LG to Introduce 34-inch IPS 21:9 UltraWide (Model UM95) monitor

Currently running a Dell 3007wfp, considering upgrading/sidegrading to one of these.. Have any of you lot made that move, and how do they compare? Looking at measurements it looks (screen size) to be slightly shorter (~2cm) but wider (~20cm).. My choices atm are this, 4k (of some sorts) or stick with the Dell.

Main use would be gaming, currently run 290x crossfire with a healthy overclock so no issues there..

Any thoughts are welcome!

Thanks,
Sam
 
Stonking today only price on these babies today! I've gone Asus, and I'll stick by it, no regrets! *wipes brow* :D
 
samcat said:
Currently running a Dell 3007wfp, considering upgrading/sidegrading to one of these.. Have any of you lot made that move, and how do they compare? Looking at measurements it looks (screen size) to be slightly shorter (~2cm) but wider (~20cm).. My choices atm are this, 4k (of some sorts) or stick with the Dell.

Main use would be gaming, currently run 290x crossfire with a healthy overclock so no issues there..

Any thoughts are welcome!

Thanks,
Sam
Click to expand...

I would choose this screen before 4k..ultrawide is just so much better. The wide view just makes you go wow more than 4k in my opinion and some games for me barely just hit 60fps on this on the highest settings and 4k is more intensive. I'm on a 290 crossfire which is very overclockers too.
 
samcat said:
Currently running a Dell 3007wfp, considering upgrading/sidegrading to one of these.. Have any of you lot made that move, and how do they compare? Looking at measurements it looks (screen size) to be slightly shorter (~2cm) but wider (~20cm).. My choices atm are this, 4k (of some sorts) or stick with the Dell.

Main use would be gaming, currently run 290x crossfire with a healthy overclock so no issues there..

Any thoughts are welcome!

Thanks,
Sam
Click to expand...

I would choose this screen before 4k..ultrawide is just so much better. The wide view just makes you go wow more than 4k in my opinion and some games for me barely just hit 60fps on this on the highest settings and 4k is more intensive. I'm on a 290 crossfire which is very overclocked too.
 
Crossfire still has performance issues on quite a few games so if you're on a higher end single card you'll likely see better performance :p I get 60fps minimum in every game I've played so far or 50fps if it's dodgy like Grid series. 290x + 3770K 4.6GHz.
 
You can easily knock that fps down though soon as u add some aa. Crisis 3 I can get it way down with aa added. Dark souls 2 with ENB 20 fps in some areas. So while I can max most games out its not technically maxed until you crank up the aa n then u see how much this res can hurt.
 
You can easily knock that fps down though soon as u add some aa. Crisis 3 I can get it way down with aa added. Dark souls 2 with ENB 20 fps in some areas. So while I can max most games out its not technically maxed until you crank up the aa n then u see how much this res can hurt. Now that I think of it though dark souls 2 has crossfire issues but still.. Tomb raider.. Metro last light.. Add aa and it drops quite a lot. 4k isn't really ready for the mainstream yet at max settings but this res is a little bit better.
 
Games like Crysis are exceptions and it can be argued are not fully optimised either. Tomb Raider? No problem here with full settings and aa with TresFX. Recently replayed it and on my old single GTX 780 I would get 40fps ish with similar settings but now was averaging 58fps on the 290X.

I don't play games like Dark Souls so can't comment there.
 
Fxaa maybe with tomb raider but with SSAA..no chance...tomb raider scaled pretty good with crossfire and with SSAA on its not a fun experience.
Not that theres any reason to have supersampling AA on though at 3440x1440 as its a little overkill but still lol.
Newer games are only going to get worse aswell. Its fine if you don't max them out but I consider maxed out... max settings and the highest AA quality aswell.
 
Why max the AA when it's not needed to be maxed? I would like to think I have decent vision and even with FXAA or 4x in other games I see little to no jaggies at 3440x1440. Applying more AA is a waste of resources and has a negative affect on the gaming experience (frame drops).

Of course people will use what they want but there's no way I'd be referencing max settings to maxing the AA as Hugh as it goes as that's inefficient and rather pointless.
 
Exactly I would never max AA at this res but I don't really like fxaa too much as it blurs the image too much and with no AA I can still see jaggies but obviously not as bad as 1080p.
This res + supersampling AA would just be crazy and pointless. It might look nice but it looks nice already on this monitor.
I do feel that with the more recent games my setup is on the verge of being able to run max with decent AA..nothing too high but im curious to see how the upcoming games will run at this res maxed out.
 
I've preferred the sharpness of not running AA on most games, plus it has it's performance benefits as well.

In games where a little AA fixes the "white noise" across surfaces and objects, I'll usually turn that on.

That £5 calibrator as well made a massive difference.
 
Yeah people can say what they want but the picture quality with 6500k and 2.2 gamma is incredible and really does make a good difference to your enjoyment of not only games and movies but simple things like browsing the internet and just the general colours of everything. When I calibrated my sony TV the difference was like night and day even though I had it on the cinema setting. The colours were way off but you never realise that until you calibrate it and see the difference.
With these monitors the default setting is very accurate though but calibration just makes it that bit more gorgeous to look at.
 
Matson said:
Yeah people can say what they want but the picture quality with 6500k and 2.2 gamma is incredible and really does make a good difference to your enjoyment of not only games and movies but simple things like browsing the internet and just the general colours of everything. When I calibrated my sony TV the difference was like night and day even though I had it on the cinema setting. The colours were way off but you never realise that until you calibrate it and see the difference.
With these monitors the default setting is very accurate though but calibration just makes it that bit more gorgeous to look at.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I was really surprised by how well the factory calibration was for the LG's.

Most TV's, and monitors are horribly over saturated to try and make images "pop". I honestly do not like that at all.

Only issue with a super well calibrated display is games that are of super low quality, like Interstellar Marines where there was horrible banding, and crushed blacks. Made me think something was wrong with my monitor.
 
Gibbo said:
We shall be selling these soon, but £5.18 is vastly below our cost, we shall be £29.99 which is competitive. :)
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think the guy selling them either got them off the back of a lorry, had a load of free ones from LG or made a mistake with the pricing and honoured it anyway.

Either way, mine arrived today and looks good, the aperture is tiny compared to my i1Display Pro but I am sure it will do a decent enough job after seeing mrk review it.
 
Yeah the aperture is very small but it certainly does the job. It's never going to be 1:1 as the i1 Display Pro of course but it definitely gets accurate results and even given the normal price it's a bit of a bargain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom