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

3YOB said:
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.
Click to expand...

The design is certainly very nice, LG do have that down on many of their monitors. I do not believe Nano IPS has actually been tested properly or seen on a monitor in the wild yet to make any definitive statement on yet. It may offer something extra, but how much we can't really say at the moment. Regards HDR 400, it doesn't matter if it would qualify as the G-Sync module prevents it, so it will not receive an HDR signal.

Based on everything we know, there is little justification for a £400 premium over the alternatives. Of course some people will disagree... 'worth' is a subjective thing after all, but in view of the spec, the value just isn't there at £1200+.
 
This monitor has a few things going for it over the Alienware/x34p

1. Color calibrated - So gamma is guaranteed at 2.2. The lowest reported gamma I have seen on the Alienware is 2.4 and the highest 2.68. The Acer has gamma controls but one review measured the 1.9 setting at 2.2 gamma and another at 2.4.
2. Better design than both - The acer's design is absolutely nauseating. The Dell looks crisp, but I do love having the little joystick to change settings, rather than buttons.
3. 144hz panel - which means 120hz native support (This is huge for me personally, as I really don't want to deal with possible degradation over time, and having to stress over receiving a replacement unit with horrible BLB)

The max I would pay for all of this is 1200 USD with extended warranty (cos LG are little schemers in the US and decide to only include a 1 year warranty lol)
 
ChrisPyzut said:
This monitor has a few things going for it over the Alienware/x34p

1. Color calibrated - So gamma is guaranteed at 2.2. The lowest reported gamma I have seen on the Alienware is 2.4 and the highest 2.68. The Acer has gamma controls but one review measured the 1.9 setting at 2.2 gamma and another at 2.4.
2. Better design than both - The acer's design is absolutely nauseating. The Dell looks crisp, but I do love having the little joystick to change settings, rather than buttons.
3. 144hz panel - which means 120hz native support (This is huge for me personally, as I really don't want to deal with possible degradation over time, and having to stress over receiving a replacement unit with horrible BLB)

The max I would pay for all of this is 1200 USD with extended warranty (cos LG are little schemers in the US and decide to only include a 1 year warranty lol)
Click to expand...

It's going to come down to reviews of course... but I get the feeling it will end up in a similar situation to that of the 2080Ti... best ultrawide you can buy, but crazy expensive and poor value... 20% better for 50% more money.
 
Just checking in here to thank everyone for all the info/discussion on this thread. I'm in the US and have been trying to gather info on this monitor but none of the US forums have anywhere near the amount of discussion as there is here.

Hopefully this actually comes out within the next month or so. I'm in the process of building a new desktop for the first time in a while, and would like a 1440p ultrawide with gsync. This one looks to be a better bet than any existing options, assuming the MSRP comes in under $1200 or so. If it's well north of that then it's into the $2000 Asus 4K Gsync HDR territory which doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
ChrisPyzut said:
This monitor has a few things going for it over the Alienware/x34p

1. Color calibrated - So gamma is guaranteed at 2.2. The lowest reported gamma I have seen on the Alienware is 2.4 and the highest 2.68. The Acer has gamma controls but one review measured the 1.9 setting at 2.2 gamma and another at 2.4.
2. Better design than both - The acer's design is absolutely nauseating. The Dell looks crisp, but I do love having the little joystick to change settings, rather than buttons.
3. 144hz panel - which means 120hz native support (This is huge for me personally, as I really don't want to deal with possible degradation over time, and having to stress over receiving a replacement unit with horrible BLB)

The max I would pay for all of this is 1200 USD with extended warranty (cos LG are little schemers in the US and decide to only include a 1 year warranty lol)
Click to expand...

Whoah whoah whoah horsey. Hold on there.
You guys seem to be assuming that the new UW5 panel will have the same performance characteristics of the UW4 panel. Why on earth would you think that? The UW5 is newer technology, by an entire generation. 2 years I believe?

Why on earth aren't people mentioning the (obvious) fact that the UW5 panel itself may be inherently better than the one it replaces? Even IF it had the same refresh, even if the color calibration out of the box was the same, it still would/could be a better panel in terms of performance.

Very basic characterstics such as back light bleed, black levels, response time, ghosting, etc. are all things that cannot be conveyed in the literature and need a review to fully realize.

I cannot believe for a minute, that 2 years of progress, an entire generation of panel technology, and the LG 34GK950 will be the same as the AW even if all the other listed specs were the same.

Forget the (ridiculous you wouldn't even notice) 20hz refresh loss, forget the actual aesthetic design of the panel, forget out of the box calibration that you can fix easily with a colorimeter -- this should inherently be a better panel with better performance specs (black levels, light bleed, pixel response/ghosting, etc.)

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.
 
katscan said:
Whoah whoah whoah horsey. Hold on there.
You guys seem to be assuming that the new UW5 panel will have the same performance characteristics of the UW4 panel. Why on earth would you think that? The UW5 is newer technology, by an entire generation. 2 years I believe?

Why on earth aren't people mentioning the (obvious) fact that the UW5 panel itself may be inherently better than the one it replaces? Even IF it had the same refresh, even if the color calibration out of the box was the same, it still would/could be a better panel in terms of performance.

Very basic characterstics such as back light bleed, black levels, response time, ghosting, etc. are all things that cannot be conveyed in the literature and need a review to fully realize.

I cannot believe for a minute, that 2 years of progress, an entire generation of panel technology, and the LG 34GK950 will be the same as the AW even if all the other listed specs were the same.

Forget the (ridiculous you wouldn't even notice) 20hz refresh loss, forget the actual aesthetic design of the panel, forget out of the box calibration that you can fix easily with a colorimeter -- this should inherently be a better panel with better performance specs (black levels, light bleed, pixel response/ghosting, etc.)

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.
Click to expand...


"SHOULD" is very much the operative word there! You SHOULD be able to buy a monitor without horrendous back light bleed and glow (in the case of IPS) and that doesn't have what appears to be small remnants of the assembly worker's lunch stuck behind the panel. Alas, this kind of thing is still commonplace. So I want to believe you're right, and you may very well be, but I will not only patiently await reviews but also see what occurs when this monitor finds its way in to the wild.
 
Legend said:
"SHOULD" is very much the operative word there! You SHOULD be able to buy a monitor without horrendous back light bleed and glow (in the case of IPS) and that doesn't have what appears to be small remnants of the assembly worker's lunch stuck behind the panel. Alas, this kind of thing is still commonplace. So I want to believe you're right, and you may very well be, but I will not only patiently await reviews but also see what occurs when this monitor finds its way in to the wild.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with you, Legend.. One million billion percent.
I just don't understand all the people that are writing it off as already obsolete or offering nothing new just because the specs read the same. That's only like a fraction of what there is to care about. Frankly, if the specs were worse it could still be a better monitor if it had better blacks, less glow, better response, etc.

It's pointless to judge it until we have reviews of the intangibles.
 
katscan said:
Whoah whoah whoah horsey. Hold on there.
You guys seem to be assuming that the new UW5 panel will have the same performance characteristics of the UW4 panel. Why on earth would you think that? The UW5 is newer technology, by an entire generation. 2 years I believe?

Why on earth aren't people mentioning the (obvious) fact that the UW5 panel itself may be inherently better than the one it replaces? Even IF it had the same refresh, even if the color calibration out of the box was the same, it still would/could be a better panel in terms of performance.

Very basic characterstics such as back light bleed, black levels, response time, ghosting, etc. are all things that cannot be conveyed in the literature and need a review to fully realize.

I cannot believe for a minute, that 2 years of progress, an entire generation of panel technology, and the LG 34GK950 will be the same as the AW even if all the other listed specs were the same.

Forget the (ridiculous you wouldn't even notice) 20hz refresh loss, forget the actual aesthetic design of the panel, forget out of the box calibration that you can fix easily with a colorimeter -- this should inherently be a better panel with better performance specs (black levels, light bleed, pixel response/ghosting, etc.)

Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.
Click to expand...

I never said it would have the same performance as the UW4. However, Im not going to get excited for things that aren't proven yet. Theres no mention of better blb/ips glow other than Daniel saying that it should be. None of the other things you mentioned have any solid statements behind them. The UW5 should be a lot of things, but until tft reviews it, I refuse to get excited over the prospect of it maybe delivering.

Regarding your statement about the colorimeter, what about games that ignore icc profiles? or color banding? If Im paying near a $1000 for a monitor, why compromise?
 
Last edited:
At least we bumped this thread a few more pages.

I explored my dual monitor idea today and picked up a PG279Q for testing to be a dedicated gaming monitor. I have a Dell P2415Q 4K/60 IPS "PPI Master" that I will probably sell off to fund another 4K replacement but at a much needed larger screen size and with HDR this or that. Going to get 2 independent full motion monitor arms to operate the 2 screens in a bunch of configurations. Swing the gaming screen front and center and vice versa for the high-PQ screen when I want to use one or the other.

Anyway, I got setup and rolling in Witcher 3 to test things out and almost flipped because all the in-game lights/torches were making a good chunk of the screen flicker like crazy. For a minute thought it was the panel. Turns out Nvidia drivers that were released for Windows DXR the other day were wreaking havoc on... the lighting! Oh man, could this be the start of putting Pascal out to pasture through "driver updates"? We weren't kidding about RTX guys - JUST BUY IT.
 
Baddass said:
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
Click to expand...

Your words are gold. Thanks.
 
Legend said:
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. :(
Click to expand...
I am no longer putting up with Nvidia. Love their hardware, but have serious problems with them as a business.

So I have chosen to accept the performance hit and only support AMD. I feel that when enough people do this it will improve the whole industry including Nvidia.
 
Galaxy Drifter said:
I am no longer putting up with Nvidia. Love their hardware, but have serious problems with them as a business.

So I have chosen to accept the performance hit and only support AMD. I feel that when enough people do this it will improve the whole industry including Nvidia.
Click to expand...
I wanted to go with AMD so I could get the 950F, then I saw that all the VEGA 64s available were more expensive than a 1080ti and on top of that I have found no 2 slot non-reference Vega 64.
 
ChrisPyzut said:
I wanted to go with AMD so I could get the 950F, then I saw that all the VEGA 64s available were more expensive than a 1080ti and on top of that I have found no 2 slot non-reference Vega 64.
Click to expand...

Here on OC, the cheapest Vega 64 is £450 vs 1080ti £580. The Cheapest 1080 is still £500.
 
Legend said:
The pursuit for the perfect monitor continues... a doomed quest I fear.
Click to expand...

That was/is/will always be the case.

Here are some very simple and very opinionated guidelines on the current state of PC monitors for gaming:
  • 4K is a meme
  • Ultrawide is a meme
  • HDR is a meme

 
I agree. I'd just as much like a nice new 30+ inch 16x9 IPS Gsync 1440p panel as an ultrawide like the LG. However, it doesn't look like anyone is really making those anymore. All the panels like that on the market are very old. Most of the new hotness with better panels and features are ultrawides, hence the wait for the 950G. Give me the LG 850G but with a new IPS panel (instead of VA) and I'd probably rather have that.

And yeah, 4K is still silly unless you're planning on spending $2500 on a pair of 2080ti's to be able to game at high framerates on it. I'd rather have ~120fps at 1440p than ~60fps at 4K all day long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom