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

Stu said:
I am wondering more about expectations for this monitor... We have been discussing the refresh rate benefits of the UW5 panel, but a quick search of the Alienware thread does not find any complaints from anyone about running at 120Hz flicker free. I'm sure there are some people out there with flicker issues, but it appears to be a small percentage, and Dell support have advised me that failure to run at 120Hz is grounds for replacement under warranty (this surprised me, but I have the chat log).

Therefore, I think our expectations should primarily be for better uniformity and reduced BLB with the UW5.
Click to expand...

I've read several reports on Reddit and other forums with users saying they've experienced flicker on the Dell, or know someone who has. But who knows, I've never owned the monitor myself. It wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilty though... the panel IS 100hz native, and flicker is a classic sign of a panel being pushed beyond its capability. The G-Sync module allows for more headroom obviously, but it's good (and I agree surprising) that Dell consider not achieving that grounds for replacement.

I do agree the UW5 panel should be better, in every way. Reduced BLB would be nice, but over the years I've just come to accept every IPS panel will suffer from this to some degree.
 
Last edited:
ChrisPyzut said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are many things that can be improved over Alienware, or any UW4/UW3 display, things far more important then these additional 24 Hz to 144 that you won't even get anywhere near to in any serious game at 3440x1440. There is an image retention to fix, brightness will be 400 nits max instead of 300, Nano Cell is not going to bring massive picture quality improvements but it will make the display emit much more natural light, which is the biggest thing about Quantum Dot in current implementation. Maybe lower glow. It will also most likely come properly factory calibrated. So saying that we are not going to get anything better, especially considering Alienware's gamma issues, image retention and ugly design, is rather unthoughtful.
 
@Daniel - LG Is it an error in the 'G' specs where it states "VESA DisplayHDR™ 400"... it says this on the 'F' as well, but as the G-Sync 1.2 module doesn't support HDR, the 'G' can't be HDR 400 can it? How does the VESA certification work? Is it on a panel or monitor basis? It's not like HDR 400 is that great anyway, but I'm curious with these two monitors side by side, what difference you'd notice in HDR content?
 
So now Acer is announcing it's (Non-UW) XB273K 4K 144Hz HDR400 GSync for $1,299. Help me understand how we can have this screen for a cheaper price than the 950? I take for granted that the XB273K have the new Gsync module since 4K@144hz.
 
Manne said:
So now Acer is announcing it's (Non-UW) XB273K 4K 144Hz HDR400 GSync for $1,299. Help me understand how we can have this screen for a cheaper price than the 950? I take for granted that the XB273K have the new Gsync module since 4K@144hz.
Click to expand...

It won't be cheaper... it says here that it will be €1500 which means around £1400.
 
Legend said:
It won't be cheaper... it says here that it will be €1500 which means around £1400.
Click to expand...

Yea, just saw my mistake. I read an American article and got confused by the VAT-less price. My bad.

Also I guess it is cheaper to produce a 27" monitor compared to a 34".

I'm still somewhat frustrated though. :)

Edit.
Also AHVA panel which I understand is a little bit cheaper than IPS?
Article: https://www.pcworld.com/article/3301170/displays/acer4k-144hz-hdr-gaming-monitors-ifa.html

Maybe I should just remove these posts? Sorry for spam.
 
Last edited:
Manne said:
Yea, just saw my mistake. I read an American article and got confused by the VAT-less price. My bad.

Also I guess it is cheaper to produce a 27" monitor compared to a 34".
Click to expand...

Coming from an X34, I cannot step back to a 27" now, no way ever, regardless of spec and price... well, unless they offered a VA/IPS HDR-1000 G-Sync 144hz monitor at about £500 or so, then I might be tempted, but that's not going to happen lol! I think this LG is the right step towards faster refresh higher spec UW that doesn't rely heavily on overclocking, but these things aren't getting any cheaper that's for sure!
 
Stu said:
There is certainly plenty of evidence, and the word of Daniel, that points to the UW5 panel. I think the inclusion of "overclock" in marketing material is a screw up... Refer to the first paragraph in this post!
Click to expand...
I'd agree if the mistake was limited to the spec sheet, but the "120 Hz overclock" is mentioned on ALL the marketing material related to this monitor. If it was a screw up I'd expect someone to notice. No? The idea that it's the g-sync module that is overclocked seems unlikely to me too, but it's the only thing I've read that made a bit of sense, except for the idea LG is deliberately misleading customers because they feel the average Joe thinks an "overclocked" panel is a good thing.

I'm still pretty much at a loss on this one.
 
a5cent said:
I'd agree if the mistake was limited to the spec sheet, but the "120 Hz overclock" is mentioned on ALL the marketing material related to this monitor. If it was a screw up I'd expect someone to notice. No? The idea that it's the g-sync module that is overclocked seems unlikely to me too, but it's the only thing I've read that made a bit of sense, except for the idea LG is deliberately misleading customers because they feel the average Joe thinks an "overclocked" panel is a good thing.

I'm still pretty much at a loss on this one.
Click to expand...

There is no question the UW5 panel is on the 'F' version, with it being 144Hz native. The idea that LG would use a down level and inferior panel for the 'G' version is almost beyond comprehension. Daniel has confirmed the use of the UW5 so I don't think we can doubt that. I absoutely can see the 'overclock' terminology being used for marketing reasons.

As for "noticing", you'd think someone would have noticed they have put 'Freesync 2' on the G-Sync monitor specs lol! :D
 
Stu said:
I am wondering more about expectations for this monitor... We have been discussing the refresh rate benefits of the UW5 panel, but a quick search of the Alienware thread does not find any complaints from anyone about running at 120Hz flicker free. I'm sure there are some people out there with flicker issues, but it appears to be a small percentage, and Dell support have advised me that failure to run at 120Hz is grounds for replacement under warranty (this surprised me, but I have the chat log).

Therefore, I think our expectations should primarily be for better uniformity and reduced BLB with the UW5.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to this thread? Is it on this forum? I would like to get a list of potential issues with that monitor that I should check for when/if I buy one.
 
Manne said:
So now Acer is announcing it's (Non-UW) XB273K 4K 144Hz HDR400 GSync for $1,299. Help me understand how we can have this screen for a cheaper price than the 950? I take for granted that the XB273K have the new Gsync module since 4K@144hz.
Click to expand...

This blows up my belief that Nvidia were restricting use of the new module to only HDR1000 certified panels.
 
krzychowiec said:
There are many things that can be improved over Alienware, or any UW4/UW3 display, things far more important then these additional 24 Hz to 144 that you won't even get anywhere near to in any serious game at 3440x1440. There is an image retention to fix, brightness will be 400 nits max instead of 300, Nano Cell is not going to bring massive picture quality improvements but it will make the display emit much more natural light, which is the biggest thing about Quantum Dot in current implementation. Maybe lower glow. It will also most likely come properly factory calibrated. So saying that we are not going to get anything better, especially considering Alienware's gamma issues, image retention and ugly design, is rather unthoughtful.
Click to expand...

I've not seen anyone complain of image retention except Lim, and 400 vs 300 nit brightness is worthless, because no one runs the Alienware at 100% brightness, and without HDR (due to DP1.2) there will not be local highlights at 300 or 400 nits when panel brightness is set to 40%. Your other points have merit.
 
Stu said:
This blows up my belief that Nvidia were restricting use of the new module to only HDR1000 certified panels.
Click to expand...

Could it possibly be that they just thought the monitor would become too expensive with the new module?

Personally I'd be more keen on paying premium for the new module and 144Hz.
 
Manne said:
Could it possibly be that they just thought the monitor would become too expensive with the new module?

Personally I'd be more keen on paying premium for the new module and 144Hz.
Click to expand...

Mmm, interesting. I think price must have played a part in that decision. Hard to know how costings would break down exactly, but the panel is obviously a big chunk of that... not sure what panel that XB273K is using, but despite being 4K it's still 'only' a flat 27" 16:9, so would be significantly cheaper to manufacturer than a curved 34" 21:9. They are the same brightness and both IPS, but you have the Nano IPS coating on the LG of course. Backlighting solution is probably the same on both, but overall the parts and construction of the LG is bound to be more, so if you added that 1.4 G-Sync module on to the LG we'd easily be looking at over £1500, maybe quite a lot over. It would have given the LG a guaranteed HDR 400 certification (not that this means much, it's such a low bar for adherement to HDR standards), but we'd have seen 144Hz 3440x1440 UW G-Sync for the first time... that would have been quite a crown for LG to take, but perhaps they saw the price as too much for the market to bear. Still, what this does indicate is that such a monitor isn't far away if the LG doesn't quite cut it...

:)
 
Last edited:
https://pcmonitors.info/lg/lg-34gk950g-120hz-nano-ips-ultrawide-with-g-sync/

The monitor supports a 120Hz refresh rate but achieves this in an unconventional way. The panel itself can happily run at this refresh rate (and a bit beyond) natively, but you’re also limited by the other electronics in the monitor. In this case the monitor supports G-SYNC and has a G-SYNC module, which will come as welcome news to users of compatible Nvidia GPUs who dislike tearing or stuttering. But the manufacturer is also limited to the current available technology that Nvidia provides. In this case the G-SYNC module used runs at 120Hz via 100Hz with a module overclock. Because the panel itself is very happy to run at 120Hz, though, this should work without some of the issues that potentially affect other ‘overclocked’ UltraWide models. Such as an increase in interlace pattern artifacts or the stated refresh rate not always being achieved.
Click to expand...

This was posted yesterday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom