![]() ![]() That said I would not mind if it was curved just a little bit. But because the CX is so big, it has to be put further away which somewhat diminishes the need for the curve. Generally due to the CX's massive size I work on the bottom 1/2 or 2/3 of the screen, using effectively something like 3840x1600 size of the desktop regularly.Ĭurved vs non-curved is also an issue, curved to me is more comfortable. This does mean that overall I have less usable desktop space than on the CRG9 and putting several windows side by side is a better way to work for me than tiling them in a grid or having very tall windows. On the CX I instead use 120% custom scaling as to me it gives a good compromise between text size and desktop space. I found this was a comfortable configuration in terms of text size. With the CRG9 on the desktop I used 100% scaling with font sizes increased to 110% in browser. But as said, you can use custom resolutions for ultrawide on the CX too, thus mitigating the performance gap. I feel like the ideal resolution for gaming on it is 3840x1440. When it doesn't, it has an annoying fisheye effect. When the wide aspect ratio works it can be very immersive. ![]() Gaming performance is better on the CRG9 since 5120x1440 has less pixels than 3840x2160. I don't care all too much about VRR when you are above 60 fps but under it definitely can help smooth things out. The CX also has a better range for VRR, 20-120 Hz according to whereas CRG9 is 48-120 Hz and the G9 is an even worse 60-240 Hz. You can run ultrawide resolutions like 3840x1600 if you want which avoid some of the FOV distortion issues of 5120x1440 and of course OLED provides a far better HDR experience. To me the CRG9 is a better desktop display and the CX a better gaming display. I have both the LG CX 48 and the Samsung CRG9. With its immediate pixel response I would expect it does pretty decently even against 240 Hz LCDs. ![]() You pretty much have the pros and cons nailed there except I would say input lag on the CX is not a concern at all. I'd love to hear what some of you think about the comparison above. The great news is there are at least two or even just one great monitor options on the market, something we haven't had in sometime. Then couple in the pixel transitions, will it just be a blurry mess? On the other hand, will the G9's 240hz VA panel even be able to handle that refresh rate, in the past that was easily a no for VA panels. I know the oled panel will realistically do the 120hz, but will the input lag of it coupled with the slower refresh rate be a worse choice vs. So I guess in the end it comes down to the comparison of speed between the slower input lag and 120hz panel but instant pixel transitions of the oled vs the faster input lag and 240hz panel but slower pixels of the VA G9. "hdr" 1000 but edge lit so I'm not expecting a whole lot there va panel, black smearing historically (maybe fixed here), colors don't pop like ips or oled based on my eyesight no displayport 1.4 (won't matter once new cards come out) input lag seems to be at 10ms in native resolutions oled burn in (not super worried about this, but it's something you have to be a little mindful of) oled panel with all it's glory, individual pixel dimming, perfect viewing angles, amazing color rendition I have a c7 65" oled in my basement theater room and adore the thing while meanwhile for my pc I have a 40" 60hz seiki (with transitions so slow it's the perfect monitor to educate people on how pixels transition). I've read both threads specifically about each monitor but I'm still split on them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |