Looking for a recommendation.


Forum Posting Supreme
Jun 24, 2019
Today I am running dual 1440p displays. One for gaming on (144hz refresh) and the other for reference data. (75hz) and multitasking and such. I'm thinking I'd like to replace these with a single display. So I'm looking for recommendations for what folks think I should go with. I'm fine with 4k or 1440p. I want OLED but not one that's going to be nuked in a month with burn-in. (I feel like that should be a problem with an pretty solid solution by now)

I've tried doing some research. I don't know that I'd care for a curved display. Just looking for a good not crazy high refresh rate display. Something I can drive without having to use DLSS or any other resolution lowering tech. I don't care if I need a new video card of the coming generation to do it... I'm comfortable doing that as I think a 4k monitor of reasonable (120-144hz refresh) refresh rate would be able to be driven by a one step down from top tier card. That's the sweet spot I like to be running.
I'd say ask Peter about his experience with his C2 - it meets every one of your criteria, including OLED. I'd have probably got a C1 myself if they had the 42" for that generation when I bought my last monitor.
A couple years ago, I went from a trio of 24" 1920*1200 screens to a single 49" Samsung Crg9 (5120*1440). It's basically a pair of 1440p screens fused together. My prior setup was curved from the mount I had them on, so no real difference for me, but from a gaming perspective it really does help with the immersion factor.

@Peter_Brosdahl can probably compare and contrast between the two as he's a bit of a monitor fiend. I've just been in the ultra wide camp (mostly with 3 screens) since Eyefinity started it off over 10 years ago.
In terms of GPU needs a 5120x1440 is only slightly less than 4K. As far as contrast and sharpness go the C2 is leaps and bounds better than the CRG9. Refresh rates are about the same. My #1 complaint against the C2 is they cannot be awakened with powering on the PC due to PCs not fully supporting that in HDMI(yet). As far as DLSS and 4K go the quality setting is very impressive and I do occasionally alternate between off and quality and the difference is not as dramatic as some have made it out to be. I can see it, but only just barely. My only major complaint is that tail trails are still an issue but tbh I've seen in some games even when it's off. In either case, if a 4090 performs as they say it should then DLSS won't be needed for the majority of existing games. My 3090 Ti already does 90-120+ for most with DLSS so if a 4090 is even 20% better that should be enough to do mostly the same w/o it.

The other thing I recommend thinking about with monitors is their brightness. It's not something that we really used to focus on but I cannot emphasize enough that if you plan to enjoy HDR a panel rated at 1000 nits is where it's at. HDR400/HDR ready is an improvement but just barely. I'm pretty happy with my MSI MAG31 for that but I wouldn't call it a fantastic experience. On the other hand most 2K/4K HDR1000 hi-refresh rate displays also now have active cooling. I severely did not want this which is another reason I went with the C2. After all the effort I've put into decreasing the noise levels of my rig the last thing I wanted to do was put a 20+ db fan right in front of my face. Read the reviews and there's plenty saying this is an issue for some.

Curved vs. non-curved: I like curved and I really was on the fence if I would. It can add a level of immersion but 32:9 vs 21:9 is another question. For the games that truly support it 32:9 is an almost VR like experience. For work it's great because you can really have multiple windows open with little to no compromise. However 21:9 is more widely (no pun) supported and for more than a few games seems to be the sweet spot.

Based on what I'm aware you've used before and looking for now I'd recommend going w/ 3440x1440 120-144 Hz OLED G-Sync or something similar, and if not then true 4K. If you live near a BB or Microcenter w/ C2s go in and see if they'll let you test drive one w/ a console or PC hooked up. I did a little tweaking on my and text looks pretty good now. Samsung's QLED isn't bad and I think the successors to the CRG9 show promise but I've read some questionable reviews regarding QA issues.

On the other hand there are some new exciting tech on the way, but there always is, and we all know the issues with being a 1st adopter.

One last pitch for the C2:
oh just to add the HDR 1000 rating isn't necessarily the end all for understanding the brightness of a display. Rtings is great for following up on that and even though I praise a lot of LG stuff many could attest the real world #s end up being between 400-800 nits but that is also a reason to scrutinize the displays that are rated lower (ready/400/600). The reason I emphasize brightness so much is that it does play a factor in seeing the contrasts and colors and today's games are making more use of those. PPI and pixels are only just the beginning these days for seeking the ideal display that lets you see everything a developer has put into a game.
As I've got so many different types of screens in the house, and OLED has really hit the mark for most of my needs and seeing QD OLED HDR G-Sync 21:9 1440p panels pop up now (for years I waited for these things to come out but now I'm past them), I started thinking what is it I'm really after now? I love my 42" C2 but also spent some time recently on the old 65" Sony Z9D playing HZD and CP 2077. It was then that I was thinking about what I did like when I was using the 49" CRG9 32:9.

Ultimately, once all the various IQ boxes have been checked, I still came back to FOV. We're still somewhat confined by what developers choose to show natively, allow access to, and how it's implemented. There are plenty of FOV settings in games that regardless of 16:9, 21:9, or 32:9, which will distort the image. Some are flawless or close enough that it passes. Yet, there are so many times on a 16:9 panel I'd love to simply pull the image back for increased height and width when playing on a bigger screen to just see more of it all, or shrink down when on a smaller screen. Increasing pixels don't necessarily do this. I remember foolishly chasing that dragon from 1080p to 4K and 8K has zero allure to me. Adding more to the sides with UW is nice but can, at times, leave you with a feeling like your looking through a visor slit.
I'd love to grab an OLED - my issue is that text rendering ranges from 'not great' to 'really not great', and well, that's why I use IPS still.
I'd love to grab an OLED - my issue is that text rendering ranges from 'not great' to 'really not great', and well, that's why I use IPS still.
With a little tweaking on the panel menu, I was able to get the C2 looking pretty good (edit still a bit soft but got rid of most of aliasing) Still doesn't beat an IPS in that regard but it's not horrible. It'd been months since I spent time in the cave with the old Z9D. I cleaned it up and put the room back in order right before my trip to visit the folks and it was awesome to come back to. It's been said by some hardware reviewers that it's probably one of the best IPS LCDs ever made. HDR with nits around 1100. The only downside is 60 Hz, no VRR, and you really have to hunt through all the menus to turn off any processing to minimize blur, but oh well. Still, so much fun to play games on, especially since a 3090 Ti can pretty much get you to 60 FPS in 4K for a lot of stuff.
I really enjoy my CX at the moment myself. I thought about downsizing a bit with the 42" C2, but the purchase of the 4090 put that on the back burner at the moment.
Become a Patron!