News Samsung Unveils 4K 240 Hz Mini LED Gaming Monitor

The specs themselves sound impressive for sure, but I'll wait for proper reviews of the unit once is under production. Given how I have am Odyssey G7 gen1 and it's been quite impressive, I'm looking forward to what Samsung can deliver with this thing. At 32" and 4K, it's a bit too high DPI for me, but I can't deny it does sound interesting. I wish I could see how it looks in person once it goes on sale.

I'm also expecting the wallet to bleed by just reading/hearing the price tag it'll carry, lol.

Regards.
 

emike09

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2011
37
9
18,535
0
Love all the specs, but could care less about 240hz as I'm more about image fidelity and quality vs refresh rate. Nothing I play makes any difference above 120hz, and with VRR, I'm fine dropping down to 60hz if needed (4k). Very few games I play with my RTX 3080 can push above 120hz anyways without dropping graphics much lower than I want.
 

Alvar "Miles" Udell

Respectable
Apr 1, 2020
634
347
2,260
0
Sounds interesting. In 2030 when we get GPUs that can handle games at actual 4K240 resolution and frame rate, and maybe actually be able to buy retail and not from scalpers, it might be worth buying.
 

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
1,011
65
19,360
0
I'm sure they will want a stupid high price for this.
Guessing $1200+

Not going to deny the visual upgrade stuff like this would give but when I can buy an adaptive sync 32 2k flat panel for $179 (on sale) why would I, or anyone else that does not have more dollars than sense, go spend 10x to get something like this?
 
I'm sure they will want a stupid high price for this.
Guessing $1200+

Not going to deny the visual upgrade stuff like this would give but when I can buy an adaptive sync 32 2k flat panel for $179 (on sale) why would I, or anyone else that does not have more dollars than sense, go spend 10x to get something like this?
I’d expect it to be much higher than $1200, maybe double that. It’s fairly normal for the latest premium equipment to come at an heavy premium. Compare a 3080 to 3090. I can get a car that does 0-60 in 5 seconds for £40k, you want 4.0 seconds try double or triple. Golf equipment, fishing equipment……..
 
Considering it's a G8 and not a G9 or higher, I'd be surprised if it ends up being more expensive than the G9. Plus the G9 is within spitting distance of 4K resolution with similar specs. If anything, this is just the 32" G7 monitor with a 4K panel bump and miniLED backlight.
 
Sep 23, 2020
620
157
1,190
44
Well, if this is 1500-1000 then I'll bite. Been waiting for a 32" 4k monitor for awhile now. This one seems about as 'future proof' as you can get, seeing as though maintaining +60fps at 4k is still a hassle to reach in many, if not most games.
But, I mean. I bet Elden Ring would look pretty crispy on this.
 

dimar

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2009
953
19
18,985
0
Dear Samsung, I'd like 2560x1440 Mini LED 27" 1-240Hz, slightly curved like my current CHG70, and GSync flickering fixed forever.
 

hannibal

Distinguished
I’d expect it to be much higher than $1200, maybe double that. It’s fairly normal for the latest premium equipment to come at an heavy premium. Compare a 3080 to 3090. I can get a car that does 0-60 in 5 seconds for £40k, you want 4.0 seconds try double or triple. Golf equipment, fishing equipment……..
True... Near $3000 is closer to reality...
 
Oct 28, 2020
9
1
515
0
In 2030 when we get GPUs that can handle games at actual 4K240 resolution and frame rate
This right here......so many people anymore are unaware of the hardware requirements to drive this kind of display and just fall victim to the marketing. I could spend 10k building the best possible gaming pc I could imagine and still be luck to crack 90hz at 4K, much less 240hz. I think manufacturers know the market for gaming monitors is coming to an end and they are trying to capitalize on it. For the $3k this monitor is going to cost I could buy an 65” LG G1 OLED tv which is also 4K and has gsync and free sync compatibility along with many other gaming features not to mention true hdmi 2.1 which has yet to appear on gaming monitors iirc. It’s my opinion that gaming monitors, unless for the very specific case of e-sports, are already inferior to high end TV’s and soon many of those features, some already have, are going to trickle down to the mainstream and value TVs, especially with the new generation of consoles supporting these technologies, eliminating the need for a separate gaming monitor market.
 
This right here......so many people anymore are unaware of the hardware requirements to drive this kind of display and just fall victim to the marketing. I could spend 10k building the best possible gaming pc I could imagine and still be luck to crack 90hz at 4K, much less 240hz. I think manufacturers know the market for gaming monitors is coming to an end and they are trying to capitalize on it. For the $3k this monitor is going to cost I could buy an 65” LG G1 OLED tv which is also 4K and has gsync and free sync compatibility along with many other gaming features not to mention true hdmi 2.1 which has yet to appear on gaming monitors iirc. It’s my opinion that gaming monitors, unless for the very specific case of e-sports, are already inferior to high end TV’s and soon many of those features, some already have, are going to trickle down to the mainstream and value TVs, especially with the new generation of consoles supporting these technologies, eliminating the need for a separate gaming monitor market.
I agree with you partially. There are many games that will run at 4k240 right now at lower settings. There are also a few games that are very optimized that can run at 4k 140+ fps at very high to ultra settings with current hardware. Just because you cannot get 4k140fps+ in every game does not mean it has no value. As I said above I opted for a 55inch CX OLED and love it for all the games I play on it. I mostly get 90+ fps with a 3080 + 3900x.
 

brownbob06

Distinguished
Jul 17, 2013
2
1
18,515
0
Legit stupid as frick.

4k has basically no benefit at sub 32in monitors.

you are just taxing ur gpu and wasting $ you could of used ona faster 1080/1440 monitor.
I'd argue the benefits for gaming may not be great, but for work the benefits of higher resolution are great, particularly when working in terminals for some things or in an IDE.
 
Reactions: hotaru.hino
I'd argue the benefits for gaming may not be great, but for work the benefits of higher resolution are great, particularly when working in terminals for some things or in an IDE.
And even then for gaming, we have things like FSR and DLSS that can produce 4K images with acceptable to "need to really scrutinize" qualtiy from a lower rendering resolution.
 
Oct 28, 2020
9
1
515
0
I agree with you partially. There are many games that will run at 4k240 right now at lower settings. There are also a few games that are very optimized that can run at 4k 140+ fps at very high to ultra settings with current hardware. Just because you cannot get 4k140fps+ in every game does not mean it has no value. As I said above I opted for a 55inch CX OLED and love it for all the games I play on it. I mostly get 90+ fps with a 3080 + 3900x.
I am right there with you on the LG CX it was my top pick until the newest models came out, but I still keep my eye out for anyone getting rid of old stock hoping to snag a CX on the cheap.
 

blacknemesist

Distinguished
Oct 18, 2012
392
23
18,815
19
If these specs live up on the G8 I guess alot of stress can be removed just by not having to have options that "fix" blurriness, smoothness, poor washed colors, etc. Still, with native 4k, RTX is a no no
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY