LG launches 240hz 32 1440p screen

MorgothPl

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
3,020
Just got PR notice from LG, that they are launching on IFA on 1st September bunch of new screens. Top star will be 32GK850G 32" g-sync 1440p with 240hz. There will be also 165 hz 21:9 Gsync screen and 27" 240hz Freesync. They didn't mention though if it's IPS or not.

All those screens will have some PR stuff like "black stabiliser" for "black unseen on computer screen" or "dynamic action sync" which will supposedly limit input lag - and some other shills :)

They didn't tell us the prices though, but when I am in Berlin on IFA, I'll grab pricing, hard launch date and more info for you.
 
Last edited:

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,243
Although I don't believe you are lying, I won't believe it until I see it.
 

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
1440p 240Hz would mean multiple inputs are required. Not unheard of, but still a bit unusual.
 

Brian_B

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
3,356
I'll believe IPS and VA panels doing proper 200/240hz without s***ing themselves when I see (a good review of) one

Yeah, at those 200+ refresh rates, it's almost certainly TN: meh.

The Ultrawide ~might~ be IPS, as there are a few out there that are doing 165Hz, but ultrawide, meh.

Would be interesting if it is indeed IPS though, would be the highest refresh rate IPS I've ever heard of.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
If this really does make it into production the 32" could be an alternative if I can't afford the PG27UQ.
Yeah, at those 200+ refresh rates, it's almost certainly TN: meh.

The Ultrawide ~might~ be IPS, as there are a few out there that are doing 165Hz, but ultrawide, meh.

Would be interesting if it is indeed IPS though, would be the highest refresh rate IPS I've ever heard of.
IPS could be possible. The fastest AHVA panels average around 5ms GTG with overdrive. I'd probably just set the max refresh rate to 200 Hz if getting one of these. If it is a TN panel it wouldn't bother me, anyway.
 

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
Huh? Displayport 1.3 can do that already...


There are no scalers for DP1.3+, and the userbase for such a monitor is small as it requires latest gen graphics cards only. Doubtful that LG would do something like that and create new hardware that doesnt exist yet.
 

Krisium

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
94
Are we sure?

The press release clearly says the 27GK750F is 240hz, and that the 34UC89G is 144hz (overclockable to 166hz). It does not list resolutions for either.

It does not confirm 32GK850G is 240hz, only that it is 2560x1440.

Computerbase says that the 32-inch monitor is 144hz (overclockable to 165hz):
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-08/lg-32gk850g-27gk750f/
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
There are no scalers for DP1.3+, and the userbase for such a monitor is small as it requires latest gen graphics cards only. Doubtful that LG would do something like that and create new hardware that doesnt exist yet.
They're in the pipeline. G-Sync HDR uses DisplayPort 1.4.
 

Gatecrasher3000

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
336
21:9 or 16:9 for the 32"? (I know you don't know the answer, but I'm just going to be a dick and ask the question anyways)
 

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
Ah, the press release says the 27GK750F (27") model is the 240Hz one. There is no mention of refresh for the 32GK850G specifically, but earlier in the paragraph they say they are announcing 144Hz and 240Hz monitors, then go on to talk about the 32". So that would mean if 27" is confirmed to be the 240Hz model, the 32" 1440p should be 144Hz with OC capability to 165Hz.



LG’s GK gaming series implements the latest technological breakthroughs, namely high refresh rates of 144Hz (overclockable to 165Hz*) and 240Hz. LG’s new 32-inch gaming monitor (model 32GK850G) is the ideal display for game enthusiasts who want seamless, quick motion gameplay on large screens with high picture quality. Featuring fast refresh rate, LG 32GK850G delivers incredibly fluid graphic motion while its NVIDIA G-SyncTM graphic processing technology – which is taking the gaming community by storm – all but eliminates stuttering and screen tearing when in the heat of the action. This monitor will handily process all game genres without any afterimages while delivering rapid and fluid motion at a maximum brightness of 350 nits on its QHD (2,560 x 1,440) screen.

The 27-inch GK monitor (model 27GK750F) also delivers incredibly smooth gameplay with the highest refresh rate and the fastest response time. The more compact monitor is designed to take on all gaming needs with enhancements to improve the player’s chances of willing, such as 240Hz refresh rate, 1ms Motion Blur Reduction and AMD FreeSync™ technology. Features such as Black Stabilizer, Dynamic Action Sync and Crosshair – which places a target in the center of the monitor in order to enhance accuracy in FPS games – are designed to make the gaming experience second to none.
 

Daffan

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
92
32" TN is unheard of

32" VA probably end up smearing everywhere like usual

32" IPS is mixed bag and probably looks like a UFO landing with all the blb/glow.

Probably only 144hz with OC to 165 or something.
 

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,768
Who actually wants a 32" 1440p monitor? Gross.


Well I sure as hell know you are not suggesting a 4k display at the incredible small 32" so you must mean 1080p right?

1440p would be perfect for 32"

You must be confused or never really had a larger display monitor. Maybe both.

You do know that 99% of the people on these forums would tell you 4k is not a good fit for 32" right?

Or maybe I am missing something. Who knows.
 

chenw

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
3,977
I am treating this with a continent of salt.

LG is not known for making any G-Sync panels.

However, if this thing is real, it could dethrone the QLED VA Samsung FreeSync 1440p144hz 32" as my current dream monitor, like completely.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
I mean, I'd be up for a 32" 4k120 HDR G-Sync panel, if they actually do the HDR well and everything else checks out.
 

tacos4me

Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
814
Well I sure as hell know you are not suggesting a 4k display at the incredible small 32" so you must mean 1080p right?

1440p would be perfect for 32"

You must be confused or never really had a larger display monitor. Maybe both.

You do know that 99% of the people on these forums would tell you 4k is not a good fit for 32" right?

Or maybe I am missing something. Who knows.
2160p at 32" is a much better experience than 1440p, in my opinion. Density isn't great enough at 32"/1440p, it looks gross. Hence my comment.

I've gone the 40" UHD monitor route already (also have an LG E6, way too big), and while I would prefer something that size.. I would also take a 32" w/ a bit of scaling. 1440p, no thanks, that stops at 27" for me.
 

zone74

Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
621
Yeah I dunno why people buy these below-normal PPI monitors. The pixels are like barn doors and it's really ugly :/
1440p at 32" is 92 pixels per inch. That's only 4% larger than Windows' target of 96 PPI.
1440p at 27" is 109 PPI, so everything is displayed ~13% smaller than intended.
30.6" would be ideal.

You do know that 99% of the people on these forums would tell you 4k is not a good fit for 32" right?
Or maybe I am missing something. Who knows.
You're missing the fact that high pixel density displays are intended to be used with DPI scaling enabled, which considerably improves text and image quality.
For 4K at 32" you would use 125%/150%.

I would prefer that these displays were high enough resolution to use 200% scaling though. 5K was ideal for 27"–32" sizes.
Older applications look much better at 2x than 1.25x/1.50x/1.75x.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
Yeah I dunno why people buy these below-normal PPI monitors. The pixels are like barn doors and it's really ugly :/
You must not have a 4K TV that is larger than 46" if that is your opinion.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,036
You must not have a 4K TV that is larger than 46" if that is your opinion.

You're missing the fact that you don't sit 18 inches away from a large format 4K TV. You also don't primarily use it to read text, which benefits considerably more than video from high pixel densities.

A better comparison would be phones, which have proven that even at the tiny size of 5 inches, 1080p is significantly better than 720p. The big problem with high pixel density on the desktop, historically, has been problems with scaling. However, these have largely been resolved for most modern apps. I use 200% scaling with my 4K 15" laptop display(XPS 15) and it is excellent, definitely a better experience than a 1440p monitor.

Either way, 92ppi is way too low for 2017.
1440p at 27" is 109 PPI, so everything is displayed ~13% smaller than intended.
30.6" would be ideal..

Yeah that's true, but in general I would rather have things look smaller than intended than look pixelated. I've owned a 32" 4K monitor for 3 years and I generally used it without scaling back then when a lot of apps had problems with their UI looking messed up if you used any scaling. These days I'd probably use 125%, but in general 'smaller than the baseline' is not a problem unless you have poor (20/40 or worse, I'd say) vision to deal with.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,551
If these monitors were 4k and not 1440p, they would be 60Hz and have nothing to write home about.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,036
If these monitors were 4k and not 1440p, they would be 60Hz and have nothing to write home about.

Well they probably aren't. It's extremely unlikely the 32" 1440p is 240hz. It would have to be a TN panel to even have the response times for that refresh rate to make sense, and a 32" TN panel is a terrible idea. Plus the actual LG press release only states 240hz for the 27" panel which is almost certainly 1080p.
The 32" LCD here is gonna be 144hz/165hz which is indeed nothing to write home about.
 
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
43
You're missing the fact that you don't sit 18 inches away from a large format 4K TV.
I guess you're exaggerating, but you shouldn't view a desktop monitor 18 inches from your eyes either, unless you're very near-sighted.

What it really comes down to is that different people have different preferences. I would take 2560x1440 100Hz ULMB over 3840x2160 60Hz at the same size, pretty much regardless of what that size is.
 

Odellus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
1,696
Well they probably aren't. It's extremely unlikely the 32" 1440p is 240hz. It would have to be a TN panel to even have the response times for that refresh rate to make sense, and a 32" TN panel is a terrible idea. Plus the actual LG press release only states 240hz for the 27" panel which is almost certainly 1080p.
The 32" LCD here is gonna be 144hz/165hz which is indeed nothing to write home about.
oh my god you can have response times longer than the refresh rate, they don't have to be faster. it will still be just as smooth as it would be on a faster screen. it literally doesn't hurt anything to have.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,036
oh my god you can have response times longer than the refresh rate, they don't have to be faster. it will still be just as smooth as it would be on a faster screen. it literally doesn't hurt anything to have.

If the pixel response time is not sufficiently fast enough for the refresh rate, you just have a shitty screen that smears a lot, has excessive overshoot, or other issues that make the image actually worse when you set the refresh rate too high, like Acer Predator Z35. There were similar problems with the old Korean monitors that were claimed to be overclockable to 120hz but couldn't actually properly display those frames.

I'm not sure why your tone is so aggressive when you're completely wrong, either.

I guess you're exaggerating, but you shouldn't view a desktop monitor 18 inches from your eyes either, unless you're very near-sighted.

What it really comes down to is that different people have different preferences.

The AOA recommends 20-28 inches, which isn't significantly different. Since I have somewhat worse than perfect vision(20/30) I sit a little closer than someone with perfect vision would, just naturally. 18 inches away when sitting up and attentive on something like a game, and closer to 24-26 when leaning back and viewing video or scanning over code etc.

But yes, pretty much all display-related choices are down to preference and personal comfort, absolutely.
 
Last edited:

Chief Blur Buster

Owner of BlurBusters
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
56
oh my god you can have response times longer than the refresh rate, they don't have to be faster. it will still be just as smooth as it would be on a faster screen. it literally doesn't hurt anything to have.
Owie, my eyes.

Don't remind me of the old 33ms LCDs from the late 1990s. Those smeared like hell at 60 Hz (16.7ms refresh cycle).

Faster GtG becomes important again though (even 1ms or 0.5ms becomes useful again) when it comes to either strobe backlights (e.g. ULMB) or the use of ultra-high Hz (e.g. 480Hz).

Strobe backlights depend on cramming the LCD GtG into the tight time period of a blanking interval (aka VBI / VSYNC), while good-looking ultra-high Hz depend on the GtG continue to be a fraction of a refresh cycle. However, 1ms versus 2ms GtG is visually indistinguishable for a 60Hz non-strobed monitor :D
 

Odellus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
1,696
If the pixel response time is not sufficiently fast enough for the refresh rate, you just have a shitty screen that smears a lot, has excessive overshoot, or other issues that make the image actually worse when you set the refresh rate too high, like Acer Predator Z35. There were similar problems with the old Korean monitors that were claimed to be overclockable to 120hz but couldn't actually properly display those frames.

I'm not sure why your tone is so aggressive when you're completely wrong, either.



The AOA recommends 20-28 inches, which isn't significantly different. Since I have somewhat worse than perfect vision(20/30) I sit a little closer than someone with perfect vision would, just naturally. 18 inches away when sitting up and attentive on something like a game, and closer to 24-26 when leaning back and viewing video or scanning over code etc.

But yes, pretty much all display-related choices are down to preference and personal comfort, absolutely.
i have one of those korean monitors that have no overdrive, they don't have excessive overshoot (because they don't have fucking overdrive lol) or "other issues" besides lots of motion blur. they still benefit from the higher refresh rate in terms of smoothness otherwise they wouldn't have been as big of a deal as they were, and they weren't "claimed" to be overclockable, they were, period. this is why it's so fucking annoying constantly seeing people say "hurrrrr the screen is too slow for that refresh rate" because it's completely wrong; REGARDLESS of the screen's response times, you STILL benefit from the increased smoothness at higher refresh rates. the Z35's issues have absolutely nothing to do with the refresh rate being too fast for the pixel transition speeds. it has a garbage overdrive implementation and an excessively slow panel by today's VA standards. that's it.
 

Daffan

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
92
Yeah I dunno why people buy these below-normal PPI monitors. The pixels are like barn doors and it's really ugly :/

24" 1080p is 92ppi. Windows was designed for basically that size.
32" (31.5") 1440p is 93ppi.

I would love to have 32" 4k but every single one of them has high input lag or garbage response times. They are all VA, except for the 2 new LG's and they have insane blb/ips glow and cost two arms.

oh my god you can have response times longer than the refresh rate, they don't have to be faster. it will still be just as smooth as it would be on a faster screen. it literally doesn't hurt anything to have.

Either way. I would take 60hz with zero smear/ghost/blur/trail e.g perfect response time over 240hz with horrible trails.
 
Top