Associate
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 561
- Location
- Normally in the car
I hope to get one out this week if I can, I have the sample unit in my warehouse
LG 34GK950G, 3440x1440, G-Sync, 120Hz
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
I hope to get one out this week if I can, I have the sample unit in my warehouse
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 561
- Location
- Normally in the car
Hello Everyone, I am back (again) lol
right, so as you know I sent over an email to HQ and I have had a response back.
both the 34GK950G and 34GK950F are using the UW5 panel as I previously said
34GK950G doesn't support HDR as G-Sync Revision 2 Module doesn't support it (unsure of any plan to make it so)
Even though they use the same panel, 34GK950G only supports 120Hz due to G-Sync Module bandwidth limitation (Rev2 Module designed with DP1.2 base so max refresh rate is 120Hz)
Therefore, 34GK950G is DP1.2, whereas 34GK950F is DP1.4
I do hope that somewhat helps?
Dan
right, so as you know I sent over an email to HQ and I have had a response back.
both the 34GK950G and 34GK950F are using the UW5 panel as I previously said
34GK950G doesn't support HDR as G-Sync Revision 2 Module doesn't support it (unsure of any plan to make it so)
Even though they use the same panel, 34GK950G only supports 120Hz due to G-Sync Module bandwidth limitation (Rev2 Module designed with DP1.2 base so max refresh rate is 120Hz)
Therefore, 34GK950G is DP1.2, whereas 34GK950F is DP1.4
I do hope that somewhat helps?
Dan
But then, why is the monitor set to 100Hz and there's the option to overclock it to 120Hz? I mean, why not set the monitor to 120Hz by default and remove the overclock option if you say the Gsync Rev2 can handle 120Hz? That's very confusing.
Our worries are if overclocking the Gsync module from 100 to 120 will induce flickering or reduce chroma, like seems to happen on the AW3418DW/X34P (maybe due to their UW4 100Hz panel, but don't know if it's for overclocking the Gsync module as well, whatever the panel).
Last edited:
So pretty much what was theorized throughout the thread.
I'm tempted to wait until Q1 2019 to see what AMD has to offer with Navi, because the Freesync panel is looking more and more like the better buy.
One last question, do you know the Freesync range for the panel? I'm assuming 48-144hz, but there isn't really a consistent range like with Gsync.
Hey @Daniel - LG
Unfortunately that's not helpful. We already knew that.
What we most want to know is this :
What's the downside of overclocking the 34GK950G, i.e. why would I ever want to limit the monitor to 100 Hz, as opposed to enabling the g-sync module overclock to 120 Hz in the OSD menu?
In contrast to panel overclocking, where overclocking typically negatively impacts display quality, some suspect overclocking the g-sync module has no negative effects at all. But if that is true, then why does LG provide the ability to disable g-sync module overclocking in the OSD menu?
Either the overclock setting in the OSD menu is superfluous, or LG isn't being candid in what we're expected to sacrifice (color bit depth, lower chroma subsampling, introduction of other display irregularities) in exchange for the overclocked g-sync module.
It's frustrating... nVidia's g-sync technology is about the premium experience, not "value", or so nVidia tirelessly claims. Delivering DP1.2 in Q4 2018 is the opposite of "premium" however.
Last edited:
Because the DP 1.4 HDR G-Sync module costs $400 more than the DP 1.2 version. And then you all would complain ad-nauseam about the price.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 149
Thanks @Daniel - LG
A few more questions based off your info
1. If the monitor can handle 120hz with no issues and the Gsync module can handle 120 hz with no issues (assumption here), then why even offer the option to overclock from 100 to 120hz? Why not just set both to 120hz from the get go?
2. Following up on 1. Could it be that the Gsync module has issues hitting 120hz without image degradation 100% of the time? Has any testing been done at LG to figure out its stability?
3. Will the new Nano tech help with IPS glow, Backlight bleed and Panel uniformity?
Thanks!
A few more questions based off your info
1. If the monitor can handle 120hz with no issues and the Gsync module can handle 120 hz with no issues (assumption here), then why even offer the option to overclock from 100 to 120hz? Why not just set both to 120hz from the get go?
2. Following up on 1. Could it be that the Gsync module has issues hitting 120hz without image degradation 100% of the time? Has any testing been done at LG to figure out its stability?
3. Will the new Nano tech help with IPS glow, Backlight bleed and Panel uniformity?
Thanks!
A) Speak for yourself.
I care little about price. Anything under 3000.- is fine, if it delivers.
B) Read more carefully.
Your answer has zilch to do with my main question, which asks what exactly we're sacrificing by overclocking, and if the answer is 'nothing', why overclocking can be disabled at all. If you have anything to say about that I'd be glad to hear it.
The answer to that is already well understood.
Nano IPS will help with none of those things.
Nano IPS is a marketing term that refers to a coating that is applied to the backlight LEDs (actually has nothing to do with IPS). This modifies the spectrum of light emitted from those LEDs, which allows LG's latest monitors to achieve near 100% DCI-P3 coverage.
I think that's great, but it's irrelevant to the points you raised.
IPS glow, BLB and uniformity are all (at least in theory) addressed by FALD and miniLED.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 149
Ah ok cool. I watched a video for this monitor from IFA and there was a brief moment where the screen went black and I saw, what I can only describe as, a panel made by God lol. NO blb or bad IPS glow. That had me wondering if it was the norm or a perfect sample.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 149
Personal opinion here. If this monitor can deliver a 120hz native/stable/perfect/no compromises refresh rate, then I'll be happy they went with the DP1.2 module and saved me 400$. If not then I'd rather have paid the the $400 and gotten 144hz native. 100-144 is worth $400, 120-144 isn't, for me.
Everyone will have their own view on that. That's fine. I wasn't speaking for anyone but myself.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 149
I know, didn't mean to insinuate otherwise!
Any showfloor is very heavily lit, so BLB will not be easy to spot unless it's atrociously bad. It's only in a darkened room that you would be more likely to see it.
I would tend to agree, and I think people wishing this had the more expensive module are perhaps forgetting that the extra $400 which would likely be slapped on the price tag would only net them an extra 24Hz and HDR certification at such a low level of adherement that it would be largely pointless. The extremely high price for such a sub-par HDR monitor would cause far more complaint than the current situation has seen.
If we were talking about HDR1000 or even HDR600 then it might be a different conversation, but I think LG realised this panel just wasn't premium enough to justify going that route given the price they would have had to charge for it. It would almost be like putting a 500bhp engine in a car that didn't have the chassis to deal with all that power... necessitating an expensive car that couldn't deliver what its engine was capable of.
It's an imperfect solution as it is and obviously won't please everyone, but ultimately I think we can only blame Nvidia and the limitations of their 1.2 G-Sync module, and the price they've put on the 1.4, for this outcome. That and perhaps LG not having access to a panel that could have exploited the 1.4 to its full extent. As far as I'm aware, such an IPS panel doesn't exist yet, but I'm sure is in development.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 561
- Location
- Normally in the car
Hi All,
right, so as we all know the UW5 panel can easily cover 144Hz, so the main question is as to why the 950G is 100Hz (120Hz OC).
So this is nothing to do with the panel, this is to do with an OC of the G-Sync Module. Basically, the Panel will do 144Hz, but the G-Sync module will meet this resolution at 100Hz, Nvidia don't guarantee it, but we are confident in our panel to OC the module to 120Hz and still have the good performance you need
Nano IPS as such wasn't created to decrease IPS glow/panel bleed but as it is next stage technology this was looked at so yes there should be a reduction, the main point was the 98% DCI-P3 colour space coverage
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Apr 2015
- Posts
- 561
- Location
- Normally in the car
Release Date Oct/Nov yes I believe
Price wise, expect an RRP of £1100 inc vat - hopefully
£1100 are 1222€.
One rep at IFA Berlin said 1399€ (around £1258).
Hope he is wrong, if not, I think this could be a DOA. Why?
Well, if NVIDIA can't guarantee the performance once overclocked to 120Hz, then the new UW5 has no benefits at all compared to the UW4 AW3418DW. And if the only advantage is the sphere lighting and the nanoIPS, I think it's not worth the +400€.
Last edited: