LG 34GK950G, 3440x1440, G-Sync, 120Hz

Notional said:
DisplayHDR 400 only. The panel maxes out at 550 nits, where 600 is needed. Really dumb. It's 8+2 bit FRC, which is enough for HDR600. I just don't understand why they didn't add 50 more nits since the 5K ultrawide has that.
Click to expand...

Because HDR600 requires at least some kind of local dimming, while HDR400 does not. They would have to implement different backlighting.

Eluryh said:
Significant step up from SDR baseline:

  • True 8-bit image quality – on par with top 15% of PC displays today
  • Global dimming – improves dynamic contrast ratio
  • Peak luminance of 400 cd/m2 – up to 50% higher than typical SDR
  • Minimum requirements for color gamut and contrast exceed SDR
Click to expand...
There is no step up, this is a basic spec for any considerable display on the market, especially the one for the price of HDR certified displays that are coming out. 8-bit is already the minimum and only budget displays don't have it (and HDR certified displays won't reach this segment for many years from now), global dimming is an absolute bs and actually a degradation to a picture, 400 nits of peak brightness is not really useful vs current typical 300-350 if you don't have pixel level control or very precise local dimming, which you don't, for any Vesa certification, even HDR1000 was given to some displays with like 32 edge-lit zones, which is putting the credibility of all of these certifications into big question. Contrast requirements are below 1000:1, 955:1 from what I remember, so this a very basic requirement too, and still a horrible contrast. HDR400 means nothing. It only means that your display can read HDR signal and scale it back to SDR, because this is what effectively happens when HDR content is displayed on displays with no real HDR capability, like entry level TVs for example.
 
krzychowiec said:
There is no step up, this is a basic spec for any considerable display on the market, especially the one for the price of HDR certified displays that are coming out. 8-bit is already the minimum and only budget displays don't have it (and HDR certified displays won't reach this segment for many years from now), global dimming is an absolute bs and actually a degradation to a picture, 400 nits of peak brightness is not really useful vs current typical 300-350 if you don't have pixel level control or very precise local dimming, which you don't, for any Vesa certification, even HDR1000 was given to some displays with like 32 edge-lit zones, which is putting the credibility of all of these certifications into big question. Contrast requirements are below 1000:1, 955:1 from what I remember, so this a very basic requirement too, and still a horrible contrast. HDR400 means nothing. It only means that your display can read HDR signal and scale it back to SDR, because this is what effectively happens when HDR content is displayed on displays with no real HDR capability, like entry level TVs for example.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the 'standards' have already become somewhat of a mockery of themselves. I thought at least HDR1000 would be impervious to that, but the Philips 436M6VBPAB only has those 32 zones like you say, which is just ridiculous. The only monitor that does actually seem to deliver so far is the £2200 Acer X27, but that's not without its niggles. HDR400 is certainly a joke... I'm convinced the only reason they came up with that level is to appease manufacturers so they could continue to rip off consumers with HDR branding. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some backhanding going on behind the scenes to ensure that happened!

Eluryh said:
So it's 120 overclocked.
Click to expand...

They will simply be quoting the LG specs which say that, they won't know, it's all the LG marketing department and they will be sharing same info. We'll have to wait for show floor and an engineer to explain, or until someone actually has the monitor in their hands. An overclock still doesn't make sense for a native 144hz panel.
 
Legend said:
They will simply be quoting the LG specs which say that, they won't know. We'll have to wait. An overclock still doesn't make sense for a native 144hz panel.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's the DP 1.2 GSYNC module which is limiting to 100Hz and 120oc it's the only way to reach 120hz. Maybe the UW5, despite the module limitation, can guarantee the oc without flickering issues reported in UW4 panels, because UW4 is a 100hz panel, but 34GK950G has the UW5 as @Daniel - LG said.
 
Last edited:
Eluryh said:
Maybe it's the DP 1.2 GSYNC module which is limiting to 100Hz and 120oc it's the only way to reach 120hz. Maybe the UW5, despite the module limitation, can guarantee the oc without flickering issues reported in UW4 panels, because UW4 is a 100hz panel, but 34GK950G has the UW5 as @Daniel - LG said.
Click to expand...

Perhaps... it's something going on with the G-Sync module I think, and it could be that is why they are saying it's overclocked. It shouldn't matter though, providing it does actually achieve that without issue. I don't see why it wouldn't if the panel is 144Hz native. The flickering issues with the UW4 occurred precisely because it was being asked to exceed its max capability, which won't be the case with the UW5.

We do have to face the possibility however that Daniel might have been wrong. It could just be the Freesync version which is getting the 144Hz UW5 panel, and the G-Sync is using the same 100HZ UW4 panel as the Dell AW34. I really hope that is NOT the case, but it would explain the specs that LG have listed.
 
Last edited:
Legend said:
Perhaps... it's something going on with the G-Sync module I think, and it could be that is why they are saying it's overclocked. It shouldn't matter though, providing it does actually achieve that without issue. I don't see why it wouldn't if the panel is 144Hz native. The flickering issues with the UW4 occurred precisely because it was being asked to exceed its max capability, which won't be the case with the UW5.

We do have to face the possibility however that Daniel might have been wrong. It could just be the Freesync version which is getting the UW5 panel, and the G-Sync is using the same panel as the Dell AW34. I really hope that is NOT the case, but it would explain the specs that LG have listed.
Click to expand...

Yep. Hope it's like you said.
 
Legend said:
Perhaps... it's something going on with the G-Sync module I think, and it could be that is why they are saying it's overclocked. It shouldn't matter though, providing it does actually achieve that without issue. I don't see why it wouldn't if the panel is 144Hz native. The flickering issues with the UW4 occurred precisely because it was being asked to exceed its max capability, which won't be the case with the UW5.
Click to expand...

Exactly, all of these issues were from the beginning caused by overclocking the panels. First attempting overclocking 60 Hz UW2 panel to 100 Hz on Asus PG348Q or Acer X34, which caused tons of issues like flickering, scanlines, losing signal and etc. Then overclocking 100 Hz UW4 panel to 120 on for example Alienware AW3418DW. If UW5 panel is capable of 144 natively then it should have such issues.

Legend said:
We do have to face the possibility however that Daniel might have been wrong. It could just be the Freesync version which is getting the 144Hz UW5 panel, and the G-Sync is using the same 100HZ UW4 panel as the Dell AW34. I really hope that is NOT the case, but it would explain the specs that LG have listed.
Click to expand...

The naming of all of these panels is quite a mystery. There is also 34WK95C-W coming out, the successor to 34UC98-W, and it also getting Nano IPS and HDR400 with 98% DCI-P3, with 60-75 Hz panel. So here the situation is not the same like with 38WK95C-W, which has no Nano IPS and simply uses exactly the same panel as 38UC99. So 34WK95C-W should have a new panel and this one should be called UW5, while the panel from 34GK950 should be called UW6, simiarly to UW3 vs UW4, where the refresh rate is the difference. Honestly, I think that UW5 panel is most likely just an improved UW4 panel, with added Nano Cell, and 144 Hz capability for "UW6", I don't expect any other changes. Curve rate is the same, stated contrast is the same. Nothing is indicating significant changes, although big quality jump from UW2 to UW3 was also rather unexpected, so I hope for further improvements. But probably 34GK950G is just what I said somewhere few pages ago, the first high G-sync ultrawide that is not going to look like embarassing gamery crap and you will actually be able to let it into your house without shame, thats all. If you don't care about that, then buying something like AW3418DW instead probably won't hurt you, especially considering the price difference. Although 950G release is so close now that it would be rater unwise to buy anything else right now, before knowing what 950G finally ends up being.
 
Legend said:
We do have to face the possibility however that Daniel might have been wrong. It could just be the Freesync version which is getting the 144Hz UW5 panel, and the G-Sync is using the same 100HZ UW4 panel as the Dell AW34. I really hope that is NOT the case, but it would explain the specs that LG have listed.
Click to expand...

Remember what @Daniel - LG said on 14th June:

"34GK950G and 34GK950F will use the same panel (LM340UW5) - 950G is limited to 120Hz due to SOC module operating on DP1.2, 950F will use SOC on DP1.4
 
krzychowiec said:
The naming of all of these panels is quite a mystery. There is also 34WK95C-W coming out, the successor to 34UC98-W, and it also getting Nano IPS and HDR400 with 98% DCI-P3, with 60-75 Hz panel. So here the situation is not the same like with 38WK95C-W, which has no Nano IPS and simply uses exactly the same panel as 38UC99. So 34WK95C-W should have a new panel and this one should be called UW5, while the panel from 34GK950 should be called UW6, simiarly to UW3 vs UW4, where the refresh rate is the difference. Honestly, I think that UW5 panel is most likely just an improved UW4 panel, with added Nano Cell, and 144 Hz capability for "UW6", I don't expect any other changes. Curve rate is the same, stated contrast is the same. Nothing is indicating significant changes, although big quality jump from UW2 to UW3 was also rather unexpected, so I hope for further improvements. But probably 34GK950G is just what I said somewhere few pages ago, the first high G-sync ultrawide that is not going to look like embarassing gamery crap and you will actually be able to let it into your house without shame, thats all. If you don't care about that, then buying something like AW3418DW instead probably won't hurt you, especially considering the price difference. Although 950G release is so close now that it would be rater unwise to buy anything else right now, before knowing what 950G finally ends up being.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right... it's just odd LG haven't made much of an effort to promote this if it IS that much better. Consequently I have seen much speculation that this is just an AW34 in a different guise with Nano IPS. I certainly hope that isn't true, but we will surely find out soon enough. If the rumoured price point is accurate at around £1200, then it really NEEDS to be that much better than the Dell which can be had for £850.
 
Eluryh said:
Remember what @Daniel - LG said on 14th June:

"34GK950G and 34GK950F will use the same panel (LM340UW5) - 950G is limited to 120Hz due to SOC module operating on DP1.2, 950F will use SOC on DP1.4
Click to expand...

Which makes the 120Hz OVERCLOCK claim rather strange... but again, could just be how the G-Sync operates. Also, I think saw someone on Reddit suggest that they might be using the 'Overclock' terminology purely as a marketing term which gets the gamers attention. That could very well be the case.
 
Legend said:
Which makes the 120Hz OVERCLOCK claim rather strange... but again, could just be how the G-Sync operates. Also, I think saw someone on Reddit suggest that they might be using the 'Overclock' terminology purely as a marketing term which gets the gamers attention. That could very well be the case.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't surprise me, but how sad is it that some ignorant fools perceive an "overclocked" monitor as a positive thing? Ugh... it's the opposite of what anybody who cares about quality would want. Fast refresh rates? YES! Overclocked? Noooo! :-(

Legend said:
We do have to face the possibility however that Daniel might have been wrong. It could just be the Freesync version which is getting the 144Hz UW5 panel, and the G-Sync is using the same 100HZ UW4 panel as the Dell AW34.
Click to expand...

Looking at this discussion on reddit, I'm inclined to believe Daniel was right:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/comments/96ny36/the_lg_34gk950g_uses_the_uw5_panel/

Eluryh said:
So it's 120 overclocked.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. Based only on that LG press release, we know absolutely nothing more than we already knew months ago.

Worst of all, the question remains how a native 144 Hz panel (UW5) can be "overclocked" to 120 Hz. That makes no sense. It's not even clear if the term "overclock " applies to the panel, the g-sync module or if it's purely marketing BS. The press release is worthless non-information.

I doubt we'll get anything better from LG officially. Either @Daniel - LG can help us out, or we need a good reviewer to check it out for us.
 
Last edited:
a5cent said:
Just as worthless and unclear as it's always been. I doubt we'll get anything better from LG officially. Either @Daniel - LG can help us out or we need a good reviewer to check it out for us.
Click to expand...

I get the sense Daniel doesn't know or can't comment, which may explain his abscence from this thread and inability to clarify. If the UW5 panel is being used, then this is ultimately all that matters, and hopefully suggests this 'overclock' nonsense is just marketing. It's shame that LG don't recognise the potential damage this is causing however, and the lost sales it has already cost them... I have seen several people take the advertised specs to mean that the 950G is an LG clone of the AW34 and go out and buy that instead, given it's quite a bit cheaper and actually available. Makes you wonder who on earth is running the LG Marketing Department and managing their campaigns (or rather NOT managing them!)... they don't know their backside from a hole in the ground!! :rolleyes:
 
Everyone here is setting themselves up for disappointment by tossing around the idea that the term 'overclock' is being used to attract gamers. This monitor is going to be 100hz native, with an overclock to 120hz. We just have to accept the truth now, instead of wasting time. Daniel was wrong, and we are not getting anything better than the Alienware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom