LG Showcases new 32- and 27-inch GK monitors
Click here to post a comment for LG Showcases new 32- and 27-inch GK monitors on our message forum
dr_rus
What's with the flood of low PPI displays lately?..
NvidiaFreak650
Yeah 🙁 , also we won't see HDR monitors after the Fall Update of Windows 10 due of HDR issues on 15063 build which is fix on Windows Insider Preview.
chilly willy
honestly 32 inches at 1080p is fine i use 2 LG 32 inch 1080p monitors as my main displays and they work fantastic for the distance i am away from them which is about maybe a foot and a half away or so. I have a 32 inch tv though that is 1080p that I would prefer to be about 43-55 inches or so as my bed is roughly 6 feet away and 32 inches is pretty small for that distance.
Also I can't see pixels on my monitors even sitting right in front of them. any larger and i would want 1440p or 4k for sure though.
drac
Saw 32", hopes got raised then saw the resolution wasn't 4k annnd doh :<
Prometheus336
To be honest I'm happy of the res and the size. The ppi won't be much lower than my 24" 1080p plus it will have g sync 😉 finally I will be able to upgrade... Also hdr is just a gimmick
silapakorn
These ppi are perfectly acceptable for me. Higher ppi screens don't benefit you that much in terms of image quality. The only noticeable thing is that you need more powerful GPU to play games at native resolution. I switched from 1080p to 1440p on the same size screens (27") two years ago and I barely see the difference except that now I have to reduce graphic setting from Ultra to High in order to keep a stable framerate at 1440p. Watching movies and viewing scanned documents on higher ppi screen are also a pain. Since the resolution of the source can't be increased like in games, now you have to stretch them because they are too small on your screen thanks too the higher ppi. And we all know that stretching = reduced sharpness.
Higher ppi screens are suitable mostly for games, and they need stronger GPU to maximize their benefits. With the inflated GPU price nowdays it's only normal that monitor manufacturers tend to go with lower ppi screens instead.
dr_rus
Higher PPI screens give better resolution which gives less perceived aliasing and higher detailed textures.
24" 1080p has 91 PPI, this 32" has 81 PPI, that's a substantial difference.
4K is a bit overkill for a 32" display too but seeing 2560 x 1440 there is just weird.
Sinddk
Well thats just not true dr_rus. You should check your math and stop spreading false information.
24" 1080p has a PPI of 91.79
32" (which is really 31,5") 1440p has a PPI of 91.79 and if you use the correct size of 31,5" it has a PPI 93.24
and here is a source: https://www.sven.de/dpi/
32" 1440p has exactly the same PPI as 24.
drac
Its a subjective thing really, resolution. I noticed a good chunk of difference going from 1080 to 1440, especially graphics in the distance when gaming. So can't wait for 4k myself, as long as I can get 60+ fps mostly max settings (minus AA). I don't see how watching movies is a problem relating to native monitor resolution, I guess if you're talking about really really low res video then yeah.
dr_rus
You are correct, looked at a wrong number. In any case, 91 PPI is way to big in my opinion. My current display has 110 and this is what I consider a good PPI for a desktop monitor.
ChisChas
So 7 years after switching from a 1080 gaming screen to a 1440 Dell U2711, the 32" LG offers me GSynch and a higher refresh but a lower PPI? Forgive me if I'm not too excited. The 32" sounds like the Asus 27" (GSynch + 144Hz) two years after the Asus screen was released?
I have read many comments, including within reviews, saying that 4K is a great step up PQ wise and I believe I will (one day) experience the same PQ upgrade I had when I switched to 1440.
What do I want? A 32" 4K gaming monitor with IPS, GSynch and a 100Hz+ refresh rate. Price? £1,000 so forget HDR and any other enhancements. Best custom 1080 Ti's will provide "acceptable" performance now and I would then upgrade again the gen after Volta to get a card able to give me 100+Hz perf.
xrodney
As you can have 40"+ UHD HDR TV for as low as $650 I do not see issue with getting UHD HDR monitor for around or even bellow $1000.
Given that smaler pannels are easier to manufacture and should cost less and most of electronics in TV is not required which should also reduce costs it should not be problem.
For HDR I would probably prefer better VA over IPS panell with glow issues.
dr_rus
Monitors usually have a much higher quality panels, especially when things like backlight uniformity are considered.
xrodney
In some cases maybe, but very few monitors can match picture quality of higher level TV, only problem there is higher input lag and unability to often disable some post processing but thats only TV electronics or firmware limitations.
And about backlight uniformity... its actualy easier to find TV with FALD than monitor with same.
Strijker
$899/999.99 for that 34 inch ultrawide.. Btw in the title it says 2 new monitors and later in the text there is a 3th monitor.. this 34 inch ultrawide, 144hz & gsync with only 2560x1080 resolution!
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UC89G-B-ultrawide-monitor
I rather have a 3440x1440 100hz which you can buy now for less.
ChisChas
I rather have a 3440x1440 100hz which you can buy now for less.
Indeed, the Asus PG348Q is £983 at Scan and the 1080Ti custom cards match this 100Hz & resolution well. Of course 4K screens are a specialist item so few being sold and for some 100Hz isn't enough so I get why 1080 & 1440 screens are still being brought to the market.
Someone has mentioned the usual elephant in the room ie IPS glow, perhaps they had better QC 7 years ago or I got lucky but I don't have IPS glow probs with my U2711.
Surely the main reason that gaming monitors have lagged behind in development is because our good friends NVidia have no competition and haven't had to offer bigger performance increases at each gen?
