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

krzychowiec · 13 Oct 2018 at 23:19

Legend said:
This won't necessarily tell very much even if there is none. I've seen countless reviews of IPS monitors where they exclaim how minimal the glow/bleed is, yet you end up seeing complaint after complaint from those who end up buying it.

It is because displays are not thoroughly tested in practice. Looking at all of these reviews, and then comparing them to real performance of the display, it feels like the reviewer just made some theoretical testing and never even looked at the display. Reviews are also far too "diplomatic". There aren't many places like rtings.com, where they buy their samples and for example just take a REAL shot of black uniformity and make it clear that black uniformity is bad (on every desktop display they have tested to date, which is very accurate). Generally reviews are good for basic data like out of the box accuracy and things like that, but real world performance is something you need to test for yourself.

3YOB · 14 Oct 2018 at 03:25

After 1 week of use my PG279Q has a failed/bright pixel... and so back in the box it goes.

I guess the 34GK950G is on the table for me now. And for the price maybe the PG35VQ as well. In any case, I'll have to purchase my final choice through a store like Best Buy and get the 4 year protection plan. I may just get another PG279Q and cycle through a bunch of them under the BB plan when the fail. Maybe I'll beat the record for most AU Optrashics replacements in a 4 year span.

krzychowiec · 14 Oct 2018 at 03:42

3YOB said:
After 1 week of use my PG279Q has a failed/bright pixel... and so back in the box it goes.

I guess the 34GK950G is on the table for me now. And for the price maybe the PG35VQ as well. In any case, I'll have to purchase my final choice through a store like Best Buy and get the 4 year protection plan. I may just get another PG279Q and cycle through a bunch of them under the BB plan when the fail. Maybe I'll beat the record for most AU Optrashics replacements in a 4 year span.

Thats not going to be easy, these panels are really poor and I have seen people exchanging the display 10+ times at the beginning just to find somewhat usable one. You can only imagine that if this somewhat usable unit gets stuck or dead pixels, one has to scroll through another 10+ units to find a "worthy" replacement

Also I don't get why people keep thinking that PG35VQ is going to be anywhere near 950G price. It is going to be at least twice the price. Acer X27 is already almost twice the price, and ultrawides are always more expensive than 16:9 4K displays, especially that here you also have 512 dimming zones instead of 384 which is increasing the cost. Also it is 35", 200Hz native. There is absolutely no way PG35VQ is anywhere close to 950G price.

ChrisPyzut · 14 Oct 2018 at 04:53

950G is gonna be our best bet for gsync for a bit. Assuming it maintains a stable 120hz on all monitors.

Vega · 14 Oct 2018 at 06:05

3YOB said:
Most popular questions for the reviews:

Can you run at 144Hz with Gsync turned off?

How is the backlight bleed and IPS glow?

No, the "G" model G-Sync board is only DP 1.2. 120 Hz is the fastest. I'm a 2080 Ti owner and will go with the "F" version.

Manne · 14 Oct 2018 at 08:19

Vega said:
No, the "G" model G-Sync board is only DP 1.2. 120 Hz is the fastest. I'm a 2080 Ti owner and will go with the "F" version.

Are you expecting to get 144Hz with the 2080 TI? Or are you future proofing for the next generation?

JGF111 · 14 Oct 2018 at 08:26

Manne said:
Are you expecting to get 144Hz with the 2080 TI? Or are you future proofing for the next generation?

Next generation? We are several generations before we have cards where the minimum framerate is 120-144hz @ 3440x1440

Manne · 14 Oct 2018 at 08:35

JGF111 said:
Next generation? We are several generations before we have cards where the minimum framerate is 120-144hz @ 3440x1440

Why should we talk about minimum framrate and not avarage framrate?

If 4k@60fps at Ultrasettings in triple A titles equals 1440pUW@125fps then you should be able to just lower it to High settings and be closer to 144hz. Or almost anyway.

Legend · 14 Oct 2018 at 12:50

krzychowiec said:
Also I don't get why people keep thinking that PG35VQ is going to be anywhere near 950G price. It is going to be at least twice the price. Acer X27 is already almost twice the price, and ultrawides are always more expensive than 16:9 4K displays, especially that here you also have 512 dimming zones instead of 384 which is increasing the cost. Also it is 35", 200Hz native. There is absolutely no way PG35VQ is anywhere close to 950G price.

It will be interesting to see where it lands... I've read the £2K 27" 144Hz screens haven't sold in great number (oh really, surprise surprise lol!), so if it ends up even more costly than those, I don't quite know how Acer/Asus expect to shift many units. Of course its spec makes it a more desirable monitor than the 27", but still, it's simply going to be out of reach for the fast majority of people if it ends up priced to the sky.

For all we know, the delays could be them trying to figure out how to manufacture it such that the retail price can be kept 'reasonable', although by no definition is it going to be cheap.

Personally though, I am more concerned about the typical VA issues that it's going to suffer with. The example that's been shown to the public certainly exhibited ghosting.

JediFragger · 14 Oct 2018 at 16:33

Legend said:
I've read the £2K 27" 144Hz screens haven't sold in great number

We all knew that, only so many Vega's around. I'd love one but not interested with a poor FALD implementation and no DP DSC support. Very poor.

I'd rather go with a large 120hz 4k screen like the Mango (and keep the frames at 90+ for smoothness, with settings dropped where non-essential).

Baddass · 14 Oct 2018 at 17:01

They were never designed for the mass market or manufactured in high volumes anyway, certainly niche, cutting edge monitor tech

JediFragger said:
I'd love one but not interested with a poor FALD implementation

in what way is it a poor FALD implementation?

Vega · 14 Oct 2018 at 17:04

Manne said:
Are you expecting to get 144Hz with the 2080 TI? Or are you future proofing for the next generation?

I'll turn down settings to get 144 FPS. Having all in-game graphics settings maxed out is completely over-rated. A lot of performance can usually be had by tweaking this or that.. And if you still struggle you can always go with 2560x1440.

JediFragger · 14 Oct 2018 at 17:05

Baddass said:
in what way is it a poor FALD implementation?

My mistake, I should have said I'm not a fan of the halo-effect that the FALD gives instead (I like to game in a darkened room personally).

3YOB · 14 Oct 2018 at 17:43

PG27UQ can be had at the MicroCenter for $1799
34GK950G listed for $1399

I'm estimating under $2k for the PG35VQ

I think they all qualify as cross-shoppers now. When in the market for a ~$1.5k monitor.... (that sounds crazy)

Legend · 14 Oct 2018 at 17:51

3YOB said:
PG27UQ can be had at the MicroCenter for $1799
34GK950G listed for $1399

I'm estimating under $2k for the PG35VQ

I think they all qualify as cross-shoppers now. When in the market for a ~$1.5k monitor.... (that sounds crazy)

As Baddass stated though, the 27" ones weren't designed for mass market. I'm getting a different sense about these 35" 200Hz ones... certainly the way Asus/Acer have been talking about them to date. I may be wrong, but if they do have bigger plans for it, the price needs to be set right. I don't think $2K is going to see many sales, no matter how good it is... especially in light of the typical VA issues it is bound to have. But we shall see.

JGF111 · 14 Oct 2018 at 20:16

Manne said:
Why should we talk about minimum framrate and not avarage framrate?

If 4k@60fps at Ultrasettings in triple A titles equals 1440pUW@125fps then you should be able to just lower it to High settings and be closer to 144hz. Or almost anyway.

Because the minimum framerates and how much time you spend below the nominal refresh rate will dictate how much tearing you'll likely be dealing with. Unless of course you enable vsync and are fine with the negatives that that entails.

Manne · 14 Oct 2018 at 23:48

JGF111 said:
Because the minimum framerates and how much time you spend below the nominal refresh rate will dictate how much tearing you'll likely be dealing with. Unless of course you enable vsync and are fine with the negatives that that entails.

As he himself states he plans to lower the settings to reach 144hz. So we are not "generations away" from that.

krzychowiec · 15 Oct 2018 at 00:09

Manne said:
Why should we talk about minimum framrate and not avarage framrate?

If 4k@60fps at Ultrasettings in triple A titles equals 1440pUW@125fps then you should be able to just lower it to High settings and be closer to 144hz. Or almost anyway.

Because average is not telling much. If you have one game running 50 FPS, one 100 FPS and one 150 FPS, then you get 100 FPS average, but is this 100 FPS average making the 50 FPS game run faster than it does?

Similarly to monthly salary statistics, average salary in Poland may be 3400 PLN netto, but so what if median is like 2500 PLN, so in fact vast majority earns around 2500, not 3400.

What you need is benchmark from 100+ diversified games (including CPU and engine limited ones, and FPS locked ones, because we are not measuring only GPU performance but general ability to hit 144 FPS across very wide portion of games), made by people who actually played through these games and know them very well, and after a graph of all results is created, you would see that games where you can hit stable 144 or 120 FPS are taking only small part on the top of the graph.

This of course doesn't apply if your game library is very narrow and you know what you are going to play in coming years, but if you are going to play many different games that you don't even know yet then all of this "averaging" means very little.

Manne · 15 Oct 2018 at 00:41

krzychowiec said:
Because average is not telling much. If you have one game running 50 FPS, one 100 FPS and one 150 FPS, then you get 100 FPS average, but is this 100 FPS average making the 50 FPS game run faster than it does?

Similarly to monthly salary statistics, average salary in Poland may be 3400 PLN netto, but so what if median is like 2500 PLN, so in fact vast majority earns around 2500, not 3400.

What you need is benchmark from 100+ diversified games (including CPU and engine limited ones, and FPS locked ones, because we are not measuring only GPU performance but general ability to hit 144 FPS across very wide portion of games), made by people who actually played through these games and know them very well, and after a graph of all results is created, you would see that games where you can hit stable 144 or 120 FPS are taking only small part on the top of the graph.

This of course doesn't apply if your game library is very narrow and you know what you are going to play in coming years, but if you are going to play many different games that you don't even know yet then all of this "averaging" means very little.

Thank you for taking your time.
I am talking about avarage framerate in a game not between games. If the framerate within a game goes between 50 and 150 then that is a mighty unoptimized game. I would expect the gap to be less. Your point still stands but to a lesser degree.

He will as he stated adjust the game settings to reach as close to 144fps as he can so the gap between the games will also be much smaller for this reason.

While I do get your point I don't think you can apply the salary scenario here. It sounds more like you have a gap in your system with a few people earning a lot more than the rest of the people? I don't think the difference in framerate will be this big in a game or even between games(after adjustments).

JGF111 · 15 Oct 2018 at 00:44

Manne said:
As he himself states he plans to lower the settings to reach 144hz. So we are not "generations away" from that.

Fair enough. Cant say I understand the philosophy of buying a $1200 video card only to dial down settings far enough to maintain a 144hz minimum refresh to mitigate tearing but each to their own.