40" 5120x2160 LG panel in Q1 2021

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
73
As per this link (https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/lg-display-latest-panel-development-plans-oct-2020/), LG is rumored to make some interesting panels soon. What interested me most was the LM400RW1-SSA1, which is a 40" 5120x2160 IPS panel. For those that are lazy to do the math, this is basically the same PPI as a 32" 4K monitor, but in ultrawide format. That's some nice borderless monitor real estate! Yes yes, maybe that's too much to drive for gaming, but for the productivity people out there, this sounds really enticing.

There are some other panels mentioned that probably already match some existing or upcoming monitors:
  • LM315WR3-SSA1: 32" 4K mini-LED panel with 2000+ dimming zones. This sounds like the panel for the Dell UP3221Q.
  • LM270WQB-SSA1: 27" 2560x1440 240hz IPS panel for Q4 2020 -- gamers will probably like this.
  • LM315QU1-SSA1: 32" 8K panel already in production. It seems to be the successor to the LM315QU1-SSB1, which is probably the panel for the Dell UP3218K. Edit: It seems like the -SSA1 version was a 2017 production; LG also made -SSA2 in 2019, which wasn't even mentioned in the article.
 
Last edited:

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,237
30% more pixels than 4k is going to be tough to drive, but seeing as how this is probably 60Hz, hard pass. I prefer 120+ Hz even for non-gaming work. its just so smooth.
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
450
As per this link (https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/lg-display-latest-panel-development-plans-oct-2020/), LG is rumored to make some interesting panels soon. What interested me most was the LM400RW1-SSA1, which is a 40" 5120x2160 IPS panel. For those that are lazy to do the math, this is basically the same PPI as a 32" 4K monitor, but in ultrawide format. That's some nice borderless monitor real estate! Yes yes, maybe that's too much to drive for gaming, but for the productivity people out there, this sounds really enticing.

There are some other panels mentioned that probably already match some existing or upcoming monitors:
  • LM315WR3-SSA1: 32" 4K mini-LED panel with 2000+ dimming zones. This sounds like the panel for the Dell UP3221Q.
  • LM270WQB-SSA1: 27" 2560x1440 240hz IPS panel for Q4 2020 -- gamers will probably like this.
  • LM315QU1-SSA1: 32" 8K panel already in production. It seems to be the successor to the LM315QU1-SSB1, which is probably the panel for the Dell UP3218K. Edit: It seems like the -SSA1 version was a 2017 production; LG also made -SSA2 in 2019, which wasn't even mentioned in the article.
An 8k panel at 32? That's really taking advantage of people's ignorance.

It'll sell, tho.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,992
They are really doing it a disservice by making it a 60Hz, apparently no HDR panel. I hope that it is actually higher refresh rate, there is just no excuse for making 60 Hz panels anymore.

32" 8K panel is also a ridiculous thing, why not make a 40" 16:9 of that? Give me a 8K 40-48" panel with capability to run it at 120+ Hz in lower resolutions. Integer scaled 1440p or 4K would work great while your desktop has all the pixels you'll ever need.
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,861
That would be my dream size/aspect. I don't like monitors with less than 2160 vertical pixels since I have mixed productivity and gaming uses that can really use the vertical. This is wide, but still maintains enough vertical real estate, and is that between 32" and 48" size that many have been asking for. If only it was > 60hz and had real HDR (not HDR 400) i.e. with some form of local backlight dimming, whether mini led or traditional, this would be perfect. It's also going likely to be megabucks if it has all that.
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
73
They are really doing it a disservice by making it a 60Hz, apparently no HDR panel. I hope that it is actually higher refresh rate, there is just no excuse for making 60 Hz panels anymore.

32" 8K panel is also a ridiculous thing, why not make a 40" 16:9 of that? Give me a 8K 40-48" panel with capability to run it at 120+ Hz in lower resolutions. Integer scaled 1440p or 4K would work great while your desktop has all the pixels you'll ever need.
That would be my dream size/aspect. I don't like monitors with less than 2160 vertical pixels since I have mixed productivity and gaming uses that can really use the vertical. This is wide, but still maintains enough vertical real estate, and is that between 32" and 48" size that many have been asking for. If only it was > 60hz and had real HDR (not HDR 400) i.e. with some form of local backlight dimming, whether mini led or traditional, this would be perfect. It's also going likely to be megabucks if it has all that.
Although I also dream of a 40-48" 8K monitor (120hz would be even better, but that exceeds DisplayPort 1.4 with DSC bandwidth, so it would have to use HDMI 2.1 or DisplayPort 2.0 :(), it feels like this won't happen anytime soon, given that:
  1. the vast majority of monitor innovation seems to be targeted at gaming, and resolution is not a priority there, and
  2. for the design and photo/video editing community, monitor innovation seems to be going the route of additional dimming zones over resolution.
This 40" ultrawide would have somewhat similar size and real estate until the higher resolution options become available, so it seems like a good next step for me. Even if this panel doesn't have 120hz, I'm hoping that the size and resolution will gain more traction so that 120hz will come out with the next iteration.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
647
An 8k panel at 32? That's really taking advantage of people's ignorance.

It'll sell, tho.


some of you guys must have never used the 8k Dell 32? It's like looking at a sheet of paper, games look absolutely insane at that resolution. While I got rid of mine cause I couldn't get any cards to run games at 8k, 2021 is a great year to have an 8k monitor with HDMI 2.1 and the RTX 3000 series. Yes it won't hit 120hz, but there is a space for 8k (even more so if that same monitor could do 4k @120hz)


Sign me up for that 40" day 1
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,992
some of you guys must have never used the 8k Dell 32? It's like looking at a sheet of paper, games look absolutely insane at that resolution. While I got rid of mine cause I couldn't get any cards to run games at 8k, 2021 is a great year to have an 8k monitor with HDMI 2.1 and the RTX 3000 series. Yes it won't hit 120hz, but there is a space for 8k (even more so if that same monitor could do 4k @120hz)


Sign me up for that 40" day 1
I'd say the issue is not 8K but it being 32". That is excessively sharp for the size, the Apple XDR 32" 6K is a more spot on res for it but again manufacturers just don't offer that.

Give me a 40-43" 8K and I'm all for it! Integer scaling to 1440p or 4K would solve gaming performance issues too, provided that you could get say 120 Hz 1440p/4K and 8K 60 Hz from the display.
 

steiNetti

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 23, 2020
Messages
80
What's up with all that 8k nonsense?! Unless I'm sitting 1m from a 70+" panel where is the benefit? Especially at 32". I already had to turn up font scaling to 125% on my 43" 4k monitor and it was sharp as feck. At my usual relaxed gaming distance (about 90cm) I couldn't even tell 4k and 1440p apart..

What we need is 4k at 40" for productive work and >100Hz with some form of BFI technology that works with VRR and doesn't hurt our eyes or destroy HDR.

Forget 8k or 1000Hz, as long as BFI tech isn't there it's nice and all, but worthless with pure sample and hold. For anyone that didn't grow up using CRT tech and has never seen a 120Hz CRT - go to a museum and get mind blown. I'm not even kidding here, there is no motion tech that comes even close (120Hz BFI on OLED may be the closest that tech has ever been though). Trust me, you don't need crazy high refresh rates to get clear and smooth motion. 120Hz (or even 100Hz) is absolutely fine - IF it's not pure sample and hold tech. 60Hz BFI just doesn't cut it (I'm one of those sad suckers that could see flicker up to about 100Hz on CRTs and 60Hz really hurts my eyes while my wife doesn't even see any flicker at all at 60Hz..)
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
73
What's up with all that 8k nonsense?! Unless I'm sitting 1m from a 70+" panel where is the benefit? Especially at 32". I already had to turn up font scaling to 125% on my 43" 4k monitor and it was sharp as feck. At my usual relaxed gaming distance (about 90cm) I couldn't even tell 4k and 1440p apart..

What we need is 4k at 40" for productive work and >100Hz with some form of BFI technology that works with VRR and doesn't hurt our eyes or destroy HDR.

Forget 8k or 1000Hz, as long as BFI tech isn't there it's nice and all, but worthless with pure sample and hold. For anyone that didn't grow up using CRT tech and has never seen a 120Hz CRT - go to a museum and get mind blown. I'm not even kidding here, there is no motion tech that comes even close (120Hz BFI on OLED may be the closest that tech has ever been though). Trust me, you don't need crazy high refresh rates to get clear and smooth motion. 120Hz (or even 100Hz) is absolutely fine - IF it's not pure sample and hold tech. 60Hz BFI just doesn't cut it (I'm one of those sad suckers that could see flicker up to about 100Hz on CRTs and 60Hz really hurts my eyes while my wife doesn't even see any flicker at all at 60Hz..)
Everyone’s eyes are different, but I can definitely tell the difference between a 110 dpi monitor and a 220 dpi monitor at ~2 ft away, and everything does look much crisper on the latter! You turned up scaling on your monitor because the visual elements were too small for the resolution, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t look better if you had a higher resolution monitor with even more scaling.
 

ORFJackal

n00b
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
15
Interesting. 39.7" at 21:9 screen ratio means 93x39cm screen area, whereas 39.7" at 16:9 ratio means 88x49cm screen area.

I might accept trading 10cm height for 5cm width and higher DPI. Anyways I seldom have important stuff at the top 7cm. My window arrangement is a text editor/IDE in the middle, 2-3 terminals on left and a browser window on right - with 5cm more width the browser could avoid overlapping with the IDE.
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
73
Interesting. 39.7" at 21:9 screen ratio means 93x39cm screen area, whereas 39.7" at 16:9 ratio means 88x49cm screen area.

I might accept trading 10cm height for 5cm width and higher DPI. Anyways I seldom have important stuff at the top 7cm. My window arrangement is a text editor/IDE in the middle, 2-3 terminals on left and a browser window on right - with 5cm more width the browser could avoid overlapping with the IDE.
I definitely like the direction of ultrawides getting bigger! In the absence of a good 36-40” 16:9 getting announced at CES, one of these 40” ultrawides might be my next monitor.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,992
It's basically an ultrawide version of a 32" 16:9 4K screen: http://displaywars.com/32-inch-16x9-vs-40-inch-21x9
Which is one sweet, sweet form factor!

I would expect when using 125% scaling you would get about the same desktop space as the 38" 3840x1600 displays at 100% scale, just with sharper text. 125% if I remember correctly was a pretty reasonable scaling level for 4K 32" 16:9 when I tried one in a store.

I really hope they don't hamper these displays by making them 60 Hz only. 5120x2160 @ 120 Hz would require HDMI 2.1, DP 2.0 or DP 1.4 + DSC.
DP 1.4 with DSC support would be the most obvious way to go. DP 1.4 without DSC is enough for 60 Hz.
This is based on https://tomverbeure.github.io/video_timings_calculator which does not have support for calculating DSC bandwidth but you can make some educated guesses based on the 5120x1440 240 Hz Samsung super ultrawides. Those have roughly 187% bandwidth requirement of DP 1.4 HBR3 whereas 5120x2160 120 Hz is 132%. So with DSC you get them within the bandwidth limits just fine.

If LG can make these with the same level of NanoIPS panels as the current 3840x1600 displays then that would be pretty nice. You could even integer scale 5120x2160 displays at 2560x1080 if you want to emphasize framerate over resolution.
 

GNUse_the_force

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
437
60hz...what the fuck!

muhmonitor.png
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
73
Wait, do we actually have confirmation that it’s 60 Hz? My impression so far has been that we’re all just speculating, without evidence pointing either way.
Yup, it’s pure speculation. But given that 5120x2160 is a pretty rare and high resolution, and that even smaller monitors with this resolution are only 60hz, my educated guess is that the first iteration of this one will be 60hz too. Always hoping to be pleasantly surprised though.
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
450
Wait, do we actually have confirmation that it’s 60 Hz? My impression so far has been that we’re all just speculating, without evidence pointing either way.
Yup, it’s pure speculation. But given that 5120x2160 is a pretty rare and high resolution, and that even smaller monitors with this resolution are only 60hz, my educated guess is that the first iteration of this one will be 60hz too. Always hoping to be pleasantly surprised though.
Look up tft's October panel release by LG - where they talk about panels in the pipeline. There not a whole lot of high refresh panels
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,992
Wait, do we actually have confirmation that it’s 60 Hz? My impression so far has been that we’re all just speculating, without evidence pointing either way.
The refresh rate was curiously omitted from reports of new panels coming, which lead me to expect that it is only 60 Hz. We don’t know until more info trickles out but I really hope it is at least 120 Hz. 60 Hz should not exist as the max refresh rate on high end monitors anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
Top