A comparison of specs, key information, reviews, and best pricing from top retailers
Last updated -- hours ago | Report incorrect information
Company ProductName Specs
Company ProductName Specs
What we think
The PerfectRec monitor team Learn more
Updated April 23, 2024·
If you prioritize media consumption and a wide, immersive experience for gaming, the Gigabyte CO49DQ with its large, curved screen and high contrast might serve you well despite its higher price. However, for tasks that require accurate color reproduction, like digital photo editing, or if you're looking for a more conventional, versatile monitor that excels in productivity with a sharper text quality, the Sony M9 would be more cost-effective. The Sony also offers a high-quality build for less money, but won't match the Gigabyte's performance in a dark room viewing scenario due to the difference in panel technology. Give Feedback
this description is based on the product variant with some specs and product variant with some specs. At the time of writing, the variant with some specs cost some dollars and the variant with some specs cost some dollars.
Advantages of the Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED)
- Best in class for casual gaming
- Best in class for media consumption
- Best in class contrast
- Best in class brightness
- Best in class color volume
- Best in class response time
Advantages of the Sony M9 (IPS FALD)
- Best in class for productivity
- Very good text clarity
- Very good image clarity
Key differences
Casual Gaming
9.9
7.3
5120 x 1440
RESOLUTION
3840 x 2160
144Hz
REFRESH RATE
144Hz
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
1000:1
1000 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
432 nits
Unknown
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
695 nits
99.0 %
DCI-P3 COLOR GAMUT
67.7 %
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) is best in class for casual gaming, while the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) is good.
Productivity
5.8
9.6
5120 x 1440
RESOLUTION
3840 x 2160
108 PPI
PIXELS PER INCH
163 PPI
No
ADJUSTABLE STAND
Yes
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Sony M9 (IPS FALD) is best in class for productivity, while the Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) is poor.
Media Consumption
9.8
7.5
5120 x 1440
RESOLUTION
3840 x 2160
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
1000:1
1000 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
432 nits
Unknown
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
695 nits
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) is best in class for media consumption, while the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) is good.
Cost
$900
$800
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
The Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) has a price of $900 and the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) costs $800.
HDR Video Editing and Color Grading
Yes
No
The Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) is suitable for HDR video editing and color grading while the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) is not suitable for HDR video editing and color grading.
Print Photo Editing
Yes
No
The Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) is suitable for print photo editing while the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) is not suitable for print photo editing.
Key similarities
Competitive Gaming
5.5
5.7
144Hz
REFRESH RATE
144Hz
0.0 ms
TOTAL RESPONSE TIME
8.0 ms
48 - 144 Hz
VARIABLE REFRESH RATE
24 - 144 Hz
No
STROBING / BFI
No
1000 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
432 nits
The Sony M9 (IPS FALD) and Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) are both poor for competitive gaming.
HDR Gaming and Media Consumption
Yes
Yes
Both the Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) and Sony M9 (IPS FALD) are suitable for HDR gaming and media consumption.
Digital Photo Editing
Yes
Yes
Both the Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) and Sony M9 (IPS FALD) are suitable for digital photo editing.
Give feedback
We’re constantly working to improve.
How the Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) and the Sony M9 (IPS FALD) compare to other monitors
Spec Comparison
 |  | |
| Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) | Sony M9 (IPS FALD) |
GENERAL | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | |||
$900 | $800 | ||
Screen Size | |||
Screen Size | 49" | 27" | |
Resolution | |||
Resolution | 5120 x 1440 | 3840 x 2160 | |
Screen Type | |||
Screen Type | OLED | LED | |
Screen Sub-type | |||
Screen Sub-type | QD-OLED | IPS FALD | |
Local Dimming Zones | |||
Local Dimming Zones | N/A | 96 | |
COLOR, CONTRAST & BRIGHTNESS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Native Contrast | |||
Native Contrast | Inf:1 | 1000:1 | |
SDR Peak Brightness | |||
SDR Peak Brightness | 1000 nits | 432 nits | |
HDR Peak Brightness | |||
HDR Peak Brightness | Unknown | 695 nits | |
Suitable for HDR Gaming and Media Consumption | |||
Suitable for HDR Gaming and Media Consumption | Yes | Yes | |
sRGB Color Gamut | |||
sRGB Color Gamut | 153.1 % | 100 % | |
MOTION CHARACTERISTICS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Total Response Time | |||
Total Response Time | 0.03 ms | 8 ms | |
Variable Refresh Rate | |||
Variable Refresh Rate | 48 - 144 Hz | 24 - 144 Hz | |
Strobing / BFI | |||
Strobing / BFI | No | No | |
Persistence Blur Score | |||
Persistence Blur Score | 6.6/10 | 6.6/10 | |
Ghosting Score | |||
Ghosting Score | 10/10 | 7.6/10 | |
TEXT & IMAGE CLARITY | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Pixels Per Inch | |||
Pixels Per Inch | 108 PPI | 163 PPI | |
Coating | |||
Coating | Matte | Matte | |
Text Clarity Score | |||
Text Clarity Score | 6.6/10 | 8/10 | |
Image Clarity Score | |||
Image Clarity Score | 7/10 | 8/10 | |
PORTS & CONNECTIVITY | |||
|---|---|---|---|
HDMI 1.4 Ports | |||
HDMI 1.4 Ports | 0 | 1 | |
HDMI 2.0 Ports | |||
HDMI 2.0 Ports | 0 | 0 | |
HDMI 2.1 Ports | |||
HDMI 2.1 Ports | 2 | 2 | |
Micro HDMI Ports | |||
Micro HDMI Ports | 0 | 0 | |
DisplayPort 1.2 Ports | |||
DisplayPort 1.2 Ports | 0 | 0 | |
Give feedback
We're constantly perfecting our model
More comparisons for you
Compare Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) vs. Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED)
VS
Compare Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) vs. Dell Alienware AW2725DF (QD-OLED)
VS
Compare Gigabyte CO49DQ (QD-OLED) vs. Cooler Master GZ2711 (W-OLED)
VS
Compare Sony M9 (IPS FALD) vs. KTC M27P20 Pro (IPS MiniLED)
VS
Compare Sony M9 (IPS FALD) vs. Innocn 32M2V (IPS MiniLED)
VS
Compare Sony M9 (IPS FALD) vs. MSI MAG 321UPX (QD-OLED)
VS
FAQs
Why trust us
This information was produced and vetted by the PerfectRec monitors team. We are a product research and recommendation organization that meticulously reviews and evaluates the latest monitor information and makes it digestible for you.
By the numbers
210
Monitors evaluated
10,500
Monitors stats compiled
15
Proprietary Monitors ratings developed
117,500
Recommendations made
17,625
Consumer hours saved
About the monitor team
Joe Golden, Ph.D
CEO and Monitors Editor
Joe is an entrepreneur and lifelong electronics enthusiast with a Ph.D in Economics from the University of Michigan.
Jason Lew
Staff Expert & Software Engineer
Jason is a staff expert and software engineer that has been making laptop recommendations for 7 years and moderates one of the largest laptop subreddits.
Chandradeep Chowdhury
Staff Expert & Software Engineer
Chandradeep is a staff expert and software engineer and expert in televisions and monitors. He’s been making monitor recommendations for ten years.
Featured in
