Associate
That is not at all what I was saying. My point was; if a "only" $1,300 monitor has the full expensive FPGA DP 1.4 G-Sync module, there would be no issues with even more expensive monitors using it. Such as this LG.
LG 38GL950G - 3840x1600/G-Sync/144Hz
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
There is no question that it will be using it... assuming it's real G-Sync and not 'G-Sync compatible' (i.e Freesync). It would be impossible for it to use the v1 module as this panel exceeds the bandwidth that it is capable of.
Associate
Once again, not what I was saying. I never mentioned anything about the old V1 G-sync module. The discussion was about if there was a different DP 1.4 G-Sync module that doesn't require HDR and HDR1000. Which there isn't. Or that all DP 1.4 G-Sync monitors have to be HDR1000, which they don't. The G-Sync module that controls all G-Sync displays that require DP 1.4 bandwidth is used in all of said G-Sync displays, regardless of their back-light method or HDR standard.
Erm, I don't think there was ever a discussion about there being a different module? There's the original v1 module, and the v2, which as you say is the only other one used... albeit in just a few monitors at present. So as per your original post, there is indeed no reason why the 39GL950G won't be using it (unless it ends up Freesync), because it has to use it.
Sorry for repeatedly posting this here. Just trying to make sure Daniel doesn't forget:
@Daniel - LG
This is the summary of the questions you wanted (all of which still need answers) :
@Daniel - LG
This is the summary of the questions you wanted (all of which still need answers) :
- Can you confirm the July/August release date for the UK (from what I've seen you post elsewhere it seems this might have slipped to Q4)?
- On LG's web page for the 38GL950G, one of the key features mentioned is NVIDIA G-SYNC Compatible. LG's plaque at CES 2019 mentioned only G-SYNC. As we've since learned, those are two different things. A G-SYNC Compatible certified monitor lacks the G-SYNC hardware, meaning it's actually a VESA adaptive sync (a.k.a FreeSync) monitor. Which of those two is correct? Is it real G-SYNC, or will it be G-SYNC Compatible certified?
- IF the 38GL950G is a real G-SYNC monitor (NOT G-SYNC Compatible), will LG eventually release an "F" version that supports FreeSync?
- IF the 38GL950G is a real G-SYNC monitor (NOT G-SYNC Compatible), will it require a fan/blower to cool the v2 G-SYNC module (like Acer's X27 or Asus' PG27UQ)?
- Any new info on eventual HDR support?
Last edited:
If you're talking specifically about PC monitor panels, there aren't that many OEMs around. AUO, LG and Samsung are pretty much it. My entirely subjective impression, based on what I've read online, was that AUO was the worst in that regard, and that LG and Samsung are similar.
However, I think the primary responsibility for QA rests with the monitor OEM, not the panel OEM. LG and Samsung also manufacture their own monitors, but again, my entirely subjective impression is that Acer and Asus are much worse in that regard, wheras Eizo is one of the best.
Is there anything better to go on than just subjective impressions from what we read online?
Last edited:
Associate
Bump - calling Dan 
They're talking about buying a monitor that uses the LG panel but the monitor as a whole isn't manufactured by LG. There are a few companies using LG's current 38" panel in their monitors. Acer. Dell, and Viewsonic, as far as I know. I've got 2 Acer 38" monitors, and one LG 38UC99. I'll also be waiting for Acer to release a monitor using the updated 38" panel, as their current 38" has more features and a better OSD with more settings than the LG 38UC99.
Yeah, that makes sense. What I was trying to say is that my subjective impression is that LG does a better job with QA than Acer or Asus. SQHQ appears to think otherwise. I'm certainly not an expert on this and was wondering if there was a consensus in this forum on that issue.
I wouldn't really know what to say myself. Both my Acer monitors appear to be fine as well as my LG when it comes to QC. The Acer ones are just more feature rich.
What about the professional range of monitors built by EIZO or NEC? Also lottery? If not, that would suggest it's only a lottery because monitor OEMs have decided that's how it will be.
Well no, but they are in a class of their own, some being north of £4K, so I'd expect a slightly better QC system in place there. I meant more general consumer gaming/work monitors, not dedicated professional ones.
I have no idea if that's true, but if it is, that means these companies can reliably weed out sub-par monitors if they want to. For their consumer products, they just choose not to and ship regardless.
In contrast to the narrative put forward in all of these forums, that would mean none of this is actually about poor QA, which typically means that some products slip through their checks and unintentionally end up being shipped. Rather, their QA is working exactly as intended, i.e. they are shipping exactly what they intend to ship... panels with unacceptable levels of backlight uniformity, BLB and all. That's not a QA issue. That's a quality policy issue.
If all of that's true, then that would severely limit how much any one company's quality policy may differ. Any company that unilaterally weeds out a lot more of their products through QA, puts themselves at a huge disadvantage, because the price of the units they can now no longer sell must be factored into the price of those they can. That's probably not something any company can afford to do in the price sensitive consumer market.
The only companies that could influence much in this area are those that are vertically integrated. Given the choice, those companies would likely opt to maximize profits over maximizing quality.
I don't know if any of this is true... I'm just thinking out loud.
It's a combination of these two things I believe. It makes sense they'll have a set standard for passing monitors, with a list of acceptable issues before it would be rejected for sale, but even within that, things will get missed. The weak link is always going to be the human at the end of that chain, checking over the screen and making sure it passes. You'd expect them to catch the obvious stuff, 100 dead pixels, scratches etc. but with the small details, it's inevitable some bad examples will slip through, not least because of the sheer number of screens they're churning out, time pressures etc. I don't see a foolproof system ever existing, unless you perhaps have advanced AI robots checking them... even then, I'm sure some would get missed.
With the top end professional grade monitors, these are typically going to be subject to more rigorous review, I think precisely because they know their customer is more savvy and won't accept the slightest fault on a £4000 monitor. They will produce less of these screens also, with a heavier emphasis on ensuring quality through all stages of that process, and more time to do it. Consumer grade monitors simply will not get the same 5-star treatment.
Last edited:
I don't think that's true, at least not for the sorts of issues we're discussing here. If panels are tested at all, then that's not done by humans. The machinery that fully automates that sort of testing isn't very expensive (for a factory) and has been around for a very long time already.
The question, I think, is whether that is done by the monitor manufacturer at all. I'm sure the panel manufacturer does it, but even then I don't know whether every panel is tested or whether they only test a percentage of each batch and accept the risk of having a few bad parts in exchange for not having to test all, say, 20'000.
If manufacturers deem that a high risk of defective parts is acceptable (i.e. they fully expect customers to weed out defective parts) then we're talking about poor QA. If they test most or even all panels, but ship products many of us find unacceptable regardless, then we're talking about a poor quality policy.
Human error isn't much of a factor in either of those scenarios. Humans may test mechanics. No factory floor I've seen ever had humans testing electronics.
Last edited:
Many monitors and TV's do have a final visual inspection, in a turned-on state. That's probably the extent of any 'testing of electronics'. There will be automation as well, but there is still likely to be a human element involved. That may just be a cursory glance though, hardly an analysis of every pixel of the screen. Do they test EVERY single screen, I don't know, quite possibly not. It might just be a random selection from any given batch.
Like I say, there will undoubtedly be an acceptable level of 'fault'. Indeed, many manufacturers have the policy that under a set number of pixels, you are not eligible for a return. Some manufacturers do have zero-pixel policies though. We'll never really know the full ins and outs of what panel and monitor manufacturers do regards this at their end.
They will count on most consumers not demanding perfection... which if they had to adhere to would increase their productions costs massively. They will accept the % of return based on whatever cost metrics they've analysed and determined to be the most profitable... realising that absorbing the cost of returns won't exceed the cost of adhering to a far better QA process. Frustrating for us of course, but they're always going to be looking at their bottom lines first.
Like I say, there will undoubtedly be an acceptable level of 'fault'. Indeed, many manufacturers have the policy that under a set number of pixels, you are not eligible for a return. Some manufacturers do have zero-pixel policies though. We'll never really know the full ins and outs of what panel and monitor manufacturers do regards this at their end.
They will count on most consumers not demanding perfection... which if they had to adhere to would increase their productions costs massively. They will accept the % of return based on whatever cost metrics they've analysed and determined to be the most profitable... realising that absorbing the cost of returns won't exceed the cost of adhering to a far better QA process. Frustrating for us of course, but they're always going to be looking at their bottom lines first.
^ Exactly what I suspect as well. The important point being:
If one company finds a way to sell more of what we'd consider "defective" devices, without alienating too many consumers or destroying their brand, then all other manufacturers would be forced to follow for economic reasons. That's why I suspect there are very few (if any) differences in terms of QA. I just wish someone published return rates so we could verify. I'll leave it at that.
If one company finds a way to sell more of what we'd consider "defective" devices, without alienating too many consumers or destroying their brand, then all other manufacturers would be forced to follow for economic reasons. That's why I suspect there are very few (if any) differences in terms of QA. I just wish someone published return rates so we could verify. I'll leave it at that.
Sorry everyone, including you @Daniel - LG , if repeating this isn't helpful. I'm not sure what to make of the silence.
@Daniel - LG
This is the summary of questions you wanted (all of which still need answers):
@Daniel - LG
This is the summary of questions you wanted (all of which still need answers):
- Can you confirm the July/August release date for the UK (from what I've seen you post elsewhere it seems this might have slipped to Q4)?
- On LG's web page for the 38GL950G, one of the key features mentioned is NVIDIA G-SYNC Compatible. LG's plaque at CES 2019 mentioned only G-SYNC. As we've since learned, those are two different things. A G-SYNC Compatible certified monitor lacks the G-SYNC hardware, meaning it's actually a VESA adaptive sync (a.k.a FreeSync) monitor. Which of those two is correct? Is it real G-SYNC, or will it be G-SYNC Compatible certified?
- IF the 38GL950G is a real G-SYNC monitor (NOT G-SYNC Compatible), will LG eventually release an "F" version that supports FreeSync?
- IF the 38GL950G is a real G-SYNC monitor (NOT G-SYNC Compatible), will it require a fan/blower to cool the v2 G-SYNC module (like Acer's X27 or Asus' PG27UQ)?
- Any new info on eventual HDR support?