I think I remember Nvidia saying they only use this module if it is 1000?
LG 38GL950G - 3840x1600/G-Sync/144Hz
- Thread starter Legend
- Start date
I think I remember Nvidia saying they only use this module if it is 1000?
So far most of the v2 module screens have been paired with FALD and offer HDR1000 as a result. It’s not a requirement though I don’t believe. Indeed the Acer XB273K uses that module for 4K 144Hz and has a lowly DisplayHDR 400 certification.
Not yet seen one using the v2 module and anything in between though. It’s either full on FALD or no real HDR (ie HDR400) so far
Associate
Oh sweet, I will definitely be purchasing the G-Sync version. 3840x1600 37.5" at 175 Hz sounds quite epic for games. Come on September!
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Seems to be different levels of HDR400 interpritation too, my LG F absolutely buries the Aorus I bought to have a play with yet they still rate 400 (tbf though I think the LG is 450).
As Baddass states, the Acer XB273K demonstrates HDR-1000 isn't a requirement for this module. And besides, the v1 G-Sync module wouldn't have the required bandwidth for this panel, so it has to be using the v2 (if it is indeed going to be full fat G-Sync).
The problem is that it's such a low barrier for entry, and is largely meaningless. Yes, you could have a fairly decent monitor that has the HDR 400 standard, vs one that really doesn't... but the point is that it won't be adherence to the HDR 400 standard that makes the better monitor what it is... it will be other specifications that go beyond what HDR 400 requires. It's just a pointless standard and shouldn't even exist in its current state.
There can be different levels of all of the VESA standards for sure. You can have an HDR1000 with FALD and one with edge lit local dimming for instance.
The 400 models will vary too depending on which hdr related enhancements the manufacturers choose to add themselves. 10-bit colour depth and wider gamut are the main two which can vary but neither is a requirement of the vesa standard. Which is a part of why that scheme level is so rubbish. None of these HDR400 models actually offer any improved dynamic range compared to the panels native contrast ratio so far though, as none feature any kind of local dimming. Again not even a requirement of the standard
I think many people in online forums made that claim, but it's incorrect. Any monitor can use the v2 G-SYNC module. The monitor need not support any form of HDR at all! Only the reverse isn't true, that is, to support any form of HDR using real G-YNC hardware, you do need the v2 G-SYNC module (because the v1 module can't do HDR).
Ehm, no. There are some genuinely good reasons to assume it uses real G-SYNC, but none of the things you mentioned are on that list.
The "G"
This is definitely the best of your reasons to make that assumption. However, in contrast to technical specs, naming can be changed in a day without consequence. The "G" could also just as well be used to designate G-SYNC-Compatible monitor, which is actually FreeSync.
HDR1000 (Actually DisplayHDR 1000)
This has zilch to do with weather or not a real G-SYNC module is used. What currently does necessitate a real G-SYNC module is a FALD backlight. Monitors with a FALD backlight will most certainly achieve a DisplayHDR 1000 rating, but that rating can also be achieved with an edge lit backlight (which probably shouldn't be taken seriously but that won't stop OEMs from building them). Most importantly, this monitor will not achieve a DisplayHDR 1000 rating so the point is moot.
175 Hz
Just a few posts up I think I made a good case as to why this is meaningless in regard to whether or not a real G-SYNC module is used. Although Daniel - LG has now confirmed it will be real G-SYNC, I still hope to get responses from @Baddass and @Vega on this (for the sake of learning and understanding).
Last edited:
For the sake of arguing you mean
I can’t really be bothered to argue about it any more. All the arguing before where you thought this was going to be a FreeSync screen has been proven wrong. I bet you that if and when a FreeSync ver of this screen appears, if they are using the same panel as this model still, it won’t have a 175Hz refresh rate.
I can’t really be bothered to argue about it any more. All the arguing before where you thought this was going to be a FreeSync screen has been proven wrong. I bet you that if and when a FreeSync ver of this screen appears, if they are using the same panel as this model still, it won’t have a 175Hz refresh rate.
This is a very good and important point. DisplayHDR 600 is in MANY ways far superior to DisplayHDR 400, but miss only one target, e.g. miss peak luminance by 20 nits, and the monitor will be classified as a DisplayHDR monitor 400 regardless. Seeing two DisplayHDR 400 monitors which such different HDR performance would likely be very confusing to many. Will that incentivize moitor OEMs to not build any such monitors? Are we heading towards a market where the low end is designed around the cheapest possible parts that just manages to achieve a DisplayHDR 400 rating, followed by a large "capability gap" and the mid-range then starting at DisplayHDR 600? I wonder.
FreeSync 2 is similar, because although nobody seems to talk about it, it also exists primarily to standardize HDR capabilities, just like a DisplayHDR certification. In most ways it is allegedly very similar to DisplayHDR 600, but it doesn't make the same peak liminance requirement, so FreeSync 2 monitors might very well become associated with "overpriced DisplayHDR 400", despite it actually performing closer to DisplayHR 600.
I really wonder if this isn't just a huge mess that hurts more than it helps.
Yes, based on the evidence that I feel actually means something, I was leaning towards this being a G-SYNC-Compatible monitor. I don't think any of my actual arguments have been proven wrong. If any arguments have been proven wrong I THINK those were yours.
There were always some good reasons to believe this monitor could have been either, and I have no problem admitting that I speculated incorrectly.
Yet, after I pointed out that FreeSync monitors with a 155 Hz refresh rate do exist, you're still, for some reason, willing to bet that no FreeSync monitor can support such a refresh rate. I just don't understand you and I wish I did.
Last edited:
DisplayHDR 500
Associate
No there wasn't. G-Sync is literally in the main product page header description:
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/...cL6JYov2om9Q2XGZdJMlJPE09OzyVJrhvwDmUCKe_3ygc
38" Class 21:9 UltraGear™ QHD+ Nano IPS LED Gaming Monitor w/ NVIDIA G-SYNC (38" Diagonal)
This monitor literally isn't 38" (but 37.5") and 21:9 (but 12:5 or 24:10).
And what ecosexuals have to do with all of that?
The feelings mutual.
What “evidence” did you ever have that this was going to be a non Gsync module screen? The only thing I think you had was the mention of “Gsync compatible” on the placeholder website. You never wanted to hear that it was a phrasing error / coincidence. There were plenty of things which showed to me (and several other people here from what I’ve seen) that it would be a gsync module screen. The G naming scheme, the limited video connections, the overclock - which I still maintain is only possible to this level (+31Hz) because of the gsync module usage and lack of a traditional scaler.
The 11Hz overclock in that Dell model is a tiny extension, and an exception really. I can’t think of any other models with an overclock that aren’t gsync. I believe it’s a limitation of the scaler on FreeSync models. On gsync screens you will find plenty of massive overclocks. 60Hz to 100hz. 144hz to 200hz.
Which arguments of mine have been proven wrong exactly?
It’s a statement that doesn’t make any sense either. My arguments were fundamentally based on the view that this was a proper gsync screen. Yours were based on it not being. I’ve been proven right now.
This is your problem, it’s almost impossible to tell what your point is half the time as it seems to change every time and you seem mostly interested in trying to pick holes in the way people say things or change it in to a debate about something else. It’s really hard work.
No I did not mean it NEEDS to have that, I meant I am sure I remember reading that Nvidia said in order to be qualified as "Gsync HDR" it would have to be HDR1000. Maybe I confused this with it needing to be HDR1000 in order to use the module at all...
I have no idea why you continue to argue that my reasons do not mean it would be Gsync.. when they clearly do point to it being Gsync!!!
I will bet now right...
175hz "G" - Gsync model
144hz "F" - Freesync model
Pretty sure I will be right about that we shall see!
Associate
A 2020 date for a FreeSync version is very disheartening but I suppose understandable as I would imagine LG was caught by surprise by nvidia's support of freesync just like everyone else was. Even though Ive had nvidia cards for the last 9 or 10 years I havent *always* had nvidia cards and therefore I refuse to lock in to a monitor that has VRR *only* for nvidia cards. <sigh> The wait continues...
silver lining: perhaps AMD's next gen architecture and/or nvidias 7nm part(s) will be available to drive the damn thing at 144hz...
silver lining: perhaps AMD's next gen architecture and/or nvidias 7nm part(s) will be available to drive the damn thing at 144hz...
Associate
So 38GL950G will be 144Hz Native with 175Hz OC - dedicated G-Sync
I have no info on the 2020 spec for the "non dedicated G-sync" model
I have no info on the 2020 spec for the "non dedicated G-sync" model
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Dec 2018
- Posts
- 6
Thanks for the update Daniel, Sept 2019 gives me time to gauge how the HDR monitor segment will progress, whether the rumored LG 49” SUW with 144Hz materializes, and whether the 2020 FreeSync model is worth the price differential vs this G-sync version. I have to say, this 3840x1600 with 175Hz is extremely compelling!