LG 34GK950G, 3440x1440, G-Sync, 120Hz
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
Associate
So around £1299 when it releases here then?
1146 GBP
I have no interest in being political or taking a stand against NVidia but as you say, I am not interesting in paying overprice either.
I think someone pointed out here that the 10bit panel is nothing you will notice in games. So it motivates you since you work with graphics but for me as a pure gamer the GSync lures more.
I wouldn't buy a monitor based on a hack that will most likely be patched away as soon as NVidia gets the chance.
But I do agree with you on a lot of points and appreciate your input.
The idea that having a DP1.4 connector somehow future-proofs the monitor is slightly ridiculous. You buy the monitor with the capabilities it has at the time of purchase, and that's how it will stay until discarded. Having a more modern connector will not somehow magically improve the monitor down the road. There simply is no "future-proofing" by way of the connector.
Also, both F and G use the same 8 bit+FRC panel. The idea of one being "true 8 bit" is strange. For graphics work there are certainly better monitors.
In a vaccum, I agree that the F is the better product and better value, but that is irrelevant because the product is not used in a vaccum. The important question is which model gives each person, in their specific setup, the best results. That is definitely not always the F model.
For HDR, a 10bit panel (or 8bit+FCR) is mandatory.
On a real HDR monitor (not the DisplayHDR 400 rated F version), you most definitely will notice a huge difference in gaming, so in that way, a 10bit panel is something you'd want for gaming, but only in combination with HDR.
Without HDR, most AMD and nVidia cards would refuse to even send a 10bit signal, making any 10bit panel entirely useless for gaming.
Yup, you misworded
If reduction to 6bit is in fact the consequence of "overclocking" the G-SYNC module (or any other similar tricks) , then I completely agree... that would be crap.However, AFAIK that is currently merely an assumption which lacks all/any supporting evidence. Certainly not enough to accuse the G of compromising color depth.
See post #782 for my view on the G's overclocking "feature".
Ah. thank you for the clarification.
Associate
The display does NOT drop down to 6-bit when running 120 Hz.
I know that you talked about bandwidth earlier in this thread and if I could ask a question about that.
If this is the correct calculation:
3840x2160@60hz (8bit panel) is 14.93 Gbps And 3440x1440@144hz (8bit panel) is 21.40 Gbps
And the aim for the new 2080TI is to keep 4k@60 consistently at high settings. Does that mean that if I bought the F-version I would have to start playing at say medium/low settings in games to be able to keep 144hz?
Am I out of track here? I have a light fever so I am feeling a bit slow at the moment and could miss something obvious.
If this is the correct calculation:
3840x2160@60hz (8bit panel) is 14.93 Gbps And 3440x1440@144hz (8bit panel) is 21.40 Gbps
And the aim for the new 2080TI is to keep 4k@60 consistently at high settings. Does that mean that if I bought the F-version I would have to start playing at say medium/low settings in games to be able to keep 144hz?
Am I out of track here? I have a light fever so I am feeling a bit slow at the moment and could miss something obvious.
Associate
4K/60 is 498M pixel/sec demand. 3440x1440/144 is 713M pixels/sec demand. 43% greater demand for the latter. The latter having the same requirement around 100 Hz as 4K at 60 Hz/FPS.
So assuming in triple AAA on Ultra 2080 Ti did only 60 FPS 4K (I suspect it will be more around 75), yes you would need to turn some setting down. If you use 4K 75 as the base metric, it means you could run 3440x1440 up to ~125 FPS on Ultra. I think this last scenario is realistic.
Now there will be some +/- to this as there are some rendering dissimilarities between 16:9 and 21:9 field of view.
So assuming in triple AAA on Ultra 2080 Ti did only 60 FPS 4K (I suspect it will be more around 75), yes you would need to turn some setting down. If you use 4K 75 as the base metric, it means you could run 3440x1440 up to ~125 FPS on Ultra. I think this last scenario is realistic.
Now there will be some +/- to this as there are some rendering dissimilarities between 16:9 and 21:9 field of view.
Ah I see. Interesting.
I used this calculator.
https://k.kramerav.com/support/bwcalculator.asp
And they state the same number as you regarding pixels/sec. Is "total signal bandwidth" not relevant in this case? Seems to be three times the pixel/s.
Associate
Pixel processing is different than connection bandwidth. Pixel processing/rasterization is the demand on the GPU. Displayport bandwidth is just the speed of the connection.
3440x1440 144 Hz at 1 FPS is the same Displayport bandwidth as 3440x1440 144 Hz at 144 FPS. The former just refreshes the same frame 144 times in a second.
3440x1440 144 Hz at 1 FPS is the same Displayport bandwidth as 3440x1440 144 Hz at 144 FPS. The former just refreshes the same frame 144 times in a second.
If I had to guess, I'd assume you're right, but how do you know?
Associate
Because I've had 120 Hz 3440x1440 G-Sync displays before.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,918
Mine is fine at 120hz too, I see no visual difference.
Associate
No, 4K requires considerably more bandwidth than 3440x1440.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 149
Multiple users on reddit and here have posted that there is no chroma subsampling at 3440x1440 120hz on DP1.2. A guy on reddit I talked to about it used this test to check https://www.geeks3d.com/20141203/ho...-chroma-subsampling-used-with-your-4k-uhd-tv/
It does suck though, and people who bought those monitors are experiencing that. Thats too expensive of a purchase to have issues with lol.