LG 38UC99 - 37.5'' 3840x1600 75Hz IPS FreeSync

I

igluk

Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
718
Didn't see it mentioned here -

Size: 37.5''
Resolution: 3840x1600 Ultrawide 24:10
Pixel density: 111 ppi
Panel type: AH-IPS
Curve: 2300R
Gamut: 105% sRGB
Freesync range: 52-75hz

ljlj.jpg


hardware.info got a sample early, they already measured all kinds of parameters, including response, input lag, contrast, deltaE etc.

LG 38UC99-W test results
LG 38UC99-W specifications

It also mentions an "LG 1ms Motion Blur Reduction" in the specs, which is a bit strange for a 75hz display.

There is also a kinda erroneous press release:
LG 4K monitor

Availability is supposed to be "Late September". Don't believe pricing has been officially announced yet.

The upcoming Acer XR382CQK should have same panel. (LM375UW1 or LM375QW1)
 
Last edited:
That looks interesting. about 1.3" taller and 3" wider than my 34".
 
i am all for competition, but a monitor at this resolution and refresh rate simply can not be driven by anything AMD has on the market today for Freesync. Hopefully until release AMd will deliver some single card with the msucle to handle it, or the Freesync will become a gimmick. If the 34" Acer with freesync is any hint, NVIDIA cards will not reach 75hz on the freesync version.
 
geok1ng said:
resolution and refresh rate simply can not be driven by anything AMD has on the market today for Freesync. Hopefully until release AMd will deliver some single card with the msucle to handle it, or the Freesync will become a gimmick.
Click to expand...
Why does Nvidia not support it and give us a reason to buy their competitor?
 
zzz said:
Why does Nvidia not support it and give us a reason to buy their competitor?
Click to expand...

As much as it sucks for consumers, Nvidia is wise to not support VESA Adaptive Sync at the moment. Here's why - When you buy a G-Sync monitor, you're doing two things. First, you're buying a monitor that has a physical module inside it that was sold to the monitor manufacturer by Nvidia at a profit. So, Nvidia makes revenue off these monitors. AMD makes nothing on FreeSync monitors, nor would Nvidia. Second, when you buy a G-Sync monitor, you're essentially locking yourself in to an Nvidia GPU. So you're going to be giving more money to Nvidia down the road.

Most reports show that Nvidia has 75-80% of the discrete GPU market. So they will ride this out and sell as many G-Sync modules as they can. There are more FreeSync capable monitors than G-Sync today, but until that translates into noticeably more market share for AMD, Nvidia has no incentive to support VESA adaptive Sync, and plenty of incentive to exclusively support G-Sync.
 
geok1ng said:
i am all for competition, but a monitor at this resolution and refresh rate simply can not be driven by anything AMD has on the market today for Freesync. Hopefully until release AMd will deliver some single card with the msucle to handle it, or the Freesync will become a gimmick. If the 34" Acer with freesync is any hint, NVIDIA cards will not reach 75hz on the freesync version.
Click to expand...

Fury cards in crossfire will easily hit 75fps on most anything at 4K.
AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Video Cards in CrossFire
 
Last edited:
igluk said:
There is also a kinda erroneous press release:
LG 4K monitor
Click to expand...

That press release is hillarious. Must be written by a marketing guy that has no idea what he is writing. Amazing they can pull such a fail. "With its 21:9 UltraWide Curved Monitor, LG 38UC99 brings images to life as it offers 3440 x 1440 QHD resolution" LOL - eh the monitor is a 24:10 monitor at 3840x1600 resolution. Unless LG is right and everybody else is mistaken? :)
 
Daniel_Chang said:
As much as it sucks for consumers, Nvidia is wise to not support VESA Adaptive Sync at the moment. Here's why - When you buy a G-Sync monitor, you're doing two things. First, you're buying a monitor that has a physical module inside it that was sold to the monitor manufacturer by Nvidia at a profit. So, Nvidia makes revenue off these monitors. AMD makes nothing on FreeSync monitors, nor would Nvidia. Second, when you buy a G-Sync monitor, you're essentially locking yourself in to an Nvidia GPU. So you're going to be giving more money to Nvidia down the road.

Most reports show that Nvidia has 75-80% of the discrete GPU market. So they will ride this out and sell as many G-Sync modules as they can. There are more FreeSync capable monitors than G-Sync today, but until that translates into noticeably more market share for AMD, Nvidia has no incentive to support VESA adaptive Sync, and plenty of incentive to exclusively support G-Sync.
Click to expand...
Interesting points.

I'd guess Nvidia makes a lot more money per GPU sold than Gsync monitor module. So a relatively small loss of GPU sales might change their incentive. But I don't see that happening.

A problem is, screens are modular and too generic for Nvidia to control. This leaves no Nvidia sync solution with large screens, and more limited options on smaller ones. That's the result of deviating from VESA.

Can't some smart guy on the internet hack a driver to add Freesync? That's usually the answer when companies fail to deliver on software.
 
Lol another display ratio that won't be supported for another few years.

Make a 40"+ 4K freesync 'known-brand' panel that isn't some international shipping shit-lottery ffs. This takes just as much desk space but with less vertical resolution....
 
N4CR said:
Lol another display ratio that won't be supported for another few years.

Make a 40"+ 4K freesync 'known-brand' panel that isn't some international shipping shit-lottery ffs. This takes just as much desk space but with less vertical resolution....
Click to expand...


One thing nice about this is that 2560x1600 is widely supported by old games as even old premium monitors from 2003 used this Rez and 16:10 aspect ratio. I have a Dell 3014 right at 2560x1600 and literally everything you'd want to play supports that resolution. It's like the highest resolution for some of the old titles. So. Even if a old game didn't support 3440x1600 you can still play at a 30" panel size at optimum (non stretched) UI and just have black bars on left and right. I'm very interested in this panel!


I recently tried a 35" 2560x1080 and if widescreen isn't supported by a game on that monitor your reduced to 1920x1080 which unfortunately seems less supported on old games (like Warcraft 3, Rune, unreal tournament) than 2560x1600. Those old games supported 4:3 and 16:10 ratios, Not so much 16x9 in my experiences for whatever reason.
 
Archaea said:
One thing nice about this is that 2560x1600 is widely supported by old games ... Even if a old game didn't support 3440x1600 you can still play at a 30" panel size at optimum (non stretched) UI and just have black bars on left and right.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. You are willing to pay $1600 for the privilege to have black bars on the sides?
 
$1600 is too rich for my blood. I'm just saying this is a pretty ideal form factor to account for old and new games.

The HP Omen 32" is on sale today and I'm trying to buy that as an interim monitor.

2560x1440
32"
Freesync
75hz
Va panel
$343 on slickdeals
 
Last edited:
That Omen deal is really good!

I'm not sure the 1600$ price for the LG is correct, might just be a placeholder.
This german news (from today) says LG will announce during IFA
LG 38UC99-W bietet viel Platz
 
Last edited:
Yes - 2560 x 1400 --- thanks for the correction igluk. I fixed my post to the correct 2K resolution.

I went ahead and bought one, finally - I had a lot of trouble getting the website to work today off and on.

IF you have a mastercard you can get 20% off through coupons.com at HP
and IF you have a befrugal account you can get 10% off through a passthrough link.


I don't have a mastercard - but I did try to utilize the befrugal referral link. If that works it should be another $30 off.

Total =
$358 after coupon code + ~$15 tax and free shipping.

If I'm lucky the befrugal referrer link will work and knock it back down to $325ish total.
 
My biggest question is whether the LG 38UC99 really has motion blur reduction, or if this was a mix up with the 34UC79G.
Maybe it is using a 120Hz (or 150Hz) double strobe, like the FS2735.

edit:
Some pricing info:
LG 38UC99-W 38 inch ultra wide monitor review - Hardware.Info TV

I believe around 5:15 he says it is going to be €1300 but expects price to go down quickly due to competition.
 
Last edited:
Makes sense. The next tier down is the 34UC98, and the retail on that is $1,199.99. It's available now at my local Costco for $899.99, and about $100 more at a few etailers.

This one may be $1,500 but street/online price will trickle down some within a few months of release.
 
LG also announced the curved and flat 34 in model 34UC79G. The flat is supposed to be capable of 144 Hz refresh rate but unsure if this is at 3400x1440 resolution. Some website reported that the curved model can only achieve this high refresh rate at 2560x1080. No info regarding the flat version at this time. I wonder if we can still perceived the higher refresh rate on these Freesync monitors when using NVIDIA cards?
 
The 34UC79G is a native 2560x1080 panel with native 144Hz refresh rate.
So FreeSync won't work on Nvidia cards, but 144hz and Motion Blur Reduction will.
The curve is only 3800R, that's a rather mild curve.
 
$1300 isn't "reasonable" for a PC monitor. Not in the light of other "reasonable" 27 to 32" options available between 1/4 and 1/8 the price (The recently released HP Omen 32" is a for instance - recently sold for $343 shipped - 32", freesync, 75hz, 2560x1600, LFC, AMVA+ panel) --- but I do envy those specs and that monitor is a fantastic setup if money is no object! Probably the best specs, most enviable monitor I've seen yet.
 
Archaea said:
$1300 isn't "reasonable" for a PC monitor. Not in the light of other "reasonable" 27 to 32" options available between 1/4 and 1/8 the price (The recently released HP Omen 32" is a for instance - recently sold for $343 shipped - 32", freesync, 75hz, 2560x1600, LFC, AMVA+ panel) --- but I do envy those specs and that monitor is a fantastic setup if money is no object! Probably the best specs, most enviable monitor I've seen yet.
Click to expand...

Not meaning to start an argument but "reasonable" can depend on perspective. The first 2560x1600 LCD's came out over 10 years ago (Dell 3007, HP ZR30, Apple Cinema display), their prices was around $2000 or so and gradually stabilized at around $1000 for years until the waves of cheap Korean 2560x1440 panels came around. The next high resolution panels were 4K display and they were also super pricey. Then the ultrawide monitors (3440x1440) started to gain traction and their prices were also over $1000. Next the high refresh rate ultrawide (3440x1440 or 2560x1080) became more common. All the ultrawide 3400x1440 with high refresh rate of 100 Hz (Asus PG348Q and Acer x34/x34P Predator) are both around $1200-1300 each. So for this monitor with the first of its kind resolution and refresh rate to priced at $1300 after the $200 gift card, it is rather "reasonable" if we consider the newest tech go into making this monitor and the trend in the past. Of course tech will get cheaper and LG will sell this panel to other manufacturers to produce their own variant. When you compare the Omen 32" ultrawide, it's not in the same tier as this premium monitor. Premium products (cars, house, tech, clothes, bags, etc) would always command higher premium that may not truly reflect their inherent values. Ultimate it's up to the end user to decide whether the price matches the utility/perceived value of the items.
 
hv43082 said:
Not meaning to start an argument but "reasonable" can depend on perspective. The first 2560x1600 LCD's came out over 10 years ago (Dell 3007, HP ZR30, Apple Cinema display), their prices was around $2000 or so and gradually stabilized at around $1000 for years until the waves of cheap Korean 2560x1440 panels came around. The next high resolution panels were 4K display and they were also super pricey. Then the ultrawide monitors (3440x1440) started to gain traction and their prices were also over $1000. Next the high refresh rate ultrawide (3440x1440 or 2560x1080) became more common. All the ultrawide 3400x1440 with high refresh rate of 100 Hz (Asus PG348Q and Acer x34/x34P Predator) are both around $1200-1300 each. So for this monitor with the first of its kind resolution and refresh rate to priced at $1300 after the $200 gift card, it is rather "reasonable" if we consider the newest tech go into making this monitor and the trend in the past. Of course tech will get cheaper and LG will sell this panel to other manufacturers to produce their own variant. When you compare the Omen 32" ultrawide, it's not in the same tier as this premium monitor. Premium products (cars, house, tech, clothes, bags, etc) would always command higher premium that may not truly reflect their inherent values. Ultimate it's up to the end user to decide whether the price matches the utility/perceived value of the items.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying to a degree - and this isn't an argument - but I will submit that the $1000 or $1500 bar is a bit of a legacy artifact now.

I have a Dell 3014, and I just bought a Omen 32" because I wanted to try freesync. The Dell 3014, when I bought it, two years years ago, cost street price about $900 if you watched for a great sale, and $600-$700 refurb if you got lucky and caught one with a 30% Dell coupon codes, and a refurb in stock (which required you watching the Dell refurb site like a buzzard to catch one on the rare occasion they were in stock for a few seconds).

The bar the Dell 3014 set is high - yet the bar has lowered to what is an acceptable MSRP for the typical consumer. TV's have dropped in price to basically nothing -- leaving the monitor consumer confused as to why they should pay $1500 for a 30" monitor when a very capable smaller 4K TV is $600.

Monitors haven't followed to that degree in price drops yet, but it is dropping. The Omen 32" in comparison to the Dell 3014 holds up very well. It trades blows with the Dell 3014 - so much so that I'm not sure which one I'll keep. The display quality and dpi is perhaps a smidge better on the Dell, the Freesync is a smidge better on the Omen. Both are very good looking displays, and I'd be very happy with either. Frankly - the quality is surprisingly good on the HP Omen - given it's low MSRP. The Omen MSRP is $430. I got it on sale for $343 a week back. I also purchased the Acer xz350cu which is a 35" 2560x1080 freesync monitor clocked at 144hz to play with. It was $600 on a sale. I like the Dell 3014, and the HP Omen better than the Acer, pretty significantly.

Any rate ----
I'd argue the Omen is a premium monitor experience for <= $400. Is it such a premium monitor experience that $1500 for a display is unreasonable? Perhaps?.?. - like you say that depends on the perspective of the person buying.

So while yes - it's perhaps historical that the best monitors cost well over $1k, even into the 1.5K pricerange for the typical enthusiastst --- the competition has grown fierce, and the prices of "premium display experiences" is thankfully rapidly dropping. I guess LG believes they can command that premium for a bit longer, and to that - I say enjoy it while it lasts LG.
 
Last edited:
Archaea said:
I agree with what you are saying to a degree - and this isn't an argument - but I will submit that the $1000 or $1500 bar is a bit of a legacy artifact now.

I have a Dell 3014, and I just bought a Omen 32" because I wanted to try freesync. The Dell 3014, when I bought it, two years years ago, cost street price about $900 if you watched for a great sale, and $600-$700 refurb if you got lucky and caught one with a 30% Dell coupon codes, and a refurb in stock (which required you watching the Dell refurb site like a buzzard to catch one on the rare occasion they were in stock for a few seconds).

The bar the Dell 3014 set is high - yet the bar has lowered to what is an acceptable MSRP for the typical consumer. TV's have dropped in price to basically nothing -- leaving the monitor consumer confused as to why they should pay $1500 for a 30" monitor when a very capable smaller 4K TV is $600.

Monitors haven't followed to that degree in price drops yet, but it is dropping. The Omen 32" in comparison to the Dell 3014 holds up very well. It trades blows with the Dell 3014 - so much so that I'm not sure which one I'll keep. The display quality and dpi is perhaps a smidge better on the Dell, the Freesync is a smidge better on the Omen. Both are very good looking displays, and I'd be very happy with either. Frankly - the quality is surprisingly good on the HP Omen - given it's low MSRP. The Omen MSRP is $430. I got it on sale for $343 a week back. I also purchased the Acer xz350cu which is a 35" 2560x1080 freesync monitor clocked at 144hz to play with. It was $600 on a sale. I like the Dell 3014, and the HP Omen better than the Acer, pretty significantly.

Any rate ----
I'd argue the Omen is a premium monitor experience for <= $400. Is it such a premium monitor experience that $1500 for a display is unreasonable? Perhaps?.?. - like you say that depends on the perspective of the person buying.

So while yes - it's perhaps historical that the best monitors cost well over $1k, even into the 1.5K pricerange for the typical enthusiastst --- the competition has grown fierce, and the prices of "premium display experiences" is thankfully rapidly dropping. I guess LG believes they can command that premium for a bit longer, and to that - I say enjoy it while it lasts LG.
Click to expand...

I agree with your points but essentially LG is the only maker of ultrawide IPS panel right now and with the exception of VA panel from Samsung. So all other manufacturers will have to use LG panels until some other OEM can start mass producing them.
 
Oh great, please lets not turn this into a "this is what I think X should cost" thread. I would think people would have had their fill of that in the Titan-XP threads.
 
hv43082 said:
Not meaning to start an argument but "reasonable" can depend on perspective. The first 2560x1600 LCD's came out over 10 years ago (Dell 3007, HP ZR30, Apple Cinema display), their prices was around $2000 or so and gradually stabilized at around $1000 for years until the waves of cheap Korean 2560x1440 panels came around. The next high resolution panels were 4K display and they were also super pricey. Then the ultrawide monitors (3440x1440) started to gain traction and their prices were also over $1000. Next the high refresh rate ultrawide (3440x1440 or 2560x1080) became more common. All the ultrawide 3400x1440 with high refresh rate of 100 Hz (Asus PG348Q and Acer x34/x34P Predator) are both around $1200-1300 each. So for this monitor with the first of its kind resolution and refresh rate to priced at $1300 after the $200 gift card, it is rather "reasonable" if we consider the newest tech go into making this monitor and the trend in the past. Of course tech will get cheaper and LG will sell this panel to other manufacturers to produce their own variant. When you compare the Omen 32" ultrawide, it's not in the same tier as this premium monitor. Premium products (cars, house, tech, clothes, bags, etc) would always command higher premium that may not truly reflect their inherent values. Ultimate it's up to the end user to decide whether the price matches the utility/perceived value of the items.
Click to expand...

The Apple Cinema 30" was around $3,200 when they came out in 2004, and I believe the Dell 30" was near $3K as well.
 
A thread this short for what can be the first strobing backlight above 2560x1440 resolution [H]ere can only mean one thing:
we are not believing the "1ms blur reduction" !

The first Predator reviews were an ice bucket for potential buyers, and they came out long before this vaporware went on pre-order.
If it delivers what is promised, it will become main main monitor.
That said, i feel that is more likely that the guy on the Seiki thread brings to market a 4k120hz Tcon for the 39" innnolux panel.
 
Malinkadink said:
800:1 contrast? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Garbage.
Click to expand...

RidingTheFlow said:
Sorry, but 1000-1100:1 is "pretty normalish" for IPS, at least IPS that is not 7-year-old.
800:1 is 20% less, and does indeed sound rubbish for modern (and not to say, high-end) screen.
Click to expand...

Not every company lies and lists the blanket 1k:1 (TN/IPS) or 3k:1 (VA < 32"). A contrast ratio of 800:1 is pretty solid for a non-VA panel if it actually achieves that at most brightness levels.

From Anantech's most recent monitor review, a contrast ratio comparison chart:
HP Z27q Monitor Review: Aiming For More Pixels

79402.png


They have the same monitors in most of their reviews as the benchmark (the HP Z27q was the subject of this review). But going back through any of their reviews and you'll see 600-900:1 as the standard for TN/IPS monitors.
 
geok1ng said:
A thread this short for what can be the first strobing backlight above 2560x1440 resolution [H]ere can only mean one thing:
we are not believing the "1ms blur reduction" !

The first Predator reviews were an ice bucket for potential buyers, and they came out long before this vaporware went on pre-order.
If it delivers what is promised, it will become main main monitor.
That said, i feel that is more likely that the guy on the Seiki thread brings to market a 4k120hz Tcon for the 39" innnolux panel.
Click to expand...

I doubt that. If the big dog's like Samsung and LG can't even get their hands on a DP 1.3/1.4 TCon supplier, I doubt Seiki can. Either no one wants to produce the chips/not enough profit, or they are having serious technical difficulties developing the TCon's. I mean hell, DP 1.3 specification was certified over TWO YEARS ago!
 
Daniel_Chang said:
Not every company lies and lists the blanket 1k:1 (TN/IPS) or 3k:1 (VA < 32"). A contrast ratio of 800:1 is pretty solid for a non-VA panel if it actually achieves that at most brightness levels.

From Anantech's most recent monitor review, a contrast ratio comparison chart:
HP Z27q Monitor Review: Aiming For More Pixels

79402.png


They have the same monitors in most of their reviews as the benchmark (the HP Z27q was the subject of this review). But going back through any of their reviews and you'll see 600-900:1 as the standard for TN/IPS monitors.
Click to expand...
Funny that for 5-years I had Dell U2412M with real&measured contrast ratio 1:1100 which even back then was cheaper than many of these listed - but not included in this chart for some reason. Sorry, but this chart appear just deliberately picking the worst ones - there are many IPS monitors even with way better contrast numbers, and 1:1000 is what I would certainly consider the modern median.
 
Last edited:
RidingTheFlow said:
Funny that for 5-years I had Dell U2412M with real&measured contrast ratio 1:1100 which even back then was cheaper than many of these listed - but not included in this chart for some reason. Sorry, but this chart appear just deliberately picking the worst ones - there are many IPS monitors even with way better contrast numbers, and 1:1000 is what I would certainly consider the modern median.
Click to expand...

It's not cherry picked. If you're going to lob that accusation, please have the courtesy of posting evidence to support your stance.
 
Daniel_Chang said:
It's not cherry picked. If you're going to lob that accusation, please have the courtesy of posting evidence to support your stance.
Click to expand...
As I said, I am not seeing very popular monitors with high contrast in this chart. U2412M too old? Ok, where is extremely popular U2515H (1:1096 measured)? This list is far from comprehensive, but it includes more models with bad contrast than with good.
I could've made opposite list picking only 14 monitors with contrast >= 1100, and it would've only prove that I was biased.
Anyway, its up to personal preference - if you think that 1:800 is pretty good contrast, its up to you. I personally think its quite below median for modern IPS screen and looks noticeably worse than lot of good IPS screens out there.
 
RidingTheFlow said:
As I said, I am not seeing very popular monitors with high contrast in this chart. U2412M too old? Ok, where is extremely popular U2515H (1:1096 measured)? This list is far from comprehensive, but it includes more models with bad contrast than with good.
I could've made opposite list picking only 14 monitors with contrast >= 1100, and it would've only prove that I was biased.
Anyway, its up to personal preference - if you think that 1:800 is pretty good contrast, its up to you. I personally think its quite below median for modern IPS screen and looks noticeably worse than lot of good IPS screens out there.
Click to expand...

Except that you are implying that I chose a list that favors <1,000 contrast. That's insulting, so have the courtesy to back that up with proof, not more rambling. All I did was google image search for monitor contrast comparison chart, found that Anandtech had a good one, and then searched their website for the most recent one. I was also disappointed by the selection. They use the same reference models in all of their reviews instead of updating it. But I didn't cherry pick, you're incorrect to insinuate that, and until you provide any evidence to back up your claims, you're 100% wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top