31.5" 2560x1440 165 Hz VA G-Sync - LG 32GK850G

Ah yes interesting, I had not seen your review of this monitor. I remember reading somewhere that Gsync improves the pixel response times for gsync monitors.

Would you say this is better than the X34 in terms of blur and input lag etc? eg. better for competitive etc. How often do you notice the black smearing etc?

Also what do you think of the colours compared to X34?

I did just read your review but interested what you think specifically vs X34?
 
Last edited:
NirK said:
Would you say this is better than the X34 in terms of blur and input lag etc? eg. better for competitive etc. How often do you notice the black smearing etc?
Click to expand...
I had the LG and currently have the Alienware ultrawide (which is faster than the X34). They're very comparable in most transitions; the LG is actually slightly faster in many transitions. Only in some darker transitions is the LG notably slower, but the dark smearing is very minor when it occurs.

The overall perceived motion blur is lower on the LG @ 165Hz vs. the Alienware @ 120Hz, so the X34 with slower pixel response @ 100Hz would be worse still.
 
^^ Couldn't have put it better myself. If you (generally) read the responsiveness section of my review and watch the relevant section of the accompanying video, you'll know that calling this "black smearing" is hugely inappropriate. It isn't smeary in its appearance, it is more of a (light) powdery trail. There is certainly a fair bit of overshoot. But the monitor makes very good use of the 165Hz refresh rate and the overall perceived blur is significantly lower and 'connected feel' much better than a 100Hz monitor, regardless of how fast it is. And in this case (X34), it isn't overly fast anyway. :)

The colour reproduction is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. The X34 is more consistent due to the IPS panel and it has a wider colour gamut. So you'll notice things looking a bit more vibrant overall. But as per the LG review the saturation is well-maintained throughout the screen, for a VA model, and colours appear rich and natural rather than washed out.

Not much comment on the Acer Z321QU as I haven't seen it in action. But from the curved models I have used with possibly the same or a very similar panel, pixel responsiveness is likely signficantly worse than on the LG and you'll have more 'VA glow' to contend with. The curve isn't a gimmick, though, I'd advise reading the relevant section of some of my reviews of curved models like the ASUS XG32VQ which uses a similar panel to the Acer. I would still put it low down my list of reasons to buy a monitor, it's just nice to have all else being equal. Which in this case it probably isn't.
 
Last edited:
newtoo7 said:
I had the LG and currently have the Alienware ultrawide (which is faster than the X34). They're very comparable in most transitions; the LG is actually slightly faster in many transitions. Only in some darker transitions is the LG notably slower, but the dark smearing is very minor when it occurs.

The overall perceived motion blur is lower on the LG @ 165Hz vs. the Alienware @ 120Hz, so the X34 with slower pixel response @ 100Hz would be worse still.
Click to expand...


So you prefer the ultrawide overall then if you swapped the LG for the alienware?
 
razorpakk said:
After a few days of intensive gaming and coming from another 32'VA (BL3200PT). I'm having a blast.

Ghosting is really negligible and as someone who moved to VA after a good IPS (Asus ProArt), there are no alternatives.
I could never game with washed out blacks and all I ever wanted was the contrast of VA without the ridicolous ghosting I was experiencing with the old BenQ. That's it, I found it.

Without going ultra-wide, as far as I'm concerned this is the best monitor out there.

Also having lucked out with the B-grade for 450£ is a good plus.
Click to expand...

How do the colours on the new LG compare to the BL3200PT? I had the Asus version of the BL3200PT so I know what the colours are like on those panels, is the new LG very similar to that for colours or better than the Benq?
 
NirK said:
How do the colours on the new LG compare to the BL3200PT? I had the Asus version of the BL3200PT so I know what the colours are like on those panels, is the new LG very similar to that for colours or better than the Benq?
Click to expand...
Contrast is better on the LG, what is very noticeable are the viewing angles: whatever's not in front of you looks darker.
Is like a slight vignette effect on the whole screen, which is more noticeable than on the BenQ.

That said I don't notice it if I'm not looking for it.
 
NirK said:
So you prefer the ultrawide overall then if you swapped the LG for the alienware?
Click to expand...
The Alienware is boxed up and ready for pickup. I thought I might be OK with the 120Hz and trading some competitive edge for immersion in singleplayer games, but being primarily a competitive FPS player I really missed the 165Hz fluidity. I was pushed into trying the Alienware because of Dell's sale and I'd never tried an ultrawide before.

I should point out I played my multiplayer FPS games in 16:9 on the Alienware. Having that versatility is awesome, since you can have a 27" 1:1 2560x1440 display for competitive purposes (or 28" 16:9 screen on a 35" ultrawide).

Without hesitation I would take the LG over the Alienware for competitive FPS. Also, I found the LG to be more immersive than the Alienware in 21:9 for singleplayer FPS games due to the massive scale (the scale of a 34" ultrawide is the same as a 27" widescreen, despite the increased horizontal FoV) and superior contrast. Obviously, the Alienware does better in RTS, RPG, etc.

Temporarily, I'm going back full circle to a S2716DG and I'll wait for the 200Hz 1440p VA ultrawide monitors. I'm convinced by modern VA film after having the LG. If the new ultrawides fail for whatever reason, I'll be going back to the LG.
 
newtoo7 said:
The Alienware is boxed up and ready for pickup. I thought I might be OK with the 120Hz and trading some competitive edge for immersion in singleplayer games, but being primarily a competitive FPS player I really missed the 165Hz fluidity. I was pushed into trying the Alienware because of Dell's sale and I'd never tried an ultrawide before.

I should point out I played my multiplayer FPS games in 16:9 on the Alienware. Having that versatility is awesome, since you can have a 27" 1:1 2560x1440 display for competitive purposes (or 28" 16:9 screen on a 35" ultrawide).

Without hesitation I would take the LG over the Alienware for competitive FPS. Also, I found the LG to be more immersive than the Alienware in 21:9 for singleplayer FPS games due to the massive scale (the scale of a 34" ultrawide is the same as a 27" widescreen, despite the increased horizontal FoV) and superior contrast. Obviously, the Alienware does better in RTS, RPG, etc.

Temporarily, I'm going back full circle to a S2716DG and I'll wait for the 200Hz 1440p VA ultrawide monitors. I'm convinced by modern VA film after having the LG. If the new ultrawides fail for whatever reason, I'll be going back to the LG.
Click to expand...


Is that because you already have a S2716DG? They are not much cheaper than the LG.
 
Last edited:
NirK said:
Is that because you already have a S2716DG? They are not much cheaper than the LG.
Click to expand...
Here in Canada the Dell is on sale for half the price of the LG. I'll only have the monitor for 3-6 months, so it's an easy decision. I'd lose a lot more on the resale of the LG.
 
PCM2 said:
Not much comment on the Acer Z321QU as I haven't seen it in action. But from the curved models I have used with possibly the same or a very similar panel, pixel responsiveness is likely signficantly worse than on the LG and you'll have more 'VA glow' to contend with. The curve isn't a gimmick, though, I'd advise reading the relevant section of some of my reviews of curved models like the ASUS XG32VQ which uses a similar panel to the Acer. I would still put it low down my list of reasons to buy a monitor, it's just nice to have all else being equal. Which in this case it probably isn't.
Click to expand...

How come pixel responsiveness could be lower just because is a curved monitor? I assumed they were quite similar.
 
razorpakk said:
How come pixel responsiveness could be lower just because is a curved monitor? I assumed they were quite similar.
Click to expand...

Because one is curved and the other isn't, they're evidently not the same panel. They could be a variant of the same panel, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Has anybody actually identified which panel is used in the Acer? Because all of the curved models I've seen have used a Samsung panel and all have been slower than the LG model. Granted none have had G-SYNC, but they're also slower than the LG 32GK850F. A lot also depends on Acer's pixel overdrive tuning, but I can tell you it won't be better than on the LG but there's a fair chance of it being worse.
 
PCM2 said:
Because one is curved and the other isn't, they're evidently not the same panel. They could be a variant of the same panel, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Has anybody actually identified which panel is used in the Acer? Because all of the curved models I've seen have used a Samsung panel and all have been slower than the LG model. Granted none have had G-SYNC, but they're also slower than the LG 32GK850F. A lot also depends on Acer's pixel overdrive tuning, but I can tell you it won't be better than on the LG but there's a fair chance of it being worse.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's already more info than I ever had on this obscure monitor, which nobody seems to own.

Now I have to decide whether I want to return it or not for the dead pixel and pay 150£ for a new one :/ (mine was a B-Grade).

imnnyx3h71d11.jpg
 
Last edited:
Okay had the monitor for the weekend but bear in mind the fastest game I've played with it is rocket league. I have not noticed any ghosting or smearing and the image and text look nice and sharp to me. Colour looks decent (I'm horrendously colourblind so take it with a pinch of salt) compared with the IPS. I don't believe there are any dead pixels but I haven't gone specifically hunting just a quick glance during loading screens.

The only issue is that it doesn't hold the overclock to 165, was in the middle of a ranked game yesterday when it went 'out of range' which was annoying. Have dropped it down to 144 now and will stick to that. Is lack of 165 ground to return a monitor or with it being overclock to 165 is that not a given?

Either way all in all I am happy with the purchase, I wanted 1440p but with everything a little bigger and more immersive and that's what I got :)
 
newtoo7 said:
The Alienware is boxed up and ready for pickup. I thought I might be OK with the 120Hz and trading some competitive edge for immersion in singleplayer games, but being primarily a competitive FPS player I really missed the 165Hz fluidity. I was pushed into trying the Alienware because of Dell's sale and I'd never tried an ultrawide before.

I should point out I played my multiplayer FPS games in 16:9 on the Alienware. Having that versatility is awesome, since you can have a 27" 1:1 2560x1440 display for competitive purposes (or 28" 16:9 screen on a 35" ultrawide).

Without hesitation I would take the LG over the Alienware for competitive FPS. Also, I found the LG to be more immersive than the Alienware in 21:9 for singleplayer FPS games due to the massive scale (the scale of a 34" ultrawide is the same as a 27" widescreen, despite the increased horizontal FoV) and superior contrast. Obviously, the Alienware does better in RTS, RPG, etc.

Temporarily, I'm going back full circle to a S2716DG and I'll wait for the 200Hz 1440p VA ultrawide monitors. I'm convinced by modern VA film after having the LG. If the new ultrawides fail for whatever reason, I'll be going back to the LG.
Click to expand...

I don't have personal experience of a 32" 16:9, but I thought 27" was considered the largest screen size for competitive FPS, because 32" was too big to take in the full screen at a normal sitting distance playing such games (i.e. at a desk, 2 feet viewing distance). I believe most pro players use a 24" or 27" monitor.
 
Stu said:
I don't have personal experience of a 32" 16:9, but I thought 27" was considered the largest screen size for competitive FPS, because 32" was too big to take in the full screen at a normal sitting distance playing such games (i.e. at a desk, 2 feet viewing distance). I believe most pro players use a 24" or 27" monitor.
Click to expand...

24"/27" is a more convenient size if you're sitting close, and looking at those guys play, they certainly are right up in front of their monitors. 32" probably would be too big for many. Besides, there aren't many at this size anyway... loads at the smaller size, and which aren't very expensive either. A lot of pro gamers are fine with TN panels as well.
 
PCM2 said:
The colour reproduction is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. The X34 is more consistent due to the IPS panel and it has a wider colour gamut. So you'll notice things looking a bit more vibrant overall. But as per the LG review the saturation is well-maintained throughout the screen, for a VA model, and colours appear rich and natural rather than washed out.
Click to expand...

I am curious about the PPI vs the X34, which I'm thinking of switching to the LG from. It's 108ppi on the X34 and 93ppi on the 32KG850-G... is that particulary noticeable? I'm also unsure how much I'd notice the colour difference... I know there is a difference between VA and IPS anyway, obviously, but on paper it seems quite significant... 1,073,741,824 colours/30-bit on the X34, and 16,777,216 colours/24-bit on the 32KG850-G. No FRC on the LG either, which is present on the X34 apaprently. I wouldn't exactly say my X34 was 'vibrant', so I guess I'm concerned the 32KG850-G will not be to my liking. This is all very subjective I know... I won't know until I try it lol!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom