31.5" 2560x1440 165 Hz VA G-Sync - LG 32GK850G

I'm telling you, these companies are dumping inventory because we're on the cusp of more 144hz 4k screens (and even ones that are 31.5") and new Nvidia GPUs fast enough to drive them.

On top of that, it isn't long until we get 2019 LG OLED TV models that have variable refresh. The days of these ludicrously overpriced variable refresh monitors are over.

2018 is a shit year to buy a monitor. It was just a dud of a year where basically nothing happened.
 
3 yr sq trade for $99 damn thats high
I assume thats why its 09.99
the price drops at 599.99 or less
 
Last edited:
I'm telling you, these companies are dumping inventory because we're on the cusp of more 144hz 4k screens (and even ones that are 31.5") and new Nvidia GPUs fast enough to drive them.

On top of that, it isn't long until we get 2019 LG OLED TV models that have variable refresh. The days of these ludicrously overpriced variable refresh monitors are over.

2018 is a shit year to buy a monitor. It was just a dud of a year where basically nothing happened.
Maybe there are new 1440p and 4k panels incoming? Those 144hz 1440p panels are 3 years old at this point and still expensive. new stuff have to be coming out.
There are also no flat gsync va screens besides this one... and 32" is too much for me.

let's hope ANY new stuff is coming out. All we have at 16:9 is old or crappy
 
Maybe there are new 1440p and 4k panels incoming? Those 144hz 1440p panels are 3 years old at this point and still expensive. new stuff have to be coming out.
There are also no flat gsync va screens besides this one... and 32" is too much for me.

let's hope ANY new stuff is coming out. All we have at 16:9 is old or crappy
LG has both 27" and 31.5" 1440p IPS panels coming from Q4 2018 onwards.
 
Would this monitor be better if everything was the same except it had a IPS panel?
 
Would this monitor be better if everything was the same except it had a IPS panel?

No way, if anything it would be a lot worse in terms of contrast, IPS glow, maybe even backlight bleeding, etc. In the era of OLED and fast response VA, IPS just needs to go away.
 
Would this monitor be better if everything was the same except it had a IPS panel?

Nope. The glow and lack of contrast would be atrocious. Honestly, after adjusting the colors and saturation, the only thing IPS has on this is faster Black-to-Grey transitions. Those slow transitions are the only real drawback of this VA. I'm fine with it because the only time I notice it is on certain BF1 maps, and my eyes have mostly adjusted to the effect.

All in all, a very welcome trade-off to be rid of the awful IPS glow that kills dark scenes!
 
What do you guys think of 31.5" 1440p? Seems huge. Maximum 30" seems more appropriate for 1440

Great for sitting back a bit, more forgiving for my eyesight, I leave the 4k phone displays to you young whippersnappers.

I was raised on pixels the size of your fist, so I'm more concerned when I CANT see the pixels. :oldman:
 
The 31.5" LM315WQ1 is expected to go in to production in December 2018 and will offer a 2560 x 1440 resolution with 165Hz refresh rate.

Would like to see a comparison with the current 27" 1440p IPS panels and the 31.5" VA... almost had that LG, but for an Ebay snafu.
 
pc monitors gave it their recommend badge.

They did mention the text not being crystal clear.

I did look at the new panels coming out, I bet the price is out of this world.
 
I ended up picking one of these up off a deal i got through a friend, pretty nice monitor, my first g-sync monitor and never realized there were so many problems with g-sync.
 
I have not posted on these forums in ages, but I recall the awesome heated monitor discussions.

This monitor is the only one I found that has decent VA contrast, 120Hz or better refresh rate with decent response time, G-Sync, 1440p and decent input lag.

It's like "Meh" , but without any major draw-backs, except for the price. I want to ditch my Eizo Foris FG2421 for this LG panel and hopefully can find it under 600 somewhere...
 
I have not posted on these forums in ages, but I recall the awesome heated monitor discussions.

This monitor is the only one I found that has decent VA contrast, 120Hz or better refresh rate with decent response time, G-Sync, 1440p and decent input lag.

It's like "Meh" , but without any major draw-backs, except for the price. I want to ditch my Eizo Foris FG2421 for this LG panel and hopefully can find it under 600 somewhere...

The last eBay coupon last time took it down to $609 so it is doable.
 
Aside from controls menu popping when the unit is turned on, are there any major defects?
 
Aside from controls menu popping when the unit is turned on, are there any major defects?
It's a vertical scanline panel like the TN panels, so it could be a deal breaker if you don't like them subtly appearing in motion picture.
 
Please elaborate, i'm on a fence regarding g-sync.
Honestly i would love to do a comparison between a g-sync monitor and just high refresh to really see what g-sync provides.

I was referring to a couple of games who have studdering with gsync where you have to make a custom game profile and disable g-sync and enable variable sync. the two for me so far are NFS payback and Fifa 18.
 
Honestly i would love to do a comparison between a g-sync monitor and just high refresh to really see what g-sync provides.
G-sync is really overrated when you can keep fps at 144+. 99% of the g-sync hype is generated by people switching from 60Hz to 144Hz, refresh rate alone brings the smoothness and lack of tearing.
 
G-sync is really overrated when you can keep fps at 144+

As one of said switchers, I'll confirm this as largely true.

I'll also confirm that the point of G-Sync (and other adaptive v-sync technologies) is that this simply does not happen, and uneven frame delivery becomes an issue.

And the summary remains the same: with G-Sync, you get tear-free frames without V-Sync input lag from 30FPS up to your displays max.
 
G-sync is really overrated when you can keep fps at 144+. 99% of the g-sync hype is generated by people switching from 60Hz to 144Hz, refresh rate alone brings the smoothness and lack of tearing.

I disagree 100% with that. But I would rather have a 144hz non-gsync than a 60hz plain monitor.
 
I disagree 100% with that. But I would rather have a 144hz non-gsync than a 60hz plain monitor.
I honestly have a hard time seeing the tearing in normal 144Hz mode, unless I really start looking and analyzing the picture instead of normally playing. I've even forgotten re-enabling G-sync, totally thinking that it had been on.

As for the smoothness argument, I don't see that at all. That one comes 100% from the refresh rate and in-game FPS.
 
Last edited:
I honestly have a hard time seeing the tearing in normal 144Hz mode, unless I really start looking and analyzing the picture instead of normally playing. I've even forgotten re-enabling G-sync, totally thinking that it had been on.

As for the smoothness argument, I don't see that at all. That one comes 100% from the refresh rate and in-game FPS.


I notice instantly, even just on menus with background 3D game stuff going on.
It feels jarring to play without it and the tearing/stuttering messes with my aim. It distracts me from the game and absolutely disgusts me. I won't play without GSYNC.

GSYNC makes such a huge difference I have a hard time believing anyone saying otherwise actually experienced using it correctly.
 
I notice instantly, even just on menus with background 3D game stuff going on.
It feels jarring to play without it and the tearing/stuttering messes with my aim. It's distracts from the game and absolutely disgusts me. I won't play without GSYNC.

GSYNC makes such a huge difference I have a hard time believing anyone saying otherwise actually experienced using it correctly.
What messes the aim is the fluctuating FPS constantly changing the latency of mouse movement. GSYNC won't save you from that, it still fluctuates and messes up the aim.
 
What messes the aim is the fluctuating FPS constantly changing the latency of mouse movement. GSYNC won't save you from that, it still fluctuates and messes up the aim.

Extreme fps fluctuations will always mess things up. But GSYNC fixes any minor fluctuations. Saying things like this make me wonder if you've ever actually used it.
 
What messes the aim is the fluctuating FPS constantly changing the latency of mouse movement. GSYNC won't save you from that, it still fluctuates and messes up the aim.
That's not how mouse and keyboard inputs work, they are read and buffered so are not really influenced by FPS unless game programmers really mess it up.

What messes up your aim is that your brain has a hard time matching up the input with the visual feedback it sees if the movement is jerky so you tend to over/undershoot the target. This is why fixed FPS can be much better for the overall feel of a game (mostly shooters where pinpoint accuracy is important) than having variable refresh... Furthermore game logics refresh and rendering refresh don't have to be at the same pace.
 
I disagree 100% with that. But I would rather have a 144hz non-gsync than a 60hz plain monitor.

If I had to pick one, it would be 120Hz+. But I don't plan on picking something without 120Hz+ and VRR. Monitor, TV, laptop... phone? Yeah, I'm addicted.
 
That's not how mouse and keyboard inputs work, they are read and buffered so are not really influenced by FPS unless game programmers really mess it up.

What messes up your aim is that your brain has a hard time matching up the input with the visual feedback it sees if the movement is jerky so you tend to over/undershoot the target. This is why fixed FPS can be much better for the overall feel of a game (mostly shooters where pinpoint accuracy is important) than having variable refresh... Furthermore game logics refresh and rendering refresh don't have to be at the same pace.

That's how it works in some competitive shooters. Both CS:GO and Overwatch have absolute input lag where it's tied to the framerate. It's very noticeable to me if I drop from 240 to 142 fps limit, for example.

That other poster is correct that frame rate fluctuations mess with the input lag. That's why I still cap framerates when possible on my 240hz monitor to something near the average. It also messes with fluidity going from like 200fps to 120fps in a more intense part. I'd rather set it to like 160fps cap so that the dips are less appreciable. G Sync removes tearing but it isn't magic and lower framerates are lower framrates.
 
I have not posted on these forums in ages, but I recall the awesome heated monitor discussions.

This monitor is the only one I found that has decent VA contrast, 120Hz or better refresh rate with decent response time, G-Sync, 1440p and decent input lag.

It's like "Meh" , but without any major draw-backs, except for the price. I want to ditch my Eizo Foris FG2421 for this LG panel and hopefully can find it under 600 somewhere...
I'm lining up for that FG2421 whenever you move on. Haven't found a display that truly justifies replacing mine at over twice the price yet, and dual matched monitors oughtta be interesting.

The only thing I could see myself stepping up to would be one of those NVIDIA BFGDs, but I also know they're gonna be heinously expensive.
 
absolute input lag where it's tied to the framerate
Input lag will always be linked to framerate since by definition it's the difference in time from the input until you see it on the screen. However if you move your mouse 1 cm in the game it should always result in the same camera movement regardless of framerate. Higher FPS still helps since you will see more frames of the movement and adjust finer if needed. Jerky movement on the other hand is caused by FPS dips, and that can throw your brain off more than a higher but CONSTANT input lag... Steady 60 FPS is better than jerky 100 FPS for aiming but higher FPS, if your monitor can also display it, reduces input lag which also helps with accuracy...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top