LG Launches 32UD99-W 32" Class 4K UHD IPS LED Monitor with HDR10 and FreeSync

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,080
LG is ready to launch their 32UD99-W 32" Class 4K UHD IPS LED Monitor with HDR10 and FreeSync on March 28th, 2017. You can Pre-Order the monitor at B&H Photo and Video for $999. HDR is something that I'm personally looking forward to. This LG should impress with it's IPS screen, but I do wish the screen was larger though. Of course AMD FreeSync is icing on the cake especially if VEGA is a powerful GPU solution.

The specification sheet for the monitor is impressive with these stats:

  • Display 4-Side Borderless
  • Color Gamut DCI-P3 95% (CIE 1976)
  • Brightness Peak 550 nits / Typical 350 nits
  • Response Time 5ms GTG
  • HDR HDR10
  • USB Type-C™ 4K + Power Charging (~60W) + Data
  • Interface USB Type-C™ Display Port 1.2, HDMI 2.0a x 2, USB 3.0 Downstream x 2
  • AMD FreeSync™
  • OnScreen Control
  • Dual Controller
 
God damnit. This is pretty much my ideal monitor. Too much though. There's a 37.5 4k 144hz coming out this year but I'm not sure if it will have HDR. Let alone freesync/gsync. That would be the largest I would use as a monitor myself. I'll pay that much for 120-144hz HDR 4k adaptive sync at those sizes so getting close finally. That should be a monitor that lasts quite a long time.
 
I can't seem to find a refresh rate spec.. Is it 60Hz? I would hope it would be at least 85 but since it's IPS I wouldn't hope too much (not that I would pay $1000 for a 32" monitor, just saying).
 
Need to know refresh rates and Freesync ranges (in case Vega doesn't suck), but if 90Hz+ and good for down to say 30Hz, hooray.

Of course, if Vega does suck, will be waiting for a G-Sync version likely in ASUS or Acer clothes...
 
cageymaru said:
This LG should impress with it's IPS screen, but I do wish the screen was larger though. Of course AMD FreeSync is icing on the cake especially if VEGA is a powerful GPU solution.
Click to expand...
If it's anything like their TVs, the HDR isn't going to do much due to the mediocre max brightness, mediocre black point, the backlight bleed, the uniformity issues, and, worst of all, the edge lit backlight.

I do own and actually like their UH8500, but yeah, the HDR10/Dolby Vision on it is not why. It's just so underwhelming.
 
Neurofreeze said:
If it's anything like their TVs, the HDR isn't going to do much due to the mediocre max brightness, mediocre black point, the backlight bleed, the uniformity issues, and, worst of all, the edge lit backlight.

I do own and actually like their UH8500, but yeah, the HDR10/Dolby Vision on it is not why. It's just so underwhelming.
Click to expand...

Considering the peak brightness for this screen is 550nits, but the intended peak brightness for HDR on LCD is a minimum of 1000 nits, I think you may be right. It will be slightly more vibrant than a standard screen, but likely not to the desired level.
 
s3goku4 said:
I assume it's Freesync 2? because it has HDR....
Click to expand...
Its not really bright enough to meet HDR spec I think. I believe you need it to output up to 1000nit brightness + .05 black levels for any non-OLED display to meet requirements for true HDR.

I think the monitor also has to be certified by AMD for Freesync2 and that also doesn't appear to be the case here. No one still knows exactly when Freesync2 monitors are coming.
 
This is extremely tempting. Gonna keep any eye on this. Need more specs. I hope an OLED is in the works. Best bet would be to get a OLED TV atm. BUT dat HDR and FRESYNC.
 
If didn't have my BenQ 3201's still going without issues would definitely bite on this. Really want to go up to 37 or 40 4k though before replacing.

Almost pulled the trigger on the 43 Phillips , but then saw how many people were having image retention issues.

Glad this isn't GSYNC , otherwise would tempt me too much with that and HDR.
 
WTB 1080 ti with freesync2 support or Vega with same or better perf. 32" 4K HDR IPS and async is exactly what I want, GD nsync compatability.
 
I really don't like monitors with external power supplies. Having 3 extra wall warts for my monitors is a pain in the a$$. As for OLED... My dell 2401 is running fine (I pre-ordered mine), that's not something that anyone with a OLED display will be able to claim. Now Q-dot (Samsung) 32" display with real HDR, and you might just get my attention/cash.
 
I can see the people who can really use this monitor, especially for those who edit photographs. I'm not one of those people. 27" is a nice sweet spot for me.

Bonus points for supporting Team Red's Freesync. I think there are more monitors supporting Freesync than G-Sync.

PhotoBobBarker said:
I really don't like monitors with external power supplies. Having 3 extra wall warts for my monitors is a pain in the a$$.
Click to expand...

Yeah..... I've ended up purchasing 1 foot power cables to keep the cable tangle to a minimum. Velcro ties also help too.
 
If it were 40" and G-sync for about the same price I'd sell my Samsung 6290 series 40" 4K TV and have one ordered tomorrow. Take note, Nvidia / display manufacturers -- give me these specs and I (and I suspect many, many others) will give you ~$1000. Nothing less.


ZLoth said:
I can see the people who can really use this monitor, especially for those who edit photographs. I'm not one of those people. 27" is a nice sweet spot for me.

Bonus points for supporting Team Red's Freesync. I think there are more monitors supporting Freesync than G-Sync.
Click to expand...

Of course there are. All you need to do to have Freesync support is to properly implement DisplayPort; G-sync (while technically superior) requires proprietary hardware with associated licensing fees built in to the display.
 
What's with monitors being considerably more expensive than full blown TVs. Fuck off. No, really. FUCK OFF
 
Trimlock said:
What 32" 4k IPS LED TV with HDR10, Freesync, USBC and DP cost less than $1000?
Click to expand...

How does the FS functionality increase cost, again? I really don't know as I am a sucker for high fps.
 
dgz said:
How does the FS functionality increase cost, again? I really don't know as I am a sucker for high fps.
Click to expand...

That's all you can concentrate on? FS doesn't increase cost, the fact that it has it and no TV WILL have it makes it a different bracket so comparing a monitor to a TV is silly.
 
Trimlock said:
That's all you can concentrate on? FS doesn't increase cost, the fact that it has it and no TV WILL have it makes it a different bracket so comparing a monitor to a TV is silly.
Click to expand...

Now that HDMI has started imitating DP rather than DVI signalling, Freesync functionality is on its way by that route.
 
Trimlock said:
Yea, I have been patient waiting for it to show up in TVs but I don't think we will see it :(
Click to expand...

It ain't gonna be overnight. But expect it will come, and both Sony and Microsoft following with compatible console updates, be they with a hardware or firmware change, to take advantage of the renewed capability.

Something that increases responsiveness in gaming on TVs is surely marketable.
 
meh, no HDMI 2.1 & Peak Brightness at only 550nit.

For a monitor to be future proofed it needs HDMI2.1 for variable refresh rates, Gsync and FreeSync still cause GPU vendor lock-in. Plus for HDR to be any good it requires 1000nits peak brightness.

If people want to play on a real HDR monitor then you'll just have to wait for Quantum Dot displays or OLED. Bog standard LCD just doesn't cut it for HDR. All the TV's that have it that I've seen (apart from an LG OLED) ruin detail levels in areas of high brightness - as if you've turned up the contrast too much). THEY SUCK.

Oh and it's not 'real' HDR, this screen uses 'HDR Standard 2' instead of 'HDR Standard 1'. 'HDR Standard 2' was designed for OLED not LCD.

The real standard for LCD HDR is Standard 2, marketers bullshitting the uneducated again :(.
 
Last edited:
Back 10 years ago, I paid $720 for a 1920x1200 Dell 24" Monitor. That works out to $822 today. After the size increment, this is not an unreasonable introductional price increase given the upgraded abilities.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Back 10 years ago, I paid $720 for a 1920x1200 Dell 24" Monitor. That works out to $822 today. After the size increment, this is not an unreasonable introductional price increase given the upgraded abilities.
Click to expand...

I paid $600 used for a 21' CRT back in the day. It could always be worse.
 
Trimlock said:
That's all you can concentrate on? FS doesn't increase cost, the fact that it has it and no TV WILL have it makes it a different bracket so comparing a monitor to a TV is silly.
Click to expand...

Well, there's not much to concentrate on anyway. The price seems unreasonable to me. It's a god damn monitor. Nothing about it is special or new.
 
just curious as i have not been following monitor hardware fads, but whats the deal with a few recent large monitors only supporting freesynch?
 
It is so frustrating that this is called a HDR monitor. It understands HDR10 signal and has good DCI-P3 support, but that is not enough. It should be able to display 1000 nits to actually call itself HDR, not the regular - thought decent - 550 that many other displays achieve. Once again confirming marketing hype, and that HDR displays should not be bought for another couple years until an HDR display brings everything you need to fully enjoy HDR. As it stands, this LG is not much better than my $300 Samsung KU6290 (precisely the reason why I bought it: dirt cheap with good IQ until full HDR support comes down to $400 TVs).
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Back 10 years ago, I paid $720 for a 1920x1200 Dell 24" Monitor. That works out to $822 today. After the size increment, this is not an unreasonable introductional price increase given the upgraded abilities.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm..... so I'm checking NewEgg, and new 24" monitors with 1920x1080 resolution start at $119 for the low end monitor and goes all the way up to $679 for a G-Sync monitor with a TN panel. I prefer my monitors have a Displayport, so the range starts at $129.
 
Yaka said:
just curious as i have not been following monitor hardware fads, but whats the deal with a few recent large monitors only supporting freesynch?
Click to expand...
Because gsync is proprietary and adds to the overall cost - VESA Adaptive Sync standard being supported by AMD and Intel (probably with cannonlake cpus)

nVidia is really hurting their customers by not supporting a VESA standard
 
Yaka said:
just curious as i have not been following monitor hardware fads, but whats the deal with a few recent large monitors only supporting freesynch?
Click to expand...

Unlike V-sync, adaptive sync technologies adjust the monitor's refresh rate to match the game's actual framerate. This provides a nice smooth gaming experience without screen tearing or screen hesitation. There are two standards: VESA Adaptive Sync (called Freesync) which is supported by AMD, and G-Sync which is supported by nVidia. The difference between the two is how it is implemented, with G-Sync having an add-on board in the monitor, while AMD does it on the graphics card. Needless to say, the two aren't compatible, and it's cheaper for the monitor manufacturers to include Freesync.
 
Things are moving in the right direction, slowly. I'd buy a 32" 4K monitor, but not for more than say $400. The $1000 price this will command is just insulting.

And freesync, yeah... I guess they use it because it's "free". Doesn't help me any, I'm on Team Green.
 
Guys, dont fall for it. HDR requires high native contrast ratio. Unless this comes with local dimming the IPS simply cannot cut it. This monitor has marketing HDR, meaning its compatible with it and maybe show bigger color space but without high contrast panel things just get washed out in brighter scenes. Hell, even VA panel has this problem to some extent if there is no local dimming.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if Freesync and HDR are mutually exclusive features, or needs to be enabled later on with a firmware or driver update.
 
polonyc2 said:
the Asus and Acer 4K HDR G-Sync monitors coming out this year look way better...
Click to expand...

But I guess the $999 price point for this monitor means the Acer and Asus monitors might even be over $1200. That will make the PG27UQ pretty hard to justify to the missus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top