Samsung Odyssey G5 Review – Super curved gaming screen with favorable price

By Faryad On Feb 8, 2021

Spread the love

The Odyssey G5 27″ and 32″ are much cheaper than the Odyssey G7 and G9. They’re just as super warped, but response times aren’t quite as fast as Samsung’s more expensive ranges; they are more comparable to those of the slower competition. The G5 screens also lack a height-adjustable foot and good HDR. On the other hand, the 27″ model is one of the cheapest wqhd screens with a 144Hz refresh rate. As long as you don’t mind the disappointing color reproduction or poor viewing angles, this can still be a good choice.

Pros

Very affordable for a 27 inch wqhd-144Hz screen
Unique curvature

Cons

Disappointing color reproduction
Bad viewing angles
No height adjustable foot

Last year, Samsung introduced Odyssey: a new series of gaming monitors with special specifications. For example, the screens had an unprecedented curve, better HDR support than most PC monitors and a refresh rate of no less than 240Hz. In addition, the gaming performance was excellent. As our review showed , response times were startlingly fast, thanks to an almost perfectly tuned overdrive. All that beauty had and has a price, of course. The Odyssey G7 27″ and 32″ monitors still cost around 600 euros, which is expensive considering the size and wqhd resolution. The more than one meter wide top model Odyssey G9 even has to raise almost 1400 euros.

For those who want to spend less, the Korean manufacturer has now created the lower -positioned Odyssey G5 series . As with the Odyssey G7 series, the Odyssey G5 comes in 27″ and 32″ variants, and Samsung sent them both to us for this review. The Odyssey G5 series also has a 34″ ultrawide model, but we haven’t tested that yet. The two smaller screens have the same wqhd resolution and strong curvature as the G7 duo, combined with a slightly lower maximum refresh rate of 144Hz. That will be more than enough for many gamers. In addition, the G5 series is almost suspiciously cheap. Compared to the G7 counterparts, the two G5 screens are only about half as expensive. The 27-inch Odyssey G5 is even one of the cheapest screens with wqhd resolution and 144Hz refresh rate that you can buy at all. Too good to be true? You can see that in this video.

Just as crooked, but less luxurious

As mentioned, the panel of the Odyssey G5 screens is just as super curved as that of the rest of the Odyssey series. The 1000R curve is the strongest you can find on monitors right now. The number indicates that a circle of G5 screens has a radius of 1000 millimeters. In other words: if you are sitting in the middle in front of it, the edges of the screen, sitting at a distance of 1 meter, are just as far from you as the center. Not everyone will like such a strong bend, because it entails considerable distortion. Lines that would normally run straight show a clear curvature on this screen. If you are also involved in image editing or graphic design, this is not ideal, although it is also possible to get used to a curve for those tasks. Especially if you still have a flat monitor,

The design of both Odyssey G5 monitors resembles that of the more expensive Odyssey G7 monitors, although it is clear that Samsung has had to cut costs to reach the lower price point. The matte black plastic case has approximately the same lines at the back, but the central light ring with RGB lighting is missing. There are also no colored lights in the ‘air scoops’ on the left and bottom right of the panel on the G5. The bezels around the screen are flush with the image surface on three sides. For example, if you switch off the screen, it seems as if there is no border around the image on those sides.

Simultaneously with the Odyssey G5 screens, Samsung also sent us the Odyssey G7 32″, which we had not yet tested (previously we only measured the 27″ model). During testing, the screens have to be moved every now and then and it is noticeable that the Odyssey G5 screens feel significantly lighter than their more expensive brother. This will mainly be due to the less luxurious base. Where the G7 series has a beautiful metal base with height adjustment, the G5 screens have a much simpler plastic one on which the panel can only tilt. This is not ideal from an ergonomics point of view. Fortunately, the G5 screens also still have VESA mounting holes, for those who want to invest in a better carrying solution.

The connections are located on the Odyssey G5 in the round recess where the light ring is located on the G7 screens. You have to make do with one DisplayPort 1.2 and one HDMI 2.0 input, where you will find a second DisplayPort connection with the Odyssey G7. (The G7 also has DisplayPort 1.4, though the older version isn’t much of a problem for the G5 due to the lower refresh rate). The maximum refresh rate of 144Hz can be used via both connections and the same applies to Freesync, with range from 48Hz. The G5 series is not officially G-sync Compatible Certified, unlike the Odyssey G7. The G7’s USB 3.0 hub is also missing from the G5; the one USB port on the connection panel is only for updating the firmware. Like the G7 displays, the G5 range also has an external power adapter,

Color fastness could be better

Just like the Odyssey G7 and G9, both Odyssey G5 screens have a VA panel with wqhd resolution (2560×1440 pixels). Most competitors are also betting on this panel technique these days, as can be seen in the graphs below. We have put together a test field of 27″ and 32″ wqhd monitors with a refresh rate of at least 144Hz, which cost less than 500 euros. You can recognize the Odyssey G5 27″ and 32″ by a salmon pink and dark red bar respectively. The Odyssey G7 27″ and 32″ have a light blue and a dark blue bar.

At 281 to 300cd/m², the maximum brightness of white is on the low side for the Odyssey G5 27″ and 32″. The competition often exceeds 300cd/m². As far as we are concerned, not so objectionable; you have to game in a pretty bright room before the lower brightness starts to be noticeable. The contrast is remarkably low with the 32″ model for a monitor with a VA panel, which we also see with the 32″ Odyssey G7. Normally you can expect at least 2000:1, such as with the 27″ model, with outliers far above that. However, an average IPS screen achieves an even lower contrast around 1000:1, so the Odyssey G5 32″ scores really badly. not in that sense.

In addition to the foot and the connections, Samsung has also saved on the panel of the Odyssey G5, as the color measurements show. The Odyssey G7 and G9 are part of Samsung’s ‘QLED’ range with a quantum dot layer in the backlight. For example, those screens can show a large part of the wide DCI-P3 color range. The Odyssey G5s lack this feature, so they only cover the sRGB color range. For standard content, that’s fine, where wide color gamut monitors can suffer from over-saturation if they don’t come equipped with a usable sRGB mode. This also applies to the Odyssey G7 and G9; the G5s don’t have an sRGB mode, but don’t need it either.

Measured in standard mode, the two Odyssey G5 monitors show quite significant deviations, even if we compare them against this relatively affordable test field. Note that most of the competition is more expensive; as mentioned, the G5 duo is one of the cheapest screens with these features.

The graph above only shows the screens whose color space in standard mode also roughly corresponds to sRGB, which is why the G7 series is missing here. Both Odyssey G5 screens show a clear green tint, coupled with a rather different gamma curve. The average color deviation or ΔE2000 is already beyond the visible limit of 3, which for gray tones even exceeds 5. You may be able to live with that for gaming, but these screens are not suitable out-of-the-box for image editing.

Lifeless hdr

While the Odyssey G7 and G9 offer good HDR for monitor concepts, that does not apply to the Odyssey G5 series. It is only ready for HDR in the sense that the image does not go black when you send an HDR signal to it. The color range is too limited due to the lack of the quantum dot layer and the peak brightness is also much too low. The same applies to the contrast, because even a basic form of local dimming is missing. The G5 screens therefore fall short on all points to show the added value of HDR.

Disappointing viewing angles

A curved panel is usually not conducive to good uniformity, and the G5 screens are also extremely curved. Fortunately, although below average, the uniformity of our test samples is not extremely bad. We have also seen worse backlight bleeding along the edges, although both G5 monitors certainly do not achieve a perfect score.

The viewing angles are strikingly bad, something that the Odyssey G7 series also suffered from. We have tested screens with a TN panel that fared better on this point. It is therefore a good thing that the G5 series has such a strong curvature, so that you do not view the screen edges from an angle that is too oblique when you are sitting directly in front of it.

Not surprisingly fast

At the time, we also performed our extensive response time test with twenty different transitions on the Odyssey G7 27″ at 144Hz, so that we can now compare this screen at the same refresh rate with the Odyssey G5 monitors. Our sample of the Odyssey G7 32″ unfortunately had to contend with a problem with the DisplayPort connections, which is why this screen is missing in this section.

The Odyssey G7 and G9 are still in a league of their own when it comes to response times: an excellent low average and a startling lack of variability in response time between different transitions, something VA displays generally suffer from. Although they share the same name, the Odyssey G5 duo brings us back to the ground in that regard. As you can see from the measurement charts, the Odyssey G5 monitors record significantly slower response times on average, plus much higher variation between different transitions. Some transitions even take more than 20ms, as we saw before on other VA monitors, but not on the Odyssey G7 and G9. Based on this test, about half of the transitions on both screens come “in time” for a 144Hz refresh rate, in which every 6, 9ms a new image appears on the screen. At least there is hardly any over- or undershoot, which the Odyssey G7 suffers from more.

If we compare the Odyssey G5 screens with monitors in the same price range, then it is not a doom and gloom in terms of response times. In our less extensive response time test that we performed on more screens, the duo produces fairly average results, with no real outliers except for the 100%-0% fall transition. As for input lag, we note that it is quite high at a 60Hz refresh rate, just like with the other Odyssey screens. Our Leo Bodnar tester unfortunately does not work at a higher refresh rate. However, experiences of other reviewers indicate that these monitors record a much lower input lag at their maximum refresh rate.

Conclusion

‘Color fidelity could be better’, ‘lifeless HDR’, ‘not startlingly fast’; from the above you could conclude that Samsung has saved too much with the Odyssey G5 series. Compared to the Odyssey G7 and G9, these screens not only take a big step back in feature set, but also in performance. Unfortunately, so are response times, the single most important feature of a good gaming monitor. That doesn’t make the Odyssey G5 series as good an offer as you might have hoped at first glance.

Then again, let’s face it, the Odyssey G5 screens are also a huge step down from the G7 and G9 in terms of price. The Odyssey G5 27″ is even cheaper than the main competitors from other brands. If you put up with the mediocre color reproduction, like a strong curve and are simply looking for one of the cheapest options, this screen can be a great choice The Odyssey G5 32″ is a bit more expensive and therefore competes with other monitors, such as the LG UltraGear 32GK650F, which has been available for years. It performs slightly better across the board and also has a more extensive feature set with, for example, a height-adjustable foot and more connections, so that the larger version from Samsung is not recommended at the moment.