Samsung CRG9 - Ultimate "budget" 49 inch widescreen?

[stuboyle]

Samsung currently has their 49 inch CRG9 monitor on sale for $900. Primary specs:

• 120 mhz refresh
• 4 ms response
• 5120 x 1440 resolution

They also have the 49 inch G97T on sale for $1,200 with:

• 240 mhz refresh
• 1 ms response
• 5120 x 1440 resolution

The CRG9 is really tempting me. I'm currently running a 35 inch LG @ 3440 x 1140 @ 100 mhz refresh and a 5 ms response. I have never done a triple screen.

Would anyone care to comment on the trade-offs? I'm thinking running the 5120 x 1440 would less demanding on your graphics card than running triple monitors. 120 mhz refresh rate seems to be more than enough. And what about response rate? Is it worth $200 to get 1 ms instead of 4 ms?

Thanks - Stuart

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Go for 240hz option, it's a better monitor with improved HDR, colors, and refresh rate, also comes with larger curve to mimic triples. You can flip between refresh rates and run it at 120hz if needed. 240hz requires DSC (display stream compression), I've turned it off as it doesn't work with DSR.

 

[anton_Chez]

I have the CRG9. I love it. ACC nearly max settings native res I'm getting 120fps, so in something like that you're never ever going to touch the 240hz, ever. But, you can grow into the monitor as newer GPU's become available. I have an RX6950XT so I'm pretty much there as much as maximum power goes short of a 4090. I came from VR and before that triples. The ultra wide was not a thing back when I had triples and it is a great compromise between triples and VR.

 

[Leynad777]

I own the RG9(4SSU) and G9 still and last one is faster. The colors are the same, but this 4 ms doesn't provide such a smooth surrounding as 1 ms and R1000 is better than R1200. I had the 1080p HG9 before with 1 ms and it took me weeks getting used to this 4 ms choppiness. I recently bought the G9 for 930 Euro iirc.