LG Announces UltraGear 240Hz Curved OLED Gaming Monitor

[dgianstefani]

IMO wait for OLED EVO screens with slightly higher PPI at least 100PPI.

The 91PPI of my G7 is absolutely fine, but improvements are always worth including.

 

[Valantar]

it's 1440p height but has more pixels width, 3440, not 2560, so AFAIK, haven't done math, pixel density should be similar to existing 32" 1440p monitors, which I have, and don't have issues with pixel density at the distance I sit from.

I mean, sure, higher PPI is nice to have, but is it realistic to drive anything more at 240hz? I don't think so. So I guess you're right, PPI is the only compromise, but it's not one I care about in this instance.

This is for my 32" G7 which I don't really have issues with at normal viewing distance.
View attachment 259425

Anyone know if it's pentile or has a good subpixel arrangement?

For gaming it's perfectly fine. For text rendering it'll be garbage. This is clearly the same panel as that bendable Corsair, which has a whopping 83ppi. For reference, 1080p on a 24" monitor matches your 32" 1440p at 92ppi. 83 is noticeably lower than that, and will look visibly more pixelated at the same viewing distance. Of course, viewing a 45" monitor at regular viewing distances isn't really feasible in the first place (though it's a great candidate for variable rate shading! they could just reduce the render resolution of the two outer thirds of the panel by about 75%, and nobody would know!), which kind of renders this moot. But it's still lower pixel density than a 50" 2160p TV, and barely more than a 55" TV.

I have no doubt this will be a great gaming monitor for those with a large enough desk and room, but for most people - with normal sized rooms, normal sized desks, and mixed use cases - it's too large, too low resolution for its size, and likely way too expensive.

 

[Solidstate89]

So you can lean back in your chair, relax, and enjoy 240hz blur free gaming with true 1ms pixel response not just grey to grey, with the contrast of OLED.

For work, it's the same as any other large monitor, literally just move it further back on the desk and you won't see the pixels. I know it's not ideal, 4k240hz is pretty much what you want at this size, but nothing, literally no GPU that exists, can drive that, I doubt RTX4xxx and RX7xxx will be able to drive that either.

There's already a 34" OLED monitor out there at the exact same resolution. Why would I want the same resolution on a bigger screen? Again, worthless.

 

[dgianstefani]

There's already a 34" OLED monitor out there at the exact same resolution. Why would I want the same resolution on a bigger screen? Again, worthless.

Same refresh rate?

 

[Makaveli]

I have no doubt this will be a great gaming monitor for those with a large enough desk and room, but for most people - with normal sized rooms, normal sized desks, and mixed use cases - it's too large, too low resolution for its size, and likely way too expensive.

1000%

 

[PapaTaipei]

Aren't OLEDs inherently supposed to support extremely high refresh rates in the 1KHz ballpark?

 

[Legacy-ZA]

Every time one of these is released (OLED HFR), I get more tempted.

Finally a panel that, on paper, has no compromises that I care about.

Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I just look at the price, then that temptation flees.

 

[defaultluser]

it's 1440p height but has more pixels width, 3440, not 2560, so AFAIK, haven't done math, pixel density should be similar to existing 32" 1440p monitors, which I have, and don't have issues with pixel density at the distance I sit from.

I mean, sure, higher PPI is nice to have, but is it realistic to drive anything more at 240hz? I don't think so. So I guess you're right, PPI is the only compromise, but it's not one I care about in this instance.

This is for my 32" G7 which I don't really have issues with at normal viewing distance.
View attachment 259425

Anyone know if it's pentile or has a good subpixel arrangement?

when comparing it to the Alienware 34" , the density will be much lower; this is already low enough to be visible!

 

[phanbuey]

Also 800r is way too aggressive of a curve. Anything under 1500 starts to pincushion noticeably, 1000R is horrible, 800R is basically unusable. Great way to give yourself an instant migraine - low PPI and a giant curve on a huge display.

 

[Makaveli]

Also 800r is way too aggressive of a curve. Anything under 1500 starts to pincushion noticeably, 1000R is horrible, 800R is basically unusable. Great way to give yourself an instant migraine - low PPI and a giant curve on a huge display.

Yup 1800/1900R is as much as a curve as I will deal with.

 

[geniekid]

DP2.0 can't come fast enough. My hunch is that LG would have designed this to be 5K2K@144Hz if they weren't constrained by the bandwidth of DP1.4/HDMI2.1.

Even then, based on my understanding of the DP2.0 spec, I think we'll have to wait for DP2.1 or DP3 before 5K2K@240Hz is a possibility.

 

[trsttte]

DP2.0 can't come fast enough. My hunch is that LG would have designed this to be 5K2K@144Hz if they weren't constrained by the bandwidth of DP1.4/HDMI2.1.

Even then, based on my understanding of the DP2.0 spec, I think we'll have to wait for DP2.1 or DP3 before 5K2K@240Hz is a possibility.

They could have used DSC for the higher refresh rates (and use DP2.0 already, it's retrocompatible)

DP2.0 UHBR 20 (80gbit) is enough for 5k2k 240hz 8bit

 

[FeelinFroggy]

Everyone is complaining about pixel density has not seen the monitor yet. I think I would hold off on complaints about pixel density until you see it in action with your own eyes. Personally, I'm not gonna spend the money that this thing cost without seeing the picture with my eyes.

I dont think you can really complain about the size of the monitor because this is not made for writing research papers. This thing is made to game and I bet it's very immersive. So we cant complain that it wont do things well that its not really designed to do.

I have had the predator x34 since 2015 and it is a dream. I have told myself I wont buy another monitor until they make a 4k ultrawide gaming monitor. But the new Alienware ultrawide and now this monitor has me thinking the golden age of monitors is in full swing.

 

[silentbogo]

Well, I guess I'm gonna have to wait another 3-4 years before we finally get a usable OLED monitor, and not a glorified OLED TV with techno-gimmicks. Just need something that fits on my desk(27-28") and won't cost me a kidney.
Gonna stick with my boringly-cheap Samsung U24E590 for now. I guess it's gonna move to my office no earlier than it's 10th birthday.

 

[Makaveli]

Everyone is complaining about pixel density has not seen the monitor yet. I think I would hold off on complaints about pixel density until you see it in action with your own eyes. Personally, I'm not gonna spend the money that this thing cost without seeing the picture with my eyes.

I dont think you can really complain about the size of the monitor because this is not made for writing research papers. This thing is made to game and I bet it's very immersive. So we cant complain that it wont do things well that its not really designed to do.

I have had the predator x34 since 2015 and it is a dream. I have told myself I wont buy another monitor until they make a 4k ultrawide gaming monitor. But the new Alienware ultrawide and now this monitor has me thinking the golden age of monitors is in full swing.

I trust the math.

And I would rather go LG C2 42' if i'm going 40+ in size.

And regardless of that other stuff a 800R curve is just too aggressive.

 

[Veseleil]

Lower PPI than my 23.8" 1080p display? No thanks. Seems that we won't get that sweet spot with OLED tech... They just can't achieve higher PPI, due to high brightness reduction on smaller, and pixel denser panels.

 

[konga]

Lower PPI than my 23.8" 1080p display? No thanks. Seems that we won't get that sweet spot with OLED tech... They just can't achieve higher PPI, due to high brightness reduction on smaller, and pixel denser panels.

There are other oled types that can reach high DPIs (like the ones used for phones), but they look bad when scaled up to monitor sizes. There's a type of OLED panel developed exclusively for monitors (used in the 32EP950 and 27EP950), but it's low refresh rate and not as impressively bright as OLED TVs. So LG and Samsung are just trying to shrink TV technology down. Samsung will get to 4K next year with QD-OLED, I think. They're off to the races once they get the new blue OLED material they've developed integrated into the manufacturing process. They're also building more manufacturing lines for it.

 

[Camm]

Have to echo everyone else, the resolution for the screen size is too low.

Also, 24:10 is a superior aspect ratio, LG already make screens with this aspect ratio, so its disappointing to see LG reverting down to 21:9.

 

[Crackong]

Here you go, it's true RGB as well:

32'' LG UltraFine™ OLED Pro 4K Monitor - 32EP950 | LG USA

Discover the 32'' LG UltraFine™ OLED Pro 4K Monitor that features UHD OLED Display and Adobe RGB 99%. Find reviews, specs, and more for 32EP950.

www.lg.com

Except it is entirely not for everyday / gaming use.
Professional panels should stay in professional world (and prices) like EIZO

Both LG and Samaung are fully capable of making consumer grade 27/32 inchs 4k/1440p FLAT OLED 120Hz panels.
Those will completely dominate the market.
I had no idea why they hesitate.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Except it is entirely not for everyday / gaming use.
Professional panels should stay in professional world (and prices) like EIZO

Both LG and Samaung are fully capable of making consumer grade 27/32 inchs 4k/1440p FLAT OLED 120Hz panels.
Those will completely dominate the market.
I had no idea why they hesitate.

Yeah it was more of a joke, apparently those are quite cheap for their level of quality.
I heard LG Display wants to stick with WRGB, as apparently it's better for most uses (compared to RGB), but on the bright side they are looking into more sizes, hopefully not this junk but like you suggested 32" 4k 120hz.
As for Samsung they should stop their stupid pentile arrangement, it is misleading with their fake resolutions, each pixel should have red,green,blue sub pixels else they should market it as 2/3 of the resolution.

 

[Space Lynx]

Very low pixel density is a big compromise, 1440p 21:9 on 34" is 110ppi but with 45" would be too low for normal desktop use.

ye, not sure LG is smoking with this one. I agree with you.

also, read my signature, and rejoice!

 

[Hxx]

There's already a 34" OLED monitor out there at the exact same resolution. Why would I want the same resolution on a bigger screen? Again, worthless.

The dell is also not a good choice for mixed use because weird sub pixel layout and compromises due to them using the nvidia gsync module. This panel from lg would have been a better choice at 34 inch . At 45 inch you’re dealing with low pixel density which again will suck for anything else but gaming and provided u have the space for it. If lg brings this down to a 34 inch display then awesome but I guess not yet