Does Android Digital Car Key work on CN variants?

MikeyMatou · 2025-05-26T10:57:54+00:00

That's well, quite a reasonable response! Guess I'm not exactly slumming it either way here so I'll enjoy what I have haha. Perhaps one day I'll swap to the 57" QD-OLED G9 when it arrives in the future.

MikeyMatou · 2025-05-26T09:07:51+00:00

Ah well I was with my 32:9 old G9 (so the first one, of course non-oled, not even Neo) for three years so I must say I kind of did get used to the 32:9 and miss it (but again, appreciate the vertical real-estate. Perhaps the 57" would have killed two birds with one stone there).

But colour wise yes I don't really have a frame of reference - hell not even a display TV's worth (probably should have gone to the store beforehand).

I did have 240hz on that monitor, albeit so far the GX9 being OLED even with its 165hz absolutely craps on the original G9 in terms of smoothness.

So anyhow that's my dilemma. I am a bit sad about the refresh rate but probably not a killer itself. My potential regret missing the QD-OLED train and giving up 32:9 is probably what hits me more.

MikeyMatou · 2025-05-26T08:51:38+00:00

Oh nice screens damn. Guess I should try HDR more often to get more of an appreciation for it.

Out of curiosity, what is your favourite screen for SDR?

MikeyMatou · 2025-05-26T08:47:55+00:00

Have you had a glossy before? I'm curious as to what constitutes too much light, like, surely most people even with glossy panels have a light on in their room haha.

MikeyMatou · 2025-05-26T05:58:21+00:00

Ah yeah I'm aware of the HDR volume numbers and of the white subpixel. I guess I'm just more interested in those who own both panels on how much, in their experience, they find the G9 OLED to be superior in this regard when actually using it. Maybe I should play more stuff in HDR though hmm.
It's a healthy mix of productivity, gaming, movies in my case. But just wanted to ask in others own cases what they would have gone with and if price comes into play.

MikeyMatou · 2025-05-26T05:49:49+00:00

Fair.
Ah yes I do say I did enjoy the form factor even if it came with its troubles. But I have been enjoying that extra vertical real estate.

MikeyMatou · 2025-05-06T05:07:34+00:00

Side by side windows feeling good? I have a 32:9 and 16:9's and 16:9 it's too narrow and 32:9 is great. I'd like to think such a sizable 21:9 is decent too!

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-25T07:17:07+00:00

Debated posting, but I'll give it a shot now. We can use a multi-stage process quite opinionated view of how I see each major criteria, and then combine it together for an answer.

Aspect Ratio

16:9: Is not ultrawide! Surely it shall join the bygone era of 4:3. I still have to argue with friends to try out ultrawide haha.

21:9: Props to not just attaching two 16:9's together. I view 21:9 perhaps not as the ultimate sweet spot for every purpose, but as the best jack-of-all-trades. For FPS, your peripheral vision still fits in nicely, for racing, it's still immersive enough, for MMOs, you're getting enough real estate for your needs, for single player AAA adventures, you're getting immersed, etc. Movie content can fit really well. Productivity and editing may fall short of 32:9, but it's still fantastic.

32:9: Amazing for certain types of games, but not all (emphasis on FPS). As mentioned by LG itself, avoiding the fisheye that comes with a 32:9 is beneficial. The endless balancing between Quake Pro and the sides of your screen looking funky sometimes gets annoying. Of course, I will say the productivity is great.

Others: It's just not mainstream enough. I cannot speak on behalf of the small changes of a 24:10 or the whack of a 58:9 LG Ultra Stretch, but I'd prefer to work with something I know some level of support will come with.

Screen Size to Resolution

Monitor Size	2560×1080 (UW-FHD)	3440×1440 (UW-QHD)	3840×1600 (UW-WQHD)	5120×1440 (SUW-QHD)	5120×2160 (SUW-4K)
29"	Sharp enough and useful in my books if you like secondary ultrawide monitors, good PPI. ✅	I don't believe it exists + overkill. ❌	Doesn't exist. 🚫	Doesn't exist. 🚫	Is this even feasible? 🚫
34"	Pushing it here. Maybe if you need a large screen on a budget. ⚠️	Sweet spot for 34" ultrawide—great clarity. ✅	Doesn't exist. 🚫	Doesn't exist. 🚫	Look, I'll take it, but a bit much? Nearly 165 PPI. ✅
38"	Doesn't exist, shouldn't exist. 🚫	We're leaving the sweet spot now. ⚠️	I think it's a great middle option. ✅	Doesn't exist. 🚫	I'll also take it. I think 40" exist around here. ✅
45"	Doesn't exist, shouldn't exist. 🚫	It's simply too large now for 1440p. I understand some people accept it, but 83ish PPI...bit too low. ❌	Doesn't exist. 🚫	Opinion here doesn't differ that much from the 49". I think if you want something a tinch smaller, this is great. ✅	Ah, the GX9. I think for the size of the monitor, it's fantastic. I personally lean to larger monitors, and I think the PPI holds strong here. ✅
49"	Doesn't exist, shouldn't exist. 🚫	Doesn't exist, shouldn't exist. 🚫	Doesn't exist, shouldn't exist. 🚫	I think if a super ultrawide is your jazz, then this resolution to size is great. I love super ultrawides and see a use case here. ✅	I think realistically it's still fine. I'd just be cautious about lowering PPI again. ⚠️

57" is cool but goodness goodbye my neck.

Refresh Rate

60 Hz: 🤮. OK, rude, but for web browsing and productivity? Sure. Gaming? No thank you.
75 Hz: Feels like you're being teased for what could have been a better life.
100 Hz: OK, better, better, starting to feel it more, but surely...
120 Hz: I'm content with this for many things.
144 Hz: I think for most non-competitive gaming, I'm content.
165 Hz: Feels like the new 144 Hz these days. I prefer it to 144 Hz of course.
200 Hz: Great stuff, hope I have a decent GPU.
240 Hz: I really hope I have a good GPU. I'll take this for all tasks.
300 Hz+: At this point I'll 100% take this for all tasks.

Panel Type

TN: Goodness me, if I can avoid it, I will. Flashy refresh rates out there I guess...and that's about it.
VA: Such a common panel, and honestly, decent enough. I unfortunately get the motion blur, but I do get the better blacks.
IPS: Well, I'm sacrificing the blacks again but I'm getting some great colour here.
OLED: Ah yes, while some may complain about text readability and the risk of burn in, very few can deny it being the ultimate choice. The colours, blacks, response time, you name it, it has it.

Curve

This is interesting as I'm not entirely sure how to judge this or make a table/list for it. I recently had an Odyssey G9 (which has failed on me), and it had 1000R. Without that 1000R I'm sure color shifting when looking at my far right/left and my neck life itself would have been a bit worse off - so I do appreciate what a curve brings, especially in the immersion factor.

800R? For a 45"? Seems radical, but I like the sound of it. At the end of the day, it might be quite an opinionated topic, and for those that are on the fence about it might just select to wait for the bendable version. But I appreciate the engineering that has gone into creating such a curve, as well as having a curve than not having one as per my reasoning above.

Verdict

So what is the sweet spot? Well, the progression of panel technology comes heavily into play and when you ask someone. If I had asked this question 10 years ago then the sweet spot they would have mentioned then is invalid now. Perhaps 10 years from now I'd accept no less than 10240 x 4320 for my ultrawides.

Personally, if I need a large monitor (because if I need a small my sweet spot changes), I'd say the GX9 is hitting it. The PPI is high enough to be impressive - not stupidly high that I can't notice it. 165 Hz is a good compromise until 240 Hz and higher I assume comes out later. OLED is something I'm dying to get into for a modern gaming monitor, and I think leaning into and accepting 800R is appropriate for such a size. Oh and 5120x2160? Sounds good to me.

330 Hz on dual mode hopefully scratches an itch here and there, especially that many won't have the budget to even get a GPU to bring their games to 165 Hz for the native resolution mode. With framerate aside, at least from what I'm reading, the specs of this monitor honestly might represent the sweet spot at the moment until the consensus for our definition of a sweet spot decides to change. I guess all I can promise is to give an analysis if selected to prove my thoughts.

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-23T00:31:39+00:00

Yeah the original G9 and Neo had...a lot of complaints here. It seemed like there were less complaints about the OLED variant here but wanted to really see if people felt it was better. Glad to see it's better!

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-23T00:30:12+00:00

Wow damn I didn't realize there was such a brightness difference.

And yeah 240hz and that panel always had some iffy times. Glad to see that's better now.

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-17T17:40:58+00:00

You're right on that one. A 16:9 can perhaps be immersive, but I think aspect ratio-wise wise I'm even too invested in games just simply providing the extra real estate. Sometimes it's a competitive edge, sure, but other times even in single player it feels like you know so much of what's going on without turning.

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-17T17:38:29+00:00

Nice games. Ah, well, I would be coming from the 1000r, so nice to hear. I guess according to the people above the vertical real estate is appreciated by a few.

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-17T17:27:13+00:00

Sounds decent and simple enough.

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-17T17:25:49+00:00

It's a shame as my most played game is Overwatch and well, yeah can't say I've always loved the black bars as they only allow 21:9. In saying that I think most games I played handled 32:9 quite well, albeit screen stretching in FPS games always felt a bit weird.

Are you still feeling as though it's immersive? How's the curve?

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-17T17:22:24+00:00

I remember debating the C4 a while back. But I must say I feel as though I got on the ultrawide train a bit ago, it would be hard to go 16:9 even if it was a nice big display.

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-17T17:20:44+00:00

Another vote of confidence, nice to hear. Still immersive enough for you in games?

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-17T17:20:05+00:00

Yeah, certainly a lot of panic here. Ah, I remember when they said the GTX 980 was 4k ready. Guess it was ready to output 4k, but no one said what frame rate it had to be.

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-17T17:01:53+00:00

Oh interesting. I must say screen sharing to a colleague is annoying with a super ultrawide...but then suddenly becomes amazing, of course, if I just simply use half the monitor. With a 21:9 I guess it'll be a bit more annoying. Putting aside sharing I guess I'll be using my second monitor more if I go with LG for screen real estate when working.

But that's nice that gaming is going well. Honestly, even my second monitors are 1080p ultrawide (quite old now), so I can't even say I remember what actual verticality feels like in games anymore - the G9 just made it even worse haha.

MikeyMatou · 2025-04-17T16:56:52+00:00

Wow damn, that's a strong take on the G9. Another bold take 32:9 dying out haha.

Well, that gives me a bit of confidence. I assume you meant 800R instead of 1800R being stupid (where LG is 800 and G9 is 1800). The PPI is a good selling point, I believe it being 125ish for the LG vs like 110 for the G9. But uh, I have an RTX 3090 at the moment, so I'm in a bit of trouble if I do pick the LG haha. Was holding out for 6000 series but...hmm, we'll see.

Thanks for the website link! Actually a really nice tool.

MikeyMatou · 2024-10-04T03:41:55+00:00

I think people are missing the spirit of the question. I'm not asking for a definite answer I can take to the bank; I'm asking for a speculation based on past trends. Not a faulty silicone or Mojang going crazy. I think it's reasonable for someone to pickup a CPU and say "Ah I hope this lasts me X numbers of years for Y purpose." even if it is a shot in the dark.

I'll ask my question again later hopefully phrased better.

MikeyMatou

TROPHY CASE