Associate
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 57
Unfortunately I don't think my 13 year old Dell 2405 is going to make it that long. Plus, I'll want to have something to use my new 2080 on before then.
LG 34GK950G, 3440x1440, G-Sync, 120Hz
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
Unfortunately I don't think my 13 year old Dell 2405 is going to make it that long. Plus, I'll want to have something to use my new 2080 on before then.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 6
LG is going to make a new 31.5" IPS 1440p panel @ native 165hz. It is scheduled to go into production in Dec. 2018.
Panel model # = LM315WQ1 (note this is not a monitor model, only the panel). So maybe next summer.
They also have a 27" version with the same specs on the same schedule.
I'm not sure I see much to get excited about with the LM315WQ1... other than perhaps it offering better QC (one can only hope). The problem with 31.5" @ 1440p is that the PPI is a bit high. It's not terrible, just not ideal. LG also have a 27" 4K 144Hz in development, but they've got this the wrong way round really... 32" is where 4K belongs, 1440p should be no bigger than 27" (or 34" ultrawide). AU Optronics do have a 32" 144Hz 4K HDR panel due next year though, but their IPS panels are amongst the worst when it comes to QC issues. Another interesting one is the 37" curved 144Hz, 24:10, 3840 x 1600 panel that LG supposedly have on their roadmap. And of course there is the 35" curved 200Hz 512-zone FALD HDR with the Asus PG35VQ/Acer X35, but I expect those to be obscenely priced.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 6
I was specifically addressing tostitobandito who ask for "new 30+ inch 16x9 IPS Gsync 1440p panel".
But other notes:
There are many people who do not want 4k at all, including the op. "4K is still silly"
32" 1440p is very close to the same PPI as 24" 1080p, which a great many people are use to and like.
These new LG panels look very interesting.
Well 4K isn't silly for a start. Only people who haven't used it think that. It's obviously not optimal for certain games that benefit from high FPS though, so depends on use case... but "silly"? No. That fact that 32" 1440p is close to 24" 1080p doesn't change the fact that it doesn't look that great... no one desires 24" @ 1080p after all lol! Sure it's OK and perfectly usable, just very average and not at all worth the premium that LG will surely charge.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 6
Again the OP was interested in a panel this size @1440p and thought 4k was silly. I was simply informing him.
These new panels are obviously targeted at gamers. If you are not interested in high quality IPS gaming @165hz, then these are not for you. This is much preferred to 4k gaming at 60hz for most.
You need to look around more. There are many people who what nothing bigger than a 24" monitor. Just as there are people who do not like monitors with > 95 PPI.
I am not sure of the relevance... those people who want nothing more than 24" monitors aren't in this thread, which is about a 34" 1440p ultrawide at 120hz which is going to cost over £1000. The person you were responding to had no interest in 1080p either, so again, not sure of the relevance. It is worth pointing out to him though that the PPI of 32" @ 1440p is not great... he said he'd just as much have one than ultrawide, so I don't know if he's aware of the difference, but it is a very obvious difference. I went from an X34 to 32" 1440p myself, so I know. He may not be too thrilled to learn that the PPI of his monitor wouldn't look much better than 24" 1080p, but that's for him to answer.
The 4K argument is of course a separate one... I was merely addressing his "silly" comment. Obviously 1440p 144Hz is the sweetspot for a monitor right now, but depending what games someone plays, 4K can be extremely enjoyable... especially outside anything competitive and fast/twitch based. The Witcher 3 comes to mind which is simply glorious in 4K. Lots of GPU grunt is a necessity though, naturally.
I found the Asus IPS panel cranks the brightness way too high for their default "Game Visual" modes. Yes, the glow/bleed is prominent at these levels. But take the brightness down and it almost disappears. Adjust in-game gamma and everything's totally fine. Would venture a guess that a lot of people do a BLB test in store-front-eye-searing-mode in a really dark room and claim the whole monitor is junk.
Just for reference I get an average FPS of 85 (Gsync'd range of 75 to 95) in WQHD on Witcher 3 with every single setting maxed out. This is with a 2080FE, 4690k clocked to 4.35Mhz, and 16GB RAM. Be aware of benchmark reviews out there that usually turn HairWorks and similar settings OFF to even the playing field with AMD products. That's not really a true representative of what a typical Nvidia owner will do in practice.
Just for reference I get an average FPS of 85 (Gsync'd range of 75 to 95) in WQHD on Witcher 3 with every single setting maxed out. This is with a 2080FE, 4690k clocked to 4.35Mhz, and 16GB RAM. Be aware of benchmark reviews out there that usually turn HairWorks and similar settings OFF to even the playing field with AMD products. That's not really a true representative of what a typical Nvidia owner will do in practice.
Correct. "Retina" distance is almost 32" from eye to screen for 27" WQHD and 34" UWQHD.
32" UHD is 25" from eye to screen.
27" UHD is 21" from eye to screen.
I swear I can see the text pixelate / become smooth if I cross this boundary back and forth. But maybe that Steve Jobs saying is just in my head.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 57
Is there a consolidated resource anywhere online listing all the upcoming panels/displays by the various manufacturers?
I'm not a big fan of what I read about any current VA panels, and the only other suitable IPS panels are either the Alienware 3418DW or the 3 year old Acer/Asus 27" 1440p twins. Not a lot of quality options outside of the bonkers gsync HDR stuff for $2000+.
Last edited:
I hear you. I have picked an absolutely **** time to want to upgrade a 4 year old 980GTX and two 8 year old 60hz 1080P monitors...
I'm 100% with you on this.
The first issue with Nvidia for me was the 970 3.5/4 gb meme. Previous to this I had owned a mix of ATI and Nvidia cards, but preferred Nvidia for their driver quality superiority and was willing to pay a slightly higher premium for it (which is now questionable at best if that was even the case, and wrong in driver comparison today between ATI/Nvidia). The 3.5/4 gb issue was perceived value lost for me immediately. This has impacted resale value of the x70 tier vs previous generations. It was bad enough that Nvidia was sued in the US and had to payout every 970 owner past X date in the US. I think the second issue for me came with their geforce experience update that required a user account being created or a Facebook login. It was completely unnecessary and over the line for me, especially for something that absolutely does not require any of that information. I'm convinced this was used as a means for gathering personal user information for market research for their future products. You can argue it was a free and completely optional service, but for those of us using shadowplay previously it was a mandatory install since it was locked behind that. The last straw, for me at least, was their pricing on Turing. The market just came out of probably the most turbulent GPU price spike we have ever seen, due to the crypto boom of 2016, and they decided to use that to take advantage of consumers by pulling (what Intel is now trying to do) a bamboozle.
Nvidia has essentially reduced the tier quality of their hardware hierarchy. You're now paying Titan prices for a xx80ti level of performance, and so on down the line. Intel is doing this with the 9900k by basically increasing the price of the i7 but calling it an i9 to justify it's cost. I think Intel is much worse in this regard. Hyper-threading is value, however underutilized it may have been to games/gamers, being lost to the enthusiast consumer that was previously had at a lower cost. Nvidia has no real competition in the high end, and more incentive to push 10xx series due to rumored backlog. This action kills two birds, and is a market test for them to see how dumb consumers are when it comes to overspending for performance. If this sells well, which it looks like it is, this is a very very bad precedent for future GPU pricing.We're likely to see a shift up in price for the same relative level of price to performance that we have seen for almost 15 years. I haven't even touched on G-sync either, and won't because this post is long enough.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2018
- Posts
- 57
I was going to do this, but thanks to Nvidia's pricing strategy they have been selling out and when you can find them they cost nearly as much as a 2080. If they had priced the RTX cards at their mythical MSRP then 1080ti prices would've tanked, but then nvidia wouldn't have sold through all their remaining stock at full price. This was well played by nvidia. If you're going to blame anyone blame AMD for not having anything to compete for over two years now.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 0
I completely agree about 32inch 4k being a good setup. I current have a 1600p @ 30inches (dell 3008wfp) and find this push for higher and higher hz unappealing in-combination with smaller screen sizes. That's without getting into the **** poor implementation of HDR standards in PC gaming. Certainly to the point that I rather play Horizon 4 and AC: Odyssey on my OLED through the X1X. For me, it's simply a better PQ and experience.
A 32inch 4k Gsync 100hz 1000+nits monitor would be nice. You could power older games with a 2080ti within a working range and let G-Sync do the rest. I think we might be a couple of years away from anything in that spec range by which time there will be a launch of new consoles and a major jump in PQ when LG's 10.5 fabs are fully online in OLED land.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 149
950G is $1400 in the US. Yeh good luck selling that when the Alienware constantly goes on sale for ~$850
It's unfortunate. I think the 950G is going to be better, but not THAT much. At $1400 the value just isn't there (if that is the final price). It would literally have to blow the AW34 and X34P out the water to justify that price tag... i.e ZERO glow, bleed and a clear obvious benefit to nano-IPS and guaranteed 120Hz.
Well this obvious, but does not justify its price in order to be competitive against X34P and AW. It has some better specs, but people may go to these two if prices are around 800$ during black friday instead of LG, which is almost the same and is going to be priced at 1400$, so 600$ more. DOA for me.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2018
- Posts
- 149
Unfortunately I want to buy one by the end of this year, and can't justify a potential $500-$600 more at this time. #firstworldproblems lol