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

[Lepardi]

I'm almost positive that Nvidia is going to do everything possible to fuck over HDMI 2.1. All HDMI 2.1 represents to Nvidia is a loss of G-Sync module sales. On top of that, they have those stupid BFG TVs coming out.

There is no way in fuck that Nvidia, a company known for being evil cocksuckers, is going to support HDMI 2.1. Guarantee you that the 1180 cards ship without HDMI 2.1 support. Anyone want to bet?

The only option for a 4k 120hz screen that isn't sized for ANTS is going to be some 31.5" variant of the monitors we got this year that will come out next year.

You'll have to go AMD (which will be far too slow and underpowered to run anything fast enough) for HDMI 2.1 4k 120hz.

This industry FUCKING SUCKS.

If FBI investigated AUO again, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't come out clean with this bad QC monopoly that has been since 2015

 

[Nvidia_ATI]

Horizontal? That's new, this model is known for vertical scanlines. But if you really get horizontal, you're going to trade them for vertical scanlines. If you think vertical is better than horizontal, I guess it's worth RMA lol.

They do not look like scanlines because the lines do not have regular spacing between each other. They appear as glitches which are located mostly in the middle third of the screen

 

[elvn]

Mine might get here tomorrow. Not sure how much time I'll have to test it out since I'm in the middle of some other project. I'll probably hook it up to my laptop via hdmi to check for obvious defects first before going into messing with my desk.

 

[HiCZoK]

Can someone test if there is ghosting in games like bindig of isaac rebirth? It's a 2d game with static background but fast moving characters. On my old 60hz iiyama panel, there was an annoying trail left behind the character.
and is there any shimmering or pixels dimming on fine details in games like grates in doom or shy in witcher3 in motion ?
The price is finally coming down a little and I think it might be worth considering. The monitor is huuuge and have annoying 1440p resolution which would make 1080p content look bad, but it's the only flat VA gsync monitor. I've never used va above 60hz so I wonder how it is

 

[elvn]

Copied from other thread:
-----------------------------------------------

"Motion artifacts only at refresh rates greater than 100 Hz."

Yes and pretty negligible at 120hz on a good VA ... in all cases keep in mind what your frame rate averages would be due to demand on gpu on specific games at any given resolution.

Modern VA , Hz vs response times
tftcentral review of gk850g, a modern gaming VA, in regard to response times vs Hz:

One thing to keep in mind also is whether the pixel response times are fast enough to keep up with the frame rate demands of the high refresh rate. To deliver 144Hz, a new frame is sent to the screen every 6.94ms, which means that response times need to be consistently under this to keep up. If they're not, then you end up with some added smearing on fast moving content. For the 165Hz overclocked refresh rate you need response times to be <6.06ms to keep up (1000 ms / 165 Hz = 6.06ms). On the 32GK850G the response times (even if we ignore the few slow black transitions for now) were not quite fast enough to keep up with 144Hz or 165Hz refresh rates, and you get a little added smearing in practice if you use the screen at those settings. We felt 120Hz (needing <8.33ms) was a better balance and provided the optimal experience.

Above are some pursuit camera tests running the screen in the optimal 'Faster' response time mode, at both 120Hz and 165Hz. You can see the dark trailing evident at both refresh rates behind the moving UFO, particularly on a dark background where the black outline of the UFO is changing to a dark shade. It's on dark content where the black smearing becomes most noticeable. You can see that a little bit more smearing and blurring is visible at the max 165Hz refresh rate, and that's because the pixel response times have trouble keeping up with the frame rate of the screen. You start to get more noticeable smearing, especially with blacks. So despite the added refresh rate helping to reduce perceived motion blur in theory, the performance is being limited by the response times of the pixels themselves. We would recommend sticking with 120Hz for optimal performance, although 120 - 165Hz is still useable and doesn't look terrible. If you're using G-sync for instance and wanted to use the full range up to 144Hz or 165Hz, it is still very usable, and you may not be pushing frame rates that high regularly anyway.

Getting Better

results in practice with some dark smearing on moving content. It's less noticeable at this maximum 'faster' response time setting but it's still there sadly. This mode has at least eliminated some of the slow middle G2G transitions you get in the 'fast' and 'normal' response time modes which is good news. In the best case the response time actually reached down to 2.8ms G2G which was impressive. The quoted 5ms figure is actually conservative from LG if you want to consider the best case measurement.

Not in the same Class as other VA (bodes well for the FALD VAs due out?)

With an average G2G of 8.3ms, it was faster than the recent competing Samsung C32HG70 model, which measured in at 13ms G2G average but also showed a lot more slow transitions from dark to light shades. There was less noticeable dark smearing as a result on the LG. It was a little better for gaming than the Asus ROG Strix XG35VQ overall as well, which struggled even more with transitions from black to dark grey, and also showed some high levels of overshoot in practice.

Being a VA panel it still struggled with some of those darker transitions and so black smearing was still apparent on moving content in certain situations. We feel that the high refresh rate IPS panels such as the Asus ROG Swift PG279Q (5.0ms G2G average, 144Hz) and Dell Alienware AW3418DW (6.9ms G2G, 120Hz) for instance offered a smoother experience without that dark smearing becoming a problem. Of course you are then having to live with a much lower contrast ratio and put up with the pale "IPS glow" from that technology, so it depends what is important to you. For a VA panel, the 32GK850G was a good option we felt when it came to gaming.

And smaller sizes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cap Frame Rate
You should cap the frame rate below the max refresh rate of your monitor to avoid frame rate overages causing g-sync to revert back to v-sync which adds input lag. Using an in game frame rate limiter is the best option as it doesn't really add input lag. RTSS external app adds "up to" 1 frame of input lag (shorter ms the faster the frames), and nvidia's driver panel method adds 2 frames of input lag so is not recommended if you can use the other options. In game > RTSS > nvidia cpl > no limiter/v-sync on overages.
In the case of a VA you'd cap the frame rate at 118 (or 98 if you are obsessive/stickler about it), and use the fastest overdrive if the monitor's overdrive tech is good enough.

Response times can relate to FrameRate+Hz
I'd also note that monitors like the PG279Q IPS had their response time tied to the refresh rate.. So at high fps+hz using g-sync, the response time was 5.2 or something... but when the frame rate+hz using g-sync was in a lower range the response time went back up to 8.5ms. This is an important factor to remember (especially when running 4k resolution frame rate ranges on demanding games). Your frame rate and hz using g-sync affect the response time on some monitors.

TFTcentral about PG279Q gaming IPS

So what does this all mean? Well it means that the pixel response times of the screen will vary a little depending on the refresh rate you're using. If you plugged in a 60Hz console, the response times would be ~8.5ms G2G, still very good for an IPS panel. If you use G-sync and the refresh rate fluctuates between 30 and 144Hz, the response times are controlled dynamically and will vary a little as refresh rate changes. To be honest we aren't talking huge differences, although when you combine the slightly higher response time impact on blurring, with the impact of lower refresh rates on perceived blur, you will notice some difference in motion clarity depending on your active refresh rate. The variation in response times isn't really a big factor, and you're more likely to notice the difference in motion clarity caused by the changes in refresh rate anyway.

TFT central regarding the PG27UQ

"the 'normal' mode showed a good improvement compared with at 60Hz, with average G2G response time improving from 9.3ms to 6.9ms when at 98Hz, and a little lower at 6.6ms at 120Hz. "

So the takeaway here is that unless you are running 100fps+ or better average frame rates, your frame rate graph is sluggish to where your resulting lack of motion clarity/blur reduction and motion definition rate will overshadow any negligible response time transition issues at capped frame rate/Hz, and it will also be a much slower response time to start with at lower fps ranges which will make the blur at speed (mouse looking and movement keying the whole viewport around in 1st/3rd person games) even worse. That is, you are making the already bad sample and hold blur and low motion definition rate of a 60fps and less range graph worse with the resulting lower response times inducing more blur.

Capping your frame rate and running higher frame rate graphs to straddle the "sweet spot" of a monitor is the best scenario... staying in the range with g-sync allowing for the lower end of the range to play out cleanly.. and truncating the top off to avoid exacerbating minor VA transition issues or on the HDR FALD IPS - reported black crush issues over 120hz and over 98hz color depth limitation, etc. Also avoiding input lag by avoiding reverting back to v-sync if fps every goes over the max refresh rate of the monitor of course.

 

[elvn]

Can someone test if there is ghosting in games like bindig of isaac rebirth? It's a 2d game with static background but fast moving characters. On my old 60hz iiyama panel, there was an annoying trail left behind the character.
and is there any shimmering or pixels dimming on fine details in games like grates in doom or shy in witcher3 in motion ?
The price is finally coming down a little and I think it might be worth considering. The monitor is huuuge and have annoying 1440p resolution which would make 1080p content look bad, but it's the only flat VA gsync monitor. I've never used va above 60hz so I wonder how it is

At a glance, binding of issac seems to have a little trailing on his head like the back side of the thick black edge of his head outline is vibrating slightly when you are walking. Not that noticeable in windowed mode. This is a horrible example of a game though as it's locked at 60fps and I think it forces v-sync on. Testing it on my VA tv and my 13ms response time 60hz ips apple cinema display has similar results. It's a papery/page-y flash game. Maybe if you could unlock the frame rate to 120fps and set 120hz somehow and turn off v-sync you'd get better results. Were it a game with 120fps+120hz and g-sync with v-sync off it would prob look a lot better. Shovel knight looks pretty decent on it but again it's hard to tell lack of frames of motion and animation in the game itself being a limiter. You might even want to try lightboost on a different monitor in these type of games if you could force your screen to be 120hz + strobing (60 is too slow of a pwm strobe.. so is 100hz for me).

Cuphead works great at 2560x1440 with v-sync off option in the menus and it has strong black outlines in it's art style .. so idk those waeker indie slideshow games that don't give you options to even change your default control keys and have no v-sync off controls etc. might not be best for the monitor without finding some kind of fixes.

I'll try some other ones later if I get a chance. Vermintide 2 and the witcher 3 look great on this monitor once I tweaked all the monitor settings and digital vibrance for gaming. The black levels are triple my TN swift and the size gain is really nice to play on.

edit : I turned g-sync on windowed mode and isaac looks decent playing in window. it's pretty glassy.
edit2: I put issac on high detail fullscreen at the max allowable rez and turned gaming overdrive to "normal" and it looks good. It still looks even better running in a window for some reason though, ;looks perfect and glassy. The game doesn't support 2560x1440 natively. Full screen it looks "page-y" as in how it's being rendered not any artifacts of the VA panel.

edit3: I turned g-sync off for fullscreen and isasc looks good. A tiny bit of his black head outline wobble if you move him back and forth.. just a hair not much. I still think non native rez and the game renderer is pagey at fullscreen but I think that's just the game's own limitations.

G-sync on (fullscreen and windowed), 120hz in nvidia control panel. OD = normal and run it in large windowed mode seems really good. It's playable at full screen but just feels off somehow comapred to how glassy it is in a window. The most I see is his head outline is thicker by a hair on the back side of his head when running if you are really looking for it and wagging him back and forth. Even then nothing obnoxious. Hope this helps.

edit: shovel knight looks great 120hz g-sync even full screen at 2560x1440 and v-sync off set in the game's menus and the LG monitor's OD set to fastestl in OSD.. I see no odd VA artifacts in that game even with the hard black outline on white background style. . The main character moves side to side and jumps just as fast as in issac. something page-y about the whole game rendering of issac full screen but large size windowed mode looks great.

Incidentally binding of issac doesn't pick up xbox one controller off of the game's steam bigscreen mode controller config page even when I set it to emulate the game's keyboard keys. Hollow knight picked up the controller immediately and didn't require key mapping.

 

[HiCZoK]

Thank you for very detailed answer!

 

[elvn]

You're welcome. Just rambling on as I tried a bunch of things. Personally I would choose to play it in a large window since it seems to run the best that way.

I also found this on reddit regarding using a controller issue:

I used to have this problem with Binding of Isaac, and I actually figured out it's kind of easy! Since The Binding of Isaac doesn't support the Steam Overlay in either form (Normal or Big Picture) - The Steam Controller defaults to using the Desktop configuration. The way I got around this is by creating a second Desktop configuration that I switch to whenever I want to play BoI. If you don't know how to make a new Desktop configuration; all you have to do is open Big Picture mode, and on the initial menu there's an option button on the top-right (the gear-thingy) which you can click, and then go into "configurations". Then click the only option it gives you at the moment, Desktop Configuration, and it'll give you the config overlay for your current Desktop configuration. Now what I typically do is change one thing about the current configuration, and then save it under a new name (Binding of Isaac), and then make the game's bindings on the newly saved configuration. (To avoid the possibility of changing everything in the Desktop config, saving it as a new thing, and the system glitching out and ending up overwriting the initial config.) From there you only have to make the bindings for the game, and you're good to go! It'll even work with Big Picture mode! The only drawback is that you have to exit out of the game if you want to edit the configuration, but I guess it's either that or nothing. If you still need help, I'd be glad to provide the bindings I use for the game, or help with any problems that continue to pop up!

 

[elvn]

I'm very happy with this monitor. I'm selling my pg278q to make up for some of the cost so it's a great deal overall. It took me a few days of experimental tweaking to get it to where I wanted it. It's primarily for gaming so my settings don't need to be any kind of perfect calibration on this screen. It took some work getting the whites to look white and bright. Out of the box the panel was very warm.


Currently I'm using
-----------------------------

Gamer 1
Black stabilization: OFF
Response time: FASTER (the overdrive on this monitor is excellent)
Brightness:95 (OSD)
Contrast: 80 (OSD)
Gamma: Mode3
Color Temp: Custom
Red: 33, Green:33, Blue:76 (cool blue whites)
Red:40, Green:40, Blue 76 (less blue on whites)
Nvidia control panel digital vibrance up to +64%.

Optionally you can use a 3rd party tool like vibrancer to up the digital vibrance on a per game basis as well. I use in game frame rate limiters to stay at/below 120fps/hz. If there is no in game limter I use RTSS.
I may tweak the settings a bit more but they really pop with the above settings for games and images, at least on my particular panel.

 

[DG25]

I also found this on reddit regarding using a controller issue:

A bit offtopic, but if the game doesn't work with Steam's overlay, one way to make it work with the steam controller is to use a third party program called GloSC.

 

[elvn]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Calibrations/Settings from reputable review sites:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/lg-32gk850g/#Calibration

Game Mode = Gamer 1
Brightness: 50 (according to preferences and lighting)
Gamma = Mode 3
R=100
G=42
B=50
Overclock = On (I'd turn it off and cap games at 118 or 120 fps using in game cap or RTSS)
Response Time = Fastest
Refresh Rate (in Windows) = 165Hz (I'd set it to 120hz since the response time loses it after 120)
This results in Brightness 182nit, Black Depth 0.07, Contrast Ratio: 2600
Gamma 2.2, White Point: 6505K
"As ‘Gamma Mode = 3’ with reduced brightness and some colour channel corrections. A well-balanced image with a rich and natural look overall."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_32gk850g.htm#calibration

Game mode: Gamer 1
Brightness: 23
Contrast: 70
Gamma: Mode 1
Color Temp: Custom
R=45
G=45
B=55
This results in Luminance 120nit , Black Depth 0.04, Contrast Ratio: 2950:1
sRGB Coverage 102.1%
DCI-P3 Coverage: 75.3%
Rec.2020 coverage 54.0%
"Average gamma was measured at 2.2 average (0% deviance) which fixed the 7% deviance we'd seen out of the box at default settings. The moderate 9% white point deviance had now been corrected bringing the measured white point to 6494k. Luminance had been improved thanks to the adjustment to the brightness control and was now being measured at a far more comfortable 120 cd/m2. This left us a black depth of 0.04 cd/m2 and a static contrast ratio of 2950:1 which was excellent thanks to the VA panel technology. Colour accuracy of the resulting profile was excellent too, with dE average of 0.4 and maximum of 1.1. LaCie would consider colour fidelity to be excellent. Testing the screen with various colour gradients showed mostly smooth transitions with only some minor gradation in darker tones, and a little banding introduced in the darker tones due to the gamma correction. You can use our settings and try our calibrated ICC profile if you wish, which are available in our ICC profile database. Keep in mind that results will vary from one screen to another and from one computer / graphics card to another."

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/icc_profiles.htm

 

[Lepardi]

TFTcentrals 120Hz recommendation is based on Gsync off measurements, it doesn't take into account the better overdrive once you enable G-sync.

 

[elvn]

The overdrive on this monitor is great but there are a lot of factors to take into account as to what your end result will be.

This is what they said in regard to the black smearing, which is pretty much what most reputable sites say about it:
-------------------------------

Above are some pursuit camera tests running the screen in the optimal 'Faster' response time mode, at both 120Hz and 165Hz. You can see the dark trailing evident at both refresh rates behind the moving UFO, particularly on a dark background where the black outline of the UFO is changing to a dark shade. It's on dark content where the black smearing becomes most noticeable. You can see that a little bit more smearing and blurring is visible at the max 165Hz refresh rate, and that's because the pixel response times have trouble keeping up with the frame rate of the screen. You start to get more noticeable smearing, especially with blacks. So despite the added refresh rate helping to reduce perceived motion blur in theory, the performance is being limited by the response times of the pixels themselves. We would recommend sticking with 120Hz for optimal performance, although 120 - 165Hz is still useable and doesn't look terrible. If you're using G-sync for instance and wanted to use the full range up to 144Hz or 165Hz, it is still very usable, and you may not be pushing frame rates that high regularly anyway.

For the 165Hz overclocked refresh rate you need response times to be <6.06ms to keep up (1000 ms / 165 Hz = 6.06ms). On the 32GK850G the response times (even if we ignore the few slow black transitions for now) were not quite fast enough to keep up with 144Hz or 165Hz refresh rates, and you get a little added smearing in practice if you use the screen at those settings. We felt 120Hz (needing <8.33ms) was a better balance and provided the optimal experience.

results in practice with some dark smearing on moving content. It's less noticeable at this maximum 'faster' response time setting but it's still there sadly. This mode has at least eliminated some of the slow middle G2G transitions you get in the 'fast' and 'normal' response time modes which is good news. In the best case the response time actually reached down to 2.8ms G2G which was impressive. The quoted 5ms figure is actually conservative from LG if you want to consider the best case measurement.

-----------------------------

That means that this VA response time, while excellent overall, will still "black smear" some on the faster dark/light transitions more noticeably at 144hz and 165hz. That is - when your frame rate and hz are high enough to be at a tighter motion clarity to notice it (100fps+). Even then while it is visible it's not unplayable. 60hz fps/Hz and other low ranges have smearing sample and hold blur to begin with which would overshadow any VA transition artifacts.

You aren't refreshing the screen at 144hz or 165hz until the top of your frame rate graph spans into those frame rates. This probably means something like a 115fps average graph to span up into 144hz peaks, and maybe a 135 fps or higher average for your fps graph to range up 136 though 165hz peaks part of the graph .

Unless you are hitting 144fps to match the hz and 165fps to match the hz, you aren't reaching up into the more noticeable black smearing ranges. And if you are much below 100fps average, your sample-and-hold blur due to your slower frame rate will overshadow any VA black smearing.

You can play just fine at the higher ranges but 120hz cap will avoid the useable/ "not terrible" but noticeable smearing if it bothers you. This VA experiences the least dark smearing/transition problems of any VA I've heard of but they are still evident to a degree above 120hz (combined with a graph/fps range spanning higher than 120 frames per second that is).

-----------------------------------------------
So this is what I meant by "the sweet spot" in my prior reply.
Using g-sync, especially in regard to 1st/3rd person games where you are moving your viewport around at speed, mouse-looking and movement-keying....

When your fps goes much under 100fps+hz , you will experience sample and hold blur that becomes more smearing,
When your fps goes much over 120fps+hz on this VA, you will get more noticeable black smearing if you have 144hz - 165 hz enabled.
------------------------------------------------

Regardless, whatever your max Hz is set to - you should always cap your frame rate to stay below that max refresh rate of your monitor in order to avoid reverting back to v-sync if playing a game that can exceed your refresh rate in it's full frame rate graph.

 

[datum]

IMO QHD - 2560x1440 does not work well with such large screen size, it's maximum size is 27" and at 31.5" or 32" you really need 4K. too few pixels on such a large screen.

27" and QHD work well together.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

IMO QHD - 2560x1440 does not work well with such large screen size, it's maximum size is 27" and at 31.5" or 32" you really need 4K. too few pixels on such a large screen.

27" and QHD work well together.

IMO, you're wrong. 32" is about perfect for 1440p, and 4k needs even larger.

I have all of them.

 

[datum]

Well, that's your opinion. If you think 92PPI is fabulous, great.

I run both a 27" and a 32", 2.5K and 4K respectively 109PPI and 138PPI. Why would I want to have it any other way is beyond me. 109PPI is just barely tolerable, it's OK but pales next to 4K. Of course HD pales next to 2.5K

I got a 27" next to a 32" because I wanted the best value and most bang per buck, which it delivers but any larger than 27" and the PPI drops too low. It's marginal as it is.

PPI / resolution matters more than the brute size of the screen. This reminds of all these 27" screens that run at the old 1080 resolution and look awful.

2.5K on a 32" is the same resolution/PPI - 92 PPI as 1080 "HD" on a 24" screen, which is terrible.

 

[Decibel]

Well, that's your opinion. If you think 92PPI is fabulous, great.

I run both a 27" and a 32", 2.5K and 4K respectively 109PPI and 138PPI. Why would I want to have it any other way is beyond me. 109PPI is just barely tolerable, it's OK but pales next to 4K. Of course HD pales next to 2.5K

I got a 27" next to a 32" because I wanted the best value and most bang per buck, which it delivers but any larger than 27" and the PPI drops too low. It's marginal as it is.

PPI / resolution matters more than the brute size of the screen. This reminds of all these 27" screens that run at the old 1080 resolution and look awful.

2.5K on a 32" is the same resolution/PPI - 92 PPI as 1080 "HD" on a 24" screen, which is terrible.

View attachment 99677

For a gaming monitor, it's fine.

Size, VRR and not needing dual 1080ti's to keep it above 60hz are more important than overall PPI.

 

[elvn]

For a gaming monitor, it's fine.

Size, VRR and not needing dual 1080ti's to keep it above 60hz are more important than overall PPI.

Dedicated to gaming it works great.
Larger Size , increased size substantially + 4.5" diaongally.
~ Triple the black depth of non FALD IPS and TN
Has G-Sync
A resolution you can reliably get 100fps-Hz or higher at with a beefy gpu in order to get appreciable benefit out of the high hz.

The PG27UQ and the PG279Q both go back to ~ 9ms resposne times or more when they are at 60fps-hz and you are adding that slower response time to the already bad sample-and-hold blur of 60fps-hz. They only achieve 5.x ms response times at high fps+hz when using g-sync. People using 4k 60hz screens for gaming already limit themselves to 60fps-hz smearing blur during viewport movement in 1st/3rd person games.. so the entire game world is smearing around mouse-looking and movement-keying. Consoles DOWNSAMPLE the resolution during action when their gpu is stressed, so you are often running non native resolution until things calm down again. Yes god of war looks decent but compared to my pc gameplaying the motion is very sluggish and the animation cycles slideshowy.

TFTcentral about PG279Q gaming IPS

So what does this all mean? Well it means that the pixel response times of the screen will vary a little depending on the refresh rate you're using. If you plugged in a 60Hz console, the response times would be ~8.5ms G2G, still very good for an IPS panel. If you use G-sync and the refresh rate fluctuates between 30 and 144Hz, the response times are controlled dynamically and will vary a little as refresh rate changes. To be honest we aren't talking huge differences, although when you combine the slightly higher response time impact on blurring, with the impact of lower refresh rates on perceived blur, you will notice some difference in motion clarity depending on your active refresh rate. The variation in response times isn't really a big factor, and you're more likely to notice the difference in motion clarity caused by the changes in refresh rate anyway.

TFT central regarding the PG27UQ

"the 'normal' mode showed a good improvement compared with at 60Hz, with average G2G response time improving from 9.3ms to 6.9ms when at 98Hz, and a little lower at 6.6ms at 120Hz. "

I have a 4k 43" 60hz VA TCL which works great as a desktop/app/media monitor set back a bit on a huge monitor arm next to my 32" LG VA , and I still have a 1440p ips apple cinema display 27" on an arm to the right of it. I replaced a PG278Q which does have very good color for a TN if you check TFTcentral. While 27" up close is an ok size, I really appreciate the size increase in this 32" LG and the contrast and black level increase is huge. The Pg278Q swift's contrast ratio is 860:1... the ips g-sync monitors are like 970:1. I can't go back to that ever. This 32" g-sync LG is 2800:1 to 3000:1. My TCL is like 6000:1 and my living room FALD VA TV is like 8200:1. OLED is INFINITE:1.
In the near future I'll be replacing the cinema display side with another 2018 series $280 43" TCL 4k VA or a vizio 43" 4k VA .

Further ahead, hopefully 2019 .. I'll end up with a 55" LG 4k HDR OLED with HDMI 2.1 's 120hz at 4k , VRR (variable refresh rate) , QFT (quick frame transport for low input lag gaming)... but it will require puwerful gpu(s) in the future to run it. At that size my desk would have to sit further away but with the right kind of setup - I'd have the option when running more demanding games to run a smaller 21:9 or 16:9 rez within that screen to get higher fps while gaming and still have quite a large screen with infinite black level, per pixel emission which avoids halos and glows and uniformity issues, very tiny response times, and HDR with HDR color volume.

It would be great if 1080p to 4k scaling would work properly as another option but that doesn't seem to be happening. 1440p scaled at 4k usually ends up looking better but I've never been a fan of improper scaling.. Spending $2k+ now on a FALD at 27" size isn't happening knowing I could save that money towrd a HDR OLED 4k 120hz VRR in 2019 and gpus in 2019 - 2020. For me 4k would be good at 40" (or bigger further away) to get more desktop real estate and allow me windowed/other resolution and aspect ratio options without going tiny.

For me , for now until I go 120hz 4k OLED vrr... the combination of this LG's size, contrast/black depth increase, and price ~ $600 minus my pg278Q sale is a great choice for gaming.

 

[datum]

Here is a newsflash, not everyone here does gaming. Perhaps not even most.


I like static images that are high resolution. The only way I am replacing my devices if I can get either a 32" 4K HDR with a higher refresh rate like 240 Hz or maybe in distant future an 8K device on a huge monitor. I am surely not going down PPI-wise, back to the year 2008.

5K would look good on about a 40" monitor and 8K (7680×4320) would look even better on about a 60", 146 PPI, sweet. If they can get the refresh rate right.
I also get it that I am not getting either one anytime soon. 5K 27" panels are around and useless to me, such high PPI on such a small screen, makes no sense at all.


IMO the size does not matter as much as the PPI. It's the PPI that makes it look fine and low PPI makes it look grainy. I think things become to look barely acceptable about 110 PPI which is QHD or 2.5K usually and great around 130 PPI which is 4K territory.

 

[datum]

Dedicated to gaming it works great.



For me , for now until I go 120hz 4k OLED vrr... the combination of this LG's size, contrast/black depth increase, and price ~ $600 minus my pg278Q sale is a great choice for gaming.

I get it that OLED looks good but all this news about it havinga shorter runtime than non-OLED components worries me. right now it's neither cost-effective and seems like a solution in search of a problem.

HDR is what I want next on my plate.

 

[DG25]

Here is a newsflash, not everyone here does gaming. Perhaps not even most..

Not sure if this is newsflash or not, and i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure almost everyone who reads this thread "does gaming", since the object of discussion is a high refresh, g-sync enabled monitor that's marketed as gamer oriented by its manufacturer.

Also, good luck sustaining 240 fps on a 4k monitor in any foreseeable future. I mean, even the new top of the line RTX cards (2800) are marketed towards 4k @ 60 fps at best, with ray tracing and all the bell and whistles enabled, and you're talking about 240 fps at 4k and beyond. Maybe, if you like turning down the graphics or play games like Fortnite and Overwatch that are designed to run on potatoes. Otherwise is just wishful thinking.

Personally, i care about the immersive factor and performance (responsiveness). In other words, i care about turning up the graphics, having high fps (minimum 120), VRR and low input lag. Big screen is also important, same for HDR, more so than resolution; my eyes don't get any younger, i don't sit too close to the monitor and in games it's less noticeable anyway. So yeah, resolution is dead last on my monitor wishlist.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Also, good luck sustaining 240 fps on a 4k monitor in any foreseeable future.

Shouldn't be an issue for desktop work or movie output (with frame interpolation), and I'd welcome that if the interconnect even existed, but yeah, not for gaming today .

 

[Decibel]

Here is a newsflash, not everyone here does gaming. Perhaps not even most.


I like static images that are high resolution. The only way I am replacing my devices if I can get either a 32" 4K HDR with a higher refresh rate like 240 Hz or maybe in distant future an 8K device on a huge monitor. I am surely not going down PPI-wise, back to the year 2008.

5K would look good on about a 40" monitor and 8K (7680×4320) would look even better on about a 60", 146 PPI, sweet. If they can get the refresh rate right.
I also get it that I am not getting either one anytime soon. 5K 27" panels are around and useless to me, such high PPI on such a small screen, makes no sense at all.


IMO the size does not matter as much as the PPI. It's the PPI that makes it look fine and low PPI makes it look grainy. I think things become to look barely acceptable about 110 PPI which is QHD or 2.5K usually and great around 130 PPI which is 4K territory.

Then why the fuck are we talking about a 1440p Gsync monitor? You knew what this thread was when you came wading in.

My 4k TV is a far better non-gaming display than my 32gk850 - better color, better contrast, better text- cheaper too. BUT, it gets its ass kicked when it comes to gaming and motion though.

 

[datum]

You know, they did not foresee HD or QHD or 4K or 8K in the CRT days, did they? What is foreseeable future, 5 years? They already have 120 Hz on 4K displays.


Also, good luck sustaining 240 fps on a 4k monitor in any foreseeable future.

 

[elvn]

You know, they did not foresee HD or QHD or 4K or 8K in the CRT days, did they? What is foreseeable future, 5 years? They already have 120 Hz on 4K displays.


Also, good luck sustaining 240 fps on a 4k monitor in any foreseeable future.

Considering the graphics ceiling is an arbitrary set point and that the challenge for devs is to whittle games down to fit "real time", the graphics ceiling limit can be pushed much further than it is now. Some games can even be modded now way past what is playable (a few screenshot forums are dedicated to this type of thing).. increasing view distances and animated objects viewed in distance.. downsampling 8k, 16k resolution, modded textures, etc. So anyway, we just got to the point were a single powerful gpu like a 1080ti or titan can do 100fps or better on demanding games at 2560x1440, sometimes with some over the top settings turned off on the most demanding games. It is likely going to be several years before gpus get enough of a jump to make that type of scenario for 4k resolutions considering the graphics complexity/ceilings will continue to rise along with gpu generations. That is, unless some exponential leap in gpu speed happens.

 

[HiCZoK]

Lol let me get this straight - In crt days, none of us was complaining about resolution. Even 1024x768 on 17" is 75 dpi, so I feel goo about 1080p or 1440p even more on monitors. It is only a recent trend to advertise 4k like if there was no tomorrow. I game on 1080p 27" and it's great. Not noticing ant problems with 81ppi.
It would still NOT HURT to upgradeto 4k on all monitors, if 1080p was integer scaled which it's sadly not. And 1440p could have integer 720p.

 

[DG25]

You know, they did not foresee HD or QHD or 4K or 8K in the CRT days, did they? What is foreseeable future, 5 years? They already have 120 Hz on 4K displays.


Also, good luck sustaining 240 fps on a 4k monitor in any foreseeable future.

Yes, but also newer games don't look like quake 1 anymore, do they? There will always be new stuff, graphic wise, to bring even the most powerful cards to their knees. A recent example is the new hybrid ray tracing tech nvidia is touting about. In 5 years there will be something else and so on.

The 60 fps standard is here to stay for a while, for better or worse. If you want double that or more, you're looking at multiplayer games coded for performance and not for visual immersiveness, older games or tuned down graphic settings.

 

[NamelessPFG]

Lol let me get this straight - In crt days, none of us was complaining about resolution. Even 1024x768 on 17" is 75 dpi, so I feel goo about 1080p or 1440p even more on monitors. It is only a recent trend to advertise 4k like if there was no tomorrow. I game on 1080p 27" and it's great. Not noticing ant problems with 81ppi.
It would still NOT HURT to upgradeto 4k on all monitors, if 1080p was integer scaled which it's sadly not. And 1440p could have integer 720p.

People were definitely pushing for bigger, badder, better monitors even in the CRT days; it's why we have this massive GDM-FW900 thread, since it takes a monitor like that or the 2070SB to really push past 1600x1200 with CRT tech. Even LCDs were pushing the limits at the time; need I remind everyone that the IBM T220/T221 debuted back in 2001?

However, because CRTs don't have native resolutions, you could get away with lowering the in-game resolution without offending your eyes too much. LCDs just look like crap at non-native res unless the DPI starts pushing past 200 or so, where non-integer scaling artifacts tend to be less visible. (Still, I maintain that from a Windows DPI scaling standpoint, it's best to use 100% scaling unless you can go straight to 200% scaling - pure integer scaling - and not lose too much usable screen space, which probably means you're using a mere 13.3" display at 2560x1440p, if not outright 3840x2160.)

I just use a mere 1920x1080 Eizo FG2421 at the moment, but that's because my GDM-FW900 died a few years back and any real upgrades from this monitor would've cost me at least twice as much. That, and my GTX 980 would probably choke at higher resolutions when actually chasing over 100 FPS in modern games.

Yes, but also newer games don't look like quake 1 anymore, do they? There will always be new stuff, graphic wise, to bring even the most powerful cards to their knees. A recent example is the new hybrid ray tracing tech nvidia is touting about. In 5 years there will be something else and so on.

The 60 fps standard (independent of resolution) is here to stay for a while, for better or worse. If you want double that or more, you're looking at multiplayer games coded for performance and not for visual immersiveness, older games or tuned down graphic settings.

Or VR, where 90 Hz minimum is the ideal unless you like putting up with timewarp/spacewarp/reprojection artifacts, some of which are a result of halving the non-interpolated game engine framerate to 45 FPS when active. It looks about as pleasant as you'd expect.

I have a feeling 60 Hz became a standard because that's the standard TV refresh rate in NTSC territories, and it's considered "good enough" for the most part. I dunno how Europeans got by with PAL 50 Hz, it's painfully flickery on CRTs. Higher refresh rates on PCs probably came about because PC CRT monitors look more flickery than usual at just 60 Hz, and you really have to jack it up to at least 85 Hz before the eyestrain goes away - but once you do, you start noticing how much smoother your mouse cursor moves, among other things.

Then people could more reliably afford setups that could run Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament, Counter-Strike, etc. at 100+ FPS and noticed the competitive benefits, since most people were still using higher-end CRT monitors back then. That's what carried over to today's PC gamer mentality about 120 Hz minimum, I think, particularly once we got past a decade's worth of 60 Hz TN LCD malaise. Thank goodness for 120+ Hz VA panels being a thing today!

 

[IdiotInCharge]

So, to add to the thread-

I got my LG 32GK850G setup last night, replacing the Acer XB271HU I've been using for about a year. Main complaints with the Acer, aside being too small as it sits a bit further away as a part of a four-panel desktop, is the lack of definition in dark areas. Uniformity wasn't perfect either and of course there was IPS backlight bleeding, but the color was good and the response was great with very low persistance.

In comparison, I can say that this 32" LG is what I expected, though I haven't thoroughly tested yet. It did come out a bit warm, which a profile change in the menus addressed, it did overclock to 165Hz just fine, and persistance does seem to be a hair behind the Acer IPS panel. Now on my second high framerate monitor, I can definitely see why faster panels are needed!

On the docket is to do more high-contrast testing and to pull out the Spyder 5 and get everything calibrated.

 

[elvn]

Would like to note that while the competitive advantage or increased motion definition, motion articulation /pathing, motion smoothness, and lower eyestrain of high hz and higher fps may have been its first goal on crt, the great reduction of sample and hold blur is the other big part of what high hz (at higher fps), low response times, and modern gaming overdrive gains does on LCD. e. g. ~50% blur reduction at 120hz + 120fps to a "soften blur" durng viewport movement compared to 60fps' smearing blur. CRT had no problem there obviously. . While their competitive advantages may be argued - increases to both motion clarity (blur reduction) and motion definition (more unique frames of motion shown per second) are large aesthetic improvements.

Make sure you compare response times at high frame rates to see the highest a monitor can do. Some monitors suffer much worse response times at 60hz (or 60fps+60hz gsync curves) compared to 100hz and 144hz+.

Also remember, as others have said, higher hz ceilings outside of desktop/apps are meaningless unless your game's gsync fps curve is reaching up into and filling at least some of those hz.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

CRT had no prblem there obviously. .

CRTs still had phosphor decay- lower at higher Hz, but it was there.

Also remember, as others have said, higher hz ceilings outside of desktop/apps are meaningless unless your game's gsyns fps curve is reachin up into and filling at least some of those hz.

I read a lot of the complaints surrounding 'but you can't run X at 144FPS!' as coming from individuals that seem to use a single AAA game as the use case. On the contrary, I'd be more inclined to believe that gamers play a range of newer and older, leaner and more graphically intense games, and even the older/leaner games benefit from higher refresh rate cielings as well as variable V-Sync technologies. Personal examples include replaying the Mass Effect trilogy as well as playing League of Legends.

 

[elvn]

CRT has essentially zero motion blur compared to LCD.

I agree but some people just look at higher hz numbers without realizing the frame rates are neede to fill them. There are plenty of fun games that get crazy frame rates and benefit from being frame rate capped, where a higher hz monitor woukd be able to utilize it.

 

[chenw]

How rough is the AR on this compared to PG278Q?

 

[sparks]

I keep wondering about using a tcl 43 in s517 as a monitor.
has anyone tried this?

 

[elvn]

How rough is the AR on this compared to PG278Q?

It's not glossy but it's not aggressive AG. I'd really prefer glossy of course.

I keep wondering about using a tcl 43 in s517 as a monitor.
has anyone tried this?

I have the 43" s405 which is pretty similar, the s517 has 6000:1 contrast and the 405 has 4171:1 . The 517 has 20.5 ms input lag and the 405 has 15ms and is rated a hair higher for pc use.

It's way too big to be set at a desk at arm's length like a 27" 16:9. I use it further away on an arm cocked back in the corner of my curved long desk, using it for desktop windows and media windows, browser windows etc. It's great for that. The HDR is not real HDR, it doesn't even hit 400nit (barely 300nit) let alone 1000nit and it's not a high density FALD backlight or anything. I didn't notice any difference in netflix HDR titles on it. It's backlight is 120hz strobing which is so fast that it's not eye fatiguing pwm, and it actually makes motion look smoother to me in movies I think. I'm sure you could game on it but I really prefer 100fps-hz or greater and g-sync/VRR so I have the LG 31.5" 144hz g-sync VA as my primary monitor in the middle of my monitor array, centered closer to me at about 2'. The TCL would probably be a good display for console gaming since they are limited to 60hz anyway. As a desktop/app/browser-window/media monitor it's great. The much higher priced and much larger samsung QLED tvs have freesync/VRR enabled on xbox one's hdmi 2.0b already though, and low input lag even when using interpolation to reduce and eliminate blur. They also have hdr 1000 FALD arrays but the TCL's can't be beat for non gaming use.. they cost about $270 - $280.

 

[sparks]

elvn you have the 850?
I looked at one when they came out and wanted it for game but desktop just didn't look crisp like a 27"

 

[elvn]

I had my pg278q up pretty close t make it look larger, maybe 1.5'. Once I set the LG 32GK850G back a bit farther it looked a bit tighter (but not like my other two monitors) and took away practically all of the angle uniformity purplish effect outside of extreme edges on solid backgrounds. I can browse on it comfortably now using ctrl+mouse wheel or nosquint browser addon to shrink the pages down a bit if on that monitor.. but this is gaming duty monitor to me more or less dedicated to gaming where it shines. The size and black level increase(up to triple that of non-fald ips and tn) while still having gsync and high hz, at a decent resolution which is still capable of filling that high hz with framerates on demanding games makes this a good choice for gaming for me.

Out of the box it was very warm and flat, and under saturated. It took several days of tweaking the RGB, brightness, contrast in the OSD and adjusting the nvidia panel digital vibrance slider to get it where I wanted but I'm happy with its color and pop now in games and high resolution art and photos, backgrounds/wallpapers slideshows screen savers etc. I use vibrancer to bump the digtal vibrance up a few more percent in select games if needed too.

I have two other monitors for desktop/apps, media playbck etc. I like being able to split my left monitor, the 43" TCL 4k into quad windows or keep a tall browser window on its right side closest to me. The LG 32GK850G is still a big step up in size from my 27" swift even at around 2' away. I can measure the distance better when i get home later. Very happy with it for gaming and it still functions as extra desktop space utility wise.

This monitor should hold me over until I buy an expensive hdmi 2.1 4k 120Hz native VRR +QFT high density FALD HDR 1000 (QLED samsung) or similar LG OLED in 2019 - 2020.

 

[MistaSparkul]

You do know what sucks about buying an HDMI 2.1 4k TV? It means switching to AMD in order to use VRR and AMD gpus are too damn weak for 4k. There's no way nvidia is going to enable VRR through HDMI 2.1 on their GPUs.

 

[sparks]

do the new cards even have the newer hdmi implementation?
that would be a quick way of blocking anything but gsync for them.

 

[elvn]

Yeah I prob won't be upgrading gpu until 2020 if nothing has hdmi 2.1 in 2019. I have 1080Ti sli currently which can cary me through a whole generation if necessary. AMD already supports VRR on hdmi 2.0B on samsung Q8 and Q9 tvs, as does xbox one. We need 4k hdmi 2.1 to support the bandwidth for 4k 120hz native at 4:4:4. Even the new 27" FALD IPS HDR 4k "144hz" monitors are Hz limited in that way - reported black crush issues over 120hz and over 98hz color depth limitation, etc.

I'm trying not to dump alot of money on anything that's not hdmi 2.1 so that will probably rule out the upcoming gpu gen. Hopefully I'll at least be able to do 4:2:2 while gaming and go back to 4:4:4 or full 4k rez for simpler games and desktop/apps in the meantime, or run a 21:9 or 21:10 resolution or 2560x1440 at 1:1 ratio at higher hz on the giant 4k screen at 4' - 5' away on demanding games to use less bandwidth and get higher frame rates . I'd reluctantly be willing to drop g-sync/VRR support temporarily for a near perfect rec 2020 1000nit 480 zone FALD HDR 4k 120hz native monitor that costs thousands less than the BFG and is much larger than 27" 16:9 height at whatever distance I decide on 5' +/-. It would suck to lose variable refresh rate though, especially due to marketing monopoly on high performance gpus when the actual display supports it. There is a small outside chance of "hacking" VRR support on nvidia in the future too but I am not counting on it. It's a shame pc gpus seem to be falling behind consoles and tvs in a way. There's no way I'm paying $5k + tax for a BFG or $2000+tax for a small at 4k 27" one that lack hdmi 2.1 bandwidth at that.

The Samsung Q9 "QLED" VA FALD line. It has (1000nit) HDR 1000, almost perfect rec 2020 color volume. Native Contrast : 6055 : 1,Contrast with local dimming : 19018 : 1 Some halo e.g. white text on black background compared to OLED but they are feature rich, low input lag, Variable Refresh Rate, 4:4:4 on desktop and only limited at highest resolutions+hz by not having hdmi 2.1 which next years 2019 models should have. Has low input lag 10 ms at 120hz .. ~15 - 16m at 60hz .. and 20.8ms input lag at 60hz even with interpolation on. The Samsung QLED Q8 model is 40 FALD zones, the BFG and the 27" FALD 144hz monitors have 384 direct LED backlights.. the Samsung QLED Q9 series is 480 FALD backlights. HDMI 2.1 and 120hz 4k native will be in next years models. So you are either paying $2000+ for a small 27" at 4k screen + g-sync, or you are paying +$1700 or more than a samsung line's price slot at the same size for a $5000+ BFG just for g-sync and 100 less zone density and without proper hdmi 2.1 bandwidth for full color at high hz because nvidia want to lock out the hdmi 2.1 standard. The 55" Q8 series samsungs have only 40 zones but perform as well otherwise and have good hdr 1000 for $2500 less (half) in the year of their release's price slot than a BFG's quoted price model too.

Worst case I stick with what I have longer.