LG 38GN950-B

Azrael1 said:
Strange I thought it was a combination of due moment where a smaller monitor is easier so no head turning is required. High fresh rates etc.

Don't get me wrong I love 21 9 and 32 9 resolutions but I’m not a competitive player.
Click to expand...
yes it is, but not even in 21/9 (if of adequate size) you have to turn your head, the advantage of 21/9 is that you have more horizontal fov, you see enemies on your sides that you would not see on 16/9, this is huge advantage.

To have the same fov as a 21/9 on a 16/9, you have to raise it at the software level, but doing this the view moves away and you see more distant and smaller enemies, therefore more difficult to aim.

The 38 would have the advantage, compared to the 34, of seeing the enemies even bigger, easier to identify and hit them, the problem is that the dimensions begin to pass the limit, at that point, as you say, you have to start moving too much eyes from right to left and the benefits are overcome by the disadvantages, for this reason I say that 34 is the sweetspot for fps gaming
 
Azrael1 said:
Strange I thought it was a combination of due moment where a smaller monitor is easier so no head turning is required. High fresh rates etc.

Don't get me wrong I love 21 9 and 32 9 resolutions but I’m not a competitive player.
Click to expand...
If you're turning your head you're sitting too close, but mainly for the pros its just more FPS = lower latency and so 24" 240hz screen rule the roost.
 
IIISLIDEIII said:
Iso 400
Click to expand...

Thank you, and YIKES, this makes mine look terrible, I still have my second unit: going to pull it out and side-by-side.

I have been playing through The Witcher 3 on the most recent panel, and found myself moving my head around quite a lot in the dark pillarboxed cut-scenes to try to mitigate glow, thought maybe it was all in my head, seems no.
 
This is now available on some Eu websites for £1300... But would need a different power adapter...
Azrael1 said:
Im guessing you haven't used a 49 monitor before -
Click to expand...

Your pc spec is pretty much the same as mine.. how do you find it gaming wise on a 49”?
Finding it hard to make a choice between the Lg38 and the Sammy 49. Both are pretty much the same price if you consider importing one from the eu...
 
Loosecannon said:
T

Your pc spec is pretty much the same as mine.. how do you find it gaming wise on a 49”?
Finding it hard to make a choice between the Lg38 and the Sammy 49. Both are pretty much the same price if you consider importing one from the eu...
Click to expand...

When games don't support the ultrawide - indie games and some console ports its very annoying. 21 9 of the LG 38 is more widely supported so i would recommend that.

But if you play the titles that support 49 - its just mind blowing. At the moment I have just started Death Stranding ( free with my super 2070 ) and after the widescreen fix - blows away the PS4 version. ( I also have the Ps4 version but found it to slow and gave up on it )

The Assassins creed last 2 or 3 installments likewise - simply amazing. Even my wife stops and just watches.

I have a 4K and also a 34 monitor so I can play pretty much any game as intended ( ie if they don't support 32 9 resolution ).

The new Halos games - fantastic on 32 9 monitors as well - they did an amazing port job. I took some photos of Halo Reach on a 21 9 game section and then on the 32 9 monitor and the extra view distance alone.

So I would recommend the LG38 if you want more compatibility and vertical height.

I think LG 38 and the Samsung 49 are both great monitors though and if you play supported games - you can't go wrong,
 
So right now I'm using a Displayport "1.1" cable that I was using for my last monitor and everything is fine (the LG '5k' cable that came with it wasn't long enough for me). I'm native 1600p @ 144hz. I've used HDR etc. Absolutely no issues with my "1.1" cable...

Ive been reading a lot about Displayport cables, from the official DP.org and Vesa sites as well as a few popular tech sites as well. They all say the same thing, labeled "1.1/1.2" cables etc. all perform the same and the labels are just BS (but they always say up to 4k60). Despite my cable working absolutely fine, I'm in the market to buy a new one because I want something more durable, with rubber bendable joints and a braided cable.

So shopping for cables, despite what I know and having used a 1.1 cable fine, do I need to get an "8k/1.4" cable? The reason I ask is because all cables are labeled now, and they say you need 'HBR3' for 4k 144hz+..Seems a lot of people had cable issues with GL model, despite even buying '8k' cables. Do I need HBR3?

Any insights?
 
To reply to my earlier post before I had the monitor, it definitely doesn't have MBR, so this is a mistake on LG's product page, a shame but in this case maybe not a deal-breaker.
I'd love if they added it with a firmware later, but actually this is the first IPS I've ever had that has impressed me enough in terms of lack of ghosting and great responsiveness I think it's a keeper. It's obviosl ynot quite as good as the TN with ULMB but actually i think its better than the TN was with ULMB disabled, all with far brighter screen and the colours and resolution are amazing! I seem to have no issues with discoloured areas or stuck pixels either, delivery received super quick too so props to OCUK once more.
Am i correct in thinking there is no LG rep who frequents the OCUK forums any more?
 
mlkmade said:
So right now I'm using a Displayport "1.1" cable that I was using for my last monitor and everything is fine (the LG '5k' cable that came with it wasn't long enough for me). I'm native 1600p @ 144hz. I've used HDR etc. Absolutely no issues with my "1.1" cable...

Any insights?
Click to expand...

Mine also works fine, i think its just down to certification. Your 1.1 cable might be just fine, but it hasnt been tested at that spec so isn't certified. It's digital so its likely to either work or not work at all at a specific res etc, but obvs if you start to get any screen issues the cable is the first thing you should consider changing.
 
bishi said:
Mine also works fine, i think its just down to certification. Your 1.1 cable might be just fine, but it hasnt been tested at that spec so isn't certified. It's digital so its likely to either work or not work at all at a specific res etc, but obvs if you start to get any screen issues the cable is the first thing you should consider changing.
Click to expand...

Yea I understand that, but that's not what I was getting at. A DP 1.1 cable shouldn't be enough to support this monitor. According to what Ive read, only HBR3 DP 1.4 cables should work, 3840x1600 @ 144hz = 26.54 Gbps. Yet I have a 4+ year old DP "1.1" cable that works perfectly fine at full 8.1gbps on each channel ( I checked with GPU-Z), Its just weird how an old cable works and some of these newer higher spec'd cables dont, I guess was my point.

HBR (High Bit Rate) 10.80 Gbit/s DP 1.1
HBR2 (High Bit Rate 2) 21.60 Gbit/s DP 1.2
HBR3 (High Bit Rate 3) 32.40 Gbit/s DP 1.3/1.4
 
mlkmade said:
Yea I understand that, but that's not what I was getting at. A DP 1.1 cable shouldn't be enough to support this monitor. According to what Ive read, only HBR3 DP 1.4 cables should work, 3840x1600 @ 144hz = 26.54 Gbps. Yet I have a 4+ year old DP "1.1" cable that works perfectly fine at full 8.1gbps on each channel ( I checked with GPU-Z), Its just weird how an old cable works and some of these newer higher spec'd cables dont, I guess was my point.

HBR (High Bit Rate) 10.80 Gbit/s DP 1.1
HBR2 (High Bit Rate 2) 21.60 Gbit/s DP 1.2
HBR3 (High Bit Rate 3) 32.40 Gbit/s DP 1.3/1.4
Click to expand...

Displayport cables are ALL functionally identical. Any version number applied to one is simply a "certification" of bandwidth, and not a "classification" of type. So it only stands to reason a high quality cable from the early DP era would actually support more bandwidth than the DP version of the time.
In short, you could easily have a quality DP1.1 cable that allows a higher bit-rate than a crummy 1.4; Don't forget length can play a big role in max bandwidth too.
 
unknown.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndT10Ib8SQc review with subtitles
 
So is the general consensus the GN is better than the GL? The fan noise and 400 HDR make it not as desirable as the GN? Or does the G sync module make the GL the better bet? I just can’t decide between the two!
 
MidKnight said:
So is the general consensus the GN is better than the GL? The fan noise and 400 HDR make it not as desirable as the GN? Or does the G sync module make the GL the better bet? I just can’t
Click to expand...
The GL model no longer has any sense of existing and being bought since GN came out, it is very likely that the GL will go out of production shortly.
There is no perceptible difference between compatible gsync (nvidia certified) and gsync with module in these models.
Specific in these models because from the tests done the GN models (34 and 38), have practically identical response times between 60HZ and 160HZ, an excellent result that very few monitors on the market are able to obtain, it is sufficient to set the overdrive on fast and not touch it more, response times around 3ms all the time.
A monitor like GL with gsync module (therefore with variable overdrive) would have an advantage if the corresponding gsync compatible monitor had poor response time management when the refresh rate changes, which does not happen in the latest LG GN series panels.
Finally, the 38 GN, compared to the GL, has:
-more contrast
-more brightness
-less reverse ghosting
- less overshoot with ovedrive on fast

Finally, the GL has fan noise which can be annoying.
 
PeegeeTips said:
+
HDR400 is practically useless, where HDR600 can provide a decent step up in [gaming] image quality vis-a-vis the SDR version.
Click to expand...

at the moment I have both monitors (34 and 38GN), the first with hdr400 and the second with hdr 600: both are far from being judged as hdr ready, hdr 1000 is something else.

finally, the local diming function introduced on 38 is only useful for marketing purposes, in real use a local dimming must have hundreds of zones to work properly, and there are still few, the ideal is the management of every single pixel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom