As it seems there will never be a 16:10 with any gaming options I finally ordered a XG321UG to replace the 30" Dells

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
I got hooked on the 16:10 long ago for work and I love it, the 2560x1600 res is a good balance between tiny icons and an overheated video card.

I have two Dell 30" 16:10 displays but I play games too for #$%! sake.

If you work and play games and want a flat screen, VRR, HDR and a 16:10 screen you are out of luck. :(

The XG321UG seems as close as I'll ever get. It's 16:9 but flat, good colors, with real HDR and 1152 mini LED zones.

It has no HDMI 2.1 ports and that is pretty lame these days but I'll only use Displayport.
Can Displayport 1.4a do 4k 144Hz with 10-bit color and 4:4:4 chroma?

Hoping I don't need a new Displayport cable. I'd not think so but all these years 10 or so and I've only needed to do 2560x1600 at 60Hz and 10-bit color with 4:4:4 chroma.

The external power brick is not ideal either but I did have an old display stop working once, and I think it was the internal power board.

Also hoping the XG321UG is not one of the funky display that mess with the pixels and text don't look great.
 

badmojomk

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
117
Yeah I gave up hope on a 16:10 display about 5-7 years ago. I was in the same boat as you, triple Dell 30" monitors, and kept waiting for the ideal monitor bump which was VRR, high refresh rate, HDR, UHD and 30" 16:10. First I was hoping OLED would come to the PC monitor space. And then Dell announced and released the underwhelming UP3017Q and that sorta soured me on OLED in the PC space. So I gave up on that. MiniLED, despite blooming issues, seemed interesting but then the first batch of Gsync Ultimate monitors (PG27UQ, x27, etc) were too small at 27" for UHD and you couldn't crank the refresh up without reducing chroma. The LG 48" OLED TVs caught my interest but the size was not going to work with my desk setup and there are issues with ABL, burn-in risk, etc. Then finally the PG32UQX was released with more dimming zones that helps with blooming but still not perfect. And at 32", it's slightly shorter height-wise compared to the Dell 30" monitors while being slightly wider. It's close enough that the 16:9 aspect ratio doesn't really bother me. Ever since I got it, I've been really happy. IMHO, I think this is one of the greatest upgrades I've done with the second best being when I first replaced my boot drive with an SSD from an HDD.

Text and pixels look razor sharp, color accuracy is great out of the box and the HDR is pretty incredible on the PG32UQX. The only issues are the blooming on desktop and in certain types of content, lack of HDMI 2.1 and the price. I recommend you use SDR on the desktop and use the keyboard shortcut for turning HDR on (Alt+ Win Key + B) for the games that require it to be activated in Windows.
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
I pretty much went through all the same thoughts. I really enjoy my LG c9 77 OLED TV, but I don't want to mess with burn in on my workstation that I'm setting in front of 8 to 10 hours a day with a bunch of text and icons that never changes. I have gamed on the TV, but just for short bursts and the 120 Hertz at 4K with 10-bit color and 4:4:4 is pretty nice. Just moving stuff around on the desktop is nice at 120. Hertz. Then there are all the 40-in or more displays that are basically TVs. But they're like you said a little too big and or they have issues with text and I'd not want to deal with that on my workstation.

But the TV's got HDMI 2.1 with 48 GBPS and I'm not familiar with how the computer displays that are just using display port deal with that. I tried reading up on it and it looks like you can get the same 4K 120 Hz but you might have to drop the chroma down or use DSC compression. Then it looks like you can do everything you want, but I don't know if that adds a delay or something. Fun stuff.
 

badmojomk

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
117
DSC doesn't add a noticeable delay and is considered visually lossless. I haven't seen any issues with using DSC at all, both from lag or fringing. Like I said, razor sharp text and image quality. When I first got the monitor, I ended up spending an hour and a half just clicking through Youtube HDR videos because I was so mesmerized by the colors and sharpness haha.

Some people really can't get over either the blooming or the lack of HDMI 2.1 or both, especially at the price of $3K or even at $2.5K. I was at a friend's place who had both the LG CX 48" and the PG32UQX so I got to look at them side by side. The LG does have glorious blacks and contrast but the pop and brightness of the PG32UQX is equally impressive. In the end, the PG32 worked better overall as a monitor since it is..well..a monitor, heh.
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
I have a the OLED TV and have had the Dell LCDs for many years. OLED can be great but you do get the almost black artifacts in some shows. Yes OLED can turn the element off for great blacks but they are still working out the near black or turn it on real quick but just barely stuff. :)

I'll used to the edge lit(?) Dell 3011 and 3018 and some others so as long as the mini led in the XG321UG is as good I'll be ok I think.
 

rhkcommander959

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2020
Messages
264
I'm still running a 30" 16:10 , mine is HP but they used the same panel.

I just can't justify the price tag yet. My buddy bought one of those samsung ultrawide screens for probably $1500 near launch and it's having burn in already. Crg90 or similar, I forget which but its 4k wide by 1080 tall IIRC. My old 16:10 is still trucking but certainly lacking in games, but I can't imagine doing mid $2000 or more for a similar size now. There's gotta be something worth a damn without burn in under $1000?
 

Ors

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
241
My old 16:10 is still trucking but certainly lacking in games, but I can't imagine doing mid $2000 or more for a similar size now. There's gotta be something worth a damn without burn in under $1000?
Drop in replacement for these are the new 32" 4k screens like others mentioned too and they actually got cheaper (see the lenovo L32P-30, LG 32UN650, etc) than the 30" dell/hp 16:10 were (I know cause I always wanted one of those but price was too steep). Unless of course you want extra features like high refresh rate and FALD, FALD being the most expensive cause there are some decently priced high refresh options out there too (Gigabyte M32U, Viewsonic XG320U, etc).
 
Last edited:

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
I also really like the 16:10 for the second portrait display:

1651949738997.png



Hmm...
1651950466072.png

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-28mq780-b
 
Last edited:

rhkcommander959

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2020
Messages
264
Drop in replacement for these are the new 32" 4k screens like others mentioned too and they actually got cheaper (see the lenovo L32P-30, LG 32UN650, etc) than the 30" dell/hp 16:10 were (I know cause I always wanted one of those but price was too steep). Unless of course you want extra features like high refresh rate and FALD, FALD being the most expensive cause there are some decently priced high refresh options out there too (Gigabyte M32U, Viewsonic XG320U, etc).
Thanks for the info! A lot more affordable than I thought! Local dimming is nice but I'm more interested in refresh and no burn in
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
I may get the LG DualUp too. The 2 displays together are like 8LBs lighter and their Vesa mounts are centered, what a novelty.

I'm not sure I'll like the native res though.

It would change to some like the red line but both the new displays have a chin at the bottom.
1651953416509.png
 
Last edited:

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
The XG321UG should be here tomorrow, I guess ViewSonic has a warehouse just north of me in CA. :)
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,310
I feel so weird being so satisfied with my old old 16:10 monitor. I guess I don't ever want to "see" what everyone is talking about, lest I suddenly become dissatisfied.

In all fairness, when I do see my neighbor's rigs, I'm usually happy with what I have and think "you paid how much for that crap?"
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
It's hard to make up my mind. I got a newer LG a few years back and went back to the Dell 30" 16:10 but I really want to take advantage of VRR and 120Hz and my second 3011 is cutting out randomly now. I'd rather have a cheaper 30" 16:10 but Dell it seems will never do more that 60Hz or any of the gaming features. I'm thinking I'll not like the extra res as I'd rather run at 100% scaling and I can't do that at 4k on the 30"-ish display.

Just not a lot of options if you like a flat 16:10 screen and want some of the new refresh rates and such.
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
Just saw the new Dell U3023E and it would be perfect but again the 2023 model has no VRR, HDR, and is stuck at 60Hz. Even just 120Hz is nice to have on the desktop not just for games. Dell won't even add 75 or 100Hz on a $800-$1000 display.

Maybe not blow all that money on a video and put a little more hardware in the display.

???

???
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,728
I think chasing 16:10 is a bit of a fool's errand. It became largely irrelevant when resolutions went above 2560x1600 as you would have plenty of desktop space on larger 4K displays that 16:9 vs 16:10 is not going to make a real difference.

But it does suck that anything aimed at "professionals" or "offices" is 60 Hz only but doesn't come with any benefits from that. I would be interested in the LG 2560x2880 display but I know I would be annoyed by 60 Hz if my main one was 120+ Hz, even if it's just a side display.
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,310
I think chasing 16:10 is a bit of a fool's errand. It became largely irrelevant when resolutions went above 2560x1600 as you would have plenty of desktop space on larger 4K displays that 16:9 vs 16:10 is not going to make a real difference.

But it does suck that anything aimed at "professionals" or "offices" is 60 Hz only but doesn't come with any benefits from that. I would be interested in the LG 2560x2880 display but I know I would be annoyed by 60 Hz if my main one was 120+ Hz, even if it's just a side display.
I disagree, it's an aspect ratio. I would never tell someone that you don't need 16:9 if you have a very high res 4:3 panel.
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
I still rather have the height and I don't need more than 2560x1600 on a 30" screen. I just end up wanting to change the scaling and there are still lots of apps that don't deal with it like they should.

Dell will stick with 60Hz until they can't get a display chipset that's not a $1 cheaper.

Even my 77" C9 is not big enough for a 4k desktop. Have to get too close to it and then you are turning you head to see stuff. Just end up 6-9' back and running at 200% scale.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,728
I still rather have the height and I don't need more than 2560x1600 on a 30" screen. I just end up wanting to change the scaling and there are still lots of apps that don't deal with it like they should.

Dell will stick with 60Hz until they can't get a display chipset that's not a $1 cheaper.

Even my 77" C9 is not big enough for a 4k desktop. Have to get too close to it and then you are turning you head to see stuff. Just end up 6-9' back and running at 200% scale.
A 4K 32" display at 125% scaling would still give you more desktop space in both directions than a 30" 2560x1600 screen. Or if you want to keep that 1600 pixels and use no scaling, buy yourself a 38" 3840x1600 ultrawide. It is almost as tall but wider.

The closest match to 30" 2560x1600 in terms of PPI would be a 44" 4K screen which does not exist but 42 and 43" models do. Those are going to work better for desktop use than a 77" behemoth where you cannot reasonably use it without scaling.
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
A 4K 32" display at 125% scaling would still give you more desktop space in both directions than a 30" 2560x1600 screen. Or if you want to keep that 1600 pixels and use no scaling, buy yourself a 38" 3840x1600 ultrawide. It is almost as tall but wider.

The closest match to 30" 2560x1600 in terms of PPI would be a 44" 4K screen which does not exist but 42 and 43" models do. Those are going to work better for desktop use than a 77" behemoth where you cannot reasonably use it without scaling.
I know, I can use the scaling it's just that 2560x1600 is great on a 30" at your desk and you don't need to mess with scaling. Seems silly to push all those pixels just for a little smoother fonts. Scaling on Windows is better now but there are still apps that look bad and do some kind of bitmapped resize.

Something like a ultrawide just won't work for me. I've thought about but I just don't have the desk space. I could go with just one 40"-ish but I like the two displays for documents and email on the tall one while doing HMI development on the other.

I'd not use the 77", it's just crazy how small everything is at that res, even on the 77".

I'll see today I guess. If I can't deal with res and scaling I may end up getting a U3023E with the 3011 cuts out for good. Have to give in a get reading glasses. :)
 
Last edited:

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
Just messing with it now but it's really washed out and the mini LEDs don't look great, easy to see. :(
 

badmojomk

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
117
Just messing with it now but it's really washed out and the mini LEDs don't look great, easy to see. :(

What do you mean by the MiniLEDS are easy to see? Are you referring to the blooming/zones you can see around bright objects as they move around? In SDR with FALD turned off, it really should look just like sharper, brighter Dell U3011. In HDR games titles or videos, the content should look really vibrant and bright the the blooming is not noticeable at all in some content, and pretty noticeable in others. I'm kinda surprised that you're saying it looks washed out.

What settings are you using?
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
Yes the blooming from the zones. It is not just on bright objects. Maybe there is a setting that will make it look more like the 3017/3011 displays.
It really don't light greys like the HardForum site and even other bright backgrounds. Almost like a driver issue.

Seeing them side by side I'm not seeing the benefit of mini LEDs. It can get brighter but you'll just get used to that, the odd patterns randomly following the mouse sometime and not other is really distracting.

I don't have HDR on and looking at the 3017 and 3011 the colors were washed out on the XG321UG. In the past that is what happened with HDR on in Windows 10m everything getting washed out.

There are a lot of settings but if I toggle the SDR Colors sRGB setting from the default of ON to OFF it looks better. I may just be used to the Dells and their default color saturation.

Here is a video of the blooming, if the link works.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/hzXVJioM9fqWbcZC9

It doesn't show up in the video as well but it's there on bright backgrounds too. It's really discrating, I did not know it was still this bad.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WauBQmQq861GXrMdA
 
Last edited:

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,310
Yes the blooming from the zones. It is not just on bright objects. Maybe there is a setting that will make it look more like the 3017/3011 displays.
It really don't light greys like the HardForum site and even other bright backgrounds. Almost like a driver issue.
Mega yuk. You're making me love my ancient U2410 more and more (please don't die...).
 
  • Like
Reactions: XoR_
like this

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,310
Mega yuk. You're making me love my ancient U2410 more and more (please don't die...).
Had Dell U2410 for a short while until I got LG W2420R which was better in pretty much every aspect imaginable except that Dell had 16ms input lag in game mode (it was possible to enable it with gamut clamp) vs 24ms for LG and maybe faster panel, though I am not too sure about the latter.

U2410 had very good viewing angles. Contrast ratio was really terrible overall but additional IPS glow was only visible from steep angle so I would say it was free from viewing angle issues.
sRGB mode on this monitor was very inaccurate but sRGB content looked quite ok. With latter Radeon cards it would be possible to use native gamut mode and use Radeon's sRGB emulation to get much better results.
Big issue of this monitor was however harsh AG coating. Somehow in the past they always put very harsh AG coating on IPS panels while TN and VA had normal coating and this Dell (and also U2711) had it too strong.
I liked colors on this monitor. There was rainbow-y appearance to everything caused by the way WCG-CCFL lamp dimmed by PWM. Even white appeared colorful.

The LG in question had RGB-LED panel with A-TW polarizer and proper sRGB mode and had vastly superior image quality. It also has PWM controlled backlight but no rainbowy apperance. Native gamut is much higher than of WCF-CCFL lamps used on U2410 and even higher than modern displays. 100% DCI-P3 coverage and 100% AdobeRGB (if anyone cares for it).

I still have monitor with the same panel HP LP2480zx and write this post from it. Even have two and one broken and LG one I gave to my brother so it stays in family. It is among pinnacle of 24" 16:10 monitors. EIZO made 24" 16:10 monitors with A-TW (it wasn't however called A-TW for whatever reason) that might have better hardware calibration options (there were even models with 3D LUTs - though reviewers didn't find any difference compared to models with normal matrix multiplication method of reducing gamut) but worse contrast (800:1 on EIZO vs 1000:1 on LG/HP) and no ability to calibrate white/black-points without affecting contrast ratio. That is one of the coolest features of these panels, black and white always have the same hue and there is no contrast ratio penalty from changing whitepoint.

Will probably use this HP for many years to come. Makes for great sidekick monitor to 27" 16:9 them being almost the same height as 24" 16:10.
DSC doesn't add a noticeable delay and is considered visually lossless. I haven't seen any issues with using DSC at all, both from lag or fringing. Like I said, razor sharp text and image quality. When I first got the monitor, I ended up spending an hour and a half just clicking through Youtube HDR videos because I was so mesmerized by the colors and sharpness haha.
DSC to my eyes is visually totally lossless... but that said I have no idea what too look for to check if I can see the difference or not. Having 163 PPI monitor doesn't help seeing tiny pixel differences either.

I tried to find some example images or programs to encode images to and from DSC compression method to maybe zoom in, blow up details to learn what to look for but I was not able to find anything. Maybe for the better because with lossy compression once you see or hear how they affect source material its kinda visible/audible everywhere :p

The way DSC apparently works it encodes blocks of images so there will be some delay but more like ~1ms than anything actually significant. Delay depends on refresh rate as its proportional to frame time. Totally non-issue at 160Hz :)

Overall I would recommend DSC displays even for color critical work.
If someone thinks they would be affected it is always possible to drop refresh rate (eg. 95Hz for LG 27GP950 - should be the same for most DP 1.4 UHD 4K displays) for lossless stream.

Some people really can't get over either the blooming or the lack of HDMI 2.1 or both, especially at the price of $3K or even at $2.5K. I was at a friend's place who had both the LG CX 48" and the PG32UQX so I got to look at them side by side. The LG does have glorious blacks and contrast but the pop and brightness of the PG32UQX is equally impressive. In the end, the PG32 worked better overall as a monitor since it is..well..a monitor, heh.
First generation of anything is usually overpriced and get obsolete pretty quickly and this is especially true for premium tech.
Remember first generation 4K TVs with amazing 30Hz refresh rate? I remember seeing some SONY Triluminos TV at store. Ridiculously expensive and got obsolete year later :D

Thankfully price-conscious users can get good quality displays after some time because tech progress quickly and old monitors get cheaper over time. As soon as better FALD monitors are available these older G-Sync displays will drop in price a lot. Especially that a lot of people who get latest and greatest things just want to sell them quickly.

That said it is always great to have latest and greatest before anyone else 🤩
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
I can't find anything concrete about DSC and if there is any change in image or lag. There is a setting to turn it off, I found that my very old Displayport cable was not able to max out DP 1.4 and cut out above 60Hz with DSC off. I guess that is another plus, my old cable with DSC on maxed out with 4k, 144Hz, 12-bit color and 4:4:4 chroma. The new cable with DSC off maxes out at 4k, 96Hz, 10-bit color and 4:4:4 chroma and I can't tell. I think I'd need two setup side by side to see the difference.

I'd like to be able to set the mini LEDs to a uniform brightness so you don't have to see the mouse blooming when doing office type work. Save the local dimming for HDR videos or games.

Support just told me that because the display is very expensive you can't use the ViewSonic Elite display controller with your ViewSonic Elite display. Nvidia disables it. :(
"I have been informed by my team that since this monitor is using the NVIDIA chipset, you will not be able to control the OSD functions; only the RGB settings will be mutable. NVIDIA has blocked out that functionality."
 

badmojomk

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
117
I can't find anything concrete about DSC and if there is any change in image or lag. There is a setting to turn it off, I found that my very old Displayport cable was not able to max out DP 1.4 and cut out above 60Hz with DSC off. I guess that is another plus, my old cable with DSC on maxed out with 4k, 144Hz, 12-bit color and 4:4:4 chroma. The new cable with DSC off maxes out at 4k, 96Hz, 10-bit color and 4:4:4 chroma and I can't tell. I think I'd need two setup side by side to see the difference.

I'd like to be able to set the mini LEDs to a uniform brightness so you don't have to see the mouse blooming when doing office type work. Save the local dimming for HDR videos or games.

Support just told me that because the display is very expensive you can't use the ViewSonic Elite display controller with your ViewSonic Elite display. Nvidia disables it. :(
"I have been informed by my team that since this monitor is using the NVIDIA chipset, you will not be able to control the OSD functions; only the RGB settings will be mutable. NVIDIA has blocked out that functionality."
So if the Viewsonic is like the Asus, then you should be able to disable FALD when in SDR and have it enabled to one of three different modes for HDR. Some games still require HDR to be enabled in Windows and that's where the handy Winkey + Alt + B shortcut comes in handy. When FALD is disabled, it literally should be no different than a good quality IPS screen. On my Asus PG32UQX and PA32UCG, you can't see any blooming with FALD off.
 

Tanquen

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
1,072
It seems to be the 'SDR Variable BL' setting, selecting off seems to get rid if the blooming. Then when I use the Windows Key + Alt + B shortcut to enable HDR it's back.

I really wish their Display management software worked. If a game doesn't support HDR I'd want to turn SDR Variable BL back on but that would require that I remember stuff.

The OSD has a few custom profiles you can configure but most settings are not included.

"Some games still require HDR to be enabled"
So, some games can enable Windows HDR mode on their own?
 

Varmint

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
1,853
I feel so weird being so satisfied with my old old 16:10 monitor. I guess I don't ever want to "see" what everyone is talking about, lest I suddenly become dissatisfied.

In all fairness, when I do see my neighbor's rigs, I'm usually happy with what I have and think "you paid how much for that crap?"

I have an Asus 24" 16:10 1200p (PA24AQ), but prefer my Asus 27" 1440p (VG27AQ) - it's same height but wider. I think the high resolutions has made 16:10 less necessary in desktop monitors.

In laptops however I still prefer 16:10, since the screen is smaller.
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,310
I have an Asus 24" 16:10 1200p (PA24AQ), but prefer my Asus 27" 1440p (VG27AQ) - it's same height but wider. I think the high resolutions has made 16:10 less necessary in desktop monitors.

In laptops however I still prefer 16:10, since the screen is smaller.
I get it 16:9, it's all you've every had... I get it. You'll just have to trust me (and I can't believe I have to say this), more is better. We took a huge step backwards when the "HD" revolution took place, we were so much more ahead of that.
 

Varmint

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
1,853
I get it 16:9, it's all you've every had... I get it. You'll just have to trust me (and I can't believe I have to say this), more is better. We took a huge step backwards when the "HD" revolution took place, we were so much more ahead of that.

You missed the part where I said I have a 16:10 24”, have two of them in fact.
 

Varmint

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
1,853
Sorry, I should have said some prefer "less". But, that's unusual IMHO.

I don't mind 16:9 in 27" and above, put it that way. If someone made a 16:10 1600p or whatever 27" with the features I want, I'd probably buy it.
 

cjcox

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,310
I don't mind 16:9 in 27" and above, put it that way. If someone made a 16:10 1600p or whatever 27" with the features I want, I'd probably buy it.
Which, I think was part of the point of this thread, no?
 

Varmint

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
1,853
Which, I think was part of the point of this thread, no?

Would I buy a 16:10 gaming monitor, yes. Is it a big deal to me, no.

You might see 16:10 make a comeback in desktop monitors since it’s now getting popular with laptops.
 
Top