45GX90SA-B

I'm just letting you know I also returned my Gx9, bought a G5 55" for a cheaper price and have not regretted it once. The G5 is just on another level compared to the GX9. The brightness, the colors, the color saturation and even the screen coating is spectacular compared to the dull picture you get from a Gx9.

I picked the exact same monitor and I am typing on it now. It's clear as a bell. I didn't want the stupid built in OS so this was better than last years model. I bought this for gaming and after watching a few reviews about the 5k2k not scaling well for lower resolutions I bought this because I can actually run games in the native resolution without upscaling. With the 5k2k I was planning on just scaling down to 3440x1400 anyways but happy I just bought it native. Super happy I did. It's basically a perfect match for my system (Ultra 265 + RTX 5070). I also got a smoking deal on this monitor. If offered a 5k2k for trade on this one to one, I don't know if I would even do it, I have the resolution I want with no scaling and 240hz native instead of 165hz.

I play COD Warzone. Its glorious.

Personally I would avoid an 800/1000R curve (The LG GX45) for productivity unless it doesn’t matter to you that timelines and shapes aren’t straight.

I'm gonna stick with my 45GX990A-B

Good luck getting 240 fps on this resolution. I have the 45GX9 and on this resolution even a 5090 won’t get near 165 fps with some titles.

45GX90SA, easily. What do you mean by “slightly smaller screen size”? 45″ 21:9 is on a different level than 49″ 32:9 in overall image size and immersion. People keep not understanding this: * 27″ 16:9 → make it wider = 34″ 21:9 → make it even wider = 49″ 32:9 (the MSI) * 32″ 16:9 → make it wider = 39″ 21:9 → make it even wider = 57″ 32:9 (the Samsung) * 36-36.5" 16:9 → make it wider = 45″ 21:9 (the LGs) → make it even wider = 65.5″ 32:9 So, ya, 49″ 32:9 is literally just a super-ultrawide version of a 27″ monitor. You cannot compare that experience to a way bigger & immersive 45″ 21:9. **MSI** The image scale, height, and presence are still 27″-class, just extra wide. Plus, it’s only 144 Hz. 144 Hz is fine for fluidity and input lag but poor for motion clarity, regardless of LCD or OLED. Below around 200 Hz, sample-and-hold persistence blur dominates. **LGs** Main differences * 1440p @ 240 Hz * 2160p (4K-class ie. 5K2K) @ 165 Hz I’d take 1440p 240 Hz all day. 240 Hz absolutely destroys 165 Hz in motion clarity and, for gaming, 1440p is way easier to drive - even at 240 FPS - than 2160p at 165 FPS. DLDSR is the icing on the cake: * Massive improvement in sharpness & clean, "high res" look * Dramatically reduces aliasing & shimmering * Still keep 240 Hz Two DLDSR levels: * 2.25x (5120x2160) * 1.78x = 80ish % the image quality of 2.25x but less demanding **Samsung** Could have been great, but two issues: A. Not OLED B. Samsung’s terrible “fake curve” design Samsung (and brands using Samsung panels, likely probably that MSI) does not use a constant-radius curve. Instead, it’s more like: * Sucked-in / punched-in center * Flatter around the mid-sides * Outer thirds being basically flat Think of a flat piece of paper that's had it's center punched or sucked in rather than a simple, uniform arc from end-to-end. That causes: * Fisheye distortion * Perspective weirdness * Constantly feeling something is "off" or weird LG’s curve is a true, constant radius: * No sucked-in center * No suddenly flat edges * No distortions * No visual or perceptual weirdness

I've had a 45" LG from each of their 1440p, 240 Hz model years - 45GR95QE (2023), 45GS95QE (2024), 45GX90SA (2025) - I currently have the 2024 & 2025. In my opinion, they're head and shoulders the best overall - (key word being overall) - gaming monitors on the market (the only competitor could have been the Samsung 57" 32:9 if it A. was OLED, B. had a true constant radius curve, not Samsung's "fake" and "distorted" "more like a piece of paper folded in the middle" type of curve design). If you're talking about pure competitiveness, it helped me because I'm the type that needs to be really close to the screen and have a really big screen (that's why I hate playing in your typical living room / TV / couch setup)...HOWEVER, for the super competitive players, eSports, etc., I'm pretty sure those guys highly prefer smaller screens of like 24" to 25", 27" absolute max. I believe the reason is that having the entire game-view "condensed" in your centre view "right in front of you" - so you can basically look straight ahead, barely move your eyes, and see the entire game-view / screen - outweighs having a bigger picture but that bigger picture being spread all over your real life view. For "fun" and immersion, it's amazing. 240 Hz is a game-changer too as anything under 200-ish Hz is a blur-fest regardless of pixel response times, LCD VS OLED, etc. because the sample-and-hold blur AKA persistence blur is the defining factor and a huge "motion clarity bottleneck" at anything under 200-ish Hz (again, regardless of pixel response times). Of course I'm not talking about strobing/pulsar and BFI - that's a whole different story. 45" ultrawide (ie. 21:9) is basically an ultrawide version of a standard (ie. 16:9) 36" monitor so it's on another level from even standard 32" / 39" ultrawide, let alone standard 27" / 34" ultrawide. If you have any questions for any of the 1440p, 240 Hz models, just let me know.

I currently have the 45 inch LG Ultra Gear 45GX90SA OLED. Amazing for gaming but not great for work with the low resolution compared to the size of the screen. I only got it because I got it used in excellent condition from Best Buy for $660, but I just got the Samsung G75K 40 inch off Samsung’s website for $617 with 2 years of Samsun Care+ included for $1. Go to their website and chat the live agent. It was listed for $750 when I first started and ended up paying $617. I think they accidentally gave me too many discounts, but you can at least get 5% off, and they’ll price match for next 15 days if they lower the price at all (via refund).