Synology DS620slim Gigabit NAS Review
Fractal Design Vector RS review
Corsair iCUE 465X review
be quiet! Pure Base 500 review
Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Corsair HS35 Stereo Gaming Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Gaming X review
Gears of War 5: PC graphics performance benchmark review
LG to offer 38UC99 Ultra-wide 38in Curved Monitor
We posted about this one before - From big to bigger, LG is releasing the 38UC99 curved monitor. This display will get an IPS panel at 3840 x 1600 resolution with an ultra wide 2:4:1 aspect ratio. The 38-inch panel is made in-house at LG.
This news-posting is updated:
The product pages just went live on LG, meaning they will be available soon. The 38UC99 offers a 5ms G2G response time with your standard 1000:1 contrast ratio and 300 cd/m2 brightness. The panel covers 99% sRGB gamut at 10-bit colour depth and 178/178 viewing angles. AMD FreeSync (52 - 75Hz range) is supported. The monitor will feature an USB Type-C port. The port allows users to transmit content and data as well as charge another device such as a smartphone or laptop at the same time.
With two 10W built-in Bluetooth compatible speakers, the 38UC99 offers Rich Bass audio output in the 85Hz bass range. The monitor also includes capabilities to customize display options with just a few clicks of the mouse and store customized color settings with the easy-to-use Onscreen Control software and My Display Preset. Prices and availability are to be announced, I also added some new photos.
LG to offer 34UC88-B 34-inch curved IPS LCD - 03/14/2016 09:51 AM
LG is to release a 34-inch curved LCD monitor called 34UC88-B. It is absed on an AH-IPS panel with sRGB coverage of 99%, this ultra-wide 34-inch LED-backlight monitor supports a native resolution of 3...
LG to offer Display 144Hz IPS Panels - 04/10/2015 08:50 AM
Yesterday we already talked about ASUS, but LG is now jumping on-board as well. That's an IPS panel series that can do 144Hz with a low latency. Heck yeak ! The new 27 " LM270WF8 panel is avai...
MegaFalloutFan
Senior Member
Posts: 615
Joined: 2015-06-27
Senior Member
Posts: 615
Joined: 2015-06-27
#5332193 Posted on: 09/08/2016 09:54 AM
Is it USB 3.1 only? Whats the point?
Is it USB 3.1 only? Whats the point?
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5332205 Posted on: 09/08/2016 11:02 AM
This is a fantastic size/aspect ratio display. Easier to run than a normal 4k.
(4k) 3840x2160 = 8,294,000 pixels
3840 x 1600 = 6,144,000
With a next gen GPU (Volta), would be a must have display.
This is a fantastic size/aspect ratio display. Easier to run than a normal 4k.
(4k) 3840x2160 = 8,294,000 pixels
3840 x 1600 = 6,144,000
With a next gen GPU (Volta), would be a must have display.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5332211 Posted on: 09/08/2016 11:14 AM
This is a fantastic size/aspect ratio display. Easier to run than a normal 4k.
(4k) 3840x2160 = 8,294,000 pixels
3840 x 1600 = 6,144,000
With a next gen GPU (Volta), would be a must have display.
You'd probably be better off paying more to get a G-Sync screen for an Nvidia GPU.
This is a fantastic size/aspect ratio display. Easier to run than a normal 4k.
(4k) 3840x2160 = 8,294,000 pixels
3840 x 1600 = 6,144,000
With a next gen GPU (Volta), would be a must have display.
You'd probably be better off paying more to get a G-Sync screen for an Nvidia GPU.
cryohellinc
Senior Member
Posts: 2572
Joined: 2014-10-20
Senior Member
Posts: 2572
Joined: 2014-10-20
#5332213 Posted on: 09/08/2016 11:18 AM
3840 x 1600 resolution with an ultra wide 2:4:1 aspect ratio. the 38inch panel is made in-house at LG.
AMD FreeSync (52 - 75Hz range) is supported.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5332221 Posted on: 09/08/2016 11:38 AM
No. Not all people have same priorities. For me, no.1 thing I value in a display is SIZE. But a large display must have a decent res, PPI to avoid pixelation. This display seems to fit the bill. Lack of GSYNC (or freesnc) would not be a deal breaker for me. But since freesync support is there, I may lean towards AMD for next GPU.
You'd probably be better off paying more to get a G-Sync screen for an Nvidia GPU.
No. Not all people have same priorities. For me, no.1 thing I value in a display is SIZE. But a large display must have a decent res, PPI to avoid pixelation. This display seems to fit the bill. Lack of GSYNC (or freesnc) would not be a deal breaker for me. But since freesync support is there, I may lean towards AMD for next GPU.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5332223 Posted on: 09/08/2016 11:47 AM
Product page: http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor
$1500... er, no thanks. Hopefully over time, other large size/res 21:9 displays will be on the scene. Tops I would pay for a display like this maybe $800-900.
Product page: http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor
$1500... er, no thanks. Hopefully over time, other large size/res 21:9 displays will be on the scene. Tops I would pay for a display like this maybe $800-900.
cryohellinc
Senior Member
Posts: 2572
Joined: 2014-10-20
Senior Member
Posts: 2572
Joined: 2014-10-20
#5332225 Posted on: 09/08/2016 11:48 AM
Gsync provides supreme smooth quality, once you try it, there is never going back, at least for me up to the point they developer monitors which may have such technology integrated by default and would not require any specific GPU. That would be great, however in terms of AMD vs Nvidia, Nvidia was leading, and seems to be leading for any foreseeable future, while AMD will constantly "catch up".
New upcoming GPU's wont be an exception, I have had plenty of AMD stuff in the past to know that its constantly an inferior product both on hardware and software sides.
No. Not all people have same priorities. For me, no.1 thing I value in a display is SIZE. But a large display must have a decent res, PPI to avoid pixelation. This display seems to fit the bill. Lack of GSYNC (or freesnc) would not be a deal breaker for me. But since freesync support is there, I may lean towards AMD for next GPU.
Gsync provides supreme smooth quality, once you try it, there is never going back, at least for me up to the point they developer monitors which may have such technology integrated by default and would not require any specific GPU. That would be great, however in terms of AMD vs Nvidia, Nvidia was leading, and seems to be leading for any foreseeable future, while AMD will constantly "catch up".
New upcoming GPU's wont be an exception, I have had plenty of AMD stuff in the past to know that its constantly an inferior product both on hardware and software sides.
lmimmfn
Senior Member
Posts: 10360
Joined: 2006-03-21
Senior Member
Posts: 10360
Joined: 2006-03-21
#5332229 Posted on: 09/08/2016 11:54 AM
I have the 34" lg, and tbh I think 38" would be the perfect size for ultrawide. Won't be changing my ultrawide for at least 5 years but more options are good
I have the 34" lg, and tbh I think 38" would be the perfect size for ultrawide. Won't be changing my ultrawide for at least 5 years but more options are good
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5332233 Posted on: 09/08/2016 12:00 PM
Gsync provides supreme smooth quality, once you try it, there is never going back, at least for me up to the point they developer monitors which may have such technology integrated by default and would not require any specific GPU. That would be great, however in terms of AMD vs Nvidia, Nvidia was leading, and seems to be leading for any foreseeable future, while AMD will constantly "catch up".
New upcoming GPU's wont be an exception, I have had plenty of AMD stuff in the past to know that its constantly an inferior product both on hardware and software sides.
People have different priorities. 90% of my PC time is spent non-gaming, so things like Gsync are not as important to me as other display specs, like size, res, color accuracy, etc. And since I've enjoyed gaming so far without gsync, it will not likely be a factor in choosing a display for my needs.
Gsync provides supreme smooth quality, once you try it, there is never going back, at least for me up to the point they developer monitors which may have such technology integrated by default and would not require any specific GPU. That would be great, however in terms of AMD vs Nvidia, Nvidia was leading, and seems to be leading for any foreseeable future, while AMD will constantly "catch up".
New upcoming GPU's wont be an exception, I have had plenty of AMD stuff in the past to know that its constantly an inferior product both on hardware and software sides.
People have different priorities. 90% of my PC time is spent non-gaming, so things like Gsync are not as important to me as other display specs, like size, res, color accuracy, etc. And since I've enjoyed gaming so far without gsync, it will not likely be a factor in choosing a display for my needs.
cryohellinc
Senior Member
Posts: 2572
Joined: 2014-10-20
Senior Member
Posts: 2572
Joined: 2014-10-20
#5332242 Posted on: 09/08/2016 12:19 PM
True, its not a WIN factor, however it is a massive benefit when you do play. And as mentioned once you try it, everything else seems laggy. I guess i am one of those that see difference between 100-140fps (some say there is no difference after 30 fps xD), however once you add G-sync to the equation it feels that much smoother. Now that FastSync got introduced, it got even better. Hence where my opinion comes from.
But yes wise, probably Refresh rate would be the best positive factor for smooth comfortable work, and of course Large screen (38inch large
).
People have different priorities. 90% of my PC time is spent non-gaming, so things like Gsync are not as important to me as other display specs, like size, res, color accuracy, etc. And since I've enjoyed gaming so far without gsync, it will not likely be a factor in choosing a display for my needs.
True, its not a WIN factor, however it is a massive benefit when you do play. And as mentioned once you try it, everything else seems laggy. I guess i am one of those that see difference between 100-140fps (some say there is no difference after 30 fps xD), however once you add G-sync to the equation it feels that much smoother. Now that FastSync got introduced, it got even better. Hence where my opinion comes from.
But yes wise, probably Refresh rate would be the best positive factor for smooth comfortable work, and of course Large screen (38inch large
).
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5332276 Posted on: 09/08/2016 01:04 PM
Gsync provides supreme smooth quality, once you try it, there is never going back, at least for me up to the point they developer monitors which may have such technology integrated by default and would not require any specific GPU. That would be great, however in terms of AMD vs Nvidia, Nvidia was leading, and seems to be leading for any foreseeable future, while AMD will constantly "catch up".
New upcoming GPU's wont be an exception, I have had plenty of AMD stuff in the past to know that its constantly an inferior product both on hardware and software sides.
Nvidia has never been in a habit of releasing its proprietary technology to the public use, so the better G-sync will never be a standard. Unlike Freesync, which was adopted by VESA. Of course it's better this way since G-sync is more expensive like more or less everything ever created by Nvidia.
Gsync provides supreme smooth quality, once you try it, there is never going back, at least for me up to the point they developer monitors which may have such technology integrated by default and would not require any specific GPU. That would be great, however in terms of AMD vs Nvidia, Nvidia was leading, and seems to be leading for any foreseeable future, while AMD will constantly "catch up".
New upcoming GPU's wont be an exception, I have had plenty of AMD stuff in the past to know that its constantly an inferior product both on hardware and software sides.
Nvidia has never been in a habit of releasing its proprietary technology to the public use, so the better G-sync will never be a standard. Unlike Freesync, which was adopted by VESA. Of course it's better this way since G-sync is more expensive like more or less everything ever created by Nvidia.
Jericho2013
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 2013-04-26
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: 2013-04-26
#5332317 Posted on: 09/08/2016 02:17 PM
A lot more room to see that horrendous back light bleeding that LG is famous for on their curved monitors.
A lot more room to see that horrendous back light bleeding that LG is famous for on their curved monitors.
negchampa
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-12
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-12
#5332467 Posted on: 09/08/2016 05:48 PM
Only 75hz and no G-sync. Very lame for a monitor today this expensive. I just bought the ASUS 34" ROG Swift with 100hz and G-sync.
I am absolutely blown away by how much of a difference G-sync makes. Everything is silky smooth with no tearing or judder ever! I would never go back. Honestly I had my doubts but G-sync is a must for anyone.
G-Sync probably has had the biggest noticeable difference in gaming for me since I upgraded to a SSD.
Only 75hz and no G-sync. Very lame for a monitor today this expensive. I just bought the ASUS 34" ROG Swift with 100hz and G-sync.
I am absolutely blown away by how much of a difference G-sync makes. Everything is silky smooth with no tearing or judder ever! I would never go back. Honestly I had my doubts but G-sync is a must for anyone.
G-Sync probably has had the biggest noticeable difference in gaming for me since I upgraded to a SSD.
deusex
Senior Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 2003-11-19
Senior Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 2003-11-19
#5332501 Posted on: 09/08/2016 07:03 PM
Well, at least they got the size right.
Well, at least they got the size right.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: 2008-06-20
2.4:1, not 2:4:1... I even started to wonder if they are counting curvature as a third dimension