LG 31MU97

M

Mr__Death

n00b
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
27
I found that Fry's had the LG 31MU97 in stock, so I picked one up today.

When I get some time I'll provide a little review since there doesn't seem to be much info out about this display currently.

y1KaRPwl.jpg

OzOh2RXl.jpg

atwXiVsl.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice. What was your old monitor? Looks tiny next to the new one. Nice case. I have a carbide air too. :)
 
Just noticed the price on Frys.com, $1399. Not bad especially considering this is a 4096x2160 (17:9) panel. 4K is getting a lot cheaper!

Looking forward to your impressions.
 
Does the monitor have any power supply coil whine or humming issues? I'd be interested to find out if you know, thanks.

Also does this have an external power brick or an internal power supply? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
dragonageinquisition said:
Does the monitor have any power supply coil whine or humming issues? I'd be interested to find out if you know, thanks.

Also does this have an external power brick or an internal power supply? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Wrong monitor.. please ignore..
 
Last edited:
xringx said:
This has a power brick. I have behind my monitor, could easily move to the floor.

I hear nothing from my monitor or brick..
Click to expand...

Interesting according to LG website it has internal power supply. Are you sure you have the 31MU97 and not the 34UM95?

xaPJxOw.png


Also the image from the LG website of the 31MU97 clearly shows a 3 prong power input which indicates an internal power supply, if it had a power brick it would have a small circle for the AC input.

Either way I will pick one up tomorrow to see if it exhibits any power supply noise and if its suitable to use as a near-field monitor without ear plugs.
 
Last edited:
xringx said:
I just picked up this one from Microcenter for $1299.00 and I freaking love it after 3hrs.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you have the 31MU97 4K AH-IPS monitor?

$1299 USD is very cheap, over here in Australia it will be $2499 AUD.

Does microcentre ship overseas? I would love to get one at that price.
 
Gents... I am very wrong...I did pick up the 34UC97..Sorry for the misleading info... Will edit my posts for posterity..

My only excuse was its was late last nite and clearly I was tired while researching this 60hz thing..
 
34UC97 is 1440p, 31MU97 is true 4K. Dont know how you could confuse the two, anywayz.
 
So, here are some initial first impressions:

Pros:
1. I really like the 4096x2160 resolution. I was worried I might not like it, but it gives you just a bit of extra room over UHD.
2. This monitor is SST, so it reports just like any other display to Windows. Displayport 1.2 is enabled by default.
3. The colors are great, and the display comes with a factory calibration test report.
4. The stand is well built and provides for portrait and landscape modes.
5. I don't hear any whine from the monitor.
6. It appears to scale well when set to non-native resolutions.
7. 3840x2160 @ 60Hz works great.
8. 31" is large enough that I can use the display without any scaling enabled. Though I may bump up to125%.
9. Response time is OK (tested in BF4). I will have to play more to really be able to give valid feedback. I have the settings configured for the fastest response time right now.
10. No external power brick...I don't mind one way or the other..but having everything integrated is a plus overall.
11. VESA mount compatible.

Negatives:
1. I am currently running NVidia 670 SLI , and max out at 50Hz @ 4096x2160. I tried making a custom config, but it won't work. I am currently going through the mini-displayport to display port cable that the display came with. I will try a full size display port connector next week, to see if it makes a difference.

2. The screws on the back of the stand that attach to the mount did not screw in very tightly.

3. TBD how games support 4096x2160, I have to run BF4 in borderless mode. Otherwise it kept switching into a window. I do not have this problem at 3840x2160. The display still looks pretty good at 3840x2160, so that is still an option.

Notes:
The other monitor in the background is a Seiki 50" 4K. I've been using that as my primary display for over a year now. The size of the 50" was cumbersome at times, and I really wanted 60hz 4K.
 
Last edited:
Mr__Death said:
So, here are some initial first impressions:

Pros:
1. I really like the 4096x2160 resolution. I was worried I might not like it, but it gives you just a bit of extra room over UHD.
2. This monitor is SST, so it reports just like any other display to Windows. Displayport 1.2 is enabled by default.
3. The colors are great, and the display comes with a factory calibration test report.
4. The stand is well built and provides for portrait and landscape modes.
5. I don't hear any whine from the monitor.
6. It appears to scale well when set to non-native resolutions.
7. 3840x2160 @ 60Hz works great.
8. 31" is large enough that I can use the display without any scaling enabled. Though I may bump up to125%.
9. Response time is OK (tested in BF4). I will have to play more to really be able to give valid feedback. I have the settings configured for the fastest response time right now.
10. No external power brick...I don't mind one way or the other..but having everything integrated is a plus overall.
11. VESA mount compatible, but you will need a plate that the display does not come with.

Negatives:
1. I am currently running NVidia 670 SLI , and max out at 50Hz @ 4096x2160. I tried making a custom config, but it won't work. I am currently going through the mini-displayport to display port cable that the display came with. I will try a full size display port connector next week, to see if it makes a difference.

2. The screws on the back of the stand that attach to the mount did not screw in very tightly.

3. TBD how games support 4096x2160, I have to run BF4 in borderless mode. Otherwise it kept switching into a window. I do not have this problem at 3840x2160. The display still looks pretty good at 3840x2160, so that is still an option.

Notes:
The other monitor in the background is a Seiki 50" 4K. I've been using that as my primary display for over a year now. The size of the 50" was cumbersome at times, and I really wanted 60hz 4K.
Click to expand...

Could you please comment more on the mount requiring a special plate?
I thought you just removed the stand and it exposed the VESA mount holes?
 
I guess I'm still confused.

When you remove the stand it looks like it's exposing 4 screw holes correct?
Are those 4 screw holes not at the standard 100 x 100 dimensions?


I guess I'm trying to figure out if my monoprice wall-mount won't work without some sort of adapter from LG?
Odd
 
I guess looking at that image it looks like the 4 holes on the monitor itself are perhaps farther apart than standard 100x100 VESA mount holes.

Huge disappointment if so. Just a poor design and money grab for an adapter if this is really the case.
 
*Pros for this monitor
- $600 cheaper than Samsung UD970
- Quieter than the Samsung UD970 slightly - back of monitor has a tiny buzz that's almost imperceptible. The Samsung was had a audible whine that depends on brightness of the screen. If a game is uber bright the Samsung has a noticeably louder whine. The LG seems pretty much inaudible whatever its being thrown at.
- The matte screen is much clearer than the Samsung UD970 which has a slightly grainy coating

Cons
- Weaker SST scaler than the Samsung. The Samsung UD970 can support a 15 foot 26awg DP cable at full 3840x2160@60Hz. The LG can't do the same at 4096x2160 OR 3840x2160 at above 30Hz. If you are running a longer cable run you will need a (more expensive) thicker DP cable than with the Samsung. Which will eat into the cost difference between the monitors since only DVI Gear sells a 24 awg DP cable right now and its like $125 shipped.
- Some games don't support 4096x2160, will have to run at non-native resolution either accept black bars (this monitor basically turns into a 29" monitor then) or accept a blurrier image by running 3840x2160. Interestingly some really old games can support 4096x2160 no problem, while some new games only have 16:9 options.
 
Think I'm gonna keep the Samsung UD970. The LG 31MU97 is a great screen...in most ways probably better than the Samsung. Problem is 17:9 aspect ratio is a pain in video and gaming.

Most games only support 16:10, 16:9, or 5:4/4:3. 17:9 is an unsupported aspect ratio in most games, and most of the games that support 17:9 don't actually support it really, 4096x2160 is a resolution you can select but it just ends up rendering in 16:9 with black bars.

This means for 1080p video and for 90% of games its a 29 inch 3840x2160 monitor. And that wouldn't be so bad except the black bars make it look like a gigantic bezel.

Plus I'm not sure what the future is for 17:9. I mean its nice that it's Cinema 4K resolution but video gets downsampled to 16:9 for consumers, and 4K Bluray coming out next year is 16:9, not 17:9....if this was a 16:10 monitor like 3840x2400 I would definitely keep it over the Samsung since at least it's a support aspect ratio for gaming.
 
Last edited:
I found that 3840x2160 doesn't really lose much sharpness on the LG compared to 4096x2160. Just testing it out by typing some text in notepad and switching back and forth, it doesn't seem to make much a difference. I have the scaling set on wide currently, I also tried going back and forth between 1:1 and wide. There is some slight softness to text once scaled, but I don't think it is something that is noticeable in games.

Also, there is an option that is interesting to play with on games called Super Resolution+ under Screen->Picture. It enhances edges and can make some games pop a little more.
 
Mr__Death said:
I found that 3840x2160 doesn't really lose much sharpness on the LG compared to 4096x2160. Just testing it out by typing some text in notepad and switching back and forth, it doesn't seem to make much a difference. I have the scaling set on wide currently, I also tried going back and forth between 1:1 and wide. There is some slight softness to text once scaled, but I don't think it is something that is noticeable in games.

Also, there is an option that is interesting to play with on games called Super Resolution+ under Screen->Picture. It enhances edges and can make some games pop a little more.
Click to expand...

Yeah but are you doing 1:1/Original aspect ratio on the monitor settings? You should have black bars. If you run the monitor as "Wide" all it does is stretch the image to 17:9 which means everyone's faces gets stretched 7%. It looks really weird in some games.
 
dragonageinquisition said:
Yeah but are you doing 1:1/Original aspect ratio on the monitor settings? You should have black bars. If you run the monitor as "Wide" all it does is stretch the image to 17:9 which means everyone's faces gets stretched 7%. It looks really weird in some games.
Click to expand...

Hey dragon,

How is color accuracy? comparing both? I sill have a week to return my samsung
 
So far I have been able to get all the games I have tried to run 4096x2160. Diablo III didn't provide an option for 4096x2160, but I worked around it with Windowed full screen mode. I did try full screen at 3840x2160 on wide vs. 1:1 and did notice a bit of stretch on things like my characters portrait. It is not perfect, but I don't feel it detracts enough that I would not use it if I had to. It is nothing compared to the distortion I used to deal with when I ran a surround setup.

Games so far that I have managed to play at native res:
*Bioshock Infinite
*Titanfall
* Battlefield 4 (borderless window mode)
* World of Warcraft
* Diablo III (Windowed full screen mode)
* Quake Live (native desktop)
* Quake II (Q2 Pro Client native desktop)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know, basically anything that can run fullscreen Windowed mode can do 4096x2160, but a lot of games don't have a fullscreen windowed mode. I'd say probably a majority of AAA games (read: multiplatform) are fullscreen or fixed aspect ratio windowed, and most aren't compatible with the fullscreen windowed hack using Windows Bordless Gaming App.

Also most of the games I tried that had 4096x2160 as a menu option had black bars when rendering (which meant the games were limited to 16:9 internally), like Witcher 2, The Evil Within, or running GeDeSato on FF13. BF4 can run 4096x2160 but all the menus and cinematics are 16:9 so you have to deal with black bars for those things. Mass Effect series only run at 16:9, 4:3, or 16:10, and 4096x2160 isn't a menu choice at all.

Basically if the only games you play are PC-only games or Xbox One/PC-only, then 4096x2160 can work most of the time without stretching if you include using Windows Borderless Gaming App.

But most multiplat AAAs and indie games don't seem to work with 17:9. A real shame, other than the aspect ratio I like the LG more than the Samsung. Clarity is much better due to the fact the Samsung has that grainy matte screen while the LG is just plain matte.

Mr__Death said:
I did try full screen at 3840x2160 on wide vs. 1:1 and did notice a bit of stretch on things like my characters portrait. It is not perfect, but I don't feel it detracts enough that I would not use it if I had to. It is nothing compared to the distortion I used to deal with when I ran a surround setup.
Click to expand...

Everything is relative I guess. I really can't stand the 16:9 -> 17:9 stretching while running the monitor as Wide. But I can see if you are coming from a surround setup it seems okay. Really for most people I think the price of the monitor compared the competition at 30"+ UHD all being around $2,000 might make it worth it even with the aspect ratio tradeoff. For me though, I'll probably just keep the Samsung for 3-4 years until 4K matures and see what's around in the market then.
 
Last edited:
So I found a little quirk that I'll have to look into.

I turned the monitor on this morning and it defaulted to 3840x2160 resolution.
After settings the resolution to 4096x2160, I turned the monitor off and on again and the resolution remained 4096x2160..so strange that it changed the first time.

In the NVIDIA Control Panel it shows 3840x2160 as native. Under the Windows Display Screen Resolution form it shows 4096x2160 as Recommended.

I still haven't managed to get the panel to do 60hz at 4096x2160. If I attempt to create a custom resolution it will test successfully, but not save. I did notice that the 4096x2160 resolution shows up as custom.

Using the EVGA Pixel Clock OC utility I can only go up to 53Hz...looking at the NVIDIA spec sheet for the GTX 670 the max should be 4096x2160 @ 60hz.
 
Mr__Death said:
So I found a little quirk that I'll have to look into.

I turned the monitor on this morning and it defaulted to 3840x2160 resolution.
After settings the resolution to 4096x2160, I turned the monitor off and on again and the resolution remained 4096x2160..so strange that it changed the first time.

In the NVIDIA Control Panel it shows 3840x2160 as native. Under the Windows Display Screen Resolution form it shows 4096x2160 as Recommended.

I still haven't managed to get the panel to do 60hz at 4096x2160. If I attempt to create a custom resolution it will test successfully, but not save. I did notice that the 4096x2160 resolution shows up as custom.

Using the EVGA Pixel Clock OC utility I can only go up to 53Hz...looking at the NVIDIA spec sheet for the GTX 670 the max should be 4096x2160 @ 60hz.
Click to expand...

So using display port you aren't able to get 60hz at full Rez?
 
I'm using the Displayport to Mini Displayport cable that the monitor came with. I'm connected to the Mini Displayport connector on the monitor, with the full size Displayport end connected to my video card.

I have a regular 10ft displayport 1.2 cable coming tomorrow, but would not have thought there would have been a difference between the Mini Displayport and full size Displayport inputs.

According to the manual 50hz at 4096x2160 is a preset display mode. The manual also recommends a 780, but I thought my 670 would be able to drive it. 50hz is way better then the 30hz I used to live with on my Seiki, but I would really like the full 60Hz.

There are no issues running 60Hz at UHD 4K at least.. I would go ahead and upgrade my video cards, but I was really wanting to wait until some new cards released with more then 4GB of memory. My GTX 670 SLI setup is actually performing well enough at 4K right now that I feel like I can wait until the next spring refresh.
 
Mr__Death said:
I'm using the Displayport to Mini Displayport cable that the monitor came with. I'm connected to the Mini Displayport connector on the monitor, with the full size Displayport end connected to my video card.

I have a regular 10ft displayport 1.2 cable coming tomorrow, but would not have thought there would have been a difference between the Mini Displayport and full size Displayport inputs.

According to the manual 50hz at 4096x2160 is a preset display mode. The manual also recommends a 780, but I thought my 670 would be able to drive it. 50hz is way better then the 30hz I used to live with on my Seiki, but I would really like the full 60Hz.

There are no issues running 60Hz at UHD 4K at least.. I would go ahead and upgrade my video cards, but I was really wanting to wait until some new cards released with more then 4GB of memory. My GTX 670 SLI setup is actually performing well enough at 4K right now that I feel like I can wait until the next spring refresh.
Click to expand...

I don't understand...the guide in this thread shows full 60hz at 4096 Rez.
Can't say I want this monitor If 60hz isn't available at the panels full Rez.
 
So to make things more confusing in regards to this monitors native resolution, here is the EDID info:

8v5fGoI.jpg
 
Not sure why the monitor is listed at 27" in the driver info.

After playing around a bit with custom resolutions in the NVidia control panel, I have been able to get up to 57 Hz now on my GTX 670 at 4096x2160 using CVT Reduced Blank.
 
I decided to try using the Picture by Picture mode to run HDMI and display port to my LG 31MU97 and run in surround mode.

While I would much rather use SST over display port, I now finally have 4096x2160 running at 60hz on my GTX 670. Very curious to know if anyone using a new card has any problem running 4096x2160 just over display port.

I can't tell I'm using surround using this work around, so if for some reason I find that the GTX 670 is not supported I guess I could live with this until I upgrade.
 
I'm interested in more comparison of the Samsung UD970 and the LG 31MU97. I'm planning on purchasing two 4K monitors, and am looking at both. I'd love to save $1200 by going with the LG, but I have two concerns. Photos would be fantastic, if possible.


  • Since I'll have two displays, the bezel size is important. It seems the LG has a much thicker bezel compared to the Samsung? It's always hard to tell in press photos.
  • How would you compare the picture quality of the two displays. Are black levels much different? Backlight bleed? Color uniformity? I'm a graphic designer and photographer, so picture quality is very important to me.



Thanks!
 
Thanks for the feedback guys. But is someone able to compare the responsiveness for gaming between the UD970 and the 31MU97.

Does either seem to have more input lagg than the other, or is the fluidity better on one than the other, etc.?

Can anyone comment on those please? Thanks in advance.
 
Both panels have Overdrive so you can't compare them directly and I don't really have the expertise to compare this sort of thing. But I do think the LG has a better panel, it just seems a lot clearer the images, whereas the Samsung being semi glossy makes it a little blurrier. Also the one LG I got either hit the panel lottery or something because there are no dead pixels. I'm on my third Samsung UD970 replacement and each one has at least 2-3 dead pixels. Kind of disappointing for a much more expensive panel.
 
dragonageinquisition said:
Both panels have Overdrive so you can't compare them directly and I don't really have the expertise to compare this sort of thing. But I do think the LG has a better panel, it just seems a lot clearer the images, whereas the Samsung being semi glossy makes it a little blurrier. Also the one LG I got either hit the panel lottery or something because there are no dead pixels. I'm on my third Samsung UD970 replacement and each one has at least 2-3 dead pixels. Kind of disappointing for a much more expensive panel.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity...have you had other 4k panels before the LG & Sammy?

These are both way better than the TN's I'm assuming?
 
turbineseaplane said:
Just out of curiosity...have you had other 4k panels before the LG & Sammy?

These are both way better than the TN's I'm assuming?
Click to expand...

I had a LG 49UB8500 TV, 49inch IPS 4K TV. I've only ever owned one TN panel outside of laptops, a Dell 1907FP from back like 2002. Every monitor I've had so far has been IPS. I can't stand the TN panels on laptops which is why I buy IPS exclusively. TN's weakness is mainly color shift and viewing angles. I do think that 28" is too small for 4K and a 32" monitor alleviates the small size of icons and text better. Windows scaling sucks and borks a lot of games and apps so you need to be able to use windows at default scaling currently, or keep restarting Windows to change scaling %.
 
Last edited:
dragonageinquisition said:
Both panels have Overdrive so you can't compare them directly and I don't really have the expertise to compare this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

What I meant is just generaly moving the mouse cursor fast everywhere in a fps game, if you notice more delay on one panel to the other?

And is fast animation more blurry on one image than the other?
 
I doubt most of the people buying this monitor are still running older video cards, but for reference I found the following table of supported graphics cards on the LG Korean product page for the LG 31MU97:

tSKpTSR.jpg


According to LG my GTX 670's will only support 50Hz at 4096x2160. I have managed to get it to 57Hz using a custom resolution, so that is the max "unsupported" frequency I guess.

Input Lag: I have the display set to the most responsive setting, and don't find it to be an issue. I used to game on my Seiki with 1080p @ 120Hz with very low input lag, I can notice a difference. It may be more due to the fact that my display was running at a higher refresh rate, then input lag. Honestly if you can't notice any lag typing or navigating a menu. You a are probably ok from an input lag perspective.

Quality:
The display I am using is basically perfect, zero bad pixels of any kind that I can see. I have ran the monitor through a color calibration with a Spyder4Pro and it reported 100% Adobe RGB coverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top