LG UltraGear Unveils World's First 4K OLED Gaming Monitor With Dual-Hz Feature

[chodaboy19]

Finally a flat option!

 

[Deleted member 229121]

I'm so ready for 4K OLED next year when I'll buy a GPU that can swing it.
Just want a 27-28" flat panel though.

But why?

 

[Dahita]

I can't think of any need to go to 240hz, much less 480hz, and changing the resolution on the fly? What a strange concept. I'll pass.

 

[evernessince]

It's probably for running FPS shooters at a high refresh rate.

Odds on, 480Hz + OLED's insane response times (less than a ms), leads to virtually zero ghosting, and so it probably beats every TN out there on the market.

Anyway, I just hope they are using proper integer scaling for 1080p, and that it doesn't introduce a response time delay.

That depends on the anti-motion blur tech used, if any. The top of the line TN panels limit ghosting not only thanks to their high refresh rate but also because backlight strobing further reducing motion blur. It might match the best TN panel on the market but hard to say if it'll outright beat it.

I myself don't really care of ultra high refresh rate, just waiting for OLED to adopt a standard RGB subpixel layout.

 

[Yttersta]

İŞ there any information to whether this will support picture in picture?

I have a very specific use case for which I would like a 144hz+ monitor that can display two inputs at such a rate. Not many are available. Particularly interested in this one because OLED would be better with it's way lower response times.

 

[Macro Device]

I just want 21:9 Ultrawides with 5120x2160 resolution, and here's the most important part, at 120hz or greater, preferably a 40" would be nice. With all these crazy resolutions and refresh rates they're doing these days, I would have thought 21:9 Ultrawide monitors would have made the jump to a 2160p vertical pixel count by now. I see them releasing 45" 3440×1440 which is way too large a display for 1440p, but not 5120x2160....am I the only one eagerly anticipating 21:9 ultrawides making the upgrade to 2160p? The closest is LG's 5120x2160 34" 34BK95U which came out several years ago and which I owned for a while, but it was only 60hz and this was its major shortcoming, but like I said this came out several years ago so I would have thought several improved iterations would have been released by now...sorry for the rant.

Zactly why I still don't own an ultrawide myself. 1440p is just a total why. 1080p content (movies, tellie, some older games that don't work properly at resolutions higher than 1080p etc) looks ugly on 1440p displays, and 2160p is devoided of such an issue if integer scaling is up'n'running and configured the right way. 60 Hz ain't much of an issue but when the only quote-unquote perfect 5120x2160 display comes with 200% tax in your country on top of being non-ideal colour-wise it becomes a questionable purchase at best.

And I'm sick of this curved nonsense. Like, okay, 32:9 curved displays make sense but not 21:9 and especially not 16:9. Sitting two inches away from a display is a call for a mental institution (right after eyes replacement). Just get us a 2160p 21:9 display of a reasonable panel speed (preferrably 100+ Hz but honestly even 60 Hz will do given GtG and other response times are good) without any forced curvature whatsoever and with latest DP interface. Will cost money? Of course, not an issue. Just make it.

 

[Onasi]

The resolution switching is a bit weird. Not only 1080p on 32 inches is questionable, the actual audience for a 480 Hz display is strictly high level competitive FPS players (or those with aspirations/delusions of being one) and they also prefer smaller displays from what I gather. Just bizarre. But probably a good option as a 4K monitor, provided you need 240 Hz on those, which is also questionable, but still.

 

[The Norwegian Drone Pilot]

Elevating user immersion, these panoramic monitors also feature LG's Anti-Glare & Low Reflection Coating

Welp, there goes those displays out of the window. An OLED display today has to have a glossy panel before the true color, contrast and brightness can come out of them.

 

[Macro Device]

The resolution switching is a bit weird. Not only 1080p on 32 inches is questionable, the actual audience for a 480 Hz display is strictly high level competitive FPS players (or those with aspirations/delusions of being one) and they also prefer smaller displays from what I gather. Just bizarre. But probably a good option as a 4K monitor, provided you need 240 Hz on those, which is also questionable, but still.

I agree but I see one weird use-case: AMD GPU + AFMF + FSR 3 FG + 125 FPS base framerate = maxed out 480 Hz with noticeably inflated inputlag but in games where this actually works you never care about inputlag if your base framerate is over 40 FPS.

 

[Onasi]

I agree but I see one weird use-case: AMD GPU + AFMF + FSR 3 FG + 125 FPS base framerate = maxed out 480 Hz with noticeably inflated inputlag but in games where this actually works you never care about inputlag if your base framerate is over 40 FPS.

I mean… yeah, but in games where this would work you are also unlikely to care about having more than 120 FPS. There are massive diminishing returns after that point, after all. Sacrificing 4K sharpness to play, say, BG3 or God of War at interpolated 480 FPS just to get slightly more fluid picture (with, as noted, more input lag and potential artifacts) is such a niche use case that I struggle to imagine anyone reasonable actually going for it.

 

[Tek-Check]

But why?

Why not if someone plays e-sports and high fps games?

This monitor is for me disappointing because HP and Dell will offer similar 4K/240Hz displays, but with DolbyVision and with DP 2.1 ports.

 

[goodeedidid]

No word on power consumption of any of these offerings.

Lol why who cares?

 

[kinkydawg]

But why?

competitive shooter games

 

[bug]

competitive shooter games

I think the answer is even more straightforward: it may not have the bandwidth to push 4k at 480Hz so something's gotta give.

 

[b1k3rdude]

"Dual-Herts" Where do they come up with this marketing crap that has no basis in fact.

Its basically like any other high fresh monitor, lowest supported FPS at the highest supported resolution and then highest FPS at the lowest exceptable res, its not rocket science.

 

[John_Boh]

The higher resolution 45" panel isn't ready yet? 1440p at 45" is too low DPI.

I agree, it's really too low, it must be 5120x2160, or at least 3840x1600!
I'm a long time ultra-wide user and i was looking for a decent pixel-density ultra wide oled display, and i had to buy a 49" 32:9 Samsung Oled G9 5120x1440 (i already have a 34" 21:9 and an older 49" 32:9, so i know all the limits of this form factor), that has the same pixel density of a 34" 3440*1440, but with a 240Hz 0.03ms OLED panel. There's the 57" version with a 7680*2160resolution, but it's not OLED, anyway i really don't understand why they don't make a 21:9 5120x2160 version of that display, or why no one do a 21:9 with a decent pixel density. There are a couple of old 3840x1600 gaming monitor on the market and a some REALLY-NOT-GAMING (5ms or more, 60/75Hz) 5120x2160 displays, but not anything else, and anything better, and then there are some much more unusual decent 32:9 monitors. WHY???