LG 38GL950G - 3840x1600/G-Sync/144Hz

kingy10 · 21 Aug 2019 at 19:05

Would 3440x1440 on this monitor look really bad ? or even lower resolutions for fps increase?

I am aware that sometimes this can cause blurring when using lower resolutions but its something I have never understood so well.

Kleitus · 21 Aug 2019 at 20:31

I had the first 37.5" LG (38UC99), which was the same size but with 60Hz/75Hz-Freesync. The size and IPS panel was absolutely amazing.

I never had any issues with the resolution in games, unless the games would not support ultrawide, in which case ALL ultrawide have issues. This was my biggest gripe - the general lack of proper ultrawide support. Most games have stretched out objects on the sides and some will have top and bottom cut off to avoid giving ultrawide a competitive advantage (Overwatch being one example).

If a game doesn't support ultrawide at all, you can always run 2560x1600 with black bars on the sides (which is equivalent to the old 30" monitors with that resolution).

In the same way you can also run 3840x1600 with black bars on top and bottom on a 40"/43" 16:9 screen.

Vega · 21 Aug 2019 at 20:49

Ya I also had the 38UC99. Great size/resolution. Only returned it due to the 75 Hz not being up to snuff. Now that it has 175 Hz and real G-Sync, I am definitely purchasing.

marktruman · 21 Aug 2019 at 23:03

Vega said:
Ya I also had the 38UC99. Great size/resolution. Only returned it due to the 75 Hz not being up to snuff. Now that it has 175 Hz and real G-Sync, I am definitely purchasing.

It's my next purchase. Probably 2025 AD when it's finally released

Kleitus · 22 Aug 2019 at 07:51

Vega said:
Ya I also had the 38UC99. Great size/resolution. Only returned it due to the 75 Hz not being up to snuff. Now that it has 175 Hz and real G-Sync, I am definitely purchasing.

I only replaced mine because AMD didn't have a graphics card powerful enough to run the monitor, and at the time nvidia didn't support Freesync. Had I known nvidia would start supporting it, I probably would have kept it. I got a 1080Ti (which I still rock - amazing card still), and wanted some VRR, so went for a G-Sync monitor. VRR is just amazing when you can't push the full resolution of the display in all games.

Vega · 22 Aug 2019 at 18:13

Ya VRR was a total game changer. Will never play without it again.

MikeLoader · 23 Aug 2019 at 00:01

This is the only one im eying, the one that could replace my PG279Q.
I wouldent touch it tho if it was freesync. g-sync is the only option for me, and this one got it all. Size and that perfect IPS picture. Hell yeah im interested

markymoo · 23 Aug 2019 at 01:54

I was looking at this or the 27"model.
I currently have a i7 2600k (4.3ghz) and a Vega56 (950,1k I think clocked to)

Would my system be suitable for either of these monitors as a jump up from a 22 TN 1080p panel? Or would I ideally need a new build?

JediFragger · 23 Aug 2019 at 09:25

markymoo said:
Would my system be suitable for either of these monitors as a jump up from a 22 TN 1080p panel? Or would I ideally need a new build?

Go for the 27in, it'll work fine with your Vega56 (and stil be a hell of a jump).

aoaaron · 24 Aug 2019 at 16:36

http://www.displaywars.com/comparisons/34-inch-21x9-vs-38-inch-21x9.png

this has sold me on 32:9. for all the vertical real estate people up for for 38 ultrawides, its really not a lot.

Vega · 24 Aug 2019 at 19:01

aoaaron said:
http://www.displaywars.com/comparisons/34-inch-21x9-vs-38-inch-21x9.png

this has sold me on 32:9. for all the vertical real estate people up for for 38 ultrawides, its really not a lot.

Not sure what you are trying to convey. Neither of those are 32:9.

aoaaron · 24 Aug 2019 at 19:06

Vega said:
Not sure what you are trying to convey. Neither of those are 32:9.

I'm just discussing that I feel like 38inch ultrawide isn't that big of an upgrade from the 34 inch screen in regards to vertical real estate.

I found it quite surprising as its usually the reason cited for getting one.

Vega · 24 Aug 2019 at 20:20

11% vertical is bigger than you think. And it's a two pronged effect, you get more pixels and size.

Just for perspective:

The 37.5" over the 34" you get:

21% more display surface area 24% greater resolution.

aoaaron · 25 Aug 2019 at 01:16

Vega said:
11% vertical is bigger than you think. And it's a two pronged effect, you get more pixels and size.

Just for perspective:

The 37.5" over the 34" you get:

21% more display surface area 24% greater resolution.

yeah but I'm not too bothered about the horizontal display surface area as I'm comparing it to the super ultra wides.
11% vertical just doesn't seem that impressive.

TLDR im shaping up this badboy to the CRG9 that ppl have

Vega · 25 Aug 2019 at 09:41

IMO the 24:10 38" LG is far better than the CRG9. Much faster refresh, faster pixels, better widescreen aspect ratio, real G-Sync. CRG9 is only 120 Hz and just two 27" 1440p displays melded together. Good for spreadsheets, but I wouldn't want such a narrow view into a game world and HUD items way off to the sides.

JediFragger · 25 Aug 2019 at 10:01

nm, had it wrong.

JediFragger · 25 Aug 2019 at 10:03

Vega said:
IMO the 24:10 38" LG is far better than the CRG9. Much faster refresh, faster pixels, better widescreen aspect ratio, real G-Sync. CRG9 is only 120 Hz and just two 27" 1440p displays melded together. Good for spreadsheets, but I wouldn't want such a narrow view into a game world and HUD items way off to the sides.

Had both (38UC99) and personally I'd say it was a tie. But opinions are like ********* eh! Everyone has one.

At almost half the projected price I'd say the Samsung has the edge.

aoaaron · 25 Aug 2019 at 10:50

Vega said:
IMO the 24:10 38" LG is far better than the CRG9. Much faster refresh, faster pixels, better widescreen aspect ratio, real G-Sync. CRG9 is only 120 Hz and just two 27" 1440p displays melded together. Good for spreadsheets, but I wouldn't want such a narrow view into a game world and HUD items way off to the sides.

I used to think exactly the same.

Then I used one in store and my mind was blown. Totally superior to 21:9 (when it works). It didn’t feel narrow, it just felt like more. Honestly got vr feels.

That gsync module is gonna be nice. I’m also sceptical about the freesync but tbh.. I’m not gonna be hitting 100 FPS at these resolutions anyway.

Have you used one in real life? I think it’s definitley a marmite device cos people who hate on 32:9 seem so vocal and staunch about it.

Vega · 25 Aug 2019 at 11:01

Yes in the US I used the original 32:9 49" in the store for quite a while and wasn't impressed. Human vision is approximately 200 deg wide by 120 deg tall. Or about 1.6:1. To me 32:1 looked extremely un-immersive, having such a tiny vertical viewing area hardly taking up ant of your vertical view. Like looking through a window blind out into the world.

A lot of people don't realize with a crazy wide aspect ratio like 32:9 and limited vertical, characters, anything with detail will look smaller in the center of the screen since it's essentially just a 27" 1440p monitor with 50% wings tacked on either side. 27" 1440p is anything but immersive.

aoaaron · 25 Aug 2019 at 12:18

Vega said:
Yes in the US I used the original 32:9 49" in the store for quite a while and wasn't impressed. Human vision is approximately 200 deg wide by 120 deg tall. Or about 1.6:1. To me 32:1 looked extremely un-immersive, having such a tiny vertical viewing area hardly taking up ant of your vertical view. Like looking through a window blind out into the world.

A lot of people don't realize with a crazy wide aspect ratio like 32:9 and limited vertical, characters, anything with detail will look smaller in the center of the screen since it's essentially just a 27" 1440p monitor with 50% wings tacked on either side. 27" 1440p is anything but immersive.

Ahh fair enough, if you used it and didnt like it then thats fine. my biggest pet peeve is internet experts who've never handled a device in real life with big opinions. I used it and was totally blown away. It made the 21:9 feel like 16:9. i REALLY tried to hate it. I kept going back to the 21:9 (because i'd already ordered one) but i had to go on reddit and begrudginly admit that the 32:9 was better to a guy i'd discussed with it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/comments/c915ps/329_vs_219/esrzmcb/?context=8&depth=9

I argued and debated for ages.. then checked out the monitor again and had to post
"
aoaaron

0 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

I just checked out the Samsung panel and it’s awesome.

I’m thinking of buying it and returning the Alienware. The only thing which stops me is my 2080. I agree I’m not sure if it’s good enough to power the monitor. Might need to get an entire new build for it.

Do you know if the 1080p resolution of the games looks alright on the crg9 or does it upscale it badly?

I’m going to check out the Alienware tommorow. The 21:9 I saw in the store didn’t have a curve so it took away a lot of the immersion.

The sammy looks awesome though. Not even sure if it was the newest one.

The dirtortion is definitely there but it doesn’t matter. It just adds to the immersion and you’re never directly looking there anyway.

I don’t mind the price for the monitor as I think it’s worth probably.

Also the lack of support is still a pain. I just googled and cemu doesn’t support 32:9.

"

so embarassing lol.
I found the 21:9 going back to.. just feel like a screen. Whilst the 32:9 felt amazing.i felt like 32:9 was what 21:9 was trying to do.

Tbh my AW341DW's vertical real estate is already enough for me, I find myself moving my head up more than I do moving it to the sides haha.

I also felt the "motion" when using 32:9. If I jumped off a building I got that VR like feeling when I went off a building in superhot for a second. I actually told a friend of mine not to get a 32:9 because he struggled with VR motion sickness.