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

I decided to jump off this train, ended up buying the new Xiaomi Mi Surface Display 34-inch for 450$ instead, figure this monitor is not worth 4 times the money, and I really like the contrast level on the Xiaomi 3000:1. Will make movies and games, look superior.
The 1500R curvature was big win for me as well, the LG only got 2300R, really small curve. Makes it feels less immersive than the Xiaomi when gaming, and I know the LG have a clean look, but the Xiaomi looks even cleaner, no red color on the stand.

I saw a review of the LG 38, didnt like what I saw too much IPS glow and backlight bleed, this is totally unacceptable for a monitor this expensive, VA-panels don't have these issue.
Also the 175 hz mode is useless, so people willl run this monitor at 144 hz but at 8-Bit (The Xiaomi can be ran at 144hz 10-Bit). It needs to get Displayport 2.0 to run 175 hz, without Chroma subsampling.

I can always buy a new monitor in the future, when the technology is ready, in the mean time I will stick with this Xiaomi monitor (Samsung VA-panel). The only thing I will miss, is the higher resolution and the bigger screen, but again, it is not worth 4 times the money.
 
Last edited:
Naennon said:
so no HDR on 175Hz (HDR 400 btw)
and subsampling at 175Hz while reading/browsing?

ok....
Click to expand...

HDR 400 might as well be no HDR anyway. Not that I expect 175Hz to not have significant issues and probably be useless for most things. HDR-400 and 175Hz are pure marketing hype tools, completely ineffective and worthless in the grand scheme of things, offering no real practical advantage to the consumer. They have to justify this insane price tag somehow though.
 
Legend said:
HDR 400 might as well be no HDR anyway. Not that I expect 175Hz to not have significant issues and probably be useless for most things. HDR-400 and 175Hz are pure marketing hype tools, completely ineffective and worthless in the grand scheme of things, offering no real practical advantage to the consumer. They have to justify this insane price tag somehow though.
Click to expand...
How is 175hz complete marketing?
 
Legend said:
Because there will be issues and compromises to using it, and tangibly it offers no real benefit over 144Hz. If people NEED a super high refresh monitor, they will be using native 240Hz displays.
Click to expand...
I personally believe that the 175Hz overclock is a good feature (i personally can notice a difference between 144 and 165hz), ur only sacrificing HDR for that which is quite useless anyway and chroma subsampling is a non issue in games so for me its a plus.
 
Jonny93 said:
I personally believe that the 175Hz overclock is a good feature (i personally can notice a difference between 144 and 165hz), ur only sacrificing HDR for that which is quite useless anyway and chroma subsampling is a non issue in games so for me its a plus.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt in a blind test you would actually notice... if you genuinely passed such a test run (10 out of 10), you should be working for NASA.
 
Legend said:
Because there will be issues and compromises to using it, and tangibly it offers no real benefit over 144Hz. If people NEED a super high refresh monitor, they will be using native 240Hz displays.
Click to expand...

175 hz refresh rate capability doesn't take anything away from this monitor (as well as completely unusable 'faster' response time mode).

But, it is a mystery for me, why the most of the monitors only have standard maximum refresh rate tier like 144 hz and the OC tier (175 hz for this model).

If the monitor is capable, why not include 155 hz or 159 hz, or even 159.5 hz tier to use more of available DP 1.4 bandwidth while using 8 bpc without compression and chroma subsampling?
 
tarsius said:
But, it is a mystery for me, why the most of the monitors only have standard maximum refresh rate tier like 144 hz and the OC tier (175 hz for this model).

If the monitor is capable, why not include 155 hz or 159 hz, or even 159.5 hz tier to use more of available DP 1.4 bandwidth while using 8 bpc without compression and chroma subsampling?
Click to expand...
Yeah i don't understand that either. The ASUS PG27UQ and Acer X27 both utilize dp 1.4's maximum bandwidth of 120hz at 4K so the LG should have done 155hz at least.
 
On those models the max refresh rate with 10-bit colour at 4K is 98Hz not 120Hz. It’s likely that you could create a custom resolution (or one may even be available natively) if you really wanted to just run at max res/refresh/colour without needing any compression too on the LG
 
Baddass said:
On those models the max refresh rate with 10-bit colour at 4K is 98Hz not 120Hz. It’s likely that you could create a custom resolution (or one may even be available natively) if you really wanted to just run at max res/refresh/colour without needing any compression too on the LG
Click to expand...
Yeah i meant 120hz with 8bpc on the 4K models. It would be nice to run the LG one at 159.5Hz and 8bpc with a custom res, will test when i get mine.

Edit: I actually don't understand how they can run at 98Hz with 10bpc when DP 1.4 caps at 97.4Hz at that resolution and 10-bit.
 
Last edited:
in two minds whether this is worth replacing my LG 34GK950F

4 more inches
30 more hz
a little more pixels

is it worth the difference i can get for my current one, i doubt it but I may be tempted
 
Some quick pics before i fall asleep. Will give my initial thoughts tomorrow, so far 10/10
IMG-20191201-045426.jpg

IMG-20191201-050609.jpg

IMG-20191201-051626.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom