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

Stu · 30 Jul 2018 at 21:25

However, I'm not sure that it will hold 144Hz at 4:4:4 using DP1.2.

Stu · 31 Jul 2018 at 00:13

NirK said:
I think the freesync version is DP 1.4 (144hz) and the Gsync version is DP 1.2 (120hz OC) due to the Gsync module?

Nvidia should really release a DP 1.4 Gsync module and phase out the DP 1.2 version, it is now out of date and actually making Gsync worse than freesync.

I know they already have the HDR1000 DP 1.4 module, but they should also have a normal DP 1.4 and phase out the DP 1.2.

This is what we expected, but recent specs at online stores is showing DP1.2 for the Freesync model. I think it is all a bit of a mess, with different messages from different parts of LG.

@Daniel - LG can you please provide an update and clear up some of this mess? Why is the LG website saying that the 950G is using a 100Hz panel, and other sites saying the 950G and 950F are using DP1.2?

Stu · 31 Jul 2018 at 11:09

PCM2 said:
Some of the 240Hz models and the LG 32GK950G vs. F reinforces this. Just wait for my review coming later today!

(I assume you mean the 34GK950G)

Oooh, you are teasing us! This comes as somewhat of a surprise, since there has been no mention previously that review units had been sent out yet.

I'm not sure why the cloak & dagger... I think LG have already lost sales here because the availability of the 950G and 950F appears to be an unknown, which I think contributed to many purchasing the Alienware when it was on sale recently. Better communication, like "coming very soon, we have sent out review units already, we're nearly there" would have influenced some people.

Stu · 31 Jul 2018 at 13:14

PCM2 said:
No, I messed up with the model number. My post was in relation to G-SYNC and FreeSync more generically and not specific to this thread. I meant 32GK850G and 32GK850F, I accidentally conglomerated the 34GK950G in there as well. Will edit the post for clarity.

Stu · 31 Jul 2018 at 16:12

NirK said:
I do not have much experience with freesync, but also from what I have read I am pretty sure Gsync is better in most monitors, just not very impressed by the current available modules, Not sure why they don't have a mid range DP 1.4 update to the current DP 1.2 module. Nvidia do make good products but they are pretty annoying with their tactics. For example yes OK Gsync is better, so people would still want a Gsync monitor even if they enabled VRR support, would be nice to have the option.

To be fair, until the last couple of months, the most demanding monitors have all been suitably supported by DP1.2, and we are only now getting panels that need more than 18 Gbit/s.

1920 x 1080 at 240Hz
2560 x 1440 at 165Hz
3440 x 1440 at 120Hz

The new module is a big step up, supporting 4k at 144Hz (36 Gbit/s), and the cost makes it inhibitory for monitors <£1000 right now. I agree that it would be good to have an intermediate model suitable for newer panels capable of 3440 x 1440 at 144Hz and 2560 x 1440 at 200Hz, which would need around 21-22 Gbit/s.

Stu · 31 Jul 2018 at 16:17

Legend said:
Yes Freesync can be good and bad, same as there are some bad G-Sync monitors, although in those cases it's other issues that make them bad such as terrible panels beset with horrendous bleed. Bottom line though, and mostly needless to say, if you have an Nvidia card, you simply can't use Freesync no matter how well it may be implemented.

This is generally the main factor... if you want good GFX performance, most people choose an Nvidia card, which leads you to a G-Sync monitor.

Stu · 3 Aug 2018 at 09:46

a5cent said:
@Stu

In the update from June 14th, in the first post, you mention the "34GK950G" twice. One of those should probably be "34GK950F".

Fixed... Thanks

Stu · 5 Aug 2018 at 10:05

An observation after reading the last page of posts, there appears to be an association with display port performance and possible GSync modules in relation to different HDR standards, but I believe the DP and module either support HDR or they don't... Offering HDR400, HDR600 or HDR1000 is dependent on the capability of the panel.

Stu · 9 Aug 2018 at 11:35

Manne said:
Do I understand it correct that we know it is the new UW5 panel since 950g is listed as a nano IPS and UW4 is not a nano IPS panel?

The nano IPS layer can be applied to the UW4 panel (which was the original plan by LG), so this does not dictate anything. In reality, the only source that the new UW5 panel will be used in the 950G is from @Daniel - LG here on this forum... all other information from LG that I can find on the web indicates that the UW4 panel will be used, including the product page on the LG Hong Kong site, which clearly states "120Hz (Overclock)" under the key features.

Stu · 9 Aug 2018 at 15:52

krzychowiec said:
At this point there is so much confusion around these monitors that it is best to just wait for official specs and availability, the displays should be in stock by the end of a month. Also the new GPUs are supposedly going to be unveiled on 20th, so we should get full clarification for both the displays and new GPUs by the end of the month.

Your typo has proven true thus far... "the displays should be in stock by the end of a month"... the question is which month?!

Stu · 13 Aug 2018 at 18:00

Basically Nvidia are controlling which monitors can claim HDR and G-Sync, and they do this be controlling who gets the new G-Sync module. They only want G-Sync associated with HDR1000, and will only allow the module to be used in monitors that can achieve this HDR standard, to avoid poor HDR performance being associated with Nvidia.

The new G-Sync module will of course work with SDR, HDR400 and HDR600 panels; but Nvidia is not allowing it by controlling access to the module.

Stu · 13 Aug 2018 at 18:43

NirK said:
Yes I am not arguing with you about it, or saying you do not know what you are talking about, just saying it seems that for example freesync will probably be able to use 144hz on this monitor, although obviously not completely free. But the new Gsync module apparently costs 500 and does not support HDR400/600. As I have said a few times it seems like a large gap between the current 100hz or 120hz OC DP 1.2 version or this new fangled HDR1000 module. Overall this current Gsync situation is not ideal and there must be some easier solution such as either reducing the cost of the module or replacing the DP 1.2 module etc.

The new G-Sync module does support HDR400/600. Nvidia are not permitting partners to use the module with HDR400/600 panels/monitors.

HDR400/600/1000 capability is down to the panel, not DisplayPort or G-Sync. DisplayPort and G-Sync simply transfer or process data. The maximum brightness (i.e. HDR400/600/1000) is limited by the capability of the panel.

Stu · 14 Aug 2018 at 16:33

a5cent said:
Can I ask what the source is for this?

I read it somewhere on the internet, so it must be true!

Read it ages ago on a reputable site, but I can't find anything about it now... sorry

Stu · 15 Aug 2018 at 14:29

Not yet confirmed

Stu · 29 Aug 2018 at 01:09

The LG USA spec sheet is pretty bad, stating Radeon adaptive tech and HDR400... DP1.2 can't process HDR.

I think this overclock label, and discussion, is misdirected. If the UW5 panel is used, there is no overclock. If the UW4 panel is used, then it is overclocked to achieve 120Hz. I don't think the overclock label in the current marketing is related to the G-Sync module... I've never seen specs released before stating the capability of the module, and there are several 2560 x 1440 at 165Hz monitors on the market that require more bandwidth than 3440 x 1440 at 120Hz, so I don't think that the G-Sync module is an issue.

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!

Stu · 29 Aug 2018 at 09:23

krzychowiec said:
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.

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.

Stu · 29 Aug 2018 at 23:13

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.

This blows up my belief that Nvidia were restricting use of the new module to only HDR1000 certified panels.

Stu · 29 Aug 2018 at 23:19

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.

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 · 30 Aug 2018 at 09:05

PCM2 said:
I can make no such guarantee, but I would expect so. With it being a G-SYNC module overclock and the panel itself very comfortably running at 120Hz, I would expect excellent stability and consistency with the overclock.

Have you actually got a unit for review yet? The article looks like only a commentary of published specs and product details.

Stu · 30 Aug 2018 at 09:18

PCM2 said:
That's what it is. A news article written by an informed and experienced individual. It was never masquerading as anything else, sorry if you misunderstood.

And as noted in the article, ignore the current LG US product page. It just has some lazy copy and paste errors from the FreeSync version.

I'm sure you will, Arnie.

No issue, just checking

I am grateful for your comment on the G-Sync module being overclocked to run at 120Hz, as this is clearly an unknown to most in this thread, and has been discussed a lot.

My other question was more significant... Do you have a review unit yet? I'm hoping that you and @Baddass will be high on the list for review units!