LG 38GL950G - 37.5" 3840x1600/G-Sync/175Hz

bananadude said:
I've never understood why people worship at the alter of high refresh at the expense of everything else. Yeah it's great, but is utterly ruined by horrible contrast, bleed/glow and all the other issues LCD has that OLED doesn't. And we're talking about an LCD monitor here that could buy you the best part of x2 OLEDs FFS!!!! That's the craziest part of all this.
Click to expand...

OLED isn't perfect either, burn in for games is still a problem I see on AV forums with the latest LG models and 55" is way too big for a desktop monitor, I'm not trying to go blind or constantly have to turn my head just to see parts of my screen. I purchased an LG 32" 1440p freesync 2 144 hz monitor that's a VA panel and you'd be hard pressed to find any glow on it during dark scenes and it cost me less than $300. Let me know when I can get that kind of value with OLED.
 
5150Joker said:
OLED isn't perfect either, burn in for games is still a problem I see on AV forums with the latest LG models and 55" is way too big for a desktop monitor, I'm not trying to go blind or constantly have to turn my head just to see parts of my screen. I purchased an LG 32" 1440p freesync 2 144 hz monitor that's a VA panel and you'd be hard pressed to find any glow on it during dark scenes and it cost me less than $300. Let me know when I can get that kind of value with OLED.
Click to expand...

That 32" LG is a decent monitor but without diverting from the topic too much, a lot of what you're saying is FUD. This size thing that keeps coming up is ALL about your individual desk setup and preferences. There's no head turning because my eyes move and I can sit far enough away to where it's definitely big but doable. 2 years of every day use and no burn-in for me and many others here. Those people are doing something wrong, period.

I was trying to move on from this but stop with the misinformation at least because it's misleading to others who might be viewing the thread. Several people with the LG sets like mine have PM'd me throughout the previous few months asking for tips on how to set them up for PC use, so stop acting like they're unusable.

bananadude said:
All valid, but it doesn't change the fact we live in completely absurd times when it comes to OLED and LCD. It's almost the equivalent of a Ferrari costing less than an average family hatchback... the latter is obviously far more practical and suitable for daily driving, shopping runs, picking up the kids from school and general use etc. but can you imagine if such a car cost MORE than a 4-litre, twin-turbo charged V8 700bhp Supercar that did 0-60 in three seconds flat?? Utter and complete madness.

The 43" 4K monitors aren't unknowns by the way. The Asus is very poor and the Acer will likely be very much the same... no indication otherwise given its specs are broadly identical. Nothing spectacular here and they are WAYYYY behind what OLED at a lesser price offers.
Click to expand...

Yeah dude, I'm with you. It's ridiculous! I'm hoping this LG will be better than the Asus and Acer.

TitusD said:
I have had this monitor since Tuesday and I think it's great.

Coming from the LG 34GK950F

Backlight notes
- control/adjusting via software: requires the monitor to be plugged in via USB so I'm not using the software
- control/adjusting via Monitor's Hardware: jog wheel on underside can change backlight intensity and cycle between 4 static presets (red, purple, cyan, white) and "peaceful" (slowly cycling and "dynamic" (annoyingly fast cycling)

The only issue I've had thus far is going from HDMI to DP sometimes will set the monitor to 75hz.
Powering off and back on fixes it back to 175hz.
Click to expand...

Congrats! Considering the price, I'm very happy that you're happy with it. Any drawbacks that you've noticed so far? Which monitor did you come from previously?
 
Yes, it CAN happen but it is not a certainty and is dependent upon a number of factors. I just grow tired of it being brought up every time the technology is mentioned, mostly by people who do not even own them. Rtings even says it won't be an issue for most people. I am careful about static content but long gaming sessions haven't been an issue. Others who live with the same static elements on the screen for months like a burn-in test might not fare so well. Many of us here use them for gaming daily (even if not for PC use, in a living room type environment) and haven't experienced it. If mine died right now I'd go out and buy the newest model. I use it by choice, not because I'm forced to. Many other displays would be less expensive and more "proper." I don't care. :) My eyes are forever spoiled now.

Let's just move on. Most people in this thread don't care about anything but the LG in the title.
 
Lateralus said:
All that being said, which higher quality displays are you speaking of, and by what metrics? As you know, every display has compromises, pros and cons, and that's what's so frustrating.
Click to expand...

Primarily from a pure picture quality standpoint. I’ve been gungho about IPS for a long time but after gaming on an OLED, IPS really does feel like a considerable compromise.

But PQ is just one (albeit very important) consideration. If you want a fast, ultrawide with decent PQ that can fit on your desk the 38” LG is probably at the top of your list. Just have to be ok with the value proposition.

The fact is, if you're looking for high refresh and G-Sync in a monitor bigger than the overplayed 34" ultrawide market then this pretty much stands on its own, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah it doesn’t have any direct competition and that’s the only reason they can get away with this pricing.
 
MangoSeed said:
Primarily from a pure picture quality standpoint. I’ve been gungho about IPS for a long time but after gaming on an OLED, IPS really does feel like a considerable compromise.

But PQ is just one (albeit very important) consideration. If you want a fast, ultrawide with decent PQ that can fit on your desk the 38” LG is probably at the top of your list. Just have to be ok with the value proposition.

Yeah it doesn’t have any direct competition and that’s the only reason they can get away with this pricing.
Click to expand...

You mean LACK of any value... the price is just insane. Yes that's because they don't have direct competition, but the Acer X38 has just been announced, so that's an imminent alternative, as and when it's released.
 
bananadude said:
You mean LACK of any value... the price is just insane. Yes that's because they don't have direct competition, but the Acer X38 has just been announced, so that's an imminent alternative, as and when it's released.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold my breath... look at the X27/PG27UQ and X35/PG35VQ. Two brands selling those panels, still insane pricing.
 
CaptainClueless said:
I wouldn't hold my breath... look at the X27/PG27UQ and X35/PG35VQ. Two brands selling those panels, still insane pricing.
Click to expand...

Not really two brands, since Acer is the panel manufacturer. Also the hardware complexity of those two products is far in excess of "lol yeah this is a somewhat bigger LCD panel exactly the same as the ones we use in our smaller displays", which is what the 38GL950G is.
 
Sancus said:
Not really two brands, since Acer is the panel manufacturer. Also the hardware complexity of those two products is far in excess of "lol yeah this is a somewhat bigger LCD panel exactly the same as the ones we use in our smaller displays", which is what the 38GL950G is.
Click to expand...

Acer does not make display panels afaik. The X38 will have the same panel as the LG but whether they price it lower than the LG model is another question.
 
Q: i have this monitor on order and i am currently using a 34inch 3440x1440 ultrawide, sometimes i will run a game in 16:9 at 2560x1440 due for other reasons, with this new LG i will need to run in 2560x1600 for the odd game and my question is do games even support that format any more as i have only seen games like 2560x1440. Thanks
 
KiwiCanuck said:
Q: i have this monitor on order and i am currently using a 34inch 3440x1440 ultrawide, sometimes i will run a game in 16:9 at 2560x1440 due for other reasons, with this new LG i will need to run in 2560x1600 for the odd game and my question is do games even support that format any more as i have only seen games like 2560x1440. Thanks
Click to expand...
Yes they do my current monitor is a 30" 2560x1600. Whole reason I never got an ultrawide before was because the vertical height was too small for my tastes.

I actually got this monitor as I was typing this reply lol.
 
Sancus said:
Also the hardware complexity of those two products is far in excess of "lol yeah this is a somewhat bigger LCD panel exactly the same as the ones we use in our smaller displays", which is what the 38GL950G is.
Click to expand...

There are smaller 175hz nano-IPS panel G-Sync monitors on the market? Where?
 
CaptainClueless said:
There are smaller 175hz nano-IPS panel G-Sync monitors on the market? Where?
Click to expand...

iam not aware of any smaller ultrawides that have the gsync V2 module in them, i think this and the upcoming acer are the only ones. this is one of the main reasons iam getting this one as i would like a native 144hz over a native 100hz gsync monitor
 
Last edited:
CaptainClueless said:
There are smaller 175hz nano-IPS panel G-Sync monitors on the market? Where?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your argument. There are plenty of other high refresh nano-IPS displays on the market like the 27GL850. This one has a higher refresh rate, that it most likely cannot keep up with anyways, and that's about it. Adding G-sync to that monitor would not have improved it, which is why they decided not to.

It's not even REMOTELY comparable in terms of image quality, hardware complexity and difficulty of implementation to the full FALD displays that took years of tuning to even get working properly due to backlight latency.

It's just big. That's it.
 
kasakka said:
Acer does not make display panels afaik. The X38 will have the same panel as the LG but whether they price it lower than the LG model is another question.
Click to expand...

While it's technically correct that they don't make panels anymore since AUO is the old Acer panel business, AUO and Asus+Acer act more like a cartel/one big company than competing brands in reality. They all have similar pricing and produce products that are nearly clones of eachother. Real competition only really happens when more separate companies like Viewsonic, Pixio, and Nixeus build displays using AUO panels, and of course, across panel manufacturers with LG or Sharp or whomever.
 
OK so these are my thoughts after only using the monitor a short time:

This is the best IPS display I've ever seen. It's huge but very usable. I tried using a 40" Samsung as a monitor but this is much better. The colors are super vibrant. The difference between IPS and Nano ISP is very noticeable. I see no BLB but there is the typical IPS glow because of the curve. By default the monitor is set to 144hz refresh. You can overclock to 175hz but I probably won't do that right now. The one issue I have is that the display can get super bright but I normally lower my brightness level to about 30%. The problem is that if you play a game that has auto HDR like The Division 2 or NFS Heat the monitor maxes out the brightness to blinding levels! HDR is a mess on Windows 10 so I honestly don't think I'll be using this feature. So far I'm really enjoying this thing. I'll post more info after I use it a bit more with work apps and additional games.
 
Ah, the HDR implementation sucks... (With the lg oled, I just launch a game and have my brightness where I want it. Always. For movies I enable the Blue Ray player output on the display and HDR playback support in windows. I can't give up the HDR, HDR 4K content looks too stunning...).
 
Murzilka said:
Ah, the HDR implementation sucks... (With the lg oled, I just launch a game and have my brightness where I want it. Always. For movies I enable the Blue Ray player output on the display and HDR playback support in windows. I can't give up the HDR, HDR 4K content looks too stunning...).
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone is buying this monitor for HDR as I think everyone knows its not really an HDR monitor
 
KiwiCanuck said:
I don’t think anyone is buying this monitor for HDR as I think everyone knows its not really an HDR monitor
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised I think. I see people getting excited about HDR-400 all the time, mistakenly believing it actually offers something meaningful. I imagine most people frequenting forums such as this will be in the know, but others won't.
 
bananadude said:
You'd be surprised I think. I see people getting excited about HDR-400 all the time, mistakenly believing it actually offers something meaningful. I imagine most people frequenting forums such as this will be in the know, but others won't.
Click to expand...

It offers up to 400nits brightness.

And it means that the monitor has the ability to accept an HDR signal.

Whether something 'is' or 'isn't' HDR is debatable, especially since there is no display technology that can go from absolute black to 10,000nits available today.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
It offers up to 400nits brightness.

And it means that the monitor has the ability to accept an HDR signal.

Whether something 'is' or 'isn't' HDR is debatable, especially since there is no display technology that can go from absolute black to 10,000nits available today.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but without some kind of dimming backlight, you can boost the brightness of an IPS panel as high as you want, even to 10K nits, and it still wouldn't display decent HDR. All you're doing is boosting both black levels and peaks, which doesn't actually produce more dynamic range. Although it may blind you :p The HDR400 spec is pretty controversial because of that.

And to be fair, there's actually not that much content graded for 10K nits. Because I don't think there IS a 10K nit reference display to grade on. The Dolby Pulsar thing is only 4000 and even that is rarely used. HDR10 doesn't support it, Dolby Vision does *in theory* but a lot of Dolby Vision grades are just transfers of HDR10 grades or otherwise done half-assed, see HDTVTest's various videos on things like fake HDR video games, The Mandalorian and other Disney+ content -- there is a LOT of low brightness and improperly mastered "HDR content" out there.

All that contributes to why HDR consistently looks the best on OLED, even though it technically can't even quite reach 1000 nits.
 
Sancus said:
Yeah, but without some kind of dimming backlight, you can boost the brightness of an IPS panel as high as you want, even to 10K nits, and it still wouldn't display decent HDR. All you're doing is boosting both black levels and peaks, which doesn't actually produce more dynamic range. Although it may blind you :p The HDR400 spec is pretty controversial because of that.
Click to expand...

Sure; HDR just means that the range is higher than... it was 'before'. IPS isn't going to get dark, neither will TN; and VA, well, I haven't seen a VA panel that doesn't smear the blacks. For most desktop use, I'll take IPS.

Really the only positive here is that this LG display can actually handle an HDR signal when appropriate content is available. Hooked up to a desktop operating system, it's not even something that you want to use by default right now, and we don't really know when it'll get 'fixed'. Microsoft certainly hasn't been forthcoming about how they're going to approach mapping SDR content to HDR for output, let alone when.

Sancus said:
And to be fair, there's actually not that much content graded for 10K nits. Because I don't think there IS a 10K nit reference display to grade on. The Dolby Pulsar thing is only 4000 and even that is rarely used. HDR10 doesn't support it, Dolby Vision does *in theory* but a lot of Dolby Vision grades are just transfers of HDR10 grades or otherwise done half-assed, see HDTVTest's various videos on things like fake HDR video games, The Mandalorian and other Disney+ content -- there is a LOT of low brightness and improperly mastered "HDR content" out there.
Click to expand...

This has to be the worst part. Granted, I haven't seen anything that looked too egregious on my OLED TV, but the amount of rope content creators have been given to hang themselves is staggering.

As for transferring between HDR codecs, I'm fine with that if quality isn't lost in the transfer itself, mainly because support for the various codecs is still far from universal. I'll take an HDR10 grade ported to Dolby Vision if that's the only way to get HDR.

Sancus said:
All that contributes to why HDR consistently looks the best on OLED, even though it technically can't even quite reach 1000 nits.
Click to expand...

And that's the final rub: LCDs can get bright, but not dark, and OLEDs can get dark, but not bright.

Personally, I'm more than happy with how bright my 2017 OLED can get, given that I don't watch TV in a bright space. Give me that in a ~40" panel that can accept a 4k120 HDR signal with VRR, and I'm golden. Give me the same ratio / size / resolution as the LG in the OP?

That'd be perfect.
 
Sancus said:
And to be fair, there's actually not that much content graded for 10K nits.
Click to expand...

And when that “content” arrives it’ll have to be for tiny highlights like sun glinting off a surface. Today’s HDR TVs are already pretty blinding when displaying any significant amount of light - flashlights, car headlights etc.
 
HDR on PC is still far from perfect.

I tried 15+ HDR titles on my LG Oled, and there was ONLY 1 or 2 titles that actually made me say 'WOW', that was Metro Exodus and RE7.

All the other titles I tried made the game look very washed out and much worse than SDR mode. So I wouldn't be all too fussed with this LG monitor only having HDR400, just play a game in SDR mode and use some reshade mods, it actually looks better, I guess until HDR is properly and fully implemnted into PC games.
 
shadow2761 said:
HDR on PC is still far from perfect.

I tried 15+ HDR titles on my LG Oled, and there was ONLY 1 or 2 titles that actually made me say 'WOW', that was Metro Exodus and RE7.

All the other titles I tried made the game look very washed out and much worse than SDR mode. So I wouldn't be all too fussed with this LG monitor only having HDR400, just play a game in SDR mode and use some reshade mods, it actually looks better, I guess until HDR is properly and fully implemnted into PC games.
Click to expand...
I played Shadow Warrior 2, Assassin Odyssey and Far Cry 5 on my lg OLED in HDR. All these games give me wow effect. Nothing looks even remotely "washed out". These games look RAZOR-sharp and with amazing colors. Probably you are just used to oversaturated colors on your gaming display and the correct colors displayed by the LG OLED seem washed out to you. This is usually the case with people claimng their colors are washed out on their LG OLED. Or you are using wrong settings on your OLED...
 
Last edited:
shadow2761 said:
HDR on PC is still far from perfect.

I tried 15+ HDR titles on my LG Oled, and there was ONLY 1 or 2 titles that actually made me say 'WOW', that was Metro Exodus and RE7.

All the other titles I tried made the game look very washed out and much worse than SDR mode. So I wouldn't be all too fussed with this LG monitor only having HDR400, just play a game in SDR mode and use some reshade mods, it actually looks better, I guess until HDR is properly and fully implemnted into PC games.
Click to expand...


Sounds to me you are misunderstanding what HDR is. It is not meant to show you more "vivid" colors, it's supposed to show you a larger range of colors and a difference between dark and bright that is closer to real life. For example skin tones should have more variation. If it looks washed out you might have incorrect settings on the display. HDR400 isn't very useful because it does not have the backlight dimming and brightness required to handle HDR contrast well. HDR1000 with bad backlight dimming is not good either but it is still at least capable of larger range of brightness values.

The only thing "not properly implemented" is how HDR is handled on the desktop where it just does not work well for SDR content. A more useful option would be to only allow fullscreen HDR like on consoles and have displays be able to switch between the two faster. I've tried a few games on console vs PC and there is no difference in their HDR quality.
 
See, that's the problem with HDR. It's not even objectively an improvement. It's a legitimate stance to take if you don't even LIKE the way HDR looks. That's why I think it's such a boring technology.

Increasing resolution is an objective improvement. Increasing refresh rate is an objective improvement.

HDR? Meh.
 
Would like to hear feedback from the people that have got there screens. local stores here sold there stock in the first day.( i was tempted to go to store and get one) i am still waiting for amazon to start shipping mine.
 
KiwiCanuck said:
Would like to hear feedback from the people that have got there screens. local stores here sold there stock in the first day.( i was tempted to go to store and get one) i am still waiting for amazon to start shipping mine.
Click to expand...

How did you even order one on Amazon? I've never seen it available to order there.
 
Amazon.ca (Canada ) has had preorder for couple of weeks now, not sure why they waiting for dec 10 to release when stores here already have it. very tempted to get to local store to pickup
 
Last edited:
Im really wondering if I should go from my Asus XG438Q, only 2 months old to this new LG 38GL950G?

Just for the extra 24 hz, nano-ips display.

Is it much better? The XG438Q has really good contrast that I really like.
HDR 400 v 600 I don't really care about anymore because HDR on PC really is mostly terrible.

But this 38GL950G is exactly 2x the price of the XG438Q in Australia. I just don't know if it is really going to be 2x better.
 
shadow2761 said:
Im really wondering if I should go from my Asus XG438Q, only 2 months old to this new LG 38GL950G?

Just for the extra 24 hz, nano-ips display.

Is it much better? The XG438Q has really good contrast that I really like.
HDR 400 v 600 I don't really care about anymore because HDR on PC really is mostly terrible.

But this 38GL950G is exactly 2x the price of the XG438Q in Australia. I just don't know if it is really going to be 2x better.
Click to expand...

Contrast will be poor on the 38GL950G compared to your XG438Q. Nano IPS just mainly increases color gamut - not contrast, it's still typical IPS, around 1000:1.

So I don't know if you'd be happy with the switch. However motion should be better on 38GL950G, and it has better viewing angels being an IPS panel. Based on what you're looking for it doesn't seem it'd be worth it, as it would be a step back in contrast levels and an extra 24Hz is not a big deal.
 
Proper HDR is objectively an improvement, it’s just most screens don’t it justice because they’ve not got the dynamic range, their black floor is too high and they are nowhere near bright enough. Plus obviously most content using it is hokey.

If you see a reference screen version of something well mastered it’s mind blowing, but we’re probably 5-7 years from screen tech being mass market enough to be able to do it justice. Even then it’ll be high end. I was lucky enough to see Westworld played on a reference monitor and it’s hard to convey just how good it looked. Seeing HDR sports similarly was crazy.

It’s tough to convince people on, hence why the electronics stores just max the settings and people fall for it.
 
shadow2761 said:
Im really wondering if I should go from my Asus XG438Q, only 2 months old to this new LG 38GL950G?

Just for the extra 24 hz, nano-ips display.

Is it much better? The XG438Q has really good contrast that I really like.
HDR 400 v 600 I don't really care about anymore because HDR on PC really is mostly terrible.

But this 38GL950G is exactly 2x the price of the XG438Q in Australia. I just don't know if it is really going to be 2x better.
Click to expand...

The problem is both these displays are twice as expensive as they should be, neither offer good value... both are terrible in that respect actually.

IPS is inherently flawed given its poor contrast and likelihood of IPS glow and most likely bleed in the bargain.

VA is inherently flawed due to the gamma shift, smearing and overshoot. Some panels do better than others, but the XG438Q is probably about as bad an example of VA as there is.

When you can pick up an OLED for LESS than either of these, and have NONE of these issues, and all the benefits that OLED brings to the table... well, it's just absurd really. Obviously there are two major issues here, the minimum 55" that OLED comes in, and the risk of burn-in if used as a dedicated PC monitor. Hardly the most practical choice, but the actual EXPERIENCE otherwise just destroys LCD, and that's the most frustrating thing.
 
I don't think anyone is going to come into this thread and state that IPS is superior to OLED when it comes to black levels etc. but this is a thread about the LG 38GL950G. I own this monitor and IMO it is the best IPS monitor I've ever owned. Not sure why it's constantly being compared to an OLED television. The two products are in entirely different categories. I use this monitor to game and work remotely from home. I can do both extremely well so I'm very happy with my purchase. Is it expensive, absolutely but I was using an Acer X34 for many years and this is a substantial upgrade from that so I have no regrets.
 
StryderxX said:
Not sure why it's constantly being compared to an OLED television. The two products are in entirely different categories.
Click to expand...
As I’ve learned in the last few months, this fact is apparently irrelevant to 70% of this sub-forum. I don’t think folks here care too much what they use for work, even if it’s absolute garbage. The conversation seems to revolve mostly around gaming, for which setting up a new station seems worth it.

Personally, I want OLED’s amazing contrast for text-work more than anything else.
 
Panel said:
As I’ve learned in the last few months, this fact is apparently irrelevant to 70% of this sub-forum. I don’t think folks here care too much what they use for work, even if it’s absolute garbage. The conversation seems to revolve mostly around gaming, for which setting up a new station seems worth it.

Personally, I want OLED’s amazing contrast for text-work more than anything else.
Click to expand...

OLED is better for everything. There's nothing LCD does better, save maybe for refresh rate, but OLED motion is superior so it's pretty much cancelled out. This would be fine if LCD was more affordable, but it's actually more expensive! This is the issue more than anything else. I object to paying such an obscene amount of money for a panel which is really nothing special. Some people don't seem to realise the 38" inch 3840x1600 panels have existed for years, albeit at max 75Hz up until now! The justification at the price only comes from people who've bought it, which is to be expected.

The biggest problem with OLED is the lack of smaller sizes available and the burn-in risk, although this is overblown significantly and can be mitigated. Still, I understand why the 38GL950G will be the perfect monitor for some people, and they have no choice but to pay its stupid price... but that doesn't actually make it the perfect monitor, because it's a long, long way from being that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top