[SOLVED] Samsung G9 or 48 inch LG C1?

[GreenGiant117]

So I'm in the process of setting up a new basement office and was going to change around my monitor situation.

Currently I use an Acer Predator XB271HU as a primary monitor alongside an LG 34BU67-B ultrawide. Primary monitor is used for gaming and whatever I am currently working on (spreadsheet, forums, etc) secondary screen usually has a chat window for various text/chat programs and then another window with a show/movie on it.
Given I am setting up a new office and will have a TV with a chromecast connected to it, I don't really need two monitors so I wanted to convert to a single screen.

The hard part I am having is deciding between (as the title states) the Samsung G9 Odyssey (non-neo) and a 48 inch LG C1.

I'm not a hardcore gamer, I enjoy the typical games, RPG's, FPS's, Isometric, etc, nothing super hardcore more casual, I've used an ultrawide setup before with three 21 inch monitors in Eyefinity on an old computer, and enjoyed gaming in that format, the hard part is figuring out if I could use that easily for productivity without having to have some other program to set up snap windows and the like. I know that's less of an issue with Windows 11, but I'm going to need a computer upgrade before I make that leap (which is coming in the near future). I'm almost leaning more towards the C1 since it's a "normal" aspect ratio and being OLED means super great colors and HDR, but then the loss of some frames (144 to 120) might be a little saddening, that being said the current setup wont be able to hit anywhere near the 240Hz of the G9 (Ryzen 1800X/GTX 1080ti) but again future upgrades in the next couple years should be able to come close hopefully.

The reason I have picked these two screens is because I have a rather large Best Buy gift card and those seem to be the best options available at Best Buy currently, unless someone else has a better suggestion on the offerings of Best Buy.

 

[hotaru.hino]

If you're not a hardcore gamer, then I would argue more "hardcore" features like higher refresh rates and what not don't really apply to you anyway. Especially if you don't play fast-paced games regularly enough. I'd even argue don't even think about "needing" something above 144Hz unless you're top-tier competitive player.

If it were down to these two and you have the setup flexibility for either, I'm more partial to the C1 for gaming if that's the purpose you're going for as image quality seems more important here. The only flaw I see in it, aside from the burn-in risk, is that OLEDs don't get that bright, so it's only appropriate for darker rooms.

While I get the appeal of ultrawides, for the games you seem like you're playing, it wouldn't really make a difference even if the game had proper support for the aspect ratio.

 

[GreenGiant117]

I was skeptical of the higher refresh rates until I got the Acer, which I got a crazy deal on a refurbished model. First time playing where I was sitting at 120-140 FPS was glorious to look at haha.

I do play things like Risk of Rain 2, Skyrim, Borderlands, etc, that I think would be fun in ultrawide... But would also look great in HDR...

As to the brightness issue, I think brightness will be fine, the office has overhead lights and I will probably be installing both a dimmer for those and probably some indirect lighting sources for dimmer lighting, since I actually prefer a dimmer environment.

Your comment about "If it were down to these two..." do you have something else in mind that you think would be better/cheaper?
I really want an upgrade overall from the Acer, and like I said I have a pretty hefty gift card to use, so I want to get something that will hopefully last me another 7-10 years at least.

 

[hotaru.hino]

I was skeptical of the higher refresh rates until I got the Acer, which I got a crazy deal on a refurbished model. First time playing where I was sitting at 120-140 FPS was glorious to look at haha.

Going from 60 to 120/144 is eye opening, but going any faster is sort of a crapshoot for most people I'd argue. I have a 240Hz monitor and I can't even see an appreciable difference unless I'm looking at Blur Buster's Test UFO.

I do play things like Risk of Rain 2, Skyrim, Borderlands, etc, that I think would be fun in ultrawide... But would also look great in HDR...

Check to see if the games actually support it well enough. The problem with ultrawide ratios is that the engine needs to support a higher FOV to match, otherwise it looks weird. Or worse, you have to use a more common aspect ratio.

Your comment about "If it were down to these two..." do you have something else in mind that you think would be better/cheaper?
I really want an upgrade overall from the Acer, and like I said I have a pretty hefty gift card to use, so I want to get something that will hopefully last me another 7-10 years at least.

I don't know how much you're willing to put down for a monitor, but if you're looking at getting an LG C1, see about looking at one of Samsung's latest NeoQLED TVs, such as the QN90A. It's only 2" bigger than the C1 you were interested in and has a full array LED backlight using mini LEDs. So while it'll get some blooming in places of sharp contrast, you'll probably not really notice it. But otherwise, it looks like a solid performer all around and you don't have to worry about burn-in, which is likely going to happen to some degree after 7-10 years on an OLED.

 

[GreenGiant117]

Going from 60 to 120/144 is eye opening, but going any faster is sort of a crapshoot for most people I'd argue. I have a 240Hz monitor and I can't even see an appreciable difference unless I'm looking at Blur Buster's Test UFO.

That was my assumption, that going to 240 wouldn't be an enormous jump.

Check to see if the games actually support it well enough. The problem with ultrawide ratios is that the engine needs to support a higher FOV to match, otherwise it looks weird. Or worse, you have to use a more common aspect ratio.

I know that skyrim does with a mod, and I know that borderlands does fairly well natively, there are others that play surprisingly well with the ultrawide like Starbound and Risk of Rain 1

I don't know how much you're willing to put down for a monitor, but if you're looking at getting an LG C1, see about looking at one of Samsung's latest NeoQLED TVs, such as the QN90A. It's only 2" bigger than the C1 you were interested in and has a full array LED backlight using mini LEDs. So while it'll get some blooming in places of sharp contrast, you'll probably not really notice it. But otherwise, it looks like a solid performer all around and you don't have to worry about burn-in, which is likely going to happen to some degree after 7-10 years on an OLED.

That extra $200 is a bit steep for me, even looking at the C1 vs the G9 with the extra $200 there is a little hard to justify, so I'm not sure if I could justify that, even with recent sale pricing data I could get the C1 for $100 more than the G9 or the Q90A for $200 more if I wait until the next sales...
I'm not super concerned with burn in, since I rarely leave anything static on screen for extended periods, and most programs/the windows environment I have in dark theme so it would minimize burn in potential, plus I have a rather short screen timeout, for when I leave my computer.
Besides burn in are there any concerns with the C1 over the Q90A?

 

[hotaru.hino]

That extra $200 is a bit steep for me, even looking at the C1 vs the G9 with the extra $200 there is a little hard to justify, so I'm not sure if I could justify that, even with recent sale pricing data I could get the C1 for $100 more than the G9 or the Q90A for $200 more if I wait until the next sales...
I'm not super concerned with burn in, since I rarely leave anything static on screen for extended periods, and most programs/the windows environment I have in dark theme so it would minimize burn in potential, plus I have a rather short screen timeout, for when I leave my computer.
Besides burn in are there any concerns with the C1 over the Q90A?

The burn-in thing was about it. But as long as you keep that in mind it probably won't be that much of a problem.

 

[geofelt]

I am now using the LG oled 48" c1.
It works perfectly well, and brightness is no issue at all.
If anything, it could be toned down.
It does indeed run at 120hz, but you need a few prerequisites.
The only connection type is HDMI and 120hx requires input from a hdmi 2.1 capable graphics card.
To date, that is a 3000 series graphics card.
A minor added requirement is a ultra high HDMI cable.
I used a GTX1080ti before, and it ran at 60hz perfectly well.
I also have a 30" side monitor mounted vertically for email, monitors and such.
As a plus with the LG, you get some TV functionality.
I think burn in is not an issue. The unit does some things on it's own.
Plus, I do use a screen saver which might help.
One curiosity is that when I sleep the pc, wake works fine shortly after.
But, after perhaps an hour, the LG powers off and I need to power it back on before waking.

I looked at the 49" G9 but, was put off by the lack of height of the image.
Two of them stacked, over/under might have worked.

 

[GreenGiant117]

I am now using the LG oled 48" c1.
It works perfectly well, and brightness is no issue at all.
If anything, it could be toned down.
It does indeed run at 120hz, but you need a few prerequisites.
The only connection type is HDMI and 120hx requires input from a hdmi 2.1 capable graphics card.
To date, that is a 3000 series graphics card.
A minor added requirement is a ultra high HDMI cable.
I used a GTX1080ti before, and it ran at 60hz perfectly well.
I also have a 30" side monitor mounted vertically for email, monitors and such.
As a plus with the LG, you get some TV functionality.
I think burn in is not an issue. The unit does some things on it's own.
Plus, I do use a screen saver which might help.
One curiosity is that when I sleep the pc, wake works fine shortly after.
But, after perhaps an hour, the LG powers off and I need to power it back on before waking.

I looked at the 49" G9 but, was put off by the lack of height of the image.
Two of them stacked, over/under might have worked.

Thanks for the information, I assumed that brightness would be fine, I have a C8 that seems quite bright overall, which is leading me towards an OLED monitor.

I'd have to do some research and make sure they would work, but couldn't I use a DP 1.4 to HDMI 2.1 adapter to get the 4k 120 Hz for the time being? Until I get an updated computer that is.

 

[geofelt]

Thanks for the information, I assumed that brightness would be fine, I have a C8 that seems quite bright overall, which is leading me towards an OLED monitor.

I'd have to do some research and make sure they would work, but couldn't I use a DP 1.4 to HDMI 2.1 adapter to get the 4k 120 Hz for the time being? Until I get an updated computer that is.

I tried that, it did not work. Possibly there is one that would.
Really, it is not worth the effort.
GTX1080ti running at 60hz works perfectly well.
Truth to tell, I noticed little difference when upgraded to 3070 and 120hz.
Any graphics card less than 3080/3090 is going to have a hard time generating frame rates past 60.

 

[hotaru.hino]

I'd have to do some research and make sure they would work, but couldn't I use a DP 1.4 to HDMI 2.1 adapter to get the 4k 120 Hz for the time being? Until I get an updated computer that is.

4K 120Hz is possible over HDMI 2.0 with 4:2:0 color compression. It won't nuke the quality, but it will make finer color details (e.g., colored text that's at most 1 pixel wide for the text components) harder to make out.