Unfortunately, this deal is no longer valid
43 inch Samsung Super Ultrawide Monitor -  New Release £599.99 Amazon
380° Expired

43 inch Samsung Super Ultrawide Monitor - New Release £599.99 Amazon

£599.99Amazon Deals
35
Posted 21st Aug 2018
  • Pre-order for release on 31st Aug.
  • 3840 x 1200 resolution.
  • 32:10 aspect ratio.
  • 120 Hz Refresh rate.
  • Built-in KVM switch lets you control two devices connected to the monitor with just one keyboard and mouse. Instantly toggle control between the devices with the one-touch button
  • USB Type-C transmits data, video and audio, and power all over a single cable. Connect a smartphone, tablet, or laptop to USB Type-C ports to display content and charge the device at the same time
  • 5W Stereo Speakers - The built-in 5W stereo speakers provide a powerful soundstage for you to enjoy all your games, music and movies in rich, clear sound while also saving space on your desk
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
There's lot of confusion here about resolution.


Computers and TVs use resolution differently.

A TV always displays exactly the same picture and extra resolution will only be used to render details more finely. On a TV you want the highest resolution you watching stuff in.


Computers normally treat more resolution as more space. Things are rendered in exactly the same way as a lower resolution, they're no more detailed, but you can fit more of them on screen.

So more resolution is generally accompanied by more size, with a bit of variation to allow for different viewing distances. This screen is two 24" 1920x1200 screens side by side, but with no gap in the middle. Or a 47" 3840x2160 screen with the top lopped off.


As a result there's no call for a specific resolution like '4K' for computing uses. The only people who should be bothered about that is those doing a lot of TV-related stuff like video editing or heavy video watching. And arguably for video editing you want a slightly higher resolution like 5120x2880 so you can have the toolbars around the video.


Computers are able to use more resolution for more detail, although not all programs support it yet, and this is often referred to as HiDPI or Retina. This requires screens with high resolution and small size so dots per inch (DPI) is often a more useful measure here than resolution alone.

So if you're upgrading from a 24.5" 1920x1080 screen, a 49" 3840x2160 ('4k') screen will make stuff look the same but allow you to display four times as much. A 24.5" 3840x2160 screen will display exactly the same amount of stuff but rendered in more detail where supported.


If you're gaming then that's a different behaviour again. Some games work like normal computer apps but many first and third person ones depend on the shape of the screen. They always display the same vertical field of view which scales up to have more or less resolution but the horizontal field of view is dependant on the shape of the monitor, with wider screens displaying more.

So in gaming a 3840x2160 (4K) screen will display less of a game than this one, although it will render it in higher detail.

Game performance depends on the total pixel count, so a screen like this with half the total pixels of a 3840x2160 screen (4.6 vs. 8.3 megapixels) will also allow games to run almost twice as well (twice the frame rate).


In short, seeking out the latest TV resolution standard is not a good way to buy a computer monitor, unless you're using mostly for watching video in full screen. It's not a good point of reference as they don't behave the same way.
Plus, check out the side profile...

34872641-7MnYQ.jpg
It's nearly as fat as an old CRT

34872797-EJLoN.jpg

Perspective.
Edited by: "SomnambuIist" 21st Aug 2018
Where do I order.
34872033-XNQVa.jpg

35 Comments
Where do I order.
34872033-XNQVa.jpg

This looks impressive. Just watched the Linus review of a 49 inch ultra wide and worry about the desk space needed.
Does this work out 4k?
bob_regis21/08/2018 07:29

Does this work out 4k?


No, it's closer to 1080p. 4k in reality is 2160p and this is 1200p
They need a 4k version so not future proof for video work.
tomhood987 m ago

No, it's closer to 1080p. 4k in reality is 2160p and this is 1200p


I'm out.
Yeah 1200dpi at that size isn't great
I don't think 3840 x 1200 resolution and using as a monitor at close distance on this sized screen would be good. Good concept though
Considering 4K has been out for a while don't understand why they're making new screens at those resolutions
Plus, check out the side profile...

34872641-7MnYQ.jpg
It's nearly as fat as an old CRT

34872797-EJLoN.jpg

Perspective.
Edited by: "SomnambuIist" 21st Aug 2018
bob_regis2 h, 23 m ago

Does this work out 4k?


tomhood982 h, 16 m ago

No, it's closer to 1080p. 4k in reality is 2160p and this is 1200p




in height its closer to 1080p in pixel count its more like double and abit, think 2 1080p screens next to each other a little taller.

4k is is atleast 4 1080p screens, 2 by 2.
captainjack1 h, 42 m ago

Considering 4K has been out for a while don't understand why they're …Considering 4K has been out for a while don't understand why they're making new screens at those resolutions


Because the hardware that is required to run 4k is still very expensive.
kyeung1 h, 50 m ago

I don't think 3840 x 1200 resolution and using as a monitor at close …I don't think 3840 x 1200 resolution and using as a monitor at close distance on this sized screen would be good. Good concept though


How's that?

I've been using a 39" 3840x2160 screen on my desk for several years - about 50cm from my eyes.
Also a 28" 4K screen next to it.
After setting windows text/icon sizes appropriately, everything's great - no eye strain etc.

I'd guess the uninterrupted width would be great for games if you had the graphics to drive it ...
Edited by: "Hootwo" 21st Aug 2018
people talking out their asses about the resolution. this is essentially 2 x 1080 (actually a bit higher horizontally). 1080 @ 120/144 is a popular option right now. This amount of pixels at 120 is fairly demanding. you're complaining that this isnt 4k but none of you will have a gpu setup that can push 2 x 4k at a reasonable frame rate for a long time (assuming people about to preorder 2 2080 TIs at $1200 each dont need hukd)
Edited by: "Jmag" 21st Aug 2018
Jmag21/08/2018 09:57

people talking out their asses about the resolution. this is essentially 2 …people talking out their asses about the resolution. this is essentially 2 x 1080 (actually a bit higher horizontally). 1080 @ 120/144 is a popular option right now. This amount of pixels at 120 is fairly demanding. you're complaining that this isnt 4k but none of will you have a gpu setup that can push 2 x 4k at a reasonable frame rate for a long time (assuming people about to preorder 2 2080 TIs at $1200 each dont need hukd)


True for gaming at 4k but other tasks not a problem.
catbeans48 m ago

True for gaming at 4k but other tasks not a problem.


Still a problem for integrated graphics. I'm driving a 3840x2160 and a 2560x1440 monitor off the integrated graphics of my work PC (i5-4590 based) and it struggles with 2D applications under linux. It's very obviously not getting 60fps while scrolling.
Edited by: "CampGareth" 21st Aug 2018
There's lot of confusion here about resolution.


Computers and TVs use resolution differently.

A TV always displays exactly the same picture and extra resolution will only be used to render details more finely. On a TV you want the highest resolution you watching stuff in.


Computers normally treat more resolution as more space. Things are rendered in exactly the same way as a lower resolution, they're no more detailed, but you can fit more of them on screen.

So more resolution is generally accompanied by more size, with a bit of variation to allow for different viewing distances. This screen is two 24" 1920x1200 screens side by side, but with no gap in the middle. Or a 47" 3840x2160 screen with the top lopped off.


As a result there's no call for a specific resolution like '4K' for computing uses. The only people who should be bothered about that is those doing a lot of TV-related stuff like video editing or heavy video watching. And arguably for video editing you want a slightly higher resolution like 5120x2880 so you can have the toolbars around the video.


Computers are able to use more resolution for more detail, although not all programs support it yet, and this is often referred to as HiDPI or Retina. This requires screens with high resolution and small size so dots per inch (DPI) is often a more useful measure here than resolution alone.

So if you're upgrading from a 24.5" 1920x1080 screen, a 49" 3840x2160 ('4k') screen will make stuff look the same but allow you to display four times as much. A 24.5" 3840x2160 screen will display exactly the same amount of stuff but rendered in more detail where supported.


If you're gaming then that's a different behaviour again. Some games work like normal computer apps but many first and third person ones depend on the shape of the screen. They always display the same vertical field of view which scales up to have more or less resolution but the horizontal field of view is dependant on the shape of the monitor, with wider screens displaying more.

So in gaming a 3840x2160 (4K) screen will display less of a game than this one, although it will render it in higher detail.

Game performance depends on the total pixel count, so a screen like this with half the total pixels of a 3840x2160 screen (4.6 vs. 8.3 megapixels) will also allow games to run almost twice as well (twice the frame rate).


In short, seeking out the latest TV resolution standard is not a good way to buy a computer monitor, unless you're using mostly for watching video in full screen. It's not a good point of reference as they don't behave the same way.
Torn between this or using 2 monitors, main being a 27' 1440p 144hz curved samsung (preordered at £219.99 amazon.co.uk/dp/…=22

Mostly for gaming and some CAD work

Anybody got a similar superwide currently?
Anyone know what the actual screen dimensions are for this?

I use 2 x 24 inch 1920 x 1200 monitors side by side. It's about right in terms of pixel density and size (and much better than the more common 1920 x 1080 screens). This would be the same overall resolution, without the bezel split. But I'm concerned the overall size might be smaller. I suppose a bit of trigonometry should be able work that out, but not sure I can be bothered.

BTW, people saying "it should be 4K" are completely missing the point of an ultra-wide monitor.
Dodge6221/08/2018 12:33

I suppose a bit of trigonometry should be able work that out, but not sure …I suppose a bit of trigonometry should be able work that out, but not sure I can be bothered.


I did the maths. According to my calculations, they're almost identical (to within a couple of percent). Now I just need to know whether my MacBook Pro can drive this, and whether I can convince my company to pay for it.
Dodge627 m ago

Anyone know what the actual screen dimensions are for this?I use 2 x 24 …Anyone know what the actual screen dimensions are for this?I use 2 x 24 inch 1920 x 1200 monitors side by side. It's about right in terms of pixel density and size (and much better than the more common 1920 x 1080 screens). This would be the same overall resolution, without the bezel split. But I'm concerned the overall size might be smaller. I suppose a bit of trigonometry should be able work that out, but not sure I can be bothered.BTW, people saying "it should be 4K" are completely missing the point of an ultra-wide monitor.


Amazon list the dimensions as: 31.4 x 106.2 x 52.4 cm

I went from a pair of 24" 1920x1200 (agreed on much better than 1080p) to an LG Ultrawide 34" 3440 x 1440 and absolutely love it.

Lost a little horizontal resolution, gained some vertical.

Saved a load of desk space/wiring and I find a single curved ultra wide better than 2 screens as I tended to find I didn't use the far edges of each screen as much in the two screen setup. The curve brings them closer and makes the area more usable/immersive.

A 43" version sounds interesting, but this one is too low resolution compared to my 34" to be any benefit for me as this would just make things bigger, not give me more room.
Dodge624 m ago

I did the maths. According to my calculations, they're almost identical …I did the maths. According to my calculations, they're almost identical (to within a couple of percent). Now I just need to know whether my MacBook Pro can drive this, and whether I can convince my company to pay for it.


My MacBook Pro has no problem with 3440 x 1440 so I'm guessing it should be fine.

And my company did pay for it. But it helps to be the boss...

(To be fair I did offer some of the staff it too).

I went LG at the time as there was a Thunderbolt option and hang all my peripherals off that and dock to it with one wire in the morning (Mac does need a power cable too)
The "4k" version of this monitor would be 7680 x 2160.

That's 16,588,800 pixels to push.

On a monitor that is not intended for professional applications.

I just don't think that some people have any remote connection to reality in their comments here.

Heat added ... this is a fantastic price on a halo product with a very specific niche. I'll stick with my regular ultrawide but I can definitely see the appeal.
I may be missing the point of this monitor, but I personally think that if you want a screen this size, then go for a 43 inch 4k TV that supports chroma 4:4:4, as they are half the price of this monitor, offer full 4k resolution, plus have a lot more vertical height, which is awesome for gaming and videos.
Joshm7421/08/2018 14:12

I may be missing the point of this monitor, but I personally think that if …I may be missing the point of this monitor, but I personally think that if you want a screen this size, then go for a 43 inch 4k TV that supports chroma 4:4:4, as they are half the price of this monitor, offer full 4k resolution, plus have a lot more vertical height, which is awesome for gaming and videos.


I think because a 43' tv is just way too big to use as a monitor on a desk.
This is effectively like using 2 x 1080x1200 monitors, without a bezel in the middle. In games the sides would be peripheral vision just adding to the immersion, the curve adding to this and reducing the amount you need to look from corner to corner.
it's also 120hz for some pretty damn smooth gameplay if you can power it

I agree this isn't very suitable for a highly competitive fps player but for someone who plays mostly RPG's, racing games etc this would be an absolute monster
Edited by: "Organdonor" 21st Aug 2018
Organdonor21/08/2018 14:38

I think because a 43' tv is just way too big to use as a monitor on a desk.


You'd think that, it was my first thought too, but a quick look and the average 43" TV appears to be 97 x 57 cm

This is 106.2 x 52.4 cm so quite a beast!

I would agree the aspect ratio/curve would make it great for immersion especially for flying/driving, but then if you want that perhaps you need a VR headset?
Edited by: "uczmeg" 21st Aug 2018
uczmeg8 m ago

You'd think that, it was my first thought too, but a quick look and the …You'd think that, it was my first thought too, but a quick look and the average 43" TV appears to be 97 x 57 cmThis is 106.2 x 52.4 cm so quite a beast!I would agree the aspect ratio/curve would make it great for immersion especially for flying/driving, but then if you want that perhaps you need a VR headset?


I think you're looking at the 'with stand' dimensions dude, I believe the actual screen height is 35.9 cm
displaysolutions.samsung.com/bus…J89
"Set Dimension without Stand (WxHxD)1062.7 x 359.2 x 174.4"
I’m not looking for a monitor for gaming (I use a Rift for that on another PC) or video. Ultrawide monitors are great for side-by-side working - programming on one side, documentation on the other, for example. I’ve used dual monitors since CRT days, but sometimes you want stuff to span the middle, which is where this would work better.
HDR ?
For all thise who are concerned that this is not 4k, the horizontal resolution is actually 4k. And because the term 4k refers to the horizontal resolution then this is by definition 4k. As the vertical resolution is a few pixels higher than HD 1080, you're getting the best of both worlds
To add to the confusion for technophobes, traditionally HD format has been specified by the vertical pixel count which for a standard 4k TV is closer to 2k (2160). In conclusion, the new HD format should really have been named 2.1k and then we can quite rightly complain that this monitor ain't 2.1k!
Regardless of resolution, I think I will place a pre-order. I just hope Minecraft and Lego Batman don't look to blocky on it....
Some ppl here are saying a screen this wide is too big for a desk.

Software guys in our company use up to 6x HD and 1440p screens.
My desk has a 39" monitor, 2x HD screens in portrait, a 1440p and a 28" 4k screen - and really it's fine, L-shaped, with a seat on casters.

If you have the use case and need the pixels, go for it ...
Says £799 now?
Problem.Child3 h, 39 m ago

Says £799 now?


Looks expired unfortunately. Don't think it'll be that price again as well....
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text