Samsung Odyssey G9 G91F 49" DQHD 144GHz VA Gaming Monitor $1,199 Delivered (Excl. TAS, NT) @ Samsung

162
Samsung Odyssey G9 G91F 49" DQHD 144GHz VA Gaming Monitor $1,199 Delivered (Excl. TAS, NT) @ SamsungAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
PKarS on 24/06/2025 - 16:37 samsung.com (528 clicks)
Last edited 24/06/2025 - 18:53 by 3 other users
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Further $100 off if you trade in your old monitor.
Further $50 off with the Samsung EOFY voucher.
Further 10% off with the Samsung loyalty coupon acquired via livechat.

Far better deal than the lousy JB deal that got posted (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/912105)

This the newer model, and what really sells it is the steeper 1000R curve, making it much more ergonomic than all the other 49inch OLEDs with their 1800R curve..

Note: The product title displayed on Samsung is incorrect. This is a VA monitor, not an OLED. The specifications of the monitor can be found halfway down the page.

This product cannot be delivered to a number of postcodes in NSW, QLD, VIC and WA (as well as all of TAS and NT).

Computing 49inch Computer Peripheral Gaming Monitor OLED Monitor Samsung

Related Stores

Samsung
Samsung

Comments

  • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 16:41
    +5

    Good to see someone else spotted this. They're offering 15% loyalty at the moment? Nice.

    EDIT: Wait, this is VA but mislabelled at the top of the page… wild.

    The G91SD is listed, but would be $1170 with the stacks. Maybe just get the G93SD at $1250 with the above discount stacks.

  • lammi on 24/06/2025 - 16:44

    how does one get the 15% loyalty coupon!?! just live chat and ask for it?! do you have to say anything special?

  • Panpanw on 24/06/2025 - 16:45

    What is the difference between 91, 93 & 95?

    • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 17:08
      +2

      G91SD - glossy OLED (worse reflection handling), 144Hz, 1800R
      G93SD - matte OLED, 240Hz, 1800R
      G95SD - matte OLED, 240Hz, 1800R, Smart Hub (apps)

      • KARMAAA on 24/06/2025 - 17:10
        -2

        Good breakdown. I want to also add these are QD-OLED which means they're better at colour reproduction, however they raise black levels due to not having a polarizer and as such in high ambient light environments you lose the contrast that OLED is known for. WOLEDs fair better at this ambient light factor, but for that you need to buy an LG WOLED which Samsung does not make.

        • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 17:24
          -1

          I've covered before how this isn't accurate. LG's reflection handling is so bad, that matte QD-OLED makes for a better bright room experience overall, hence why Samsung now put it on all their premium OLED products.

          The question becomes how does this impact dark room performance, and it seems the 2nd gen matte TVs do just fine, but I haven't personally demoed this, nor the G9 monitors. But if you're looking at matte OLED - which most of the WOLED monitors are, certainly LG branded - Samsung is the superior choice, even better than semi-glossy efforts using LG panels.

          But if you're in a dark room environment and are looking to eke out every last bit of authentic representation of black, then you'd still pick the Samsung glossy options, though they are few and far between in the Samsung-branded line-up.

          • KARMAAA on 24/06/2025 - 17:40
            +1

            @jasswolf: In the comment you linked you say this:

            …early QD-OLED monitor panels rise to 3.5 nits, later panels drop 2.5 nits, and standard WOLED panels hit… 1 nit.

            So neither appears completely black to the human eye, though one has a slightly more visible impact that is more visible with dark content in that scenario.

            I said this:

            I want to also add these are QD-OLED which means they're better at colour reproduction, however they raise black levels due to not having a polarizer and as such in high ambient light environments you lose the contrast that OLED is known for. WOLEDs fair better at this ambient light factor, but for that you need to buy an LG WOLED which Samsung does not make.

            So thanks for agreeing with me.

            The question becomes how does this impact dark room performance, and it seems the 2nd gen matte TVs do just fine, but I haven't personally demoed this, nor the G9 monitors. But if you're looking at matte OLED - which most of the WOLED monitors are, certainly LG branded - Samsung is the superior choice, even better than semi-glossy efforts using LG panels.

            Yes of course QD-OLEDs are better in dark rooms. I agree.

            But if you're in a dark room environment and are looking to eke out every last bit of authentic representation of black, then you'd still pick the Samsung glossy options, though they are few and far between in the Samsung-branded line-up.

            I never talked about dark room performance. Only "high light ambient" environments.

            This is why I don't bother commenting on here much, downvoted by people for no reason and simply stating facts. People creating strawmen off what I've written above, creating a whole argument about nothing I ever said IDGAF. Have fun.

            • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 18:02
              -2

              @KARMAAA: You're twisting my words pretty strongly, I go on to mention that while yes QD-OLED's lack of a polariser does raise ambient black levels, this is only a potential issue with dark content, and that you're likely to be dealing with light reflections in this scenario (which the Samsung glossy and matte handle far better than LG equivalents).

              Samsung's matte effort kills the reflections dead, while all of LG's relative solutions are inferior. I was initially skeptical of Samsung glossy vs matte, but I understand the choice Samsung has now made, and it's likely going to stay that way in some form for the foreseeable future, because they're not going to start depositing meta-materials on consumer TVs.

              Hopefully people can choose between top of the line matte and glossy, or they get so bright that they opt to introduce their own polariser.

              • KARMAAA on 24/06/2025 - 18:19

                @jasswolf:

                You're twisting my words pretty strongly

                I didn't twist anything, I quoted what you said.

                I go on to mention that while yes QD-OLED's lack of a polariser does raise ambient black levels, this is only a potential issue with dark content, and that you're likely to be dealing with light reflections in this scenario.

                Then you're agreeing with me again which is that you get raised black levels with QD-OLED in high ambient light environments. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

                And Samsung's matte effort kills the reflections dead, while all of LG's relative solutions are inferior.

                LG is working with ASUS to make their "TrueBlack Glossy" coating and so far it looks pretty good, but this in a booth where ASUS is controlling the light and giving QD-OLED the worst-case scenario. Of course, it will need independent testing.

                But all of LG's solutions are not inferior, they simply have trade offs. Just like Samsung's Matte QD-OLED coating does versus it's glossy (or semi-gloss) coating. Look at this video and you can see that the matte QD-OLED coating on the right might have better reflection handling as expected but it raises black levels more than the glossy QD-OLED coating variant, glossy is more noticeable to have worse black levels in off-axis shots like 0:45, whereas if you look at 1:00 in the video front on the matte coating has worse black levels.

                With WOLED vs QD-OLED, it's especially noticeable the difference like I said in high ambient light environments, the trade off of more noticeable reflections but deeper blacks is worth it if you work in an office or studio with lots of windows.. In some ways the reflection handling is better with matte WOLED

                • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 19:26

                  @KARMAAA:

                  I didn't twist anything, I quoted what you said.

                  Mate… immediately after that sentence. in the same paragraph is:

                  But that's only one component of visibility in a bright room.

                  LG is working with ASUS to make their "TrueBlack Glossy" coating and so far it looks pretty good, but this in a booth where ASUS is controlling the light and giving QD-OLED the worst-case scenario. Of course, it will need independent testing.

                  Happy to look at that in testing.

                  The rest of what you're showing is shown up by RTings new reflection testing.

                  • KARMAAA on 24/06/2025 - 22:33

                    @jasswolf:

                    Mate… immediately after that sentence. in the same paragraph is:

                    But that's only one component of visibility in a bright room.

                    I didn't twist your words. I directly quoted them. Twisting your words would be like what YOU did to ME by starting some strawman about nothing I even said which is where you started saying I was arguing about dark room performance, even though I NEVER EVEN MENTIONED IT.

                    Anyways, your whole argument originally started by saying that I was supposedly wrong about the whole QD-OLED black levels thing because LG's coatings had worse reflection handling. I will quote it here:

                    I've covered before how this isn't accurate. LG's reflection handling is so bad, that matte QD-OLED makes for a better bright room experience overall, hence why Samsung now put it on all their premium OLED products.

                    So I simply said that was not the case because you agreed with me that the WOLEDs have better blacklight handling as evidenced by you agreeing with me that they have 1 nit of brightness versus QD-OLED's 2.5 nits with the new panels as you stated here:

                    early QD-OLED monitor panels rise to 3.5 nits, later panels drop 2.5 nits, and standard WOLED panels hit… 1 nit.

                    I did not twist your words at all, I quoted them and it's clear from the context of your comments what we're talking about. And I have now shown that LG's coating is superior in light rooms even with reflections based on the video I linked above from MonitorsUnboxed. I have no idea how you can look at this moment in the video and decide QD-OLED's coating is better in bright ambient light environments? It's objectively worse than WOLED in reflection handling and black levels, even MonitorsUnboxed says it too. This is NOT just MY opinion, it's the general consensus.

                    I also showed that QD-OLED's differing coatings have trade-offs making them about even with each other and that the glossy coating is not superior to the matte one and vice versa. So even amongst QD-OLEDs, the matte is not worse versus the glossy variants, nor is it better in bright room environments as you argued. In fact from the video I linked above, it seems to be worse when viewing straight on than the glossy coating, whereas the glossy coating is worse from an off-axis view. They both have advantages and disadvantages. But definitely WOLED has superior black levels and reflection handling based off MonitorsUnboxed.

                    The rest of what you're showing is shown up by RTings new reflection testing.

                    I never brought up RTINGS. Not once and you have said in the comment you linked that you do not like their testing, so I provided other sources on purpose so you couldn't relentlessly complain about their testing. Are you going to complain about those different sources too? I guess only your sources are the ones that matter eh? Whatever… complete waste of my time. You just have an agenda and are not willing to even just 'agree to disagree' despite the evidence being overwhelming that WOLEDs are better versus QD-OLEDs in bright ambient light environments. Even Samsung Display is not this hardline in their positivity about their OWN PRODUCT in bright light environments.

                    • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 22:41
                      -1

                      @KARMAAA:

                      I did not twist your words at all, I quoted them and it's clear from the context of your comments what we're talking about. And I have now shown that LG's coating is superior in light rooms even with reflections based on the video I linked above from MonitorsUnboxed.

                      That video you're linking is 3rd party glossy QD-OLED vs LG's in-house matte/semi-glossy WOLED. If I've stated or given you the impression that LG's matte coating would be worse at handling reflections than Samsung's glossy, or other parties using a glossy coating on a QD-OLED, I apologise.

                      But head to head in the same coating type, Samsung offers better reflection handling.

                      • KARMAAA on 24/06/2025 - 22:48

                        @jasswolf:

                        That video you're linking is glossy QD-OLED vs matte WOLED.

                        Thank you for confirming you didn't even bother reading my posts and responses. I clearly compare Glossy QD-OLED and Matte QD-OLED in this video from this post here where I stated:

                        But all of LG's solutions are not inferior, they simply have trade offs. Just like Samsung's Matte QD-OLED coating does versus it's glossy (or semi-gloss) coating. Look at this video and you can see that the matte QD-OLED coating on the right might have better reflection handling as expected but it raises black levels more than the glossy QD-OLED coating variant, glossy is more noticeable to have worse black levels in off-axis shots like 0:45, whereas if you look at 1:00 in the video front on the matte coating has worse black levels.

                        From the video it's clear Glossy QD-OLED is superior when viewing straight on versus Matte QD-OLED around the one minute mark, ergo Glossy QD-OLED is the better coating when viewing straight on as shown as 1:00 minute on the video and thus we can eliminate matte QD-OLED from the conversation (unless you're talking about off-axis viewing, but most people are using a monitor and viewing it straight on). Thus, when we compared Glossy QD-OLED versus matte WOLED, matte WOLED wins in black levels and reflection handling.

                        • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 23:09
                          -3

                          @KARMAAA: Oddly enough I'm not properly reading random essay responses to topics I already felt I covered far too much, and I'm certainly switching my attention between posts.

                          Yes a matte coating which nullifies reflections almost entirely will of course be defusing more light through onto the panel (or more accurately, the quantum dot layer). This whole time, we've been discussing the ins and outs of the use cases where that is most useful.

                          A light source beaming directly at the screen with a reflection into the eyeline of the user? Samsung's matte solution works best, and it's probably the only one that does work well in that scenario, and it's an extremely common one in daytime viewing of a monitor or TV.

                          When there is no reflection in the eyeline and the ambient light level is dim enough that there aren't enough general reflections from room objects, you can make an argument for glossy, and yes you're also making a decent argument for LG panels with a polariser because they will present blacks better. The darker the scene, the more this stands out (but again, so may reflections).

                          Once we get back to fairly dim or dark, the Samsung comes back into play.

                          In addition to all of this, you've got almost every WOLED in question having significantly less colour volume, which has an impact on perceived brightness in most - read: not dark, also not pure white - scenes. My point is that the Samsung matte execution offers an approach which is more useful in more common scenarios for viewing, and I'm sticking with that.

                          I'd like Samsung and LG to offer consumers more choice instead of deciding for them for a given product and class, and I'd like to see Samsung introduce a polariser option over time, but I doubt we're going to see that happen until a different self-emissive technology is used.

                          All of that said, it seems like in terms of overall consumer variety at a given pricepoint will be helped out by LG bringing their tandem OLED to scale for monitor panels, and I've noted that that's the core improvement you're seeing with the ASUS and LG collaboration you mentioned earlier, not so much the coating.

                          But you're seeing how expensive LG's solution is becoming to drive their measurements forward: they're having to stack more OLED panels in the switch to RGB in order to deliver both better colour volume and brightness. While power consumption is currently in check, I'm keen to see how this impacts power consumption and rise and fall time at increasing refresh rates, and with typically used content.

                          • KARMAAA on 24/06/2025 - 23:33
                            +1

                            @jasswolf:

                            Oddly enough I'm not properly reading random essay responses to topics I already felt I covered far too much, and I'm certainly switching my attention between posts.

                            That's your problem. Not mine.

                            Yes a matte coating which nullifies reflections almost entirely will of course be defusing more light through onto the panel (or more accurately, the quantum dot layer). This whole time, we've been discussing the ins and outs of the use cases where that is most useful.

                            Who wants to raise their black levels by doing that? The whole point of OLED is deep blacks and great contrast. QD-OLED has it as a flaw. Once again, thanks for agreeing with me.

                            A light source beaming directly at the screen with a reflection into the eyeline of the user? Samsung's matte solution works best, and it's probably the only one that does work well in that scenario, and it's an extremely common one in daytime viewing of a monitor or TV.

                            Not even close to the truth. The truth is matte WOLED is better at black levels and better at reflections. Case closed as tested by TFTCentral.

                            In addition to all of this, you've got almost every WOLED in question having significantly less colour volume, which has an impact on perceived brightness in most - read: not dark - scenes.

                            I'm happy you got ChatGPT to create your response because of its length and also its use of em dash as a dead giveaway. I'm proud of ya mate.

                            As for colour volume, I've always said that QD-OLED has superior colours. I even said it in my original comment here: "I want to also add these are QD-OLED which means they're better at colour reproduction…"

                            However, that doesn't make them brighter, it makes them more saturated and they're perceived to be more saturated, but they are not perceived to be brighter at all.

                            My point is that the Samsung matte execution offers an approach which is more useful in more common scenarios for viewing, and I'm sticking with that.

                            But it isn't as shown in the testing I provided above and the videos. The evidence is overwhelming, Samsung's matte execution is inferior to WOLED matte, and as the graph shows and it lines up with the video I posted above, it's even worse at black levels than QD-OLED Glossy coating LMAO!

                            I'd like Samsung and LG to offer consumers more choice instead of deciding for them for a given product and class, and I'd like to see Samsung introducer a polariser option over time, but I doubt we're going to see that happen until a different self-emissive technology is used.

                            Samsung won't do it because they know it will lower their brightness even further.

                            But sure, I'm all for more choice which is why I can't wait for TrueBlack Glossy WOLED which will probably be the king seeing as Glossy WOLED TV's are already number 1 according to TFT Central. QD-OLEDs are in last place.

                            All of that said, it seems like in terms of overall consumer variety at a given pricepoint will be helped out by LG bringing their tandem OLED to scale for monitor panels, and I've noted that that's the core improvement you're seeing with the ASUS and LG collaboration you mentioned earlier, not so much the coating.

                            ChatGPT really f**ked up for you lad. The collaboration between ASUS and LG is all about the coating, the panel technology is the same "third generation panel" which means it's MLA+ not Tandem WOLED, TFTCentral confirms this in this article here:

                            The WOLED panel used for each of the new monitors uses MLA+ tech to achieve excellent levels of brightness Asus confirm, and our understanding (as per our recent LG.Display WOLED roadmap video) is that this is a variant of the Gen 3 panel produced last year in this size, now with a natively glossy coating from the LG.Display factory. It’s not one of the newer Gen 4 Tandem RGB structure panels.

                            So yeah it's MLA and third gen.

                            But you're seeing how expensive LG's solution is becoming to drive their measurements forward: they're having to stack more OLED panels in the switch to RGB in order to deliver both better colour volume and brightness. While power consumption is currently in check, I'm keen to see how this impacts power consumption and rise and fall time at increasing refresh rates, and with typically used content.

                            Okay ChatGPT. But this is an MLA+ panel, so none of that applies.

                            Better luck next time lad. Maybe don't use ChatGPT. Cya!

                            • jasswolf on 25/06/2025 - 00:12
                              -2

                              @KARMAAA:

                              Not even close to the truth. The truth is matte WOLED is better at black levels and better at reflections. Case closed as tested by TFTCentral.

                              And yet here is RTings new testing methodology, which I think is more comprehensive and speaks for itself.

                              I'm happy you got ChatGPT to create your response because of its length and also its use of em dash as a dead giveaway. I'm proud of ya mate.

                              Nope, I've typed all of this bar maybe the odd spellcheck flag, and grew up with literature that had all sorts of formal writing features, even semicolons. Amazing, I know.

                              However, that doesn't make them brighter, it makes them more saturated and they're perceived to be more saturated, but they are not perceived to be brighter at all.

                              Except that it does, in two ways:

                              1. Samsung QD-OLED panels generally possess higher luminence for primary and secondary colours than LG WOLED, which means they can typically push brighter in a wider array of HDR content.

                              2. With increased colour volume and gamut, comes an improved capability with respect to showing more correct tones in even sRGB/rec.709, but also the right amount of saturation in HDR presentations, which will be perceptually brighter at the same level of luminance.

                              So that's another consideration in how viewable each screen technology is in these ambient lighting scenarios, and one I briefly covered in my original post. Yes, LG have tandem OLED to counter this which notably diminishes the need for the white subpixel in the arrangement, but as you've noted, that's not a current product offering outside of some iPad Pros and the LG G5 television.

                              ChatGPT really f**ked up for you lad. The collaboration between ASUS and LG is all about the coating, the panel technology is the same "third generation panel" which means it's MLA+ not Tandem WOLED

                              Ok I stand corrected, but again: not chatGPT. I was directed to a video that seemed to be showing off tandem OLED.

                              But sure, I'm all for more choice which is why I can't wait for TrueBlack Glossy WOLED which will probably be the king seeing as Glossy WOLED TV's are already number 1 according to TFT Central. QD-OLEDs are in last place.

                              You keep mentioning this, but it specifically refers to black level retention, and he leaves the discussion about preferences towards bright room behaviour and the desire to correct for that as subjective, which it is. My argument is that the Samsung matte offers a better overall set of outcomes for how people typically view their content, and I don't feel it diminishes enough of OLED's strengths.

                              If LG jumped up and used a similar quality matte coating option on a tandem OLED offering, I would change my answer, and may change my answer with this upcoming coating type you seem inordinately excited about.

                              Better luck next time lad. Maybe don't use ChatGPT. Cya!

                              You invest too much of your well being in this kind of discussion, I wish you well on the road to a more enlightened view. ;)

                              • KARMAAA on 25/06/2025 - 00:54
                                +2

                                @jasswolf:

                                And yet here is RTings new testing methodology, which I think is more comprehensive and speaks for itself.(rtings.com)

                                I thought you hated RTINGS lol? you said this on the 14th of June 2025, no?: "RTings also do a terrible job with this, but what else is new while their 'user-driven', 'self-funded' content also quietly gets pressured into leading you to an affiliate link to buy a product."

                                It seems like I said earlier, only your sources seem to matter and your opinion, rather than the objective truth. You just pick and choose. It's quite sad actually.

                                Regardless, RTINGS shows what I said which is that QD-OLED has worse black levels than WOLED in high ambient light areas. So I appreciate you giving me an extra source that affirms my position. QD-OLED matte scores 4.4 and WOLED semi-gloss scores an 8.2. Thanks for that.

                                Also why are you comparing QD-OLED Matte to WOLED semi-gloss rather than to an WOLED matte? Is it perhaps to make yourself look more favorable? I think it is! Here is a Matte QD-OLED vs a Matte WOLED and guess what, Matte WOLED as I said before and all the other evidence shows, reflects less light in a bright room, scoring a 9.0 for matte WOLED vs an 8.6 for QD-OLED matte. Imagine that! Crazy, I know! But it's okay, your little trick didn't work. But as we can see WOLED matte is the better coating overall and panel type versus QD-OLED matte.

                                So what you like RTINGS testing now despite hating it 10 days ago? Let me guess, now that RTINGS shows you're wrong, you will start to hate on RTINGS again as a source? LOL!

                                Nope, I've typed all of this bar maybe the odd spellcheck flag, and grew up with literature that had all sorts of formal writing features, even semicolons. Amazing, I know.

                                Oh so it's not ChatGPT that's wrong, it's just you. Thank you for that, I appreciate it.

                                Except that it does, in two ways:

                                Samsung QD-OLED panels generally possess higher luminence for primary and secondary colours than LG WOLED, which means they can typically push brighter in a wider array of HDR content.

                                You're getting saturation and luminance confused, which is common. They're not the same. What you mean to say is: 'QD-OLED panels generally possess higher saturation for primary and secondary colours.'. Saturation is colour intensity, luminance is what's measured in candela.

                                With increased colour volume and gamut, comes an improved capability with respect to showing more correct tones in even sRGB/rec.709, but also the right amount of saturation in HDR presentations, which will be perceptually brighter at the same level of luminance.

                                Nope they're more saturated, they do not have higher luminance. You can roll out whatever subjective opinion you want, but WOLEDs are slightly higher luminance than QD-OLEDs and of course it depends on each monitor because some get brighter in smaller windows or in larger ones than others using the same panel, but colour doesn't change that.

                                So that's another consideration in how viewable each screen technology is in these ambient lighting scenarios, and one I briefly covered in my original post. Yes, LG have tandem OLED to counter this which notably diminishes the need for the white subpixel in the arrangement, but as you've noted, that's not a current product offering outside of some iPad Pros and the LG G5 television.

                                Yes. Of course I'm right.

                                Ok I stand corrected, but again: not chatGPT.

                                You're not very well researched.

                                I was directed to a video that seemed to be showing off tandem OLED (which is true RGB stacked, not WOLED).

                                Which video?

                                You keep mentioning this, but it specifically refers to black level retention, and he leaves the discussion about preferences towards bright room behaviour and the desire to correct for that as subjective, which it is.

                                No, he does not, he conclusively says this in the article:

                                We’ll hone in on the WOLED panels in a moment, but one obvious difference here is how much better all those panels are at handling ambient light sources than the QD-OLED panels. In a dark room there’s no observable differences but when you start introducing external light the differences become increasingly more apparent. The WOLED panels all look blacker and darker than the QD-OLED panel, especially in well-lit rooms.

                                So what are you talking about? WOLED wins in higher ambient light environments as I said above about 13 comments ago and shown above numerous times.

                                My argument is that the Samsung matte offers a better overall set of outcomes for how people typically view their content, and I don't feel it diminishes enough of OLED's strengths.

                                Well facts don't care about your feelings. QD-OLED matte is objectively the worst coating and the panel type of QD-OLED and is a severe downgrade compared to WOLED in high light ambient environments, especially for black levels.

                                If LG jumped up and used a similar quality matte coating option on a tandem OLED offering, I would change my answer.

                                I don't care about your answer, or my answer. I care about the objective answer which is WOLED is better in high ambient light scenarios as I've initially and repeatedly said and shown via objective testing and evidence.

                                You invest too much of your well being in this kind of discussion, I wish you well on the road to a more enlightened view. ;)

                                I wish you would just accept objective evidence.

                                • jasswolf on 25/06/2025 - 01:35
                                  -2

                                  @KARMAAA:

                                  I thought you hated RTINGS lol? you said this on the 14th of June 2025, no?: "RTings also do a terrible job with this, but what else is new while their 'user-driven', 'self-funded' content also quietly gets pressured into leading you to an affiliate link to buy a product."

                                  I should have been more specific at the time: RTings do a terrible job explaining this overall, as they do in a number of things which they try to condense down to a number out of 10, while glossing over how most people use a device unless you click through a bit.

                                  It seems like I said earlier, only your sources seem to matter and your opinion, rather than the objective truth. You just pick and choose. It's quite sad actually.

                                  Objective truth is often a fallacy that belies the inherent bias of any given observation. We do our best to answer, and some of us try not to rant and make blanket character assessments about people based on glib interactions.

                                  I didn't dismiss your sources, I simply pointed out a wider scope.

                                  Also why are you comparing QD-OLED Matte to WOLED semi-gloss rather than to an WOLED matte?

                                  I made a quick comparison between common models from LG and Samsung. Your comparison shows virtually the same outcome: Samsung's diffuses the appearance of reflections far more, though I can see from the data the LG is considered less intense overall (or more accurately, less diffuse).

                                  You're getting saturation and luminance confused, which is common. They're not the same. What you mean to say is: 'QD-OLED panels generally possess higher saturation for primary and secondary colours.'. Saturation is colour intensity, luminance is what's measured in candela.

                                  As I've tried to convey to you, I'm not paying that much attention… clearly there I'm confusing apparent brightness with luminance, but we're very much in the realm of semantics and you could have just corrected me appropriately and moved on. Here's a great article that includes what I'm describing.

                                  So colour volume matters, and delivers a brighter appearance to an image (and hopefully it's correctly utilised).

                                  Yes. Of course I'm right.
                                  You're not very well researched.

                                  And you bring it back down again with the endlessly scathing attitude, which might be more justified if you were wholly absorbing everything you're claiming to be espousing.

                                  No, he does not, he conclusively says this in the article

                                  Yes, he does.

                                  There is no “best” overall screen coating, it’s a very subjective preference and as you’ve seen from the above comparisons and testing, they all seem to have their strengths and weaknesses; their pros and cons. Your viewing environment, ambient light levels, lighting positioning and individual preferences will dictated which is going to be best for you.

                                  You keep locking in on black level retention, when I have repeatedly mentioned it is one aspect of how someone will be viewing a screen in a bright room. For whatever reason, you seem to be mentally ducking this concept entirely despite this feverish attempt to take a crack at me.

                                  I'm honestly only still in this exchange because you generally seem to be smarter than this, but you're way too thirsty for a victory deemed on point scoring. Maybe take up boxing?

                                  <many references to a failure to be objective, and how objective data exists>

                                  Look, if we're going to boil this down to measurable aspects of these coatings, glass. polariser and supixel choices, then I suppose there is objective data to be had about how each model performs in a set of scenarios.

                                  My entire argument is that when you put these in front of an individual in their own circumstances, subjectivity arises. I think currently the Samsung matte approach really works for a lot of people in more scenarios they'd be facing. I cannot believe I have to explain this so formally to you.

                                  Subjectivity is also a thing with audio products to an extent, but that pertains to things like individual HRTFs and hearing acuity, fitment and comfort with various form factors, and while there is objective data about said products, it is often not conclusive about overall performance with a complex audio signal (i.e. music), and people then rant about measurement graphs and call any other described differences falsely subjective data and placebo.

                                  You're doing a far more intellectual version of it here, but you're getting hugely caught up in black level retention in a bright room as the sole measure of overall performance. It's not, please stop. I'm done.

                                  • KARMAAA on 25/06/2025 - 02:40
                                    -1

                                    @jasswolf:

                                    I should have been more specific at the time: RTings do a terrible job explaining this overall, as they do in a number of things which they try to condense down to a number out of 10, while glossing over how most people use a device unless you click through a bit.

                                    No you were pretty conclusive 10 days ago, but nice try and trying to save face on using them as a source now. these words will haunt you forever: "RTings also do a terrible job with this, but what else is new while their 'user-driven', 'self-funded' content also quietly gets pressured into leading you to an affiliate link to buy a product."

                                    Objective truth is often a fallacy that belies the inherent bias of any given observation. We do our best to answer, and some of us try not to rant and make blanket character assessments about people based on glib interactions.

                                    Okay ChatGPT.

                                    I didn't dismiss your sources, I simply pointed out a wider scope.

                                    You didn't provide any sources till two comments ago. Till then it was just essentially you saying 'here's my opinion trust me bro'. You never tried to widen any scope. As soon as I showed a source, you said either the source was wrong, or I was showing the wrong thing. So no you didn't try and widen the scope of sources, you just provided your opinion and eventually showed an RTINGs review (a review outlet which you supposedly hated until 10 seconds ago).

                                    I made a quick comparison between common models from LG and Samsung. Your comparison shows virtually the same outcome: Samsung's diffuses the appearance of reflections far more, though I can see from the data the LG is considered less intense overall (or more accurately, less diffuse).

                                    You used the incorrect comparison on purpose and thought I would not notice and accept it. I'm too quick to that mate.

                                    The comparison from RTINGs I linked also does not show virtually the same outcome. The matte QD-OLED is 1.804x worse at total reflected light intensity and has more overall distracting reflections.

                                    Your whole overarching argument has pivoted so many times and you just continue to lie and lie. First it was a strawman constructed by you that I was talking about "dark room performance" which I never even brought up or talked about. I simply talked about black level performance in QD-OLEDs being worse than WOLEDs which is true. You also said this:

                                    LG's reflection handling is so bad, that matte QD-OLED makes for a better bright room experience overall, hence why Samsung now put it on all their premium OLED products.

                                    I have just provided you objective evidence showing that is not the case. LG WOLEDs that are matte are better at handling reflections than matte QD-OLEDs in bright room or bright ambient light environments.

                                    Then you pivoted to saying I "twisted your words" even though that's exactly what YOU did, all I did was quote you time and time again.

                                    Then you pivoted again to colour volume and how that's somehow linked to luminance, even though it's not. Mind you, I never once said that WOLEDs had better colours or colour volume or colour reproduction. In my very first post I said "Good breakdown. I want to also add these are QD-OLED which means they're better at colour reproduction". Yet you downvoted me and started some sort of argument saying I was wrong.

                                    Now you're trying to gaslight me as if I'm still wrong. Nah mate. YOU ARE WRONG. I've provided objective sources and evidence multiple times from multiple sources and they show I'm right.

                                    As I've tried to convey to you, I'm not paying that much attention… clearly there I'm confusing apparent brightness with luminance, but we're very much in the realm of semantics and you could have just corrected me appropriately and moved on.

                                    I did.

                                    Here's a great article that includes what I'm describing.

                                    Yes the article shows that with 100% APL, QD-OLED and WOLED are practically the same with regards to colour luminance on the red, green and blue, it's the secondary colours where OLED falls flat like cyan, magenta and yellow. It also shows that beyond 25% APL they're largely the same with regards to colour luminance. It's only in 1%, 5% and 10% window sizes that QD-OLED has a lead with colour luminance, which is just one factor of overall luminance. But in 25% APL WOLED has a lead and they track basically the same at 50%, 75% and 100% APL. As I said earlier, QD-OLED has better colour reproduction and colour volume. I never disputed that. But luminance is more than just one colour or APL window size, hence why some panels shift more blue, or more red, or more green etc. Luckily WOLED has the white subpixel to provide slightly better overall luminance. It's a neat trick by QD-OLED on your mind to have better colours, but overall luminance is slightly higher with WOLED, it's just a fact and with regards to HDR scenarios, you want proper full 100% APL brightness to be high which is what matters, because almost any monitor can give you great 1% luminance these days, but can it sustain it across the whole display for a decent amount of time? Thats what people want from their HDR experience.

                                    Regardless, this is all a nice distraction you've created, but let's get back to the central point which is coating and panel types in high ambient light environments. As I've shown, matte QD-OLED is worse at reflection handling than matte WOLED. QD-OLED also as you've conceded has no polariser and as such it has raised black levels compared to WOLED which is further exacerbated by a matte QD-OLED coating which you admitted to here: "yes you're also making a decent argument for LG panels with a polariser because they will present blacks better". So thanks for agreeing with me, I appreciate it.

                                    So colour volume matters, and delivers a brighter appearance to an image (and hopefully it's correctly utilised).

                                    I already said QD-OLED provides better colour volume. I never disputed that. But thats only one factor in overall luminance and just because something has better colour volume does not mean it's actually higher luminance overall.

                                    And you bring it back down again with the endlessly scathing attitude, which might be more justified if you were wholly absorbing everything you're claiming to be espousing.

                                    I have no attitude. I think anyone doesn't like a liar like yourself because you're making strawman arguments, then saying I'm wrong even though you agree with me and contradict yourself or the objective evidence constantly.

                                    You keep locking in on black level retention, when I have repeatedly mentioned it is one aspect of how someone will be viewing a screen in a bright room. For whatever reason, you seem to be mentally ducking this concept entirely despite this feverish attempt to take a crack at me.

                                    I have not "ducked it". I explained and shown OBJECTIVE evidence that QD-OLED is worse when it comes to black levels compared to WOLEDs in high ambient light environments. That's a fact. Then you tried to make out like the coating was an issue why WOLEDs are inferior. I then proved to you with OBJECTIVE evidence that QD-OLED coatings are inferior to WOLEDs in high ambient light environments, specifically matte QD-OLED coating vs matte WOLED coating. Now you're pivoting to colour volume and colour reproduction, even though colours gets washed out if your display's coating reflects more light to your eye and this is common knowledge, which matte QD-OLED does according to your favorite source now, RTINGS which shows that total light intensity was 1.804x higher with matte QD-OLED than it is with matte WOLED.

                                    So I have not ducked anything. You're the one constantly pivoting and changing your argument. First it was black levels, then it was coating and now it's colour reproudction. What's next from you? The intensity of the sun depending on what part of the planet you're on and in which season of the year and the time of day? Give it a rest mate, you're constantly pivoting and scrambling to find anything that affirms your view.

                                    I'm honestly only still in this exchange because you generally seem to be smarter than this, but you're way too thirsty for a victory deemed on point scoring. Maybe take up boxing?

                                    Nope, I'm just right. I'm not smart at all, I'm just right.

                                    <many references to a failure to be objective, and how objective data exists>

                                    Ah yes, I'm the one with an "attitude". Get a grip lad.

                                    Look, if we're going to boil this down to measurable aspects of these coatings, glass. polariser and supixel choices, then I suppose there is objective data to be had about how each model performs in a set of scenarios.

                                    It's not anything you or I suppose, it's just fact that there is measurable aspects and one is superior to the other in a certain environment. As I said ages ago, dark room, QD-OLED is superior. But in a bright or high ambient light environment, WOLED is superior.

                                    My entire argument is that when you put these in front of an individual in their own circumstances, subjectivity arises. I think currently the Samsung matte approach really works for a lot of people in more scenarios they'd be facing. I cannot believe I have to explain this so formally to you.

                                    It really doesn't. The objective metrics show that matte WOLED is superior in a bright or high ambient light environment.

                                    Subjectivity is also a thing with audio products to an extent, but that pertains to things like individual HRTFs and hearing acuity, fitment and comfort with various form factors, and while there is objective data about said products, it is often not conclusive about overall performance with a complex audio signal (i.e. music), and people then rant about measurement graphs and call any other described differences falsely subjective data and placebo.

                                    Subjectivity is stupid with regards to audio products as well. Just because someone was born with inferior hearing and so they can't get the whole soundscape of a product that can provide say 100% of the human hearing spectrum, doesn't mean the product is objectively bad. What's objectively bad is that person's hearing compared to the average person.

                                    I mean I'll put it this way, if you polled most people with a boomy, bass heavy set of headphones over a natural clean sounding headset without any bass or treble bias, most people would pick the boomy bass heavy headset, over the more clean and clear soundstage that isn't biased towards bass or treble. It doesn't mean the people are right at all. Objectively the one that is the least biased towards bass or treble is the more correct headset but most people just prefer a beefier bass heavy sound on average.

                                    As for comfort and fitment this is entirely different because each person is unique with regards to their ear canal size for instance and you can't provide a best fit for every person. However, with something like human perception, we all have rods and cones and you can provide the best looking monitor for the average person or the widest sounding headset for the average person by using better drivers. Just because someone has f**cked up hearing and can only hear 20% of the human hearing spectrum does not mean suddenly we should use 10mm drivers from Temu and say "it's good because this person's subjective opinion says it's great!" LMAO.

                                    In the end, in most scenarios, the matte WOLED is superior in bright or high ambient light environments as I've always said, because it has better black levels and a better coating at resisting reflections than matte QD-OLED.

                                    You're doing a far more intellectual version of it here, but you're getting hugely caught up in black level retention in a bright room as the sole measure of overall performance. It's not, please stop. I'm done.

                                    I'm not getting hugely caught up, I said it and YOU said I was wrong (even though I've proven numerous times objectively and you've admitted it to be the case too as I've quoted above), but be honest, the reason why people buy an OLED is for better contrast and you lose that contrast ratio with raised black levels in a bright ambient environment with a QD-OLED versus a WOLED which was my whole point in my first post. If you're done, then you're done, but the fact is the fact, WOLED is superior in this scenario.

                                    If you want to stand on QD-OLEDs are better in dark room environments compared to WOLEDs, then yes, I agree on that. But I never spoke about dark room environments in my intial post. I spoke about raised black levels in high ambient environments and you downvoted me and said I was wrong, when I was not.

      • charmandad on 24/06/2025 - 17:43

        I have the G95, it is glossy, but has that excellent anti-reflective coating. It handles reflection better than the dell matte one sitting beside.

        • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 18:00
          +1

          G95SC, or G95SD? The SC is glossy, but yes it handles reflections better than most glossy options, and possibly some other matte solutions (mostly on LG panels).

          • charmandad on 24/06/2025 - 18:09
            +1

            @jasswolf: Sorry for the confusion, did a quick search and just realised that the SD is a facelift model and indeed has a matte screen. I wasn't aware of the difference in models since they look the same.

            • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 18:10
              +1

              @charmandad: All good, I ran into this issue a while back as well!

  • n0context on 24/06/2025 - 16:52
    +8

    Is this Oled or Va? It says on the title that is it oled but if you look at the specs it’s VA.

    • RichardF89 on 24/06/2025 - 17:00

      reddit said it is not OLED

      https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/comments/1k2ttw…

    • Water Bearer on 24/06/2025 - 17:13
      +1

      This is why you don't buy Samsung. They have awful quality control, overcharge for anything and everything. If they don't even know what they're selling between OLED and LCD. Then what the hell is the customer supposed to think. Terrible!
      Theres a reason why these monitors drop in price by such a huge margin all the time. The amount of issues they have is awful

      • jasswolf on 24/06/2025 - 17:18
        +1

        The error seems to be specific to the Samsung Australia website, so just an entry error by local staff.

      • RichardF89 on 24/06/2025 - 17:59

        the cs from the samsung chat said this is VA and OLED panel

    • Orbilf on 24/06/2025 - 17:19
      +1

      Not OLED, confirmed via live chat

      "You are absolutely correct to question that!

      The Samsung Odyssey OLED G9 G91F DQHD 144Hz Gaming Monitor is NOT an OLED monitor. Despite its name being similar to other "Odyssey OLED G9" models, the "G91F" specifically uses a VA (Vertical Alignment) panel, not an OLED panel.

      This is a common point of confusion because Samsung has a few different "Odyssey G9" monitors, and some of them are indeed OLED. However, the G91F variant, as you observed in its specs, is explicitly listed with a VA panel.

      The key differences for the G91F often include:

      Panel Type: VA (not OLED)
      Refresh Rate: 144Hz (whereas some OLED G9 models go up to 240Hz)

      HDR Certification: Typically VESA DisplayHDR 600 (OLED models usually have HDR True Black 400 or higher, leveraging OLED's superior contrast)."

    • Pradakuma on 24/06/2025 - 20:30

      I talked to two sales agents, and both of them confiremd it's OLED monitor, and I have a chat record : (

  • RichardF89 on 24/06/2025 - 17:01

    Hi OP what is the 15% of code start?

  • Panpanw on 24/06/2025 - 17:02

    They only given me 5% Samsung loyalty coupon

  • vince088 on 24/06/2025 - 17:04

    Further $100 off if you trade in your old monitor.
    Further $50 off with the Samsung EOFY voucher.
    Further 15% off with the Samsung loyalty coupon acquired via livechat.

    $891.65 ??

  • RichardF89 on 24/06/2025 - 17:09

    I didn't get the 15% off code only got a 10% off one

  • scottxx on 24/06/2025 - 17:13

    They are only giving out 10% discount, where did you get the 15% loyalty offer?

  • HomeAlone on 24/06/2025 - 17:22

    Samsung Odyssey OLED G9 G91F 49" DQHD 144GHz Gaming Monitor $1,199 Delivered @ Samsung

    This model is not OLED. Samsung has made a big mistake there. It's a VA panel.

  • theone4u on 24/06/2025 - 17:57

    where is everyone getting the additional $50 EOFY voucher?

    • DevlicK on 24/06/2025 - 18:46

      Email

  • theone4u on 24/06/2025 - 18:14

    can anyone share a EOFY code :)

  • Ema000 on 24/06/2025 - 18:50

    I just noticed that the loyalty discount and the EOFY code do not stack together anymore

  • DevlicK on 24/06/2025 - 21:23

    Is the G91F similar to the 49" Neo (S49AG95)? or closer to the OG G9 model (C49G95T)

    I know the 49" Neo was discontinued and replaced with a bigger 57" Neo

  • nguyentai8 on 24/06/2025 - 22:32

    Thanks for sharing.
    Could someone please share which of the Samsung is best for clear text for working.

    • Ryanek on 25/06/2025 - 08:13

      For work you'll want an IPS panel monitor.

  • ThePunchingBag on 25/06/2025 - 07:51

    I'm just here for the comments between Jasswolf & Karmaaa

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join