LG 38UX99-W or Acer XR382CQK or Samsung 49KS8500 ???

TechLarry

TechLarry

RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
30,481
So, I'm thinking about getting all these smaller monitors off my desk and going to one big ass curved monitor.

The new one, if I choose to accept ti, will sit about 2 feet in front of me on the desk.

I'm hoping the curved design will prevent neck injuries :)

Based on quick Amazon prices, the LG is $1500.

The Samsung 49KS8500 is $1100.

I have so damn many questions I don't even know which one's to start with.

I guess first the big one. With a new nVidia 1080 card, will these be driven well enough for gaming at their native resolutions ?

LG = 3840 X 1600
SS = 3840 X 2160

At decent quality settings?

I assume both of these will run at least 60hz. I wasn't able to really figure it out from the specs.

Any reported issues with Lag on either one of these?

Do they run 4:4:4 @ 60hz at least?

I'm googling the hell out of them but some of the finer details are escaping me.

I'll just park the questions there for now and see where this heads...

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Well, the LG is not targeted at gamers per se. Neither is the KS8500. What is it you plan to use it for exactly? There are threads here that talks about both. The KS8500 has been out a bit longer so there is more talk about it.
 
TechLarry said:
I guess first the big one. With a new nVidia 1080 card, will these be driven well enough for gaming at their native resolutions ?

LG = 3840 X 1600
SS = 3840 X 2160

At decent quality settings?
Click to expand...
Different people will say different things, but I'd say yes. You won't be able to crank things up to ultra, at least not in many games, but I think it's definitely possible at high. Buying an extra 1080 at lower prices when the 1080 ti comes out may not be a bad option to keep in mind.
TechLarry said:
I assume both of these will run at least 60hz. I wasn't able to really figure it out from the specs.
Click to expand...
They most definitely can both do 60Hz, and the KS8500 can do actually do 120Hz. The problem with the KS8500 is that it won't accept a 120Hz input signal for some reason, effectively limiting you to 60Hz.
TechLarry said:
Any reported issues with Lag on either one of these?
Click to expand...
No. The monitor is fine, as are most monitors, and the TV has an impressively low input lag for a TV. I've heard no complaints, even from players of FPS games.
TechLarry said:
Do they run 4:4:4 @ 60hz at least?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
38UC99 supports 75Hz, although due to lack of FreeSync support Nvdia GPUs can't run the monitor at > 60 Hz without frameskipping or turning on the motion blur reduction mode.

As an owner of one I would recommend pairing it with an AMD GPU. Going from 60 -> 75 Hz makes a big difference.
 
Do you want great blacks and contrast ratio and you want to be ready for HDR when it kicks off for PC? Get Samsung.

Or are you more interested in pure gaming performance, fast pixel response times and slightly faster refresh rates (although apparently for AMD only. Look for GSYNC display instead if you use Nvidia). Get LG or its closest equivalent.



Its eye candy vs performance question. Cant really recommend one over the other since I dont know what you use it for and what kind of games do you play.
 
If you need a productivity monitor check out the new Phillips 42 or 43"? It's IPS. Didn't even realise it came out, I guess because the prior model had major ghosting and image retention issues.. looks like they dropped that technology. I had a look today at one of the new ones, not too shabby. Definitely not a gaming monitor or anything like that.

Stupid thing is they could've added free/active sync and made it a far wider range of market...
 
Skott said:
Well, the LG is not targeted at gamers per se. Neither is the KS8500. What is it you plan to use it for exactly? There are threads here that talks about both. The KS8500 has been out a bit longer so there is more talk about it.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everything. One computer, one big ass monitor.
 
x3sphere said:
38UC99 supports 75Hz, although due to lack of FreeSync support Nvdia GPUs can't run the monitor at > 60 Hz without frameskipping or turning on the motion blur reduction mode.

As an owner of one I would recommend pairing it with an AMD GPU. Going from 60 -> 75 Hz makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

Does AMD have a card with the nuts to drive one of these at 3840 X 1600 with high quality settings? I know there's a new card coming but AMD has been total disappointment for years now in that regard :(

I run a 7970 in one machine, and a 290x in another so I have nothing against AMD. I just didn't thing they had capable cards for this right now.
 
BB has the 49KS8500 on sale for $1099.

An important question. And this is primarily why I was interested in a curved monitor....

Is it feasible to be using this monitor 24-30" away from your face ? If not, what would be a minimum.

Bear in mind aging diabetic eye's here :)

How is the font size ? I find the pixel density of my current Acer 32" 2560 X 1440 to be just about perfect. Would the Sammy be close to this?
 
TechLarry said:
BB has the 49KS8500 on sale for $1099.

An important question. And this is primarily why I was interested in a curved monitor....

Is it feasible to be using this monitor 24-30" away from your face ? If not, what would be a minimum.

Bear in mind aging diabetic eye's here :)

How is the font size ? I find the pixel density of my current Acer 32" 2560 X 1440 to be just about perfect. Would the Sammy be close to this?
Click to expand...
Those aging diabetic eyes must have missed my post above, lol.

I believe the pixel density of a 49" 4K HDTV is about equal to a 24" 1080p monitor.
 
I'm about two feet from my 49KS8500 and view it very comfortably. I think PCDC is right about the TV's pixel density.
 
It sounds to me like the Sammy with a nice GTX-1080 is a nice setup. 4:4:4 @ 60hz, pixel density looks good, TV is on sale and a good $500 cheaper than the LG.

And it's wide enough that I don't need triple monitors any more, and the complexity that comes with that.

I wonder what iRacing will look like on this :)
 
TechLarry said:
AMD has been total disappointment for years now in that regard :(
Click to expand...
This is coming from a n Nvidia fanboy, but I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Only in the past year has AMD started to noticibley lag behind Nvidia. And thier new Vega cards show fix that. You talk like their GPUs are as bad as their CPUs.
TechLarry said:
I run a 7970 in one machine, and a 290x in another so I have nothing against AMD. I just didn't thing they had capable cards for this right now
Click to expand...
Maybe that's why you think they're not that great? Those are some old, old cards for 4K. Consider Fury X (or better yet, 2) for one of those TVs.
 
Panel said:
Not trying to be rude, just an honest suggestion that you can stay AMD and still be good for those resolutions. :p
Click to expand...

If Vega was shipping right now this probably would not even be a discussion. I'm just not sure a Fury X is enough for a 4K panel and gaming. Since the Fury X is decently inexpensive right now, I might get one to get me by until the Vega comes out and then sell it.
 
TechLarry said:
Does AMD have a card with the nuts to drive one of these at 3840 X 1600 with high quality settings? I know there's a new card coming but AMD has been total disappointment for years now in that regard :(

I run a 7970 in one machine, and a 290x in another so I have nothing against AMD. I just didn't thing they had capable cards for this right now.
Click to expand...

I have a regular Fury and it's decent enough at 3840 x 1600, you won't be able to get 75 FPS locked in newer games without turning settings down but Vega isn't that far off. I tend to drop settings a bit below max and the performance in games like Hitman has been great for me.

Also keep in mind 3840x1600 is a good bit less than full 4K. Full 4K (3840x2160) is about 35% more pixels.
 
x3sphere said:
Also keep in mind 3840x1600 is a good bit less than full 4K. Full 4K (3840x2160) is about 35% more pixels
Click to expand...
Math always surprises me. In my mind, the LG is only a little smaller than full 4K. In actuality, it's way smaller than full 4K (35%).
 
Since the width is the most important part in the two games I play (World of Warships and iRacing), that missing 35% is kind of a bonus for me. 35% less load on the card, better fps for me :)

If the Fury does well, the Fury X may end up being all I need.

I have started leaning back towards the LG. It's a more realistic sized the lag and other performance measurements are really good.

Everyone seems to mostly love it.

I think the stand is a little wobbly and the warranty is short, but I can replace both of those.

It is somewhat overpriced though.
 
Yeah it is quite expensive. Partly due to no competition I think. The price could potentially drop in a few months as Acer and Asus both have 38" ultrawides coming out, likely based on the same panel. Not sure on the exact release date of those though.

I find the size perfect. My viewing distance is about an arm's length away and it pretty much covers my FOV. I wouldn't want anything taller. Also, the curve seems to help a lot with seeing the sides. From what I've seen of the Samsung TVs they are not as aggressively curved.

edit: yeah, the KS8500 seems to have a curve radius of 4200R, while the LG is 2300R. I have a curved OLED TV also that is 5000R and you can barely notice the curve on that, makes sense for a TV though.
 
Last edited:
I very much agree with the consensus here: KS8000 is better for overall color and quality, but LG is better f you don't want the extra height and just want to do gaming exclusively.
 
It's starting to sink into me just how overpriced the LG 38" is :(
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
The LG38 is aimed at professionals though I believe. Not that you can't game on it it's just not what its aimed at. The KS8000/8500 are aimed more at tv viewers because its a tv (duh). I'm still waiting to see what comes along in 2017.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
TechLarry said:
Since the width is the most important part in the two games I play (World of Warships and iRacing), that missing 35% is kind of a bonus for me. 35% less load on the card, better fps for me :)

If the Fury does well, the Fury X may end up being all I need.

I have started leaning back towards the LG. It's a more realistic sized the lag and other performance measurements are really good.

Everyone seems to mostly love it.

I think the stand is a little wobbly and the warranty is short, but I can replace both of those.

It is somewhat overpriced though.
Click to expand...

Hey Larry, I play WoWs in Ultra-Wide, and I like it, able to shoot on screen more when using american dds !! lol :)

I'm very close to picking up a 38UC99 myself, just trying to convince myself to do that over a 4K TV
 
What's the point of paying hundreds more for a 38UC99? The input lag is about the same as the KS8500 and you get a better/larger image + HDR. Are you people running AMD cards and want to take advantage of Freesync? You can create a custom resolution of 3840x1600 and run games in 21:9 on a KS8500 for poops and giggles.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Hey Larry, I play WoWs in Ultra-Wide, and I like it, able to shoot on screen more when using american dds !! lol :)

I'm very close to picking up a 38UC99 myself, just trying to convince myself to do that over a 4K TV
Click to expand...

LOL I was just going to ask over in that forum that exact question. I still will for the benefit of others :)
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
PCDC650 said:
What's the point of paying hundreds more for a 38UC99? The input lag is about the same as the KS8500 and you get a better/larger image + HDR. Are you people running AMD cards and want to take advantage of Freesync? You can create a custom resolution of 3840x1600 and run games in 21:9 on a KS8500 for poops and giggles.
Click to expand...

60 Hz is a dealbreaker for me, 75 actually makes a big difference even just in regular desktop usage. It does feel a bit overpriced, but that along with the FreeSync support is easily worth a few hundred extra to me. I like that I don't have to switch in and out of Game mode like you do on a TV either. The input lag in 4:4:4 on the samsung sets is actually quite a bit higher

And for HDR, I have my LG OLED.
 
3440 x 1600 - That has to be a misprint.

It is a typo. From the manual:

upload_2017-1-25_13-56-37.png



It looks like they have a 34" AND a 38" in the new series.

Whew :)

Comparison
commences
 
Last edited:
Longer Warranty. LG = 1 Year. Acer = 3 years.

Better stand. It's been reported the LG stand is a bit wobbly. Not a deal breaker for me though.

Stand rotation. LG = 0. Acer = 35 deg.
 
TechLarry said:
New player!

Acer 38"

XR382CQK

https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XR382CQ...&qid=1485133010&sr=8-1&keywords=Acer+XR382CQK

$200 Cheaper. Gonna start doing some comparisons.

My current WS monitor is their 32" 2K @ 2560 X 1440 and I love it.
Click to expand...

Digital Viper-X- said:
Looks like it's the same as the LG, same panel as well, so maybe for the price alone you get that benefit.
Click to expand...

TechLarry said:
Longer Warranty. LG = 1 Year. Acer = 3 years.

Better stand. It's been reported the LG stand is a bit wobbly. Not a deal breaker for me though.

Stand rotation. LG = 0. Acer = 35 deg.
Click to expand...
I think there's enough reason to not only make the Acer a new player, but to instead stop considering the LG at all. The Acer is better in every sense. I see no reason to continue considering the LG. Now, when it comes to the Acer vs the Samsung, I maintain my position. The Samsung is just a vastly superior deal. If the 2 were equal in cost, it would still be worth considering. But hundreds more for what is in many ways an inferior product? I'm not too sure…
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
x3sphere said:
60 Hz is a dealbreaker for me, 75 actually makes a big difference even just in regular desktop usage. It does feel a bit overpriced, but that along with the FreeSync support is easily worth a few hundred extra to me. I like that I don't have to switch in and out of Game mode like you do on a TV either. The input lag in 4:4:4 on the samsung sets is actually quite a bit higher

And for HDR, I have my LG OLED.
Click to expand...
Input lag on that LG OLED is even higher. I can understand folks with AMD cards wanting a 38UC99. Just sucks that there isn't a card out now that can fully take advantage of that res + 75Hz running most new titles.

BTW, input lag on the KS8500 with 4:4:4 vs Game Mode is really negligible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top