LG Unveils the UltraGear 34GK950 Gaming-Oriented Monitors With Nano-IPS, FreeSync 2/G-Sync

[Raevenlord]

LG unveiled their new UltraGear lineup of desktop, gaming-oriented monitors, which bring top of the line features for gamers. The monitors both feature a 34" diagonal and a 3440x1440 resolution. They both feature a 21:9 aspect ratio; brightness is left at a relatively sparse 400 nits (with VESA's DisplayHDR standard compliance) and static contrast only reaches 1000:1. The G-Sync panel (UltraGear 34GK950G-B) offers up to 120 Hz refresh rates with 4 ms GtG response times (via overclocking, only 100 Hz out-of-the-box), while the FreeSync 2 monitor (34GK950F-B) brings that up a notch to 144 Hz with 5 ms GtG response times.

The usage of nanoparticles applied to the screen's LED backlighting serves to absorb excess light wavelengths and improve intensity, purity, and accuracy of the on-screen colors - LG claims that both LCDs can display 1.07 billion colors while covering 98% of the DCI-P3 color gamut. There's ULMB support for the NVIDIA monitor and a similar technology for the FreeSync 2 display; LG's proprietary DAS (Dynamic Action Sync) which follows TV's Game Mode to cut post-processing of images to reduce lag; and there are brightness presets according to game types (FPS, RTS) for the G-Sync panel, while the FreeSync 2 features a black stabilizer tech.





Both monitors feature 1x DisplayPort and 1x HDMI inputs (the FreeSync 2 34GK950F-B includes 2x HDMI), a dual/triple-port USB 3.0 hub, 1x audio input, and 1x headphone output. The FreeSync 2 model features a red inlay on the back of the monitor's carcass, while the G-Sync option, for some reason, brings more RGB bling with six color settings for the illuminated ring on the back.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Xzibit]

If the price is good for the FreeSync 2 144hz, they might take my money

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

for gaming those response times are a bit on the high side, 2ms times are much much better. Given the choice I would go with Freesync 2.

 

[Xzibit]

for gaming those response times are a bit on the high side, 2ms times are much much better. Given the choice I would go with Freesync 2.

As long as its consistent and RTC is maintained under 7ms @144hz it will be fine.

 

[xorbe]

Are we calling 3440x1440 as 4K now? It's less than 60% of the pixels of 4K.

 

[Indurain]

Anandtech quoted as a source does not call it a 4K monitor in their report. Not one reference to 4K in the LG press release.
Seems more like a sloppy edit of the news or heaven forbid maybe even a clickbait title.

 

[Jism]

Could anybody answer a quick question, if these panels are good for 3D/2D content creation?

My monitor should have a large as possible color range compared to a low input lag or so. I have a wqhd screen right now at 2560x1080 @ 72Hz (oc'ed) and it's doing pretty good. My biggest concern is that such panels are gimped here and there on quality over "FPS".

 

[champsilva]

Are we calling 3440x1440 as 4K now? It's less than 60% of the pixels of 4K.

I was asking myself that.

How they made a 21:9 4K display, this is not even close.

 

[Slizzo]

Wonder if these are using the same panel? Max refresh rates tend to say no, but I can't imagine that they aren't using the same panel.

Then that would mean that the scaler in the G-Sync module wasn't up to the task of refreshing 144 times per second on that model; which is also a little suspect.

Hmmmm....

 

[Totally]

Are we calling 3440x1440 as 4K now? It's less than 60% of the pixels of 4K.

That res has always been QHD.

 

[Krzych]

Could anybody answer a quick question, if these panels are good for 3D/2D content creation?

My monitor should have a large as possible color range compared to a low input lag or so. I have a wqhd screen right now at 2560x1080 @ 72Hz (oc'ed) and it's doing pretty good. My biggest concern is that such panels are gimped here and there on quality over "FPS".

I don't think they are gimped in any way. But getting a display that was meant to be for content creation in certainly safer. Especially vs G-sync option that only has one Display Port and one HDMI 1.4 which limits the screen to 50 Hz, so connectivity is like none. But panel quality shouldn't be different from content creation/productivity displays of the same kind, especially that these displays are coming directly from LG without going through some secondary gamery manufacturers like it was the case before.

I was asking myself that.

How they made a 21:9 4K display, this is not even close.

This is a common misconception, people see 3xxx number for horizontal resolution and say 4K, without really understanding that the number of vertical pixels is determining that, not horizontal. There is 21:9 4K display on the market though, "5K2K" as LG calls it, 5120x2160. But of course people are calling it 5K ultrawide, even though it is 4K, similarly to how 3440x1440 ultrawide is called 4K instead of 1440p. Thats just marketing bs taking over, I guess.

Wonder if these are using the same panel? Max refresh rates tend to say no, but I can't imagine that they aren't using the same panel.

Then that would mean that the scaler in the G-Sync module wasn't up to the task of refreshing 144 times per second on that model; which is also a little suspect.

Hmmmm....

They are the same panel, UW5. G-Sync module supports up to 100 Hz at this resolution, and it is DP 1.2, hence why 120 Hz limitation despite native 144 Hz panel and 100 Hz native. You can find all the info here, but there are many posts so good luck https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/lg-34gk950g-3440x1440-g-sync-120hz.18814918/

 

[Jism]

Well i know the professional screens costs a rib and a kidney, so i'm always looking for the best specs (on paper) and consider having it for a few years before switching it to another. But my assumption is is that with these 4k / gaming ready (144hz) panels is that some things such as black and white or color differences are 'less' compared to the professional screens. Sure, panels eventually all come from the same fabric and selected on component quality, but still.

 

[Prima.Vera]

I was asking myself that.

How they made a 21:9 4K display, this is not even close.

Yeah, 4K is marketing crap if true. However a 4K video looks way better on a 3K(sorry) monitor than an 1080p movie. Waaay better.

 

[londiste]

That res has always been QHD.

QHD or WQHD is 2560x1440. Wide Quad HD where W is wide and HD is 1280x720.
LG calls 3440x1440 UWQHD (UW for ultrawide).

 

[IceShroom]

Wonder if these are using the same panel? Max refresh rates tend to say no, but I can't imagine that they aren't using the same panel.

Then that would mean that the scaler in the G-Sync module wasn't up to the task of refreshing 144 times per second on that model; which is also a little suspect.

Hmmmm....

Maybe not enough bandwidth in DP 1.2 which superior G-Sync module support. And according to computerbase Freesync one has DP 1.4.
https://www.computerbase.de/2018-09/lg-ultragear-monitor-34gk950g-34gk950f-ifa/

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

As long as its consistent and RTC is maintained under 7ms @144hz it will be fine.

for gaming, you can notice the difference, 7ms is not acceptable.

 

[Frick]

I'm just amazed such large monitors are popular as actual monitors. Have traditional desks gotten much deeper the past few years or do people really like having so much screen in front of them they have to turn their heads just to see everything?

 

[londiste]

Then that would mean that the scaler in the G-Sync module wasn't up to the task of refreshing 144 times per second on that model; which is also a little suspect.

All GSync monitors with 3440x1400 resolution are either 100Hz or 120Hz. 4K UHD monitors are at 60Hz. This strongly suggests that Gsync Module is the limiting factor. Could be DP 1.2 but I would rather suspect it is the scaler itself.

 

[iO]

Yay, lower refresh rate, no HDR or ULMB support but still the $300 G-Sync tax...

 

[Xzibit]

for gaming, you can notice the difference, 7ms is not acceptable.

Not acceptable for who ? 6.9ms = 144hz if it can sustain good RTC below that its fine.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Not acceptable for who ? 6.9ms = 144hz if it can sustain good RTC below that its fine.

im sure its fine for all those low pixel indie games, but I have higher standards. Response time is everything.

 

[Caring1]

Well i know the professional screens costs a rib and a kidney, so i'm always looking for the best specs (on paper) and consider having it for a few years before switching it to another. But my assumption is is that with these 4k / gaming ready (144hz) panels is that some things such as black and white or color differences are 'less' compared to the professional screens. Sure, panels eventually all come from the same fabric and selected on component quality, but still.

You're talking about the Adobe colour gamut and most consumer screens are nowhere near what a "professional" requires.

 

[Slizzo]

Yeah, saw later that the G-Syn module they're using is a "cheaper" older model that only supports DP1.2. Would have never thought that NVIDIA would let things such as this slip so far now.

Freesync2 looks to be making up and taking over in this area now.

 

[SetiroN]

im sure its fine for all those low pixel indie games, but I have higher standards. Response time is everything.

You sound 14. Buy a TN panel and stop being a crybaby edgelord.

 

[Xajel]

That I/O area better has a cover for a better aesthetic look