Samsung S90F OLED TV Review: Great Picture for Gaming, Movies and More
8.6
/ 10
SCORE Samsung S90F OLED TV $2,498 at Amazon $2,200 at Samsung $2,498 at B&H Photo-Video Pros The Samsung S90F boasts excellent image quality
Fast motion for gamers Cons It's expensive
It lacks the step-up model's glare free coating
Is it QD or not?
Samsung S90F OLED TV
8.6/10 CNET Score
$2,498 at Amazon
If you're a gamer or a dyed-in-the-wool film nut, then the TV technology you should be looking at is OLED. It offers excellent contrast for that cinematic look, saturated colors and excellent gaming performance. Though cheaper models like the Philips OLED exist, most OLED TVs are priced at the higher end, including the Samsung S95F, LG G5 and C5, and this one, the Samsung S90F.
In many ways, the Samsung S90F is a slight update to the 2024 model, but it does pack in enough of the company's tech to make it worth considering. Furthermore, the S90F performed in a similar way to the S95F in my tests -- though it's worth noting it lacks the more expensive model's high brightness, anti-reflective coating and connection box. For those things alone, the flagship is worth the upgrade for many high-end shoppers, but the S90F is no slouch either. It's capable of a dynamic picture and is great for gamers as well.
Meanwhile, the Samsung S90F and its closest competitor, the LG C5, have had some aggressive price reductions of late, and both were down to $1,800 for Prime Day. I'd expect similar discounts to recur leading up to Black Friday and the holidays this fall. Between the C5 and S90F, Samsung has a slight edge in my tests, but given the similarities between the two, my advice is simple: just buy whichever is cheaper.
Samsung S90F OLED TV sizes, series comparison
The Samsung S90F OLED TV is available in sizes between 42 inches and 83 inches.
Ty Pendlebury/CNET
I performed a hands-on evaluation of the 65-inch S90F, yet it's unclear if the testing is applicable to other screen sizes in the series, as I note further below.
In the UK, only the 65-inch S90F uses QD-OLED technology while every other size uses WOLED. When I spoke with a Samsung representative in the US, however, they were unable to confirm if the 65-inch was also the sole QD-OLED model or even which tech it involved at all: "Samsung TVs are designed to consistently offer excellent performance, regardless of the specific panels used," they said. The Samsung website also doesn't mention any other technology beyond "OLED HDR Plus."
Why does this matter? It's very likely that color reproduction differs between the many sizes of S90F and the one I tested, and so measurements aren't directly transferable.
All-in-one design
Ty Pendlebury/CNET
While some might like the sleek look of Samsung's S95F flagship, it also necessitates an umbilical cable and a large plastic box you need to put somewhere. The S90F likes to keep it simple by comparison. Design-wise, the S90F is similar to both the S90D that preceded it and the LG C5, too, with an ultra-slim screen and a chunkier "inputs" section at the bottom. If you're wall mounting, the overall depth is still only 1.6 inches on the 65-inch model, while those sitting the TV on a stand will appreciate the slender and easy-to-install legs.
Over the years, Samsung has pared down its remote to the bare minimum -- a wafer-shaped clicker powered by a solar panel on the back. I preferred the chunky and colorful remotes of old, but you did have to put batteries in those. If you use your TV as a switch, the lack of an input button is also an inconvenience. You can navigate to the Connected Devices menu option, but having a dedicated button makes the process a lot easier.
All the streaming you need
For 2025, the company has updated its menu system with some slick new screens, including the volume bar. However, it may need some quick relearning to find the options you need. Helpfully, the new menu highlights the last setting used, and so you may be able to access an often-used setting without deep-diving menus.
Meanwhile, the Samsung S90F home page is back to familiar territory, and it lists a number of categories on the left -- Samsung Account, Search, Ambient, Samsung Daily Plus, Gaming Hub and Home. Home is the default, and when displaying streaming services, the TV features a series of relevant thumbnails across the screen. Thanks to the sheer number of Samsung TVs out there, this is also one of the most popular smart TV platforms, and it therefore enjoys a large range of streaming services. It also caters to gamers with apps such as Steam Link and Xbox Cloud Gaming.
Like most modern TVs, the S90F features a Gaming Hub with its own dashboard. The S90F includes VRR support up to 144Hz on all HDMI ports, so you can be indiscriminate about which port you plug your PC/gaming console into.
Unlike most higher-end TVs, the S90F doesn't have Dolby Vision HDR, and while I don't think this is a big deal, completists may look to LG, Sony or even Panasonic instead.
In terms of onboard connectivity, the S90F includes:
Four HDMI 2.1 inputs 4K (144Hz max)
3x USB-A, 1x USB-C
Optical digital audio output
Wi-Fi 5
Bluetooth 5.3
Ethernet
High-end OLED comparison: Samsung S90F vs. LG C5 vs. Samsung S95F vs. Samsung S90D vs. TCL QM8K vs. Hisense U8Q
TV and movies
Starting with the opening scene of the horror movie It, I found that the S90F and the S95F had the best shadow detail of the group. At the 3:06 minute mark, Georgie is descending the stairs into the basement, and there is some shadow detail barely visible at the top of the screen. On the S90F, the beams there had the greatest sharpness, and Georgie's face was also visible against the light coming through the door. The C5 and the S90D had the worst detail in shadows, with less crispness than the other Samsungs, but they were still pretty good. Meanwhile, the LCD-based TCL QM8K did pretty well with this freeze-frame moment, with decent detail and no washed-out blacks, and I could also make out Georgie's face the best.
So many TVs they won't fit in one bright-room testing picture! From left to right: TCL QM8K, Samsung S90D, Samsung S90F, LG C5 and Samsung S95F.
Switching to the brighter scenes of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, I found most of the TVs looked very similar -- excellent contrast and saturated, comic book colors. However, the LG C5 stuck out with slightly yellowish-looking skin tones on the unmasked, alternate universe Spider-Man.
When watching the "endless runner" war movie, 1917, I found that both of the 2025 Samsung TVs again had the best shadow detail of all of the models on test. At the 1 hour 07 minute mark, you see Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) awaken in a dark room. The S90F and the S95F were able to amplify the highlights on the soldier's watch, but the TCL looked worse here. This is because the scene is very close to black, and the TCL's backlight makes the scene look strange and ghostly -- as if it's shot through a muslin filter. I've seen this effect on LCD TVs before, including the massive and expensive Hisense 116UX TV.
Lastly, I put all five assembled TVs through the Spears and Munsil 4K HDR10 test disc. I found that the S90F and S95F had the most highly saturated colors and also the best levels of contrast.
Read more: How We Test TVs
Bright room
If you have a bright room with light sources that are directly reflected by the screen -- say a window or overhead bulbs -- then you have two options available. The first is the cheapest: turn the lights off or buy a blackout curtain. The second is to buy the Samsung S95, with its antireflection technology. While the S90F will reduce bright room glare and provide excellent contrast, you will still clearly see any direct light sources.
However, when compared with the older S95D, I did see an improvement in the S90F's in bright room performance, with slightly less of the room behind me visible. Shining a phone flashlight against the screen from my seating position, I found that the light was not visible at all on S95F. The flash was visible on both S90F and S90D, as they appeared to behave similarly with bright, direct lights. Next, came the C5 with special FX-like halos and then even more visibility on the TCL.
Light output in nits TV Brightest mode (HDR) Accurate mode (HDR) Brightest mode (SDR) Accurate mode (SDR) Samsung S90F 1,466 1,466 633 305 Samsung S95F 2,150 2,150 391 297 Hisense U8Q 4,080 4,070 4,107 436 LG G5 2,813 2,297 1,030 412 LG C5 1,434 1,187 480 288 TCL QM851 3,183 3,183 3,084 1,262 Samsung S95D 1,734 1,666 544 265
Gaming
When set to gaming mode, four of the TVs -- the three Samsungs and the Hisense -- had high brightness and were ultra-responsive. When playing Doom, I found that the LG C5 in gaming mode was disappointingly dark and highlights were muted. This is a repeat of last year's C4 and S90D comparison, where the S90D also looked brighter. While consistency is a virtue in LG's case, I think most gamers would prefer to be able to see into the darker areas of the picture -- that's where all the baddies hide!
Given that the C5 and S90F are similar in price and have equivalent lag (around 10ms) -- when tested with the Leo Bodnar lag tester -- the Samsung's brighter picture ultimately makes it better for gamers.
Uniformity and viewing angle
OLED screens tend to offer both excellent uniformity and off-angle performance, and the S90F, like the other OLED TVs that flanked it, had excellent uniformity, and colors stayed vivid while viewing off-axis.
Settings and picture mode notes
As always, I tested every mode for light output, color accuracy and greyscale performance. Two modes in particular stood out -- Movie or Filmmaker mode -- and it was a coin toss as to which was more accurate in SDR mode as they were very similar. However, for HDR, Filmmaker was definitely better.
Samsung S90F test measurements Test Result Score Black luminance (0%) 0.000 Good Peak white luminance (SDR) 633 Good Avg. gamma (10-100%) 2.41 Poor Avg. grayscale error (10-100%) 2.02 Good Dark gray error (30%) 0.98 Good Bright gray error (80%) 3.17 Average Avg. color checker error 1.46 Good Avg. saturation sweeps error 1.33 Good Avg. color error 1.26 Good 1080p/24 Cadence (IAL) Pass Good Input lag (Game mode) 10.00 Good
HDR10
Black luminance (0%) 0.000 Good Peak white luminance (10% win) 1466 Good Gamut % UHDA/P3 (CIE 1976) 99.95 Good ColorMatch HDR error 2.20 Good Avg. color checker error 1.65 Good Input lag (Game mode, 4K HDR) 9.43 Good
Portrait Displays Calman calibration software was used in this review.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Hidden Labor Day headphone sale up to 49% off Beats, Apple, Sondcore, more
New York Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. If you've been waiting for the perfect pair of earbuds, the Beats Studio Buds+ deal on Amazon is your moment. Right now, you can snag these true wireless, noise-cancelling earbuds for just $99.95, which is 41% off the list price. Beats' custom acoustic platform delivers rich, immersive sound, whether you're streaming your favorite playlist or taking calls. With personalized Active Noise Cancelling (ANC) and Transparency mode, you can choose to fully immerse yourself in music or stay aware of your surroundings. And with up to 36 hours of listening time, these earbuds keep the music going longer than most wireless competitors. At this price, there's no reason to wait. Upgrade your audio game with Beats Studio Buds+ today. Advertisement With over 8,000 sold in the past month and an Amazon's Choice badge, it's clear these earbuds aren't just popular, they're a must-have. But if that ain't your beat, we also found headphones by Apple and Soundcore marked down. Amazon Experience rich, immersive sound with Beats Studio Buds+, featuring personalized Active Noise Cancelling, Transparency mode, and spatial audio for music or calls. With up to 36 hours of battery life, a secure fit with four silicone tip sizes, a sweat-resistant design, and seamless Apple and Android compatibility, these earbuds deliver comfort, clarity, and wireless freedom wherever you go. For over 200 years, the New York Post has been America's go-to source for bold news, engaging stories, in-depth reporting, and now, insightful shopping guidance. We're not just thorough reporters – we sift through mountains of information, test and compare products, and consult experts on any topics we aren't already schooled specialists in to deliver useful, realistic product recommendations based on our extensive and hands-on analysis. Here at The Post, we're known for being brutally honest – we clearly label partnership content, and whether we receive anything from affiliate links, so you always know where we stand. We routinely update content to reflect current research and expert advice, provide context (and wit) and ensure our links work. Please note that deals can expire, and all prices are subject to change.
Engadget
27 minutes ago
- Engadget
A Fitbit Ring would make so much sense
Ever since Samsung introduced the Galaxy Ring , I've wanted Google to make a smart ring. I initially imagined it would be a Pixel Ring — something that would fit into the existing wearable portfolio that includes the Pixel Watch and Pixel Buds. But at a recent roundtable with the heads of Google's Health, Fitbit and Wearables businesses, I was presented a more compelling possibility. When CNN's Lisa Eadicicco asked the question on everyone's mind about whether Google would expand its wearable product portfolio with other types of gadgets, the answer surprised me. After first giving an expected 'nothing to share as yet' response, Sandeep Waraich, the senior director of product management for Google Wearables, pointed towards the Fitbit family. 'We see there's a big opportunity with a discrete device that lasts very long [and] has a simple experience that's very focused on health and fitness.' Waraich continued by saying 'today, Fitbit has a pretty robust portfolio but it has not been refreshed for a while, so that's where we see opportunity and we have been deeply thinking about bringing the right experiences.' He did not reveal much more upon further pushing, but one thing became clear to me. If Google were to make a smart ring, it would be part of the Fitbit family. Advertisement That makes a lot of sense, if you consider the activity trackers that Fitbit is synonymous with. They are fairly basic wristworn devices that do little more than count your steps, track your heart rate and occasionally vibrate to tell you to look at your phone. You could say they're unsophisticated, but they're also simple and serve very specific purposes. Plus, they last forever — clocking between days and weeks on a charge. As someone who loathes wearing any device to bed, I'm frustrated at the lack of options available to me for sleep-tracking. Bed sensors don't seem to get very accurate data, while bedside radar or motion detectors (like the Nest Hub or Amazon's retired Halo RIse) have been largely abandoned by their makers. A smart ring, like the Galaxy Ring or Oura, are effective and comfortable solutions. The thing is, a lot of my digital data is housed in Google services. I'm a Gmail girl, and I pay quite a lot every month for a generous amount of Drive storage. A Google-powered sleep tracker appeals to my data hoarder tendencies. Throw in the fact that Fitbit has long led the way in accurate and sophisticated sleep and activity tracking, and a Fitbit Ring's potential grows significantly. Advertisement Of course, there's always the risk that, should Google make a smart ring, it might give up on the product after a few years, rendering my data or device useless. Just look at the Google graveyard . I will say that Waraich and his colleagues seem to see a future where people have multiple devices that serve various, specific purposes. A smartwatch and smart ring could both coexist as useful accessories that feed into a person's main device, which these days is usually a smartphone. In addition to those gadgets, people likely also own laptops, TVs and tablets — screens of all sizes. In response to a follow-up question on the topic of a multi-device lifestyle, Google's general manager of Health and Home Rishi Chandra said 'There's no doubt we need to maximize the devices you already have.' But he added 'there's no doubt in my mind there's going to be new form factors that will exist.' He cautioned, though, that 'it's too early to have conviction,' stating that currently the team is in the 'experimentation phase.' 'We are experimenting,' Chandra said. What comes out of that experimentation and what sticks around ultimately depends on developments in the industry that no one can assuredly predict. I do think, though, that given the company's expertise in simple, straightforward activity trackers, a Fitbit Ring would not be too much of a stretch. Plus, the fact that the Oura Ring is now in its fourth generation and that it and the Galaxy Ring have proven to be worthwhile devices show that there is a market for this category.
Engadget
27 minutes ago
- Engadget
Google Pixel 10 Pro Fold vs. Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7: How the newest foldable phones stack up
Last month, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 was released and immediately became the de facto king of the foldable phone hill. But today a new challenger has arrived: The Pixel 10 Pro Fold. Initial details are now available, and Google is having a splashy launch event to introduce it (and the full new Pixel 10 line) to the world. These two smartphones are vying for the title of best foldable — both with very similar designs, but each bringing something unique to the table. Samsung launched its first foldable phone in 2019, so it's had quite a bit of time to refine the Galaxy Fold over the years. Google on the other hand just released its first Pixel Fold a couple years ago — but has already largely evened the match. And, of course, with enhanced Gemini AI software integration front and center, you'll have access to Google's impressive artificial intelligence features at nearly every turn. We'll break down how the Pixel 10 Pro Fold and Galaxy Z Fold 7 stack up to one another. You can also check out our comparison of the Pixel 9 Pro Fold and the Galaxy Fold 6 to see how much has changed in a year. For more, see everything else that was announced at the Made by Google Pixel event today, including the Pixel Watch 4. Price First things first, how much will one of these high-tech folding phones cost you? That is the make-or-break question, after all. The newest Pixel foldable is still less expensive than this year's Z Fold: it starts at $1,799 while the Galaxy smartphone starts at $2,000. You don't have any other real choices for "book-style" foldables in the US market. The OnePlus Open can be had for $1,499, but it's almost two years old. And Apple's most expensive phone is currently the $1,599 1TB iPhone 16 Pro Max — but as a non-foldable model with just a single screen, it's hardly a straight comparison. If the rumor mill is to be believed, Apple may finally bow a foldable iPhone in 2026. Dimensions and display It's a race for the largest display and Samsung won this time — but not by much. The Galaxy Z Fold is just a hair bigger than the Pixel Pro Fold. Both phones' inner displays are 8 inches across when fully opened, while Samsung comes out ahead on the outer display with 6.5 inches (the Pixel is 6.4 inches). As for height, the new foldable Pixel phone is 6.1 inches and the Galaxy Z is 6.2 inches — not a huge difference there. When unfolded, the Samsung wins on size efficiency, packing the identically sized 8-inch internal display into an area that's 0.3 inches smaller — 5.6 inches versus the Pixel's 5.9. This year, the Pixel 10 Pro Fold's displays have been upgraded to a Super Actua Flex OLED display with ultra-thin glass. Both the front screen and back cover come equipped with Corning Gorilla Glass Victus 2. As for the Galaxy Z Fold 7, it has a Dynamic AMOLED display (inner and outer) and comes with the Corning Gorilla Glass Ceramic 2 on the front and the Gorilla Glass Victus 2 on the backside. The glass is ultra-thin, yet it's 50 percent thicker than before. While slightly bigger, the Galaxy Z Fold 7 is still lighter than the Pixel 10 Pro Fold. The Samsung model weighs only 7.6 ounces — down nearly an ounce from its 2024 model — while its Google competition comes in at 9.1 ounces (the same as last year's model). The Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 (left) compared to the new Pixel 10 Pro Fold (right). (Sam Rutherford/Engadget) Processor, RAM, storage and battery The Pixel 10 Fold Pro runs the Tensor G5 chip — Google says its CPU features 34 percent better performance compared to the Tensor G4 chip. The Z Fold 7 is powered by Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy. "Everything feels fast and snappy," Engadget's Sam Rutherford said of the Snapdragon 8 Elite performance on the Z Fold 7. (Sam also has first impressions of the Pixel 10 Pro Fold, but speed tests will happen a bit later.) Both phones offer the choice of 256GB, 512GB or 1TB storage. On the RAM front, the Pixel Fold delivers 16GB across the line, while the Samsung model reserves that level for the top 1TB storage tier; the small models get 12GB instead. The Galaxy phone will cost you $2,419 if you decide you need the maximum amount of storage, whereas the Pixel Fold tops out at $2,149. When it comes to battery life, Samsung's foldable lasts up to 24 hours with a 4,400mAh battery. The Pixel lasts up to 30 hours thanks to a more capacious 5,015mAh battery rating. Furthermore, the Pixel Fold is certified for Qi2 wireless charging, which Google is branding as "Pixelsnap" across its 2025 Pixel line for the first time.. Color options If you like having multiple colors to choose from, the Galaxy Z Fold 7 is winning in this category. It comes in Mint, Jetblack, Blue Shadow and Silver Shadow. Mint is only available if you buy your phone online — you won't be seeing that one in stores. As for the Pixel 10 Fold Pro, your options are Moonstone and Jade. Full specs comparison Google Pixel 10 Pro Fold Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 Starting price $1,799 $2,000 Dimensions Folded: 6.1 x 3.0 x 0.4 inches (155.2 x 76.3 x 10.8mm) Unfolded: 6.1 x 5.9 x 0.2 inches (155.2 x 150.4 x 5.2mm) Folded: 6.2 x 2.9 x 0.4 inches (158.4 x 72.8 x 8.9mm) Unfolded: 6.2 x 5.6 x 0.2 inches (158.4 x 143.2 x 4.2mm) Weight 9.1 oz (258g) 7.6 oz (215g) Processor Tensor G5 Snapdragon 8 Elite for Galaxy (3nm) Display Inner: 8-inch Super Actua Outer: 6.4-inch Actua Inner: 8-inch Dynamic AMOLED Outer: 6.5-inch Dynamic AMOLED Storage 256GB / 512GB / 1TB 256GB / 512GB / 1TB RAM 16GB 12GB (for 256GB, 512GB configs) | 16GB (for 1TB config) Battery 5,015mAh | "Up to 30 hours" 4,400mAh | "Up to 24 hours" Camera Main: 48 MP wide | 5x telephoto lens with Super Res Zoom up to 20xFront: 10 (ƒ/2.2) Inner: 10 MP (ƒ/2.2)
