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

@spoffle
You were getting worked up over nothing, so I had no interest in continuing that discussion without you providing the source. I'm glad you now did. Thank you. I thought you might have inaccurately paraphrased something but it looks like you reproduced it almost exactly (the original is actually worse).

Unfortunately, that leaves me in the exact same position. It really makes no difference whether the statement comes from you or someone at PCWorld. It also makes no difference how much I like or dislike a comment. It still makes zero sense. I'm a software engineer, I have a degree in electronics and I know a little bit about the controllers in monitors. I'm probably wrong more often then I'm right, but with my background I can often correctly identify the things that make no sense. Identifying accurate statements is far more difficult, but this isn't:

The company tested 400 FreeSync panels and found only 12 that would turn on G-Sync automatically. The others require a manual override.
Click to expand...

So, 12 FreeSync panels would turn on G-SYNC?!*"? FreeSync panels lack the hardware is necessary for G-SYNC, so straight off the bat we can say it's at least inaccurate. The rest is so poorly written I doubt it's intelligible to anyone who doesn't already know what the author is trying to say (assuming the author himself actually understood). This is how that sentence should have been written:

Of the 400 FreeSync panels nVidia tested, only 12 achieved a G-SYNC-Compatible certification. NVIDIA's drivers will only activate VESA adaptive sync for certified panels. Uncertified panels will require a manual override.

While in some ways similar, that's an entirely different statement. That's also in line with what every other outlet is reporting. In contrast to what PCWorld wrote, that does actually make sense.
 
Last edited:
a5cent said:
@spoffle
You were getting worked up over nothing, so I had no interest in continuing that discussion without you providing the source. I'm glad you now did. Thank you. I thought you might have inaccurately paraphrased something but it looks like you reproduced it almost exactly (the original is actually worse).

Unfortunately, that leaves me in the exact same position. It really makes no difference whether the statement comes from you or someone at PCWorld. It also makes no difference how much I like or dislike a comment. It still makes zero sense. I'm a software engineer, I have a degree in electronics and I know a little bit about the controllers in monitors. I'm probably wrong more often then I'm right, but with my background I can often correctly identify the things that make no sense. Identifying accurate statements is far more difficult, but this isn't:



So, 12 FreeSync panels would turn on G-SYNC?!*"? FreeSync panels lack the hardware is necessary for G-SYNC, so straight off the bat we can say it's at least inaccurate. The rest is so poorly written I doubt it's intelligible to anyone who doesn't already know what the author is trying to say (assuming the author himself actually understood). This is how that sentence should have been written:

Of the 400 FreeSync panels nVidia tested, only 12 achieved a G-SYNC-Compatible certification. NVIDIA's drivers will only activate VESA adaptive sync for certified panels. Uncertified panels will require a manual override.

While in some ways similar, that's an entirely different statement. That's also in line with what every other outlet is reporting. In contrast to what PCWorld wrote, that does actually make sense.
Click to expand...
I'm not worked up at all. You've misunderstood my point. I was never saying that it makes sense that they set the criteria like that. You said my statement didn't make sense. My statement did make sense, you just didn't think it sounded like it was true.

On top of that, it isn't the only place I read that info.
 
spoffle said:
I'm not worked up at all. You've misunderstood my point. I was never saying that it makes sense that they set the criteria like that. You said my statement didn't make sense. My statement did make sense, you just didn't think it sounded like it was true.
On top of that, it isn't the only place I read that info.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't misunderstand you. Your statement didn't make sense and still makes zero sense, because the PCWorld source you were quoting is wrong, made no sense and literally isn't true. Re-read my last post. I don't think you grasped it.

I googled that sentence from PCWorld and found only one other site that replicated it. There can't be many other places you could have read it.

Anyway, I'm out.
 
Last edited:
a5cent said:
I actually do think the price for certified FreeSync monitors will increase. I don't think it will increase by even 1/10th of what is typically incurred by v1 G-SYNC, so I assume it is safe to ignore.
Click to expand...
Currently there are only 12 monitors which work perfectly with nvidia cards and the demand for these is likely to be astronomical. Manufacturers can increase prices to 50% of the gsync premium and still sell boatloads of these as the prospective buyers don’t want to be locked into nvidia with the g-sync module. Next time around, nvidia May start charging manufacturers for certification in the manufacturing of the monitors and knowing nvidia, the fee will not be small. There is also the possibility that the price of the g-sync module comes down to ensure true g-sync remains attractive.

One more thing, the prices of the graphic cards are spiralling out of control. Entry level cards like the 2060 are starting to cost 350 and the rtx 2080 costs 800. Safe to say if you are able to buy video cards at such crazy prices, you would want the best possible experience to match so some will still pay the premium as compared to video card pricing, this is nothing as monitors are usually not replaced every 2 years like video cards.
 
a5cent said:
No, I didn't misunderstand you. Your statement didn't make sense and still makes zero sense, because the PCWorld source you were quoting is wrong, made no sense and literally isn't true. Re-read my last post. I don't think you grasped it.

I googled that sentence from PCWorld and found only one other site that replicated it. There can't be many other places you could have read it.

Anyway, I'm out.
Click to expand...
You are insufferable.
 
Shaz12 said:
Currently there are only 12 monitors which work perfectly with nvidia cards and the demand for these is likely to be astronomical. Manufacturers can increase prices to 50% of the gsync premium and still sell boatloads of these as the prospective buyers don’t want to be locked into nvidia with the g-sync module. Next time around, nvidia May start charging manufacturers for certification in the manufacturing of the monitors and knowing nvidia, the fee will not be small. There is also the possibility that the price of the g-sync module comes down to ensure true g-sync remains attractive.

One more thing, the prices of the graphic cards are spiralling out of control. Entry level cards like the 2060 are starting to cost 350 and the rtx 2080 costs 800. Safe to say if you are able to buy video cards at such crazy prices, you would want the best possible experience to match so some will still pay the premium as compared to video card pricing, this is nothing as monitors are usually not replaced every 2 years like video cards.
Click to expand...

You make some good points I hadn't yet considered. I think it's safe to assume nVidia will charge OEMs for certification. No company would provide such a service for free. That is where I expect the price increase for certified FreeSync monitors to come from. On the flip side, certifying a single representative for an entire series will be much cheaper than building a G-SYNC module into every individual monitor. Furthermore, that cost can be distributed over a much larger number of sold devices (G-SYNC models have always sold in lower numbers than their FreeSync counterparts). That's why I don't expect certified monitors to "suffer" anywhere close to the same price premium as a real G-SYNC monitor.

I'm not sure how we'd verify any of that though. A price spike for existing, newly certified monitors as a result of market forces is a temporary thing. That doesn't indicate that certified FreeSync monitors are inherently more expensive than non-certified FreeSync monitors. We'd have to compare certified and non-certified FreeSync monitors, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to do that, because there is likely never a reason for a company to release two FreeSync monitors where one is certified and one isn't.

Because I'm at a loss on how to predict anything here I don't see much choice other than wait and see.
 
a5cent said:
You make some good points I hadn't yet considered. I think it's safe to assume nVidia will charge OEMs for certification. No company would provide such a service for free. That is where I expect the price increase for certified FreeSync monitors to come from. On the flip side, certifying a single representative for an entire series will be much cheaper than building a G-SYNC module into every individual monitor. Furthermore, that cost can be distributed over a much larger number of sold devices (G-SYNC models have always sold in lower numbers than their FreeSync counterparts). That's why I don't expect certified monitors to "suffer" anywhere close to the same price premium as a real G-SYNC monitor.
Click to expand...

Its nvidia. The company who doubled the price of their Ti from 600 to 1200 and made the GPU market a dismal place to be in. Certification charges are bound to be at a level where the price differential will ensure that the real G-Sync remains an attractive proposition. I also think companies may use the G-Sync logo to inflate prices to increase profit margins. Case in point, these LG Monitors. They have been suffixed by "G" indicating G-Sync support but turns out its G-Sync compatible and there is absolutely no mention of FreeSync anywhere. Because of NVIDIA's mindshare and marketshare, companies may stop even mentioning FreeSync support on their monitors and fool customers into thinking its a G-Sync monitor when its not.

There is also no mention whether NVIDIA is going to support LFC on these FreeSync monitors or reserve it just for their real G-Sync panels. They say "baseline VRR experience" so the jury is still out on what that actually means. Also not all G-Sync monitors are crazily priced. I got the Dell S2716DG for 400 bucks. Show me a FreeSync panel at that price which has blur reduction,30-144hz range and dynamic overdrive at that price.
 
Shaz12 said:
I also think companies may use the G-Sync logo to inflate prices to increase profit margins. Case in point, these LG Monitors. They have been suffixed by "G" indicating G-Sync support but turns out its G-Sync compatible and there is absolutely no mention of FreeSync anywhere. Because of NVIDIA's mindshare and marketshare, companies may stop even mentioning FreeSync support on their monitors and fool customers into thinking its a G-Sync monitor when its not.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if we're still discussing or arguing any specific point.

In regard to pricing, I'd actually NOT be surprised it nVidia went even further, for example, by granting a G-SYNC-Compatible certification only if the OEM agrees to omit the FreeSync branding. nVidia could co-opt the entire FreeSync brand with that approach. It's dirty, like a lot of things nVidia does, but I wouldn't begrudge them for it. That's just capitalism.

However, despite the G-SYNC-Compatible label, some here think these new LG monitors are still more likely to be real G-SYNC monitors. I lean towards them being FreeSync monitors, but ultimately we can't yet know, because LG's specs at this early phase aren't reliable. For that reason, presenting these LG monitors as proof for anything (in particular for price "manipulations" when we know absolutely nothing about price) seems premature to me.
 
JediFragger said:
Plus Linus referred to it as having a 'Gsync module' in his video, LG may of corrected him if that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

Yes, the court also finds that piece of evidence admissible. :)
To add even more... the specs listed beside the 38GL950G at CES read "G-SYNC", not "G-SYNC-Compatible".

I'm still leaning towards it being FreeSync, but it being G-SYNC is certainly also entirely in the realm of possibility.
 
JediFragger said:
Plus Linus referred to it as having a 'Gsync module' in his video, LG may of corrected him if that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...
Maybe they decided to remove the module and make the monitor g-sync compatible after NVIDIA allowed FreeSync support. It still showed g-sync at their booth.

CC8064EB-0C99-4462-ABEF-800AE78ADB3F-e1547341334335.jpeg
 
Last edited:
a5cent said:
I'm not sure if we're still discussing or arguing any specific point.

In regard to pricing, I'd actually NOT be surprised it nVidia went even further, for example, by granting a G-SYNC-Compatible certification only if the OEM agrees to omit the FreeSync branding. nVidia could co-opt the entire FreeSync brand with that approach. It's dirty, like a lot of things nVidia does, but I wouldn't begrudge them for it. That's just capitalism.

However, despite the G-SYNC-Compatible label, some here think these new LG monitors are still more likely to be real G-SYNC monitors. I lean towards them being FreeSync monitors, but ultimately we can't yet know, because LG's specs at this early phase aren't reliable. For that reason, presenting these LG monitors as proof for anything (in particular for price "manipulations" when we know absolutely nothing about price) seems premature to me.
Click to expand...
That could be exactly what’s happening here. The OSD makes no mention of Freesync in any way. The G-Sync is FreeSync lol
7D130DF4-88AD-4AAB-90AE-1863963D12E5.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom