middle (right in the center of your field of view), and come with with a nice natural curvature instead of two flat panels at an angle. Making it 144 Hz just screams that this is the market segment they're targeting.

    If they made this aspect ration 2160p, it'd be 7680x2160. Good luck finding a display cable which can drive that at 144 Hz, much less a video card.
  • Xajel - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    We're not talking about 2160p at that aspect ratio, we're talking about regular Ultrawide 21:9 2160p

    So Width will be almost 5K res. ( 5040... 5K is 5120 ). The benefit for such resolution and ratio is having an ultrawide screen while still enjoying full 4K resolution without scaling it down ( like in 21:9 1440p )
  • Kevin G - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    With DSC, 7680 x 2160 could be driven at 120 Hz over DP 1.4 via a single cable. The recent cards from nVidia (Pascal) and AMD (Polaris) should all be able to handle this using DP.
  • CharonPDX - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    Agreed. I want 2160p extra wide, not double-wide 1080p. Give me curved 5K x 2160p.
  • Kevin G - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    I thought I heard of an announcement about a 5120 x 2160 resolution panel going into production later this year.

    They're probably not that far off.
  • BurntMyBacon - Monday, April 10, 2017 - link

    Wait. Why is this considered 29:9. Shouldn't this be considered 32:10 or 16:5?
    3840 / 1200 = 3.2
    32 / 10 = 3.2
    16 / 5 = 3.2
    29 / 9 = 3.2222

    Am I missing something?
  • valinor89 - Monday, April 10, 2017 - link

    I guess they want to make it easyer to compare to 16:9 even if it is not entirely correct.
  • BrokenCrayons - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    "...but given our discussions with monitor manufacturers, there seems to be no 16:10 demand from consumers."

    I think monitor manufacturers aren't seeing consumer demand becuase they aren't selling 16:10 products which means if there is any demand it can't be met anyhow so we're all resigned to using 16:9 or whatever else is available. Then again, that's just from the perspective of someone that prefers 16:10 or 4:3 screens so its probably skewed by personal bias.
  • Valantar - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    After I got a 27" monitor, I stopped caring about desktop monitor height, even if ~half of its area is wasted outside of gaming and videos. Both physical height and the 1440 on-screen pixels is plenty for me.

    On laptops, on the other hand, I'd like to see an industry-wide move to 3:2 or 4:3 displays. 16:9 on displays in that size range just doesn't make sense. I mean, my 5.7" phone gives me something like 4/5 of the display height of my 12" laptop - and that's a 16:10 laptop. Of course the narrowness of the phone makes it unusable for actual work, but why limit the laptop to barely displaying more lines of text than the phone to begin with? I get that vertically oriented displays are awful to use (for the most part), but overly horizontally oriented ones just don't make sense for doing actual work ... There's a reason why paper sizes have landed on roughly 3:2 size ratios.
  • quielo - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    For doing real work having numerous documents side-by-side would be very useful.
  • rascalion - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    I've been using 3 Dell Ultrasharp 16:10 displays for the last 5 years. I personally prefer the extra height over the 16:9 displays. I just retired them in favor of a single 21:9 display. I would have preferred a 21:10 display if such a thing existed.
  • Biernot - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    There is no (or should not be) demand for 16:10 1200p monitors anymore.

    Back in the days, when 24" 1080p/1200p was the best size a normal consumer could realistically get without paying an arm and a leg for something better (e.g. 1600p 30" apple display), 16:10 made sense. 1080 vertical pixels is just small enough to make you feel a bit cramped during typical everyday use (i'm talking mainly office-related workload like word, excel, programming, etc.). The added 120 pixel from a 1200p screen helped a lot and made the monitor not much more expensive.

    But in the last years, 25-27" 1440p monitors dropped into the previous price range of the 24" 1200p 16:10 monitors and just made them more or less obsolete. I mean, why would you buy a 24" 1200p monitor for (probably) around $250, if you can get an IPS 25" 1440p for only $300?
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00SPWPF1O/
  • DanNeely - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    ... because the obsolescent USB3 docking stations my employer uses top out at single channel DVI and the equivalent HMDI resolution. And to be fair, at USB3.0 speeds running two monitors would need potentially problematic levels of compression if one or both were running at 1440p.
  • BurntMyBacon - Monday, April 10, 2017 - link

    @Biernot: "The added 120 pixel from a 1200p screen helped a lot and made the monitor not much more expensive."

    Perhaps I'm reading too much into what you are saying, but you should know that 16:10 resolutions hit the computer industry before 16:9. First with 1680x1050 in 2003 and gaining in popularity with 1920x1200 until 2008. In 2009, the 16:9 format passed up the 16:10 format. The cited reason is cost. It was cheaper to buy a 1920x1080 display than a 1920x1200. When I was in the market around that time, the price difference was significant ($420 vs $260) for two otherwise similar displays. Manufacturers also brought in a plethora of cheap 1366x768 (considered 16:9) and 1280x720 displays and quickly saturated the market with 16:9 displays.

    The point being, they didn't add 120 pixels to get 1920x1200. They subtracted 120 pixels to get 1920x1080. This wasn't a move based on some conceived notion of the superiority of the aspect ratio. It was entirely a cost cutting exercise. Even the cinema argument made no sense as a great many movies that were released when 16:9 was making this argument were even wider (1.85:1, 2.39:1) and standard definition media was still quite prevalent.

    Fast forward to today and you're correct. It makes more sense to purchase a 27" 2560x1440 monitor than a 24" 1920x1200. That said, I would most certainly prefer a 2560x1600 monitor (assuming that its price was somewhat comparable to the 2560x1440).
  • BurntMyBacon - Monday, April 10, 2017 - link

    Forgot to link my source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10
  • rocky12345 - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Yep 16:10 I find to be better than the 16:9 aspect ratio my projector is 16:10 and it is great for gaming on.
  • Fujikoma - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    I used a 16:10, 24" IPS for 1008P video editing. After purchasing a 49" 4K monitor, I just use the 24" for colour correction and spread everything out on the 49". I may change my mind if I get into 4K editing and just drop the change on a good IPS monitor. 60Hz is all I really need, since my games are all too old for a higher refresh rate to make any difference.
  • ATC9001 - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Can your 49" 4k take a single display port and break it into 4 1920x1080's? Right now I can only find the Dell 43" that does that...and I wanted something slightly larger
  • bubblyboo - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Use Displayfusion
  • BurntMyBacon - Monday, April 10, 2017 - link

    Agreed. Unless you need to drive it from 4 separate sources, you are better off for the moment getting display fusion. Given that you mention using a single display port, it doesn't sound like this is a problem for you.
    https://www.displayfusion.com/Download/
  • edgineer - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Could two 3840x1200@144Hz monitors be driven over a thunderbolt 3 cable? Naively, 3840*1200*8*3*144/1E9 = 15.93 Gb/s but this doesn't consider Vblank or Hblank (or anything else I could be missing). I'd hope so, since ~32 Gb/s < 40Gb/s that TB3 with a PCIe 4x link has. And could it be done WITHOUT display stream compression?
  • ATC9001 - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    I don't think so, from what I read 4K (which is 3840x2160) can only be driven at 60hz from current thunderbolt.
  • DanNeely - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    That's what I've read as well. TB3 has the theoretical bandwidth for at least 4k@120; but the required displayport spec wasn't ready in time so TB3 doesn't support it.
  • Valantar - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Let's see: a 49" 32:9 display would be ~120CM wide. With an 1800R curvature, that's ... less than 1/10 of the full circle (radius of 1800mm = circumference of 11.3M). So, seated 1.8m away from this you'd have a completely undistorted ~36 degree FOV. Four of them side by side would completely cover your vertical field of view. Of course, nobody sits 1.8m away from a PC monitor. Half that is more likely, which means twice the FOV. A 2x2 grid of these would beat the FOV of any VR headset at normal desktop distances. Now to get a GPU setup that can power all of this ...
  • chadwilson - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Seeing as how I only buy 16:10 monitors, I call BS on the no consumer demand. If you don't make 16:10 monitors, then you won't see the demand. I guarantee you Dell's Ultrasharp 16:10 monitors sell very well.
  • zodiacfml - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    I didn't expect such roadmap. All I know is I am impressed with ASUS's flagship (god) monitors that aren't available yet. I'm also not looking forward to OLED in the desktop or wall spaces as there are solutions to provide high gamut and HDR without OLED.
  • nagi603 - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    For readers on the leading-edge of monitor configurations, ultra-wide displays in the 21:9 aspect ratio have been on the radar for about two years. These are monitors that have a 2560x1080 display,

    No. bleeding edge 21:9 is 3440x1440. 2560x1080 is the budget 21:9 category. Please, Ian, check next time!
  • Diji1 - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    Partially correct and Ian is partially correct - well, up until very recently anyhow.

    3440x1440 IPS have been around for about 2 years. But Samsung uses VA panels which until very recently have only been available in 2560x1080.

    VA panels typically have much higher contrast than IPS is capable of which improves the image a great deal so for games the low resolution didn't matter anywhere near as much as it does for desktop use.
  • r3loaded - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    "given our discussions with monitor manufacturers, there seems to be no 16:10 demand from consumers."

    Bull. Shit. No one's buying 16:10 monitors because there's very few 16:10 monitors actually on the market. 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 exist only in expensive Dell UltraSharps and panels for MacBook Pros, and no one's even *tried* a 3840x2400. If they bothered to pull their finger out and actually offered such a model, it would easily sell like hot cakes.
  • prisonerX - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Random ranter on the internet knows best. Keep your day job.
  • grant3 - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    These look like a fantastic product, for someone who wants to replace their 2x monitors with a single display. e.g. office workers

    If today's mid-range graphics cannot run this resolution, then maybe Samsung can simply include 2 display ports, connected with 2 cables, and the computer would treat each half as independent monitors.
  • grant3 - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Such searched and discovered that LG already has a curved monitor with this resolution, priced at ~$1500. Quite expensive for the real estate, but perhaps worth it if the display quality matches $500+ standard resolution monitors.
  • helvete - Thursday, June 15, 2017 - link

    Who the hell would want to invest this amount of money to get the exact same resolution albeit in one piece (for office use)?
  • PVG - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Ity's hard to find demand for 16:10 when there is no offer.
    Manufacturers unilaterally decided that we wanted 16:9 when they switched from 1680x1050 to 1920x1080 and left 1920x1200 confined to the (at the time) much more expensive professional ips niche.
  • prisonerX - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    This is false. Historically there have been 16:10 products, but they've just withered on the vine. If a product sells well vendors notice and they order and sell more, likewise when they sell less they order less.

    This notion that 16:10 isn't around becuase no-one offers it is unsupported by the facts, and the market is at least efficient enough to respond to buyer demand. This is a best a low-grade conspiracy theory.
  • HiroshiTrinn - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    The obnoxious price premium that they put on 16:10 monitors vs 16:9 is more than enough to destroy consumer demand. I live and die by my 30" 16:10 Dell Ultrasharps
  • prisonerX - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    More 1080p are sold becuase they're TV compatible bringing them down in price, but even a small difference in price makes people wonder "why am I paying this much for an extra 120 rows of pixels?"
  • LiquidSilverZ - Thursday, April 6, 2017 - link

    Therein lies the problem. A computer monitor is used for far more than TV. Extra screen real estate is always preferred for computer use.
  • Samus - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    Feels like a missed opportunity to make a 27-30" 29:9 aspect ratio monitor if they are already building s controller and ramping up production of the panels. You can make 5 27" panels out of 2 44" uncut panels, and charge virtually the same amount of money.
  • toomanylogins - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    "there seems to be no 16:10 demand from consumers."

    This is a new is completely without foundation. Just go on eBay and check the price of secondhand 16:10 1920*1200 monitors and you will see that three year old versions are going for a higher price than new 1080p (at least in europe). The resolution is not a question of pixel size by physical dimensions. As the pixel density increases the physical dimension shrink this makes it difficult to work with fonts and readability. The current trend to make websites readable on mobile is led to a general increase in the font size to 12-14pt where is the newspaper is generally 10pt. increasing the resolution does not solve the problem of business users. As someone who's longsighted the extra height is invaluable trying to read text on 1080p is painful nothing but scrolling up and down.

    If you use computers for work as I do there is no restriction on the height of office ceiling but there is a restriction on the width of a desk therefore I would like to see 2 1080p monitors seamlessly stacked on top of each other. This would enable users to display A4 pages without scrolling. It would probably help with the RSI is well.
  • SkyBill40 - Saturday, April 8, 2017 - link

    Really? I've got a very nice Samsung SyncMaster 245BW in 1920*1200 I apparently should think about selling then seeing that I'm in the market for something newer.
  • madwolfa - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    When will the curved fad die?
  • grant3 - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    Curved displays isn't a "fad" it's a technological improvement, and it's not going away.

    Go into any office with dual-monitor setups, and you will see every pair is set at an angle.
  • Tylanner - Friday, April 7, 2017 - link

    For me to be interested in this they need to first stop making such great 4k 60hz HDTVs....we are seeing a display convergence....but of course gaming aficionados will always demand more Hz.
  • Morawka - Saturday, April 8, 2017 - link

    THANK YOU SAMSUNG for that extra vertical space.. I hope games build this into their settings.

    samsung is on top of their game and listening to what customers want for once.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, April 9, 2017 - link

    Is Samsung also investing in 40" 4K at high fps?? That's better than this 32:9 crap.
  • ahadali1 - Tuesday, April 11, 2017 - link

    However, if you are going to embark on this endeavor and build your own loft bed you should be careful about safety measures. Due to the fact that you can even turn a normal bed into a storage bed, you should consult a specialist when it comes to safety measure and not take matters into your own hands.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now