Review Samsung Odyssey Neo G8 Review: A New Level Of Extreme

[Blacksad999]

WHY only DP 1.4 ?!?! you'll only be able to hit 240 hz at 4k with HDMI 2.1

a mega monitor this new should have included the latest DP spec. sigh

That's false. DP 1.4 can use DSC (Just like HDMI 2.1 does) to hit up to 240hz at 4k. That's probably why they didn't bother including it on the 4000 series cards.

 

[Blacksad999]

Is there a way to get in contact with the editor/product reviewer for this monitor? I recently purchased this product and ultimately returned it one week later and I have some gripes about it that I would like to discuss. I don't think this product is anywhere close to a 5 star product and I think there are some areas that the readers should be aware of. I don't want to bash or sully this product if maybe I just got a bad monitor. But I really see major differences between a $2000 dollar monitor and this $1000 (Black Friday 2022 price).

Being up front I just signed up for this account to reach out to the editor but I am a daily reader for years.

I think there's a way you can contact them via email or through the forums.

 

[cbotmk3]

I figured out a few things when watching the Youtube review from "Hardware Unboxed":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFBM-djS2d8

• max brightness of ~2000nits can only be achieved with small white area and the rest set to 0% brightness (even with 1% brightness you will get only ~1200nits), this almost sounds like a "cheat mode"
• the scanlines seem to be varying from unit to unit and probably have to do with bandwidth, because they do not appear with lower refresh rates like 165Hz (thats probably why the G7 does not have this problem)
• Samsung seems to have issues with QA, the reviewer had also minor problems (yellow spot in the lower area of the screen) and other users reported similar concerns

Over all, I think tomshardware just was lucky to get a well performing model (or it was preselected by Samsung).

 

[9INNLS]

I figured out a few things when watching the Youtube review from "Hardware Unboxed":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFBM-djS2d8

• max brightness of ~2000nits can only be achieved with small white area and the rest set to 0% brightness (even with 1% brightness you will get only ~1200nits), this almost sounds like a "cheat mode"
• the scanlines seem to be varying from unit to unit and probably have to do with bandwidth, because they do not appear with lower refresh rates like 165Hz (thats probably why the G7 does not have this problem)
• Samsung seems to have issues with QA, the reviewer had also minor problems (yellow spot in the lower area of the screen) and other users reported similar concerns

Over all, I think tomshardware just was lucky to get a well performing model (or it was preselected by Samsung).

All told this is not a 5 star $1000-$1400 monitor. This review does us all a disservice as readers and as consumers.

 

[Dantte]

Samsung needs to quit with this 1000R BS.

1500R was enough. 1800R is/was better.

Yes and No; visual acuity is not as simple as which curve is better.

Manufacturers stating "1000R is closer to the curvature of the eye" although true is complete BS! The curvature of the eye is on average 11.5R, so yes 1000R is closer to 11.5R then say 1500R or 1800R or whatever else is out there, but its no where even close to the 11.5R of the human eye.

The curvature of the screen all depends on the size or the display and viewing distance. Viewing distance can be expressed as Viewing Distance = Image Height * K; K being the intended experience.
K = 3 is for detailed viewing, you never want less than this as the image is just too big to see without moving your head and can cause eye fatigue. This is what we want for PC Monitors
K = 4 to 5 would be for general viewing, this is good sizing for a TV
K = 6 to 8 Stop being cheap and get a bigger display! Although feasible, your display is going to be small and you are not going to be engaged in the content. Dont go above 8.

Work that equation backwards, 1000 = I(h) * 3; Image height for a monitor at this distance would be 333mm or 13.11", which translates to a 27" 16:9 monitor. So yes, for 27" 1000R is the best curve. With a 32" display, the I(h) is bigger, 15.68" or 398.272mm; working that into the equation you get a Viewing Distance of 1194.85mm or lets call this 1200R is best. Just remember, the bigger the monitor, the further you should be sitting away from it!

Then there is the DPI of the display, does 4K really matter at 27" or even 32", the pixel density is insanely high and I would argue at 27" a 1440P monitor is perfect, but this isnt the point of your post and its a different discussion.

WHY only DP 1.4 ?!?! you'll only be able to hit 240 hz at 4k with HDMI 2.1

a mega monitor this new should have included the latest DP spec. sigh

This has me curious because you are correct, 1.4a cannot support 4k@240, even with DCS, it maxes out at 4K@120 24bit color. I went looking for the spec, Samsung does not advertise the DP version, nor in the manual does it say which input should be used for 4K@240. Tom's want to elaborate on it?

 

[tcg101]

Yes and No; visual acuity is not as simple as which curve is better.

Manufacturers stating "1000R is closer to the curvature of the eye" although true is complete BS! The curvature of the eye is on average 11.5R, so yes 1000R is closer to 11.5R then say 1500R or 1800R or whatever else is out there, but its no where even close to the 11.5R of the human eye.

The curvature of the screen all depends on the size or the display and viewing distance. Viewing distance can be expressed as Viewing Distance = Image Height * K; K being the intended experience.
K = 3 is for detailed viewing, you never want less than this as the image is just too big to see without moving your head and can cause eye fatigue. This is what we want for PC Monitors
K = 4 to 5 would be for general viewing, this is good sizing for a TV
K = 6 to 8 Stop being cheap and get a bigger display! Although feasible, your display is going to be small and you are not going to be engaged in the content. Dont go above 8.

Work that equation backwards, 1000 = I(h) * 3; Image height for a monitor at this distance would be 333mm or 13.11", which translates to a 27" 16:9 monitor. So yes, for 27" 1000R is the best curve. With a 32" display, the I(h) is bigger, 15.68" or 398.272mm; working that into the equation you get a Viewing Distance of 1194.85mm or lets call this 1200R is best. Just remember, the bigger the monitor, the further you should be sitting away from it!

Then there is the DPI of the display, does 4K really matter at 27" or even 32", the pixel density is insanely high and I would argue at 27" a 1440P monitor is perfect, but this isnt the point of your post and its a different discussion.


This has me curious because you are correct, 1.4a cannot support 4k@240, even with DCS, it maxes out at 4K@120 24bit color. I went looking for the spec, Samsung does not advertise the DP version, nor in the manual does it say which input should be used for 4K@240. Tom's want to elaborate on it?

Samsung's site does say 1.4, but doesn't specify whether it's 1.4a or not.

 

[tennis2]

Yes and No; visual acuity is not as simple as which curve is better.

Manufacturers stating "1000R is closer to the curvature of the eye" although true is complete BS! The curvature of the eye is on average 11.5R, so yes 1000R is closer to 11.5R then say 1500R or 1800R or whatever else is out there, but its no where even close to the 11.5R of the human eye.

The curvature of the screen all depends on the size or the display and viewing distance. Viewing distance can be expressed as Viewing Distance = Image Height * K; K being the intended experience.
K = 3 is for detailed viewing, you never want less than this as the image is just too big to see without moving your head and can cause eye fatigue. This is what we want for PC Monitors
K = 4 to 5 would be for general viewing, this is good sizing for a TV
K = 6 to 8 Stop being cheap and get a bigger display! Although feasible, your display is going to be small and you are not going to be engaged in the content. Dont go above 8.

Work that equation backwards, 1000 = I(h) * 3; Image height for a monitor at this distance would be 333mm or 13.11", which translates to a 27" 16:9 monitor. So yes, for 27" 1000R is the best curve. With a 32" display, the I(h) is bigger, 15.68" or 398.272mm; working that into the equation you get a Viewing Distance of 1194.85mm or lets call this 1200R is best. Just remember, the bigger the monitor, the further you should be sitting away from it!

1000R = 1000mm radius. If your face is 1000mm from the screen, you're at the center of the circle.

In practice though.....I don't [personally] prefer to be sitting at the center of a circular screen environment from desk viewing distance.

 

[Dantte]

1000R = 1000mm radius. If your face is 1000mm from the screen, you're at the center of the circle.

In practice though.....I don't [personally] prefer to be sitting at the center of a circular screen environment from desk viewing distance.

But thats the point, to sit at the center so the screen is an equal distance from your eye at all points for a uniform image.

 

[Phuton22]

Don't understand why TH would recommend a model that is widely reported with documented problems (incl Scanlines, Faulty Panels, etc)

 

[helper800]

Don't understand why TH would recommend a model that is widely reported with documented problems (incl Scanlines, Faulty Panels, etc)

This was a monitor review close to its release date. These problems that you mentioned were not present in the review model so how could they have know about it in their review? Hindsight is 20-20...