• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bigmonitorguy said:
What's the resolution on the 39"? 3440x1440?
Click to expand...
The resolution of the 39GX90SA is not explicitly noted like it is with the two 45" models. I'd assume its the same 5120x2160 but I guess we'll see. We sure don't need any more 3440x1440 models.
 
Astral Abyss said:
LG is never going to sell me on 800R. I wish they'd stop trying. I also don't want to pay a premium on a bendable monitor that I'm going to set-and-forget. Way too gimmicky.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue your personal taste about that, but theoretically they could make a non-bendable one that is set at a curvature permanently rather than a flexible one. It doesn't have to be one or the other necessarily, i.e. 800R doesn't require flex. Like 1000R screens are fixed, or 800R could be in this case if they were to offer a set curvature.




In regard to curved screens - to me, screens designed for sitting at the center of curvature, or very near to it, would make the most sense because every pixel all the way to the far edges would remain on axis pointed directly at you. Just like holding a screen vertically in front of you, or on a somewhat longer heavy duty selfie stick, and spinning around left to right on your chair's axis. With standard desks that means at least 800R.




. . . . .

The center of curvature, where all pixels are pointed at you, on a 800R screen:

800R(adius) = 800mm = 31.5 inches.

If you sit at that point, all of the pixels will be pointed directly at you, even pixels farther from the center of the screen.

screen.curve_center.of.curvature.schematic_1.png


902903_reflection-light_facing-monitor_1.gif


Sitting nearer than the center of curvature, the farther the pixels are from the center of the screen, the more off-axis they will be from your in a graduated fashion toward the ends of the screen. That can exacerbate geometry/distortion issues and can also exacerbate off-axis uniformity issues.


Flat screens viewed at around 60 to 50 degree viewing angle is a good baseline for still filling your central field of vision while suffering only minimal distortion. Sitting nearer pushes larger sections of the screen extents into the periphery meaning more off-axis pixels (uniformity issues, exacerbated geometery/distortion off-angle viewing), as well as more head/eye turning. Sitting farther shrinks the screen smaller to your perspective than your central field of view.

screen.optimal.viewing.angle_flat.screens_1.png


Curved screen designs have the potential to virtually eliminate off axis pixel viewing, but only if they were designed for you to be sitting at the center of curvature. As most ultrawides are designed now, from the most reasonable viewing distances people would view them from, they are instead increasing the amount of pixels and screen space that are off axis.





. . . . . . . . . . . .




The problem with most ultrawides is that their curve is not aggressive enough vs. the physical height of the screen. Even the big g95nc is too short vs it's curvature for my tastes.

57in.s-uw_if.it.was.somewhat.jpg


For example, 1000R(adius) = 1000mm = around 40 inch to the center of curvature. Most people are trying to continue to use their screens mounted directly onto a desk instead of decoupling from a desk and setting them back some, so they are probably 16 to 24 inches from the screen to their eyeballs, maybe 30inch on a particularly deep desk. No-one is sitting as far as the center of curvature or near to it on a 1000R single ultrawide or super-ultrawide because the screen height would shrink to your perspective like a belt.

To me, it's a design flaw of the screen dimensions vs the curvature in most ultrawides.

800R would be much better, especially mounted on a desk and with typical uw and s-uw screen heights. ~ 32" view distance would be center of curvature but at least you wouldn't be too far from it, depending on your desk depth. (or you could decouple the screen from a 24" deep desk on it's own stand so that it would be 30" or so away from where your eyeballs are).

XENEON-FLX-2.jpg


No-one's desk mounted screen is even close to 40" view distance on a 1000R screen. A big 55" 16:9 ark would allow for it, although that would require it to be mounted on it's own stand. Like I said trying to do that kind of thing with ultrawides would shrink them down to a narrow belt height to your perspective anyway so would be silly. The design is unsuitable.

I think that is a reason why some of the people who are in the desiring of less curvature camps feel that way - because the curvatures they are getting are sub-optimal for most ultrawides currently. Imo they need more aggressive curvature vs screen heights. (Design focused on taller screens in relation to the curvature, and that curvature focused on the seating distance being at the center of curvature).

The upcoming 45" 5120x2160 800R OLED screens seem like a step in the right direction. I'm keeping an eye on those.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SoCali said:
Only 165hz come on LG.
Click to expand...
They have to move up in small incremental bumps because if they improve too fast, they'll lose an opportunity to sell upgrades in the future.


I'm not happy about it but it's business
 
KazeoHin said:
They have to move up in small incremental bumps because if they improve too fast, they'll lose an opportunity to sell upgrades in the future.


I'm not happy about it but it's business
Click to expand...

Unless I'm blind, the refresh rate was not listed anywhere in LG's article. Not sure where 165Hz came from.

EDIT: TFTC got the confirmation: https://tftcentral.co.uk/news/lg-an...5gx990a-45-oled-displays-with-5k2k-resolution

I would personally skip this and just wait for the 240Hz version which we know is coming as it was on LG's roadmap as well, but given that people even bothered with the 1440p version instead of waiting for the 5k2k I'm sure people are going to jump on this one anyway.
 
Last edited:
criccio said:
The resolution of the 39GX90SA is not explicitly noted like it is with the two 45" models. I'd assume its the same 5120x2160 but I guess we'll see. We sure don't need any more 3440x1440 models.
Click to expand...

I hope it's 5K2K, but since they didn't mention the resolution, it's quite possibly only 3440x1440. If it's 5K2K, then I'll buy it since the PPI will be good. I'll skip the 45" because of the PPI.
 
LG can do a curved WOLED with a glossy coating, we know this from the LG Flex. They better not let us down here.
 
So the 39" version is just LG recycling unsold panels from the current model and adding home theater crap that no one asked for. Meh.

The 45" should be impressive but very expensive of course. The current model on display at my Best Buy is stunning but the PPI is definitely noticeable. The curve is certainly immersive, but as a daily it's too aggressive.
 
therealjustin said:
So the 39" version is just LG recycling unsold panels from the current model and adding home theater crap that no one asked for. Meh.

The 45" should be impressive but very expensive of course. The current model on display at my Best Buy is stunning but the PPI is definitely noticeable. The curve is certainly immersive, but as a daily it's too aggressive.
Click to expand...

The bendable model solves the aggressive curve problem. The PPI will be improved on the new 45", but still too low. The ideal version in my opinion would have been a 40" 5K2K with a subtle 2500R curve, but I would have been ok with the 39" if it was 5K2K.
 
Bigmonitorguy said:
The bendable model solves the aggressive curve problem. The PPI will be improved on the new 45", but still too low. The ideal version in my opinion would have been a 40" 5K2K with a subtle 2500R curve, but I would have been ok with the 39" if it was 5K2K.
Click to expand...
Is it a fully adjustable curve (i.e. anywhere between flat and 800R), or just flat or fully curved? Wasn't sure if it locks into position or genuinely allows intermediate curvature.
 
undertaker2k8 said:
https://www.lgnewsroom.com/2024/12/...g-monitor-winner-of-three-awards-at-ces-2025/ my next screen , if gamut is good compared to QD OLED and a non bendable version js preferred.
Click to expand...
This will be the perfect monitor for me.. I was just kinda forced into a new monitor since my 2018 Alienware 34" ultrawide died, and def wanted a larger OLED and went with the current LG 45" OLED UW monitor. I just got it in last week and other than the low PPI/resolution it's perfect. But since my productivity/gaming split on it is 20/80%, the PPI isn't too big of a deal. But I'll def be trading it for a 4k/5k version once they're available and go on sale at some point for around the same price I paid for this one.
MistaSparkul said:
Now the people who bought the 3440x1440 model from this year saying it's good enough, PPI isn't a problem, image is sharp and clear, no need for higher resolution, etc etc. are all about to have a change of heart lol.
Click to expand...
I knew before I even got this monitor, the PPI would be pretty bad and reading text on it would be sub-optimal. And of course I was right when I got it in last week and set it up. PPI/resolution is by far its biggest weakness, and I would not have got it at all if I didn't mostly game on it. But I'm def happy with it overall for now and can sell it towards the higher res versions later when they're available and inevitably go on sale after several months.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
MistaSparkul said:
Doesn't change the fact that the starting price is $2000. Big discounts would just put it at the starting price of the other OLEDs.
Click to expand...
Thing is, they'll just get scalped more if the price is too competitive.

These days you need to launch at what the market price actually is for the early adopters, or you're just giving up margin with no benefit to anyone.
 
Last edited:
JohnnyFlash said:
Thing is, they'll just get scalped more if the price is too competitive.

These days you need to launch at what the market price actually is for the early adopters, or you're just giving up margin with no benefit to anyone.
Click to expand...

Do people actually scalp monitors? The costs of shipping them vs a GPU is a lot higher, plus the people who snag GPUs like the 4090 also include non gamers while for this type of monitor the buyers would be limited to just gamers so not as large of a buyer base. Last year getting one of the first wave of QD OLEDs was a little bit tough for the first month but I didn't really see people actively trying to scalp it so much, whoever managed to get one was just someone who wanted one and not someone trying to scalp it. I do agree that they're probably pricing it at what early adopters are willing to pay though so I think it's more of they just want to capitalize on those who can't wait vs trying to combat scalpers. Regardless though, if a monitor was $1300 and got a big discount of $600 then it would now be a hot sell at $700, but if a monitor is starting out at $2000 out the gate, that same big discount of $600 would only bring it to down to $1400 which is still a pretty penny overall.
 
Last edited:
Idk how often it happens with monitors, but cpus and even motherboards that are in short supply are scalped, (in addition to gpu generations at release and for a period as already mentioned obviously).

It's annoying to me that the retailers allow other sellers on the same site (e.g. amazon, newegg) where something will come in stock and be sold out, and within an hour will be posted on the site by other sellers at a considerable markup. Scalpers will exist but the retailers don't have to be sponsoring their market. It is what it is, and it's an old issue. . just throwing my complaint in in regard to large retailers being complicit in immediate flipping of what they are selling, specifically, sponsoring scalping of the very same units on their own site.
 
Enhanced Interrogator said:
What games are you playing over 165fps?
Click to expand...
I still don't get this train of thought or why people like yourself fixate on it.

There are very heavy titles where opting to move down to 16:9 is the better choice for the sake of framerate (Path traced or heavy RT). There are games in between that are rather peformant where optimized settings do wonders with little to no hit to image quality.
Then there there is everything else that is an easy 144FPS+

Add to this a 5090+DLSS and 165hz does not cut it especially given how dramatic the motion clarity improvement is with OLED. Lastly, a higher refresh rate = wider VRR range and potential for less VRR flicker.
 
Blackstone said:
So no other 5K ultrawide oled other than LG? 😢
Click to expand...
It doesn't look like it so far. However with the announcement and release of Samsung's 27" 4k QD-OLED panels, they definitely have a manufacturing process that supports that level of PPI, so I can't see a technical reason why they couldn't compete unless it doesn't scale to larger format displays 🤷‍♂️
 
MistaSparkul said:
Unless I'm blind, the refresh rate was not listed anywhere in LG's article. Not sure where 165Hz came from.

EDIT: TFTC got the confirmation: https://tftcentral.co.uk/news/lg-an...5gx990a-45-oled-displays-with-5k2k-resolution

I would personally skip this and just wait for the 240Hz version which we know is coming as it was on LG's roadmap as well, but given that people even bothered with the 1440p version instead of waiting for the 5k2k I'm sure people are going to jump on this one anyway.
Click to expand...
I suspect the reason they went with 165hz is because the 240hz one cannot handle the bandwidth without DP2.1, even with DSC.

So unless you plan to buy the just announced Nvidia 5xxx(or some of the AMD stuff that is for professional work), you might not be able to use it. That makes it a very niche market, not great if you want to produce and sell a lot of units.

Myself I am willing to downgrade from 240hz to 165hz for the better text readability from the new RGWB subpixel layout.

I will miss 240hz thou: I don't need games to appreciate high refresh: just moving the mouse, scrolling or moving windows around looks amazing on high refresh.
 
wye said:
I suspect the reason they went with 165hz is because the 240hz one cannot handle the bandwidth without DP2.1, even with DSC.

So unless you plan to buy the just announced Nvidia 5xxx(or some of the AMD stuff that is for professional work), you might not be able to use it. That makes it a very niche market, not great if you want to produce and sell a lot of units.

Myself I am willing to downgrade from 240hz to 165hz for the better text readability from the new RGWB subpixel layout.

I will miss 240hz thou: I don't need games to appreciate high refresh: just moving the mouse, scrolling or moving windows around looks amazing on high refresh.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that because Samsung released a 7680x2160 240Hz monitor which also cannot be driven to 240Hz without DP 2.1. RTX 40 users who own that monitor are stuck at 120Hz even with DSC. And that monitor came out a long while ago way before RTX 50 was even close to being a thing while this LG would at least be out by the time full bandwidth DP 2.1 GPUs come out. I believe the reason is as another user pointed out, if LG released a 240Hz version right away then people would have no reason to upgrade later.
 
wye said:
I suspect the reason they went with 165hz is because the 240hz one cannot handle the bandwidth without DP2.1, even with DSC.
Click to expand...
HDMI 2.1 can handle 5Kx2K @ 240 Hz @ 10-bit color using DSC 2.5:1 compression.

My expectation is that they just cheaped out on the controller here, or LG does not have a 5Kx2K @ 240 Hz capable controller.

I expect 240 Hz versions to come out late this year or next year.

MistaSparkul said:
I'm not sure about that because Samsung released a 7680x2160 240Hz monitor which also cannot be driven to 240Hz without DP 2.1. RTX 40 users who own that monitor are stuck at 120Hz even with DSC. And that monitor came out a long while ago way before RTX 50 was even close to being a thing while this LG would at least be out by the time full bandwidth DP 2.1 GPUs come out. I believe the reason is as another user pointed out, if LG released a 240Hz version right away then people would have no reason to upgrade later.
Click to expand...
That seems to be an Nvidia issue more than anything. The AMD 7000 series seems to be able to do 240 Hz even over HDMI 2.1. I fully expect the Nvidia 50 series can do that too.
 
Depending how much overhead you are accounting for, 5K2K 240hz HDR is either a hair below DP1.4 with DSC or above.

DP1.4: 32.4 Gbps theoretical

5120 x 2160 = 11,059,200 pixels
HDR 10 bit per channel = 30 bits per pixel
11,059,200 pixels x 240 hz x 30 bits = 79.62 Gbps
If you account for 1.25x displayport overhead: 99.53 Gbps
DSC compression: 99.53 / 3 = 33.18 Gbps

Looks a bit over the limit.
Let me known if my math/overhead estimate is bad. Also in practice the end to end integration/stress testing might behave differently than theory.

For HDMI 2.1 it might be a different story, since the bandwidth is a bit higher than DP1.4. Raw HDMI 2.1 can go as high as 48 Gbps, depending on implementation. HDMI 2.1 supports DSC too.

Looks like we are pushing new technical limits. I find that exciting, but for me that also means I'll wait for practical reviews from trusted sources before shelving thousands of dollars on these new monitors. I bet Simon will do an awesome review covering everything. He always does ♥️
 
Last edited:
wye said:
I suspect the reason they went with 165hz is because the 240hz one cannot handle the bandwidth without DP2.1, even with DSC.

So unless you plan to buy the just announced Nvidia 5xxx(or some of the AMD stuff that is for professional work), you might not be able to use it. That makes it a very niche market, not great if you want to produce and sell a lot of units.

Myself I am willing to downgrade from 240hz to 165hz for the better text readability from the new RGWB subpixel layout.

I will miss 240hz thou: I don't need games to appreciate high refresh: just moving the mouse, scrolling or moving windows around looks amazing on high refresh.
Click to expand...
165 Hz fits within the bandwidth of UHBR13.5, which is what current video cards with DisplayPort 2.0/2.1 support. RDNA4 and Blackwell will support UHBR20, though.
MistaSparkul said:
I'm not sure about that because Samsung released a 7680x2160 240Hz monitor which also cannot be driven to 240Hz without DP 2.1. RTX 40 users who own that monitor are stuck at 120Hz even with DSC. And that monitor came out a long while ago way before RTX 50 was even close to being a thing while this LG would at least be out by the time full bandwidth DP 2.1 GPUs come out. I believe the reason is as another user pointed out, if LG released a 240Hz version right away then people would have no reason to upgrade later.
Click to expand...
You're not getting that resolution at 240 Hz, 8-bit or 10-bit, without DSC period even with UHBR20. The newly revealed HDMI 2.2 spec won't even be able to do that resolution at 240 Hz without DSC.
 
It's easy to disregard 165hz as too low for today's standards, but the first OLED gaming monitor was that fast, around 2 years ago.
Shows how fast the tech is evolving.
 
saji8k said:
LG dropped the ball again with inferior electronics.
LG claims that the 45GX950A/45GX990A has a DP54 (DisplayPort 2.1b UHBR 13.5) port (per TFTCentral). The display panel has a native resolution 5120x2160 and native refresh rate of 330 Hz. There is even enough bandwidth in DP54 to do 5120x2160, 330 Hz, 10-bit 4:4:4 if using DSC 30:11.
However something in the middle (maybe the scaler says TFTCentral) can't do DP54 so we are stuck with 165 Hz.
Disappointing.

If the any part of the internal electronics can't support DP54, they shouldn't be claiming that the monitor supports DP54.
Click to expand...
can you clarify what you mean here? As far as i can tell, the screen supports DP 2.1 UHBR13.5 fine, but what TFTCentral are saying is that it doesn't give enough bandwidth room to accommodate 5120 x 2160, 10-bit, 165Hz WITHOUT DSC being used. But DSC is a required capability of DP 2.1, so that will still be featured and the screen will still work using DSC. The issue seems to be that had they used UHBR20, it could have worked with an uncompressed video signal. And also if you're going to use DSC anyway, DP 1.4 + DSC would have been sufficient as well
 
Blackstone said:
It sounds like something that could be addressed in a future updated model. I have to admit it would be nice to have an even higher refresh rate for older games that can be run fast, or future graphics cards.
Click to expand...
Future graphics cards will also come with future games. That's the problem with all this, it's kind of a red herring, even if this did have 240hz, what percent of the time are you actually spending above 165hz? Gonna turn the graphics way down to cruise at max refresh? I guess some people may do that, but I doubt many. Hell even Counter-Strike isn't the 600fps demon it used to be since going to CS2/HL2 engine.

The issue is the video cards are nowhere near maxing out the highest end monitors in AAA titles, and that's not even talking about 1% lows. I'm playing Hogwarts Legacy at 3440x1440 with a 4080Super and a 5700x3d and at max settings I was constantly seeing drops below 100, especially in towns, so I wound up dropping the picture quality. This 4kUW is 2.2x as many pixels, napkin math says that'd be about 45fps? 5090+9800x3d isn't going to quadruple that let alone 6x that.


Don't get me wrong, I want this to be 240hz... I'm mostly just ranting that we don't have the GPU power to really push what these beauties can do.
 
saji8k said:
What I meant was, for some reason this monitor internally supports DSC 30:25 (for 165 Hz) but not DSC 30:11 (for 330 Hz). Had the monitor supported DSC 30:11, the monitor would be able to do 5120x2160, 330 Hz, 10-bit 4:4:4 because a DP54 port and the panel both supports that.
Click to expand...
The panel doesn't support that though. It supports 5120 x 2160 @ 165Hz, OR 2560 x 1080 @ 330Hz via dual mode. that's how the panel has been designed, you can't just have 5120 x 2160 @ 330Hz, otherwise that would just be the native refresh rate to start with :) It's not to do with the DP port or UHBR speed and whether thats "proper" or not, it's a panel limitation
 
ZeqOBpf6 said:
Future graphics cards will also come with future games. That's the problem with all this, it's kind of a red herring, even if this did have 240hz, what percent of the time are you actually spending above 165hz? Gonna turn the graphics way down to cruise at max refresh? I guess some people may do that, but I doubt many. Hell even Counter-Strike isn't the 600fps demon it used to be since going to CS2/HL2 engine.

The issue is the video cards are nowhere near maxing out the highest end monitors in AAA titles, and that's not even talking about 1% lows.
Click to expand...
I'd argue the future is with multi-frame frame gen, so those 200+ fps might become realistic sooner than you think.

I don't care one bit about multiplayer shooters and consider 240 Hz more like headroom. I'm currently using 120 Hz displays and that's plenty for the games I play with my 4090. But there are games that can run at above 200 fps, like Doom Eternal. So it would be nice to have that extra refresh rate headroom when I can utilize it.

These 165 Hz models feel like the same kind of interim product that happened with the 1440p OLED monitors, with possibly a 240 Hz version coming out next year.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top