LG 38GL950G - 3840x1600/G-Sync/144Hz

Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2012
Posts
3,732
Location
UK
It would be good to know where it will land regards HDR. I know early leaks suggested HDR 1000, then corrected to HDR 600 (but no confirmation), but you said yourself a while back you didn't think, in your opinion, that it would have HDR. Certainly anything below HDR 600 then it might as well not.

I think I remember Nvidia saying they only use this module if it is 1000?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
20,564
Location
UK
I think I remember Nvidia saying they only use this module if it is 1000?
So far most of the v2 module screens have been paired with FALD and offer HDR1000 as a result. It’s not a requirement though I don’t believe. Indeed the Acer XB273K uses that module for 4K 144Hz and has a lowly DisplayHDR 400 certification.

Not yet seen one using the v2 module and anything in between though. It’s either full on FALD or no real HDR (ie HDR400) so far :)
 
Associate
Joined
12 Dec 2010
Posts
1,837
Location
Washington D.C.
Hi All,

right

38GL950G - this will be dedicated G-Sync model - we are expecting roughly September 2019 for launch here in the UK

there will be a Freesync/G-sync Compatible model coming as well, but this we wont see till 2020

Currently I do not have access to any specs of either model - but I have asked if I can have some that I can release to you all so once I hear back I will advise

Oh sweet, I will definitely be purchasing the G-Sync version. 3840x1600 37.5" at 175 Hz sounds quite epic for games. Come on September!
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
31 Dec 2006
Posts
7,224
I think I remember Nvidia saying they only use this module if it is 1000?

As Baddass states, the Acer XB273K demonstrates HDR-1000 isn't a requirement for this module. And besides, the v1 G-Sync module wouldn't have the required bandwidth for this panel, so it has to be using the v2 (if it is indeed going to be full fat G-Sync).


Seems to be different levels of HDR400 interpritation too, my LG F absolutely buries the Aorus I bought to have a play with yet they still rate 400 (tbf though I think the LG is 450).

The problem is that it's such a low barrier for entry, and is largely meaningless. Yes, you could have a fairly decent monitor that has the HDR 400 standard, vs one that really doesn't... but the point is that it won't be adherence to the HDR 400 standard that makes the better monitor what it is... it will be other specifications that go beyond what HDR 400 requires. It's just a pointless standard and shouldn't even exist in its current state.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
20,564
Location
UK
Seems to be different levels of HDR400 interpritation too, my LG F absolutely buries the Aorus I bought to have a play with yet they still rate 400 (tbf though I think the LG is 450).

There can be different levels of all of the VESA standards for sure. You can have an HDR1000 with FALD and one with edge lit local dimming for instance.

The 400 models will vary too depending on which hdr related enhancements the manufacturers choose to add themselves. 10-bit colour depth and wider gamut are the main two which can vary but neither is a requirement of the vesa standard. Which is a part of why that scheme level is so rubbish. None of these HDR400 models actually offer any improved dynamic range compared to the panels native contrast ratio so far though, as none feature any kind of local dimming. Again not even a requirement of the standard
 
Associate
Joined
29 May 2018
Posts
146
I think I remember Nvidia saying they only use this module if it is 1000?

I think many people in online forums made that claim, but it's incorrect. Any monitor can use the v2 G-SYNC module. The monitor need not support any form of HDR at all! Only the reverse isn't true, that is, to support any form of HDR using real G-YNC hardware, you do need the v2 G-SYNC module (because the v1 module can't do HDR).

I was going to add that I think it looks blatantly like this will be Gsync not Freesync... But LG rep has confirmed that before I posted!

Name says "G"... HDR1000.... 175hz... Gsync!

Ehm, no. There are some genuinely good reasons to assume it uses real G-SYNC, but none of the things you mentioned are on that list.

The "G"
This is definitely the best of your reasons to make that assumption. However, in contrast to technical specs, naming can be changed in a day without consequence. The "G" could also just as well be used to designate G-SYNC-Compatible monitor, which is actually FreeSync.

HDR1000 (Actually DisplayHDR 1000)
This has zilch to do with weather or not a real G-SYNC module is used. What currently does necessitate a real G-SYNC module is a FALD backlight. Monitors with a FALD backlight will most certainly achieve a DisplayHDR 1000 rating, but that rating can also be achieved with an edge lit backlight (which probably shouldn't be taken seriously but that won't stop OEMs from building them). Most importantly, this monitor will not achieve a DisplayHDR 1000 rating so the point is moot.

175 Hz
Just a few posts up I think I made a good case as to why this is meaningless in regard to whether or not a real G-SYNC module is used. Although Daniel - LG has now confirmed it will be real G-SYNC, I still hope to get responses from @Baddass and @Vega on this (for the sake of learning and understanding).
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
20,564
Location
UK
For the sake of arguing you mean :)

I can’t really be bothered to argue about it any more. All the arguing before where you thought this was going to be a FreeSync screen has been proven wrong. I bet you that if and when a FreeSync ver of this screen appears, if they are using the same panel as this model still, it won’t have a 175Hz refresh rate.
 
Associate
Joined
29 May 2018
Posts
146
There can be different levels of all of the VESA standards for sure. You can have an HDR1000 with FALD and one with edge lit local dimming for instance.

The 400 models will vary too depending on which hdr related enhancements the manufacturers choose to add themselves. 10-bit colour depth and wider gamut are the main two which can vary but neither is a requirement of the vesa standard. Which is a part of why that scheme level is so rubbish. None of these HDR400 models actually offer any improved dynamic range compared to the panels native contrast ratio so far though, as none feature any kind of local dimming. Again not even a requirement of the standard

This is a very good and important point. DisplayHDR 600 is in MANY ways far superior to DisplayHDR 400, but miss only one target, e.g. miss peak luminance by 20 nits, and the monitor will be classified as a DisplayHDR monitor 400 regardless. Seeing two DisplayHDR 400 monitors which such different HDR performance would likely be very confusing to many. Will that incentivize moitor OEMs to not build any such monitors? Are we heading towards a market where the low end is designed around the cheapest possible parts that just manages to achieve a DisplayHDR 400 rating, followed by a large "capability gap" and the mid-range then starting at DisplayHDR 600? I wonder.

FreeSync 2 is similar, because although nobody seems to talk about it, it also exists primarily to standardize HDR capabilities, just like a DisplayHDR certification. In most ways it is allegedly very similar to DisplayHDR 600, but it doesn't make the same peak liminance requirement, so FreeSync 2 monitors might very well become associated with "overpriced DisplayHDR 400", despite it actually performing closer to DisplayHR 600.

I really wonder if this isn't just a huge mess that hurts more than it helps.
 
Associate
Joined
29 May 2018
Posts
146
I can’t really be bothered to argue about it any more. All the arguing before where you thought this was going to be a FreeSync screen has been proven wrong. I bet you that if and when a FreeSync ver of this screen appears, if they are using the same panel as this model still, it won’t have a 175Hz refresh rate.

Yes, based on the evidence that I feel actually means something, I was leaning towards this being a G-SYNC-Compatible monitor. I don't think any of my actual arguments have been proven wrong. If any arguments have been proven wrong I THINK those were yours.

There were always some good reasons to believe this monitor could have been either, and I have no problem admitting that I speculated incorrectly.

Yet, after I pointed out that FreeSync monitors with a 155 Hz refresh rate do exist, you're still, for some reason, willing to bet that no FreeSync monitor can support such a refresh rate. I just don't understand you and I wish I did.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
24 Aug 2018
Posts
61
This is a very good and important point. DisplayHDR 600 is in MANY ways far superior to DisplayHDR 400, but miss only one target, e.g. miss peak luminance by 20 nits, and the monitor will be classified as a DisplayHDR monitor 400 regardless.

DisplayHDR 500
 
Man of Honour
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
20,564
Location
UK
I just don't understand you and I wish I did.
The feelings mutual.

What “evidence” did you ever have that this was going to be a non Gsync module screen? The only thing I think you had was the mention of “Gsync compatible” on the placeholder website. You never wanted to hear that it was a phrasing error / coincidence. There were plenty of things which showed to me (and several other people here from what I’ve seen) that it would be a gsync module screen. The G naming scheme, the limited video connections, the overclock - which I still maintain is only possible to this level (+31Hz) because of the gsync module usage and lack of a traditional scaler.

The 11Hz overclock in that Dell model is a tiny extension, and an exception really. I can’t think of any other models with an overclock that aren’t gsync. I believe it’s a limitation of the scaler on FreeSync models. On gsync screens you will find plenty of massive overclocks. 60Hz to 100hz. 144hz to 200hz.

Which arguments of mine have been proven wrong exactly?

It’s a statement that doesn’t make any sense either. My arguments were fundamentally based on the view that this was a proper gsync screen. Yours were based on it not being. I’ve been proven right now.

This is your problem, it’s almost impossible to tell what your point is half the time as it seems to change every time and you seem mostly interested in trying to pick holes in the way people say things or change it in to a debate about something else. It’s really hard work.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2012
Posts
3,732
Location
UK
I think many people in online forums made that claim, but it's incorrect. Any monitor can use the v2 G-SYNC module. The monitor need not support any form of HDR at all! Only the reverse isn't true, that is, to support any form of HDR using real G-YNC hardware, you do need the v2 G-SYNC module (because the v1 module can't do HDR).

No I did not mean it NEEDS to have that, I meant I am sure I remember reading that Nvidia said in order to be qualified as "Gsync HDR" it would have to be HDR1000. Maybe I confused this with it needing to be HDR1000 in order to use the module at all...

I have no idea why you continue to argue that my reasons do not mean it would be Gsync.. when they clearly do point to it being Gsync!!!

I will bet now right...

175hz "G" - Gsync model
144hz "F" - Freesync model

Pretty sure I will be right about that we shall see!
 
Associate
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Posts
209
Location
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
A 2020 date for a FreeSync version is very disheartening but I suppose understandable as I would imagine LG was caught by surprise by nvidia's support of freesync just like everyone else was. Even though Ive had nvidia cards for the last 9 or 10 years I havent *always* had nvidia cards and therefore I refuse to lock in to a monitor that has VRR *only* for nvidia cards. <sigh> The wait continues...

silver lining: perhaps AMD's next gen architecture and/or nvidias 7nm part(s) will be available to drive the damn thing at 144hz...
 
Associate
Joined
21 Dec 2018
Posts
6
Thanks for the update Daniel, Sept 2019 gives me time to gauge how the HDR monitor segment will progress, whether the rumored LG 49” SUW with 144Hz materializes, and whether the 2020 FreeSync model is worth the price differential vs this G-sync version. I have to say, this 3840x1600 with 175Hz is extremely compelling!
 
Back
Top Bottom