Owners of both 38GL950G and 48" CX

S

shadow2761

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Messages
455
I have the 38GL950G, and although it is a beautiful and speedy gaming monitor, I kind of miss the extra eye candy of an OLED picture.

So I was wondering if there are any owners here of both these displays side-by-side, that could give their views on them both primarily as a gaming display. Besides the size and space requirements, which one did you like better overall?

I am pretty sure there is a few members here who own both these displays, hopefully they can chime in.

Thanks.
 
If the fan doesn't bother you, no point in oled. Like I had already mentioned in the Predator X38 impression thread the SDR image quality is the same between LG IPS 37.5 and LG OLED, when both are calibrated. Only go for OLED if you need high quality HDR performance and black color.
Also you can buy the OLED and return it if you dont like it and then post what you think firsthand.
 
I like that monitor but I feel anything less than 4k after being on my 55" Samsung is a downgrade? Is that wrong to think? I am starting to think it may make sense to wait until the 2021 models come out to upgrade. But then it feels like a waste on this monitor is the odd part.
 
dpoverlord said:
I like that monitor but I feel anything less than 4k after being on my 55" Samsung is a downgrade? Is that wrong to think? I am starting to think it may make sense to wait until the 2021 models come out to upgrade. But then it feels like a waste on this monitor is the odd part.
Click to expand...
It's all about viewing distance vs size vs resolution vs aspect ratio. 38" 3840x1600 will be narrower than 3840x2160 vertically but the smaller size means gains in sharpness at close viewing distances.
 
Murzilka is actually 100% correct. PPI is what gives the clarity and resolution.

The 38" GL950 i have looks like 4K with 32x AA compared to my 4K LG 55" OLED E6 display I already got.

But I would still prefer the larger display for image quality because the bigger screen enables me to witness some minute detail more easily because of it's sheer size, such certain detail I am talking about can be harder to detect on my LG 38" GL950G because of the smaller screen size.
 
shadow2761 said:
Murzilka is actually 100% correct. PPI is what gives the clarity and resolution.
Click to expand...
Murzilka said:
ppi defines the resolution, rather than the resolution itself.
Click to expand...
PPI, eyesight and viewing distance are the 3 variable that would matter I would imagine.

After all 2K IMAX on giant screen look great (and that I would imagine is incredibly bad PPI) and people with 20/20 cannot make difference between 2K and 4K in a large proportion of the seating distance of a movie theater.

The higher PPI smaller screen will be closer to your eyes than the 4K tv.
 
shadow2761 said:
Murzilka is actually 100% correct. PPI is what gives the clarity and resolution.

The 38" GL950 i have looks like 4K with 32x AA compared to my 4K LG 55" OLED E6 display I already got.

But I would still prefer the larger display for image quality because the bigger screen enables me to witness some minute detail more easily because of it's sheer size, such certain detail I am talking about can be harder to detect on my LG 38" GL950G because of the smaller screen size.
Click to expand...

You cannot draw conclusions about clarity just by measuring PPI by itself. In that case a 6 inch phone display with 480p resolution must offer better detail and clarity than an 88 inch 8k screen right? You telling me I will see greater texture detail and much greater clarity on far distant objects on the 480p screen than the 8k screen just because the PPI is higher? I have a 27" 1440p screen and 48" 4k. Does the 27" look more clear and detailed just because it has a higher PPI? Hell no, the 4k blows it out the water.
 
Might be different to you, but the smaller screen with the higher PPI looks noticeably sharper to me than a larger screen with a higher resolution but smaller ppi.
 
Sighhh if you actually believe that PPI has powers to do things like make 144p look better than 16k then I'm done.
 
If I run a game on my LG CX 4K 48" TV without scaling at 1440p, I get the equivalent of a 31.5" 2560x1440 screen. Compared to the full viewing area 3840x2160, it does not really look significantly worse because at that point for the same viewing distance the frame is much smaller, making it harder for me to see those very fine details that are apparent at the full res. If I reduce my viewing distance from about 1m down to whatever would be more suitable for a ~32" 1440p display, then I could see the difference. Same if I enable scaling so 2560x1440 is shown at the full screen area of my 48" display but with the added blur of not having perfect pixel mapping at this res. Integer scaled full screen area 1080p tends to be a more stark difference simply because it has far less pixels to work with from the start.

To me 1440p is a good sweet spot for screens that are smaller than 32" 16:9. For the record if you run the LG CX at 3840x1600, you get a ~43" version of that res. So the 38" wil look sharper but the difference might even out a bit if you reduce the viewing distance compared to the 48" behemoth.

"Clarity" is the wrong term to use here as what you are experiencing is really not being able to tell apart individual pixels.
 
Ok so after a few more hrs of gaming on my 48" CX, I have to say I really do prefer my LG 38GL950G monitor for gaming.

In all honesty, for SDR gaming the 38GL950G picture quality is just as good if not better than the CX. Yes the CX has better blacks and brighter lights, but the 38GL950G has much smoother and faster response that is noticeable and alot more comforting.

Ofcourse for HDR gaming the CX will blow the doors off of my 38GL950G but I am not doing HDR gaming atm. I bought the CX as an alternative to my 38GL950 for single player non-competative PC gaming. But I do not see a huge enough improvement in SDR pic quality on the CX to warrant to keep it.

I am really considering returning the CX if possible or selling it as it was just meant to be a gaming display for me. I am really trying to like the CX more but the verdict for me is, it's not a more desirable display over my 38GL950G unfortunately :(
 
shadow2761 said:
Ok so after a few more hrs of gaming on my 48" CX, I have to say I really do prefer my LG 38GL950G monitor for gaming.

In all honesty, for SDR gaming the 38GL950G picture quality is just as good if not better than the CX. Yes the CX has better blacks and brighter lights, but the 38GL950G has much smoother and faster response that is noticeable and alot more comforting.

Ofcourse for HDR gaming the CX will blow the doors off of my 38GL950G but I am not doing HDR gaming atm. I bought the CX as an alternative to my 38GL950 for single player non-competative PC gaming. But I do not see a huge enough improvement in SDR pic quality on the CX to warrant to keep it.

I am really considering returning the CX if possible or selling it as it was just meant to be a gaming display for me. I am really trying to like the CX more but the verdict for me is, it's not a more desirable display over my 38GL950G unfortunately :(
Click to expand...

you know, objectively the OLED should be better in nearly all regards. But subjectively this might not be the case. There have been numerous people now preferring the image quality of this 38" IPS over the 48" OLED, people who have both screens next to each other rather than someone with one but not the other & seemingly without preferential bias. I think it goes to show that the paper specs don't tell the whole story when choosing a display to live with for day-to-day PC usage. Also that brightness, PPI, high refresh rate and aspect ratio cannot be ignored as easily when dealing with PC monitors vs using a large 16:9 TV as a replacement. Personally i prefer to have my focus gaze/gate (for lack of a better term) nearfield, just like i prefer nearfield studio monitors. I know i can stare at a large screen a few meters away and get the equivalent PPI but i much prefer to have my screen at 'reading' distance if you get what i mean, just allowing my eyes to naturally focus on the grain of the monitor just like the grain of a news paper.

But that's me and honestly if i could afford both screens i would use both as they were intended.. but i can't afford either lol :cry:
 
Does BFI help with the smoothness for you? The problem with the OLED compared to IPS is the pixel response is literally too fast which causes movement to feel juttery from the sample and hold effect.
 
shadow2761 said:
Ok so after a few more hrs of gaming on my 48" CX, I have to say I really do prefer my LG 38GL950G monitor for gaming.

In all honesty, for SDR gaming the 38GL950G picture quality is just as good if not better than the CX. Yes the CX has better blacks and brighter lights, but the 38GL950G has much smoother and faster response that is noticeable and alot more comforting.

Ofcourse for HDR gaming the CX will blow the doors off of my 38GL950G but I am not doing HDR gaming atm. I bought the CX as an alternative to my 38GL950 for single player non-competative PC gaming. But I do not see a huge enough improvement in SDR pic quality on the CX to warrant to keep it.

I am really considering returning the CX if possible or selling it as it was just meant to be a gaming display for me. I am really trying to like the CX more but the verdict for me is, it's not a more desirable display over my 38GL950G unfortunately :(
Click to expand...
This is what I've been telling in my Predator X38 impressions thread, and so much shit was thrown at me at the time. Incredible how ferociously people can reject the truth...
 
Murzilka said:
This is what I've been telling in my Predator X38 impressions thread, and so much shit was thrown at me at the time. Incredible how ferociously people can reject the truth...
Click to expand...
People that think the CX is some exceptional holy unbeatable product are COMPLETELY DELUSIONAL. Like they seriously need a shot of risperidone. Or they don't actually own the product and just see the specs on paper and masturbate to the false reality. If I could trade my CX for a brand new FW900 right now I probably would.

The CX is a glorified beta test and OLED instant response time is a negative not a plus due to sample and hold (until BFI is functional).
 
Last edited:
Lol what do i do? I am finding it difficult to sell the CX, not many interested atm it seems.

I am asking $2500 AU on local selling platform, it is brand new for $2800 AU.

Do I need to drop the price more?
 
GNUse_the_force said:
you know, objectively the OLED should be better in nearly all regards. But subjectively this might not be the case. There have been numerous people now preferring the image quality of this 38" IPS over the 48" OLED, people who have both screens next to each other rather than someone with one but not the other & seemingly without preferential bias. I think it goes to show that the paper specs don't tell the whole story when choosing a display to live with for day-to-day PC usage. Also that brightness, PPI, high refresh rate and aspect ratio cannot be ignored as easily when dealing with PC monitors vs using a large 16:9 TV as a replacement. Personally i prefer to have my focus gaze/gate (for lack of a better term) nearfield, just like i prefer nearfield studio monitors. I know i can stare at a large screen a few meters away and get the equivalent PPI but i much prefer to have my screen at 'reading' distance if you get what i mean, just allowing my eyes to naturally focus on the grain of the monitor just like the grain of a news paper.

But that's me and honestly if i could afford both screens i would use both as they were intended.. but i can't afford either lol :cry:
Click to expand...

That's me too.

I was using a 55" C9 for a while as a daily driver at a comfortable distance for the size and it felt weird. It felt like I wasn't sitting at a computer so I didn't feel as fluidly productive as I would have been with a more "traditional" monitor.

You know, we may just be getting old. I've been sitting in front of a computer at a pretty well defined range for seriously 30 years now, maybe everything but that doesn't feel like being on a computer?

Either way, when I went back to a more traditional computer monitor (34" LG ultrawide) I definitely enjoyed using my computer more. It's just more comfortable.

One thing I will say is the G9 can provide that "I'm using a computer" feeling of comfort while providing the "impressiveness" of using something like an OLED. Not that they are the same picture quality, just that the monitor is fun as shit to play games on because it's got a wow factor. If you can get over the pricetag and the technical limitations, seriously give it a try. I got one for my mother because she wanted "two big monitors but one" (she's old) and that seemed to fit the bill for her, so I set it up to test it for a bit on my machine (just to make sure there were no dead pixels). I was honestly impressed. There were some of the usual slight uniformity and other panel permutations you always see, but not bad, and the size and ergonomics were impressive. I didn't mess around too much trying to push high bit rates/resolutions/refresh rates/etc. so if you're looking for their 240hz I don't know if they have that sorted yet. My mom absolutely loves the monitor for her purposes - she has as much real estate as two 27" monitors side by side but it's all one screen so her traditional approach to computing isn't interrupted.
 
We judge size on its own in our brains, not just from our perspective but also in absolute. I just don't find a TV sized display at a distance to feel the same as a monitor one close up.

I haven't tried an oled but I worry it would trigger that "distant TV" feeling if I did and have to return it. I've been on 4k60 for six years now (five of those with gsync) and am thinking of getting an IPS 4K120 like the acer xb3 soon to go with my rtx 3080 once I find one. I need a display for both work and play.
 
Last edited:
shadow2761 said:
Ok so after a few more hrs of gaming on my 48" CX, I have to say I really do prefer my LG 38GL950G monitor for gaming.

In all honesty, for SDR gaming the 38GL950G picture quality is just as good if not better than the CX. Yes the CX has better blacks and brighter lights, but the 38GL950G has much smoother and faster response that is noticeable and alot more comforting.

Ofcourse for HDR gaming the CX will blow the doors off of my 38GL950G but I am not doing HDR gaming atm. I bought the CX as an alternative to my 38GL950 for single player non-competative PC gaming. But I do not see a huge enough improvement in SDR pic quality on the CX to warrant to keep it.

I am really considering returning the CX if possible or selling it as it was just meant to be a gaming display for me. I am really trying to like the CX more but the verdict for me is, it's not a more desirable display over my 38GL950G unfortunately :(
Click to expand...
Are you running both at same framerate? While the higher refresh rate of the 38 might help for making it feel smoother (if you can run games at that framerate), at 120 Hz the OLED should have better motion clarity due to its near-instant response time. BFI would improve that even further but using VRR may be smoother feeling. It's also possible you simply enjoy the effect of the 38's higher response time blurring frames together a little bit.

To me the whole lineup of 38" 3840x1600 high refresh rate models is overpriced. The Acer X38 is still over 2000 euros, the LG 38GL950G has dropped from 2000 to about 1560, might be Black Friday sales. The CX48 is 1200, I bought mine for 1400. You can of course decide which you prefer and are willing to spend money on but for me, it's not the 38" models. If we ignore costs, I still prefer the OLED for its sublime HDR and full 4K res. I can always run it at 3840x1600 if I want the ultrawide experience instead.

I have adapted to the CX 48" quite well. The last point that made it just right was mounting it on a floor stand that lets me put it further away than my desk allowed. There's still no going around the fact that it is a very large TV with the pros and cons that come with that.
 
I tested almost side by side the OLED 1080p@120hz and the Acer X38 native resolution@144hz, and the Acer was much smoother. The g-sync module is not for the laughs in there. It does wonders to gameplay smoothness.
I am sure same applies to the LG GL950 and the Dell Alienware.

This is how it feels gaming on a 38" 24:10 144hz hardware gsync monitor in SDR:

402609_1605825180598.png
 
kasakka said:
at 120 Hz the OLED should have better motion clarity due to its near-instant response time.
Click to expand...

Instant response on sample and hold tech is incompatible with our Biology. At a constant 120fps, or close, maybe it is changing fast enough to not be noticeable but not my experience yet.

Just comparing the ol hl2 lost coast to an older 120hz TN panel the CX feels worse. Maybe that has changed with CX updates but i doubt
 
Last edited:
The more I have been using the 48" CX the more I am inclined to keep it. Mainly because the HDR game picture quality is incredible. SDR does not have as much wow factor compared to my 38" 950G, but HDR is truly on another level.

I may just keep them both and have best of both world.

I find it strange though, some games at 4k120 HDR on the 48"CX is buttery smooth, like Gears 5. Gears 5 feels almost instantly responsive and has that very nice smooth feeling but, other games like Star Wars Fallen Jedi Order @ 4k120 HDR has a very noticeable lag to it which is very unpleasant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top