Samsung teases CH711 quantum dot monitor ahead of CES

Samsung might have had a stumble on the phone arena, but the company is looking to lead the way in the high-end monitor market. We first heard about the CF791 ultra-wide gaming monitor back in August. Now that that display has hit the market, Samsung is talking up its next big thing: the CH711, which the company describes as a a 2560×1440 curved gaming monitor with quantum dot technology.

Those characteristics make the CH711 appear to be a 16:9 version of the CF791. Samsung doesn't say anything about the panel type, but it states that the new monitor boasts 178° viewing angles, suggesting that it may use a PLS or VA panel, again in a similar fashion to the CF971. There's also no word on the monitor's refresh rate or variable refresh support, but since the CF791 has Freesync support and a 100Hz refresh rate, it's possible that the new display is similar in those regards.

We'll probably learn more about the new display at CES, where Samsung is going to be showing it off along with the CF791 and the ultra-low-persistence CFG70. Samsung says the CH711 will be available in 27" and 31.5" varieties early next year.

Comments closed
    • Chrispy_
    • 3 years ago

    Wow, I hope these come out soon. My Z271 has just broken and will be sold on once the warranty replacement arrives. I’ve gone back to my (very) old 27″ Korean WQHD thing which I took a massive gamble on before they became commonplace from Qnix and Monoprice. I doubt I’ll get rid of it anytime soon because it’s just soooooo good, but it does have its flaws.

    Anyway, I’ve fallen (back) in love with VA. They still have to work on black-to-grey response times but these ever-larger screens make IPS an inferior technology. Sure, IPS is best for smaller screens like laptops and tablets, but the minute you’re sitting close to something big the off-angle glow of IPS is a real deal-breaker.

    I bought and returned an LG 34″ flat ultrawide, because of glow, then I went to a store and noticed the same problem on LG’s curved ultrawide because the curve was way, [i<]waaaa[/i<] too subtle to be anything other than a gimmick in terms of helping with the viewing angles. Finally, I tried the Z35 but that panel is an example of how not to do VA so it was a smeary mess with nowhere near the pixel response for even 60Hz, let alone 200. The Z271 (I actually have the XZ271 freesync version) uses Samsung's latest 2016 VA panel and it has come a long way. I'm certainly getting sick of Acer's shonky build quality and iffy firmware, so I'll definitely be buying one of these. 32" Curved, VA, WQHD Freesync ticks all the boxes I'm after and anything over 75Hz is actually fine. (Anything north of 100Hz seems like a waste to me since 60Hz isn't buttery smooth, but 85Hz delivers the same fluid goodness that my first 120Hz screen made me lust after and anything beyond that is well into diminishing returns, I think).

    • cybot_x1024
    • 3 years ago

    Its kind of stupid that all monitor manufacturers think all we do with this expensive monitors is watch movies. Why do all these new monitors have to be 16:9? Why can’t they make them in 16:10? Can’t think of anything else that’s good with 16:9 other than movies.

      • tacitust
      • 3 years ago

      I read some time ago that 16:9 is more cost efficient than 16:10 in when it comes to manufacturing the screen.

      I would have preferred a 16:10 screen when I bought my latest monitor, but found that once you get up to 27″ inches and beyond, I don’t really miss it.

      • DataMeister
      • 3 years ago

      I figure the first company that creates some nice 24″-27″ 3:2 monitors that are around $300-400 will probably take the market. Pretty much everyone I know only buys a 16:9 because that’s the only thing available.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      That’s part of the reason why I’ve stuck with my 8-year old LG 22″ non-LED 16:10 display. It still works fine, is still bright, and there’s nothing wrong with it. I’m not falling for all those nutty mumbo jumbo marketing gimmicks. I buy stuff and want to get as many years of service out of them as I can. Run them to the ground, so to speak.

    • heinsj24
    • 3 years ago

    My problem with Samsung monitors is dealing with Support once they break. Nothing is worse than RMAing a monitor and receiving a reconditioned monitor that needs to be RMA’d again. Samsung seems very bad at this.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      IMHO most tech companies are unsatisfactory when it comes to providing repairs when a product breaks. When you’re selling a thousand and one different products and a bajillion things can go wrong with each and every one of them, it can’t be easy providing support.

    • psuedonymous
    • 3 years ago

    Quantum Dot backlights aren’t particularly exiting, they just make it marginally cheaper to achieve a wider gamut backlight. Everything else is still up to the rest of the panel and controller as normal.

    Then again, your average punter bit the “LED TV!” marketing bollocks hook line and sinker, so sticking “QUANTUM DOT!” on the box will probably work just as well.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      Tech companies will do anything and will hype a new product all the way to Neptune just to make you replace perfectly working and serviceable appliances in your house or office. That’s their business, after all. They need to keep selling stuff. Just look at Apple. They do it very well.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Yawn. Wake me up when Samsung makes a quantum dot monitor with curved edges.

    • brucethemoose
    • 3 years ago

    Now that’s more like it, especially if it’s VA.

    Any word on price?

    • short_fuze
    • 3 years ago

    This is so under my radar. I’m getting numb to the potential impact of long-discussed but yet-to-be-seen tech. Quantum Dot, Dippin’ Dot … hey, at least the latter is discernable. And tasty!

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      Quantum dot monitors are already on the market. I believe Phillips was the first with a quantum dot monitor in 2016. Samsung already has quite a few quantum dot TV’s in retail stores. They’re using the tech to achieve HDR labeling.

      [Add] [url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/10243/qd-vision-color-iq-and-the-philips-276e6-review<]Here's a review[/url<] of the Phillips monitor I was talking about which describes quantum dot tech. Should give you a good understanding.

        • TheJack
        • 3 years ago

        thanks for the link. Looks like it will take a few years until they get the color calibration right.

      • RAGEPRO
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]Yet-to-be-seen[/quote<][url=http://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/curved/lc24fg70fqnxza-lc24fg70fqnxza/<]Eh?[/url<] Quantum dots, VA panel, 144Hz, low-persistence, $349?

        • DragonDaddyBear
        • 3 years ago

        Resolution: 1920×1080

          • RAGEPRO
          • 3 years ago

          A few things about that:

          1) Having a standardized resolution like 1920×1080 means that you can connect almost any device to it and it will work. Game consoles as far back as the Xbox 360, and ARM-based SoCs like the various fruit-pi machines, or the Hardkernel ODROIDs, generally only have HDMI 1.x output and as a result anything over 1080p is a no-go. With MPRT being a part of the monitor, you can even use that feature on these devices.

          2) For gamers (obviously the primary audience of the monitor) 1920×1080 is a high enough resolution to achieve acceptable image quality (particularly with modern anti-aliasing techniques like TSSAA) while still maintaining a good framerate. With that monitor you would want to keep the framerate as high as possible to enjoy the benefits of MPRT. Even a GTX 1060 or RX 480 should be able to maintain a ca. 100 FPS average on most titles in 1920×1080.

          3) For the price, along with the other features, 1080p resolution is pretty much expected.

    • Platedslicer
    • 3 years ago

    Am I the only one who misses the 4:3 days and finds the tendency towards wider and wider screens kind of annoying?

      • rems
      • 3 years ago

      probably not but far from the majority 😉

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 3 years ago

      I have an old 16:10 and the 16:9 next to it looks silly.

        • Dazrin
        • 3 years ago

        I still prefer the 16:10s to the 16:9, it doesn’t seem like much space but it really makes a difference.

          • btb
          • 3 years ago

          Ditto. 16:10 is pretty much perfect for me. Extra space at the bottom when working, and wide enough so that watching 16:9 movies still feel good.

        • Vaughn
        • 3 years ago

        16:10 FTW

        I have my 16:10 screen in landscape mode and a 16:9 in protrait on a dual monitor arm.

        And that is the only way it works trying to use both in landscape with the extra inch of vertical space the 16:10 screen provides looks silly.

      • Neutronbeam
      • 3 years ago

      That’s because you have a narrow point of view. ;->

      • DragonDaddyBear
      • 3 years ago

      I’m not sure what the “right” aspect ratio is, but I do think ultra-wide monitors are useful when curved.

        • reckless76
        • 3 years ago

        I absolutely love my 34inch ultra wide screen. They bought me one at work, and I think I lasted maybe a week before I bought one for myself at home.

      • nanoflower
      • 3 years ago

      I do miss the consistency of the aspect ratio if not the limitations of 4:3. Now it seems that companies are striving to come up with ever more aspect ratios for their monitors as a differentiation point. Which seems pointless to me as anything that isn’t 4:3/16:9 or some multiple of those two is just going to result in wasted screen space in many applications. For a specific use they might be great but I can’t see these odd aspect ratios monitors being good for general use. (And yes, a 16:10 is close enough to 16:9 that I don’t really count it as being strange even if it does result in some wasted space when doing certain things like watching movies/TV shows.)

      • Goty
      • 3 years ago

      My affinity for more square aspect ratios is actually why I really love 21:9 monitors. They’re great for gaming and such but also provide for a near-4:3 aspect ratio when splitting the screen horizontally between a pair of windows.

      • Duct Tape Dude
      • 3 years ago

      4:3 is great for a single application, but at 1080p+, 16:9 and 21:9 let you have multiple windows side by side comfortably with the added bonus of immersive gaming sans bezels.

      • heinsj24
      • 3 years ago

      I miss 4×3 so much, I’ve torn apart my garage looking for my old Sony Trinitron.

        • Wirko
        • 3 years ago

        Is your garage the size of a department store or is your Trinitron the size of a Sony Walkman?

      • not@home
      • 3 years ago

      Im still using my old Samsung Syncmaster 214t’s at home because they are 4:3. I have 1 monitor that has a 16:9 aspect ratio and I hate it. I usually have it on end, so that its taller and narrower and that makes it less loathsome.

      • Wirko
      • 3 years ago

      Ugh, a large (30+ inches) 4:3 panel would have to be curved vertically too.

      • Inkling
      • 3 years ago

      Sorry, but our eyes are side-by-side, so wider just works. When I stare straight ahead, my field of useful vision is much wider than it is tall. I dunno what the “ideal” aspect ratio would be, but 16:9 monitors seem fairly “natural” to me.

        • DataMeister
        • 3 years ago

        I think human vision has an aspect ratio of 3:2.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      I’m not going back to 4:3 but I think 16:9 is too wide. I’m using an 8 year old 16:10 LG 22″ and I think 16:10 is the Goldilocks aspect ratio.

        • RAGEPRO
        • 3 years ago

        It’s worth noting that 16:10 — that is, 8:5 — is pretty close to the golden ratio, which is ~3.2:2. 8/5 gives you 1.6 exactly, while the golden ratio is 1.615… (irrational).

          • ronch
          • 3 years ago

          I bet monitor manufacturers can work out some sort of marketing gimmick with ‘Golden Ratio’ in it. Maybe “Golden Ratio proves to be the best monitor aspect ratio!” I dunno.

      • Tristan
      • 3 years ago

      Wide monitors was popularized, because of costs. Widescreen (16:9) panels for monitors can be produced on th same factory lines and glass sheets as panels for TV (also 16:9) with lowest possible wastage. Other formats (like 4:3) creates lot of wastage, which increases cost of panel. Beside of this most net video content (on youtube and others) is also widescreen.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      I’ve been playing the aspect ratio game for several years now. Honestly, the very best thing about 4:3 was that it was the common standard.

      I’ve been using (simultaneously across multiple locations) 4:3, 16:10, 16:9, 21:9 and these days I get increasingly annoyed that software doesn’t have proper aspect ratio support. 16:9 is the new de facto standard and it’s no bad thing.

      Yes, there are times when I wish I had more vertical space
      Yes. there are times when I wish my “widescreen” 16:9 didn’t have black bars at the top and bottom.

      Point is, 99% of stuff you can do with a monitor works and looks good on a 16:9 and when you’re not using a 16:9 display, there’s A WHOLE LOT OF STUFF that either doesn’t look good, doesn’t work, wastes screen space or crops your field of view because of the non-16:9 ratio.

      It’s here because it’s the broadcast standard and until TV shows stop being made it will continue to dominate.

      • TheJack
      • 3 years ago

      I would, if I could, choose 7:10

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This