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

PCM2 said:
It's typical for a manufacturer to state that a refresh rate is "overclocked" if the user needs to use an "overclock" setting in the OSD to be able to use a refresh rate. I'm assuming that is the case here, it is on other models that I've tested with this G-SYNC module (such as the AOC AG352UCG6). If the overclock was just done completely passively and was always enabled, that's different.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how that makes any sense.

It's not the options in the OSD that determine what constitutes an "overclock".

A though experiment:

Take a normal monitor with a native 120Hz panel (no overclock) and restrict it to run only at 100 Hz. Then allow this restriction to be removed via the OSD menu, again allowing the panel to reach its native 120 Hz refresh rate. Does that mean the panel is overclocked? Of course not, but that's essentially the argument you made (as I understand it).

The AOC AG352UCG6, and every other overclocked monitor I can think of, are a completely different story. These monitors are justified in requiring an explicit overclock setting. As a user, when you set that, you're saying "I know the panel in my monitor isn't designed to run at this higher refresh rate, and might show artifacts, discoloration, overshoot, flickering, or other issues when refreshing at this higher speed. However, I'm willing to make those sacrifices in exchange for the faster refresh rate".

This is how OEMs limit their liability when the display isn't perfect at that higher refresh rate. I think this is fine.

If LG is only overclocking the g-sync module however (not the panel), then you won't have any of these issues. For what then, would you have to explicitly allow overclocking in the OSD? It seems pointless. The only potential downside is a slightly higher power draw.

On the other hand, see my previous post on how this seems to be a deliberate attempt to misinform.

I'm somewhat baffled that you don't seem to see an issue here, so I wonder why we see this differently.
 
Last edited:
PCM2 said:
Well the G-SYNC module is technically in an overclocked state, hence 'overclocked'. The panel isn't. Weird, I know.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the article, it simplified and explained the workings and removed the confusion I had about this.

The confusion that was before the information of the "unconventional" overclock certainly made me doubt buying this monitor more.

As someone who is only just entering into the world of proper PC building, I guess I'm, what could be called, a very "average consumer" in this market, just learning things, and at least in my ears, the concept of "overclocking" sounds something risky and something that is done to go beyond the items regular capabilities.

In that regard, the whole thing was indeed confusing before and maybe if LG would have gone more in-depth about how this display operates more early, it would have probably saved some confusion and doubt.

At the same time, I do kinda understand why. Early information and marketing isn't supposed to give all that deep in-depth information - but rather simply state "hey, this is the product and this what it will do" and reviews and experts explain in detail how and why.

Also, LG couldn't have just said "120hz" out from the box / native as then people could have had a sense of being misguided in that regard too. "Oh, so it's 120hz but only because its overclocked G sync module!"

I guess this kind of overclock almost would require a term of it's own. It's not so much about pushing something out from it's regular capabilities, but rather "unlocking" something? I'm going over some layman simplified metaphors here, apologies if it's me who is still confused... ;)

Edit: I am actually still bit confused....in my own metaphor- the "unlocking" is done by the same module, which in the first place, was the restriction to the higher Hz...umm.... right?

Anyway, that being said, all this information has kind of dispelled some of my doubts and I'm really looking forward to reading the first reviews. It just might be that this will be my first ultrawide display...
 
Last edited:
Given the implementation, I don't know how LG would avoid confusion here. Take away all mention of G-Sync and overclocking, and it's still a 144Hz native panel running at 120Hz... how do you explain that without confusing people? Or do you just say 120Hz, that's it, no mention of anything else? I don't know. You HAVE to mention G-Sync, no way round that. Not sure there was a right way to go about this and be accurate without confusion because it seems the way this monitor works is by its very nature complicated and confusing (to the layman). Of course, it would have been best if they'd just used the 1.4 G-Sync module, added DP 1.4 and let this monitor stretch its legs to the full potential of its 144hz native refresh rate... as they've done with Freesync version. It would then be A LOT more expensive however.
 
Legend said:
Given the implementation, I don't know how LG would avoid confusion here. Take away all mention of G-Sync and overclocking, and it's still a 144Hz native panel running at 120Hz... how do you explain that without confusing people? Or do you just say 120Hz, that's it, no mention of anything else? I don't know. You HAVE to mention G-Sync, no way round that. Not sure there was a right way to go about this and be accurate without confusion because it seems the way this monitor works is by its very nature complicated and confusing (to the layman)
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head, you nicely described what I was trying to put in words - as well as the very "layman's confusion" I had with the whole issue.
 
Eluryh said:
So, if the Gsync module cannot run at 120Hz native and is being overclocked and pushed beyond it's capabilities, flickering and other issues can also be present in this LG monitor despite of the 144Hz native UW5 panel?
Click to expand...

A G-Sync module doesn't have a 'native refresh rate' in that sense... it's not a panel, it works in conjunction with one, and this panel is native 144Hz. The G-Sync module does support 120Hz. Any flickering issues etc. would typically derive from the panel itself being pushed beyond its capabilities. As this panel is 144Hz, it SHOULD achieve 120Hz without any problems. That's my understanding anyway, but I'm sure @PCM2 can correct me if I'm wrong on this as he seems to understand it best.
 
Absolutely spot on there @Legend. :)

It's really quite simple (haha - maybe not). The monitor has an overclock feature in the OSD because the G-SYNC module is overclocked to support 120Hz output, it's 100Hz without that. Not the panel, that happily works at up to 144Hz. And because of that there shouldn't be any issues whatsoever with the whole monitor (which includes the panel and G-SYNC module) running at 120Hz very happily. The issues with the other models come primarily from the panel having to be overclocked as well. But LG can't simply not mention that an overclock is used, because it is. Not for the panel, but for the module.
 
SeriousThing said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidem...action_at_ifa_berlin/?st=JLGYYYN2&sh=bd892b2f

Someone had a hands-on experience with the LG! Also shows the options Menue
Click to expand...

I made an screenshot.

osdlg.png


The expanded menu should look like this one (taken from a 32GK850G)

Captura.png
 
Last edited:
I'm more interested in the "F" model of this monitor, even as a NVIDIA user. 144 Hz (instead of 120 Hz G-Sync) AND strobing backlight.
 
Notional said:
And HDR support too.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't make that a reason... HDR 400 sets such a low bar for adherement to HDR it's barely there. Both these monitors are only 8-bit (+FRC on the 'F' but that won't help much with HDR), not bright enough (and they are the same brightness) plus there's no FALD. 144Hz would be the better argument, but no G-Sync may hurt you more so if you're trying to push things.
 
Vega said:
I'm more interested in the "F" model of this monitor, even as a NVIDIA user. 144 Hz (instead of 120 Hz G-Sync) AND strobing backlight.
Click to expand...

You'll suffer tearing and you'll hate the monitor.
And the sphere lighting can be disabled.
 
Last edited:
Vega said:
I'm more interested in the "F" model of this monitor, even as a NVIDIA user. 144 Hz (instead of 120 Hz G-Sync) AND strobing backlight.
Click to expand...

Same, 144hz or nothing, i don't mind not having gsync because it tends to be less usefull when you have a powerfull graphic card and a high refresh rate, also, the f version is likely to be 200$ less expensive than the g sync
 
kaidanovsky said:
Also, LG couldn't have just said "120hz" out from the box / native as then people could have had a sense of being misguided in that regard too. "Oh, so it's 120hz but only because its overclocked G sync module!"
Click to expand...
I disagree.

I'm not sure I entirely understand PCM2's position on this, but if it's what I think it is, I believe he too is mistaken.

So, the OSD menu on the 34GK950G allows the owner to enable or disable overclocking. But why?

If the panel is overclocked, such an option makes a lot of sense. Refreshing the monitor at rates above what the panel manufacturer intended will often introduce undesirable visual artifacts. By enabling overckocking, the owner is saying that sacrificing image quality for a higher refresh rate is a worthwhile trade-off. It's essentially a safety feature. It prevents people who prefer to avoid such artifacts from unintentionally introducing them by specifying a refresh rate in the OS that is too high.

If the situation with an overclocked g-sync module is similar, then it too makes sense. However, AFAIK there is no such trade-off. I can't imagine any reason any owner would ever want to disable g-sync overclocking. The option seems superfluous.

If LG removed the option in the OSD menu and just let us set the refresh rate in the OS (up to 120Hz), what would we be missing? I think nothing. I still think LG is screwing with us.

Remove the superfluous OSD option, and I think LG absolutely could have just stated "120 Hz /out of the box". Period. No mention of an overclock.

That would have been accurate and clear.

Lastly, many of the overclockable monitors sold to date will also have included an overclocked g-sync module, just like the 950G. Yet not a single customer or prefessional reviewer was aware of that (nor did it matter). As such, continuing to not mention that doesn't seem like much of an issue, similar to how not mentioning a million other technical details which aren't directly related to end-user functionality is not an issue.
 
Last edited:
Eluryh said:
So, if the Gsync module cannot run at 120Hz native and is being overclocked and pushed beyond it's capabilities, flickering and other issues can also be present in this LG monitor despite of the 144Hz native UW5 panel?
Click to expand...

I would assume so. But on the existing monitors on the market, the panel was overclocked too. Here, it seems to be only the gsync module. I believe it's the FPGA chip that is overclocked, but some say it's the Displayport 1.2. I guess it could be either or both.

Legend said:
I wouldn't make that a reason... HDR 400 sets such a low bar for adherement to HDR it's barely there. Both these monitors are only 8-bit (+FRC on the 'F' but that won't help much with HDR), not bright enough (and they are the same brightness) plus there's no FALD. 144Hz would be the better argument, but no G-Sync may hurt you more so if you're trying to push things.
Click to expand...

8+2 bit FRC is enough for even DisplayHDR1000, so it's fine. This panel is 550 nits peak, so it's a lot closer to DisplayHDR600 than 400. Like I've stated elsewhere, it's odd LG didn't push it to DisplayHDR600 like the 5K ultrawide.

I have no interest in FALD. It creates way too much bloom/light blobs, that is a lot worse for image fidelity than what the added iris destruction capabilities of 1000 nits at less than 1 meters distance, adds:

386f829a_20180115_174646.jpeg


I mean look at the bloom here. Looks like city lights in fog. It's not supposed to be there. And this is on the stupidly expensive Gsync DisplayHDR1000 monitors. No thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom