Its not you know. Its going to be overpriced and disappointing sadly. Barely any better than monitors from 4 years ago and in some respects worse.
LG 38GL950G - 3840x1600/G-Sync/144Hz
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
Its not you know. Its going to be overpriced and disappointing sadly. Barely any better than monitors from 4 years ago and in some respects worse.
I'm extremely having a very hard time trying to understand your "opinion" on Ultra Wide 21:9 monitors.
Overpriced yeah I get that! But still way cheaper than the best ROG SWIFT PG35VQ.
There's absolutely no good Ultra Wide 21:9 monitors 4 years ago even close to monitor's today !
Please show these better 21:9 Ultra Wide monitors you keep speaking of?
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 59
For me the "better" 21:9 ultra wide is LG 34UC89G-B. I got mine about two years ago for £499. I think this is by far the best value ultrawide that there is. Any minor upgrade to it will immediately double, tripple or even quadrupple the price!
Sure its 1080p but I mostly play fast FPS intensive games and never really use the computer for desktop use. Won't even notice the cat sized pixels on those games and with my 2080ti I can push a stable 163fps in all situations.
I had a Acer Predator X34 before switching to LG 34UC89G-B. Yes the higher resolution was a nice thing to have but for me it's nothing compared to butter smooth stable high fps experience.
Sure its 1080p but I mostly play fast FPS intensive games and never really use the computer for desktop use. Won't even notice the cat sized pixels on those games and with my 2080ti I can push a stable 163fps in all situations.
I had a Acer Predator X34 before switching to LG 34UC89G-B. Yes the higher resolution was a nice thing to have but for me it's nothing compared to butter smooth stable high fps experience.
I meant monitors in general. your could have 4 years ago bought a 43" 4k screen and ran an ultrawide res on it and have what you have today and it was probably a better quality screen and certainly way cheaper.
All we have had is small incremental changes since then. We get one minor new feature every year or so and the price goes up another £300 each time.
There isnt an ultrawide monitor out today which is worth anymore than £700 tops as a list price IMO.
Hell, even OLED TVs prices are being kept artificially high as the manufacturers are enjoying the massive profit margin on them compared to normal VA and IPS panels as people are prepared to pay the price premium for them. Once all OLED drop below £1000 and you can pick up 32" OLED TVs for £300 there really wont be any excuse anymore for the monitor industry to keep forcing sub standard crap on us anymore at premium prices.
I am still off the opinion that unless you just want a 100% gaming screen only then the best all round monitor is a 16:9 format 4k screen which you then run in letter box ultrawide when gaming at high refresh rates.
The hole purpose of Ultra Wide gaming monitors is for field of view (FOV) where curved 21:9 is Superior to flat 16:9
144Hz is a Gaming standard while 60Hz and 120Hz are Television standards. Playing at 144Hz+ levels is mine blowing playing without Hz caps...The ultimate setups have 3 curved Ultra wide together in 3-way "surround" vision setup. .. While your aiming at 1 flat 16:9 box. All in the name of cheap.. People always talk about 4K gaming with what? RTX Titan NVlink setup? That's what you need to run 4K HDR properly....I guess if you can afford RTX Titan NVlink setup you can afford a decent monitor setup to go with it, so you can run your 4K HDR gaming setup. Or are one of those guys running the lowest possible graphics settings no AA just so you can try running 4K HDR at what fps?
I just don't get it? Why trying to tell everyone to get a cheap flat 16:9 4K TV with low Hz with lacking FOV just to justify price and with no cheaper video card can run 4K HDR gaming. As this is my opinion . .
LG UltraGear 38GL950G-B is made perfectly clear for its purpose ...
I get it. .. It's just an option
Whoo says curved>flat? Thats open to debate. Yes once you go 49" ultrawide you need curved but normal ultrawide you dont.
personally i see very little difference between 120hz and 144hz. The jump from 60hz to 120hz is very noticeable. After that, unless you are a pro gamer, most people wont notice. And if you are a pro gaming you wont be playing on 2k or 4k ultrawide resolutions anyway.
3 way surround setups sound like they look impressive but in reality are useless and a nightmare to play competitively. You will have to be swinging around in your seat or twisting your head around like an owl. No thank you. A screen which fills my FOV is enough thank you.
Check my sig before you start bad mouthing me and what I run and game at........
And we have mentioned several times. A 16:9 OLED screen running at ultrawide res with black bars top and bottom trumps any of the screens you keep raving about which cost twice as much. Once running at ultrawide res, its the same processing power as needed by your native ultrawide screen so if we cant run at high refresh rates then neither can you. Many large(ish) 16:9 screens when running at 21:9 offer a wider FOV than the ultrawide monitors you are raving about so that point is negated.
You do realise all cinemas are 16:10 screens and just do "windowed slots" depending whether they are showing 2.35:1 or 1.85:1? Same using a 16:9 screen at home.
personally i see very little difference between 120hz and 144hz. The jump from 60hz to 120hz is very noticeable. After that, unless you are a pro gamer, most people wont notice. And if you are a pro gaming you wont be playing on 2k or 4k ultrawide resolutions anyway.
3 way surround setups sound like they look impressive but in reality are useless and a nightmare to play competitively. You will have to be swinging around in your seat or twisting your head around like an owl. No thank you. A screen which fills my FOV is enough thank you.
Check my sig before you start bad mouthing me and what I run and game at........
And we have mentioned several times. A 16:9 OLED screen running at ultrawide res with black bars top and bottom trumps any of the screens you keep raving about which cost twice as much. Once running at ultrawide res, its the same processing power as needed by your native ultrawide screen so if we cant run at high refresh rates then neither can you. Many large(ish) 16:9 screens when running at 21:9 offer a wider FOV than the ultrawide monitors you are raving about so that point is negated.
You do realise all cinemas are 16:10 screens and just do "windowed slots" depending whether they are showing 2.35:1 or 1.85:1? Same using a 16:9 screen at home.
Of course you meant cinema are 21:9 thus your famous black bars you see that you adore.
List of 21:9 movies
https://m.imdb.com/list/ls073624685/
You can be believe what ever you want in your world but reality is what it is. Top PC Gamers are using Ultra Wide by the way, the most famous right now is the ROG SWIFT PG35VQ if you can afford the best G-Sync Ultimate monitor on Earth ..
I own a 2017 65" LG OLED TV so I have experience in this matter .. As a PC Gamer Ultra wide is the way to GO! FOV is incredibly important most don't understand.
Again you can keep your flat 16:9 UHD TV 120Hz cap with bars everywhere is your choice and your opinion..
This forum thread should not be about down talking the LG UltraGear 38GL950G-B but embrace the next level of PC gaming experience.
Totally agree, pros would be using 23/24" panels at 144/244hz with all GFX on low. However, thats the best of the best, and even then some people still play top end at 60hz!
I bought my OLED C9 to replace my TV and also the bonus of doubling up for PC gaming. Its absolutely amazing experience, its really good for coach gaming. (which is what i use it for).
I have a main PC monitor which is a 165hz TN panel and i cant really tell any differerence and this is from purely a FPS perspective.
I think the LG38 would be amazing work/gaming desktop screen, something i may consider in the future.
2560x1440 isn't 2K.
Mainstream it is known as 2K.
HD is 1280x720p
UWQHD is 3440x1440 or 3K some say
QHD is 2560x1440p or WQHD
Technically
2K is 2048x1080
Full HD is 1920x1080p
4K is 4096x2160
UHD-1 is 3840x2160p
8K is 8192x4320
UHD-2 is 7680x4320p
Little bit marketing gimmicks
LG UltraGear 38GL950G-B
UWQHD+ is 3840x1600
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,868
Only by idiots.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,868
0.7k FTW 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,868
my ring is 24k what resolution is that ?
Utter filth!!!
Its not a case of believing what I want. Fact is two thirds of movies are now 21:9 and one third are still 1.85:1. Up until 10 years ago most were 1.85:1. These are facts. You can live in whatever fantasy world you want to. I dont adore "black bars" but the point is with OLED you dont even see them so why do they bother you?
You can run Ultra wide on a 16:9 screen and have a bigger screen than you can buy ultrawide monitors as native and probably a higher res too if you want. This is exactly how cinema works. You don't get 21:9 native resolution cinema projectors.
The LG 38L950G-B is the best of a bad bunch of lame incremental monitors at high prices designed to sucker your money from you.,
Thats my opinion and I am sticking with it. I was originally quite interested in this screen a year ago. Now its a disappointment (again)
I'm still waiting for a proper review like from tftcentral main concern is response times cause im so used to tn 240hz types and pixel response is awful for the alienware uwd i got last year
doing my best to get hold of one asap for review at TFT Central. will keep you all updated
What "Greebo" is trying to sell you people is the LG OLED55C9PUA it's the only LG OLED TV that's currently cheaper than the LG 38GL950G-B monitor ..
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/lg-gsync-compatible-hdmi-big-screen-gaming/
Enjoy running your 16:9 LG OLED55C9PUA TV in 21:9 mode with black bars that you can't magically see and can't see missing screen real estate right before your eyes apparently.
Both 16:9 TV LG OLED55C9PUA and Ultra Wide LG 38GL950G-B monitor are 4:4:4 120Hz
The LG UltraGear 38GL950G-B running negative 3840x1600 144Hz 4:2:2 1ms (OC 175Hz)
If you're coming from an TN 1080p/240Hz 1ms if you want to jump into the 4K HDR LG OLED55C9PUA TV (2160p/120Hz) you will need a Nvidia TU102 GPU to drive it!
Nvidia TU102 GPUs
RTX Titan
RTX 2080TI
RTX 2080Ti Super
TN 1080p/240Hz 1ms to the LG 38GL950G-B monitor (3840x1600/144Hz+) you will need 2080 Super to drive it properly.
2070 Super is considered a 1440p card at best....I recommend I wouldn't try driving either
LG 38GL950G-B
TN @144Hz 1ms VS Nano IPS @144Hz 1ms is virtually the same but moving from 1080p to 1600p is GPU intense. Going from 240Hz to 175Hz OC .....the 240Hz will win with less blur. Go check out Blur UFO test.
I wish there was a full review between the LG OLED55C9PUA UHD TV and the LG 38GL950G-B Ultra Wide monitor to end this battle once and for all.
Last edited: