1.399€.... facepalm...
LG 34GK950G, 3440x1440, G-Sync, 120Hz
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
1.399€.... facepalm...
I believe that's what has been suggested before... hopefully that's an inflated pre-order price and doesn't accurately convert to over £1200 here, because I think that's really too expensive... but it seems like we may be heading for that.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 149
DOA
Very much so. The upcoming Acer XB273K is IPS 4K, 144Hz, G-sync 1.4 with HDR (albeit only VESA 400 certification which doesn't really count, but at least it accepts an HDR signal unlike the 950G)... and that will be €1499. It's not ultrawide, but in all other respects makes the LG spec look ancient, and no way worth a mere €100 less!!
This should be an £800-£900 monitor tops, rivalling the Asus/Acer/Dell equivalents which are VERY similar. LG have totally lost the plot on this one if that pricing ends up being accurate.
Display Port / Gsync 1.2 which cripples the refresh rate to 100Hz down from 144Hz native.
If Nvidia provided the same module to LG that they are reportedly providing to Acer (for them to achieve 4K/144Hz) then the 34GK950G would be taking on a whole new life.
It's all tied in to the module. The 1.2 module used in the 950G does not support HDR, only the 1.4 one does. Oddly though, the Freesync 'F' version will support HDR 400. However, it's all rather moot given this is such a low bar for the HDR standard so it doesn't really matter, and I wouldn't consider this to be a determining factor for purchase. HDR on PC monitors is not worth a premium at the moment. That said, it would give a slight edge in some video content, Netflix etc. For gaming though, there aren't many games that support it, and many of those that do actually look worse! This will change going forwards of course, but as of now, HDR is still a bit of a joke on the PC, ESPECIALLY at the HDR 400 level.
Acer obviously had no restriction on using the 1.4 module, so that throws the theory of it being restricted to FALD displays only out the window. Clearly LG could have used it on the 950G if they wanted, but presumably it would have added to the cost significantly and they chose not to.
Monitors are in the dumps right now. This is just stupid. If Acer/Asus hadn't priced themselves into oblivion there would be no need for the XB27 product which probably still has a ridiculous cooling fan on it anyway.
I'm just about done with the Ultrameme aspect ratio. Nvidia will never target 16:9 QHD for the Gsync HDR module because "true HDR requires UHD" or some crap that like. Oh, but Acer is having trouble selling X27's (absolutely shocking!) so I guess it's OK if they still get the 1.4 module in a gimped version.
For these prices (1399 Euro) I can get 2 awesome monitors of varying capabilities and traits.
I do wonder how long consumers will put up with Nvidia and the pricing nonsense. The gap is ever growing it seems, yet many people still are happy to pay. The opposition does seem to be getting louder though... the reaction to 20xx pricing is evidence of that, and the G-Sync tax has always been an annoyance. There will come a breaking point I'm sure, and at the very least there's a massive gap in the market for competition, but as long as Nvidia hold sway at the top end of the GPU market, I don't see things changing unfortunately.
Guys, calm down... it didn't take long for some trash claims to come up there!!!
Now that we are past 1000 posts here, I'm surprised if anyone things the GSync module "cripples refresh rate to 100Hz". The 34GK950G will be 120Hz.
Acer XB273K is IPS 4K, 144Hz, G-sync 1.4with HDR Let's ignore the HDR claim, because we all know it's worthless.
LG 34GK950G is IPS 3440x1440, 120Hz, G-sync 1.2
There are some pros/cons here... 34 inch UW is a lot more screen real estate compared to a 27" monitor, so that pushes up the price. Is there really a big difference between 120 vs 144Hz? I agree the idea of the Acer having a newer GSync module grates, but there are some significant and some not significant differences between these two models which will influence buyers. Not to mention whether your GFX card can push 4k at 144Hz.
Now that we are past 1000 posts here, I'm surprised if anyone things the GSync module "cripples refresh rate to 100Hz". The 34GK950G will be 120Hz.
Acer XB273K is IPS 4K, 144Hz, G-sync 1.4
LG 34GK950G is IPS 3440x1440, 120Hz, G-sync 1.2
There are some pros/cons here... 34 inch UW is a lot more screen real estate compared to a 27" monitor, so that pushes up the price. Is there really a big difference between 120 vs 144Hz? I agree the idea of the Acer having a newer GSync module grates, but there are some significant and some not significant differences between these two models which will influence buyers. Not to mention whether your GFX card can push 4k at 144Hz.
Why is that surprising? The specs are literally 100Hz native Gsync straight from LG rep here, with no guarantee from Nvidia regarding 120Hz.
I agree that 120Hz will probably work out, but that's not the minimum vendor supported spec.
34GK still better than AW34 and X34 so they still have that going!
The problem is the price though... if it ends up north of £1200 that's just ridiculous. It isn't worth that, not when you can get the X34P for £800, and the AW34 has been around that in the past. Black Friday might see more deals come up as well.
I assume (like all other monitors) that you can't use dynamic sync along with blur reduction anyway so for me its a no brainer to go for the freesync version that has a higher refresh rate (all else being equal).
If your system is top end dynamic sync doesn't make much difference anyway. Still shame that the GSYNC module caps the performance
If your system is top end dynamic sync doesn't make much difference anyway. Still shame that the GSYNC module caps the performance
I'm sure I've read G-Sync helps regardless, no matter how high or low FPS you're getting (with Nvidia GPU only obviously), but someone else can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
I'm hoping we'll get official UK pricing sooner rather than later anyway, at least that way people can decide and pick up either X34P or AW34 instead... either are preferable if the 950G does end up north of £1200. The 'F' will be overpriced too if it's around the £1K mark.
There is a lot of over the top statements and claims on just this page of the thread alone, people seem to be getting quite worked up.
The fact is that LG are using the older Gsync 1.2 module on the 950G model which will support 120Hz refresh rate. There’s a lot of fuss around how this is an overclock, and how maybe it might lead to issues later on in life etc. All info provided by LG on this matter, which I also support for what it’s worth, is that this should not cause any concern. Any issues faced by models like the Dell AW3418DW where they are overclocked I am fairly sure will be related to the panel being overclocked and not the Gsync module. Panel overclocking has always been somewhat hit and miss, and can lead to problems. The Gsync module is what has allowed overclocking on most screens in mostly very reliable ways. As well as small overclocked like the Dell (100 to 120hz) it’s also allowed larger overclock increases like the 60 to 100hz of models like the Acer C34 etc and 144 to 200hz overclock on models like the Acee Z35 etc. Anyway, I don’t think that any issues which occasionally arise from those overclocks is related to the Gsync module, but with the panel overclock. You only need to look at panel overclocking on non Gsync screens where it’s occasionally possible to realise how difficult and “fragile” panel overclocking can be. That’s not going to be an issue here on the 950G as it’s using a native 144hz panel. So for all intents and purposes this is a 120hz refresh rate screen.
Then there’s fuss about why LG didn’t use the latest gsync 1.4 module. That would have only added to the cost, probably quite significantly when you consider the added cost of the module itself and then the need for DP 1.4. I suspect cost is the reason for not using the 1.4 module, as opposed to any speculated restrictions on HDR and the likes.
The 950F can support an extra 24hz but the benefits of that extra boost are very debatable given the G model is alread6 a ver6 high refresh rate. Not to mention that powering this res and refresh rate is going to be a challenge at 120hz, let alone a little higher at 144hz. It remains to be seen how response times behave on both models and with the variable refresh rate, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see some variation. Likewise with input lag.
People need to ignore the HDR talk as well here. The F model doesn’t really offer any HDR support anyway, it’s a red herring and should be ignored in this discussion
The fact is that LG are using the older Gsync 1.2 module on the 950G model which will support 120Hz refresh rate. There’s a lot of fuss around how this is an overclock, and how maybe it might lead to issues later on in life etc. All info provided by LG on this matter, which I also support for what it’s worth, is that this should not cause any concern. Any issues faced by models like the Dell AW3418DW where they are overclocked I am fairly sure will be related to the panel being overclocked and not the Gsync module. Panel overclocking has always been somewhat hit and miss, and can lead to problems. The Gsync module is what has allowed overclocking on most screens in mostly very reliable ways. As well as small overclocked like the Dell (100 to 120hz) it’s also allowed larger overclock increases like the 60 to 100hz of models like the Acer C34 etc and 144 to 200hz overclock on models like the Acee Z35 etc. Anyway, I don’t think that any issues which occasionally arise from those overclocks is related to the Gsync module, but with the panel overclock. You only need to look at panel overclocking on non Gsync screens where it’s occasionally possible to realise how difficult and “fragile” panel overclocking can be. That’s not going to be an issue here on the 950G as it’s using a native 144hz panel. So for all intents and purposes this is a 120hz refresh rate screen.
Then there’s fuss about why LG didn’t use the latest gsync 1.4 module. That would have only added to the cost, probably quite significantly when you consider the added cost of the module itself and then the need for DP 1.4. I suspect cost is the reason for not using the 1.4 module, as opposed to any speculated restrictions on HDR and the likes.
The 950F can support an extra 24hz but the benefits of that extra boost are very debatable given the G model is alread6 a ver6 high refresh rate. Not to mention that powering this res and refresh rate is going to be a challenge at 120hz, let alone a little higher at 144hz. It remains to be seen how response times behave on both models and with the variable refresh rate, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see some variation. Likewise with input lag.
People need to ignore the HDR talk as well here. The F model doesn’t really offer any HDR support anyway, it’s a red herring and should be ignored in this discussion
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 149
@Baddass Can you explain what exactly the Gsync module does to overclock a monitor? I've tried searching but couldn't find anything that explains the tech behind it. If a monitor is rated at 100hz, what is preventing it from doing 120? and how does gsync contribute to this.
Thanks a ton for taking time to post here!
Thanks a ton for taking time to post here!
It does have better PQ with Nano-IPS and brightness/contrast specs that qualify for HDR400 (not sure why they didn't certify that one). Also, the design of the LG is so much better than the AW and Predator. Perch it on an arm and it has no logos, which is downright amazing compared to the current trends. The sphere lighting actually looks like it will provide a decent ambient effect.
It all depends on what the user is looking for.