LG launches 240hz 32 1440p screen

Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
48
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.
I suspect that recommendation is aimed at large apparent text size, making it easy to read, on typical monitors without scaling.

http://office-ergo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Monitor-Viewing-Distance.-Ankrum-D.R..pdf
This paper suggests that farther is better, and that ideal distance is in the neighborhood of 35 inches, based on the vergence resting point of the eyes. Of course that means you need a larger monitor or turn up the scaling to keep text size comfortable.
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,217
Been waiting for 31.5" 144~165Hz 1440p monitor, now the final question remains, VA or IPS, I doubt it's TN in this case but yea who knows but I believe 240Hz is with LG's built in strobing and it probably does like 144-165Hz natively. I'd ideally take IPS without BLB/Glow/quality control issues if such thing exists today but I'm pretty happy with the colors of the BenQ 240Hz TN panel (which according to a comparision article in a magazine scored slightly better color accuracy wise than the ASUS 240Hz) and using no more than 144Hz refresh rate maximum as higher refresh rates tend to reduce contrast ratio slightly and tweaking the settings as it looks like shit out of box (used in combination with BenQ Blur Reduction for silky smooth motion smoothness). This TN panel also has very good uniformity (for LCD standard) and almost no BLB to speak of that I expect most LCDs to ship with these days that I'm not that much of a TN hater until quality of the IPS panels are fixed anyway as I hate that glow and yellowish white areas.

I also don't like 27" on 1440p, too small dimensions for the res for my tastes (at work I use a custom scaling of 123% on the 27" 1440p monitors which feels the most comfortable for me to work with when going through every 1% one by one), I'd ideally want roughly 30" or 96~98 PPI which I believe Windows is geared for but the next best thing for me that market offers is 31.5" @ 1440p at 93.24 PPI, slightly up from 91.79 PPI of 24" @ 1080p which feels also very comfortable for me. Don't like ultrawides at all.

Definitely going to follow these new 31.5" 1440p closer. :)
 
Last edited:

chenw

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
3,977
Well, unless LG WANT to be the first company to manufacture a 32" TN 1440p panel, they can go right ahead.

Even though I am more tolerant towards TN (mainly because I am less tolerant towards IPS), I still think 27" is about the absolute maximum a TN Panel should go, anything bigger than 30" is plain absurd, as it becomes impossible to eliminate the TN brightness shift without eliminating the point of getting bigger panels in the first place. So I am betting/hoping this will at the very least, be a non-TN.

All in all, I'd probably prefer VA if given the choice, and all 32" 1440p out there seem to be VA too.
 

shansoft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
5,076
After using Retina Macbook extensively, even a 2560x1440 for 27" is pretty damn pixelated.

I have been looking into LG UltraFine 5k, but no PC except Macbook can run it at 5K.

With high refresh rate, I would rather wait for Asus PG27UQ 4K 144Hz instead of 1440p @ 27"
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,217
It's a bit unclear if it's 144Hz but with 165Hz OC support or not but yea likely 144Hz native, 240Hz if it supports it is likely LG's built in strobing which would be 120Hz real refresh rate which is neat to have like such, at least I really enjoy the motion smoothness of BenQ's Blur Reduction. But being GSYNC based that comes with ULMB, there's not really need for LG's strobing so it's likely not true at all but I suppose it could be just typical marketing BS that 120Hz ULMB = 240Hz.

EDIT: I suppose it would be a good compromise to have both ULMB and built in strobing for one reason, no matter which GPU brand, AMD or Nvidia, you get some benefits in either cases.

According to this article it's 144Hz with 165Hz OC support: http://www.144hzmonitors.com/monitors/lg-32gk850g-lg-27gk750f/
 
Last edited:

Chief Blur Buster

Owner of BlurBusters
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
319
Keep in mind some monitors are coming out that are 144Hz at 1440p but goes up to 240Hz at 1080p.

(I count at least two manufacturers planning to do this, at least tentatively)
 

LigTasm

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
5,632
I hope for more 240hz screens soon, I just went from a 240hz AW back to 144hz and the difference is jarring. I didn't notice the benefit of the 240 at first and thought it was a waste of money, but once I went back down it was a very clear difference that screwed up my gaming for several days until I got used to the lower refresh rate again.
 

RogueTadhg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
1,527
I hope for more 240hz screens soon, I just went from a 240hz AW back to 144hz and the difference is jarring. I didn't notice the benefit of the 240 at first and thought it was a waste of money, but once I went back down it was a very clear difference that screwed up my gaming for several days until I got used to the lower refresh rate again.

First world problems. I'm still rocking 60 Hz. :p Yes. I hate it for gaming.


I'd love to see a 1440p @ 240 hz. As long as the input lag and G2G lag is pretty good, I can see it being a hit in the gaming market.
 

MagnaMagicBtu

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
96
Too bad there are no glossy 27" 1440p 240hz. 1440p is a bit pixelated at 32" IMO and Matte looks boring and lifeless. There is no luster. 32" is better suited for 4K.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,577
32GK850G-B Product page up! $849.99 msrp.

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32GK850G-B-gaming-monitor

Screen Size 31.5"
Panel Type VA
Color Gamut (CIE1931) 72%
Color Depth(Number of Colors) 8bits, 16.7M
Pixel Pitch(mm) 0.2724 x 0.2724
Response Time(GTG) 5ms (Faster)
Refresh Rate 144Hz
Aspect Ratio 16:9
Resolution 2560x1440
Brightness 350nits (typ) / 280nits (Min)
Contrast Ratio Mega
Viewing Angle 178 / 178
Surface Treatment Anti glare ,3H
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,217
VA panel comes as a big suprise, first, I'm pretty sure LG mentioned it would focus on IPS gaming panels only from now on more or less, 2nd, the viewing angles in some YouTube videos looked pretty good.

I'm a bit disappointed in it being VA, I might just keep my 240Hz BenQ a little longer then, VA's response times just isn't good enough for my tastes.

Typo on the page:
The precise 2460 x 1440 resolution and impressive 31.5” screen size combine for a thrilling, immersive gaming experience.
 
Last edited:

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
It really, really, depends on what they mean by 'VA'.

Inky blacks and no black blurring? Gamma shift minimized? Let's roll.
 

Daffan

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
92
inb4 ghosting is insane and darker transitions are 20ms.... on a 144hz panel that requires 7ms minimum.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,675
Alright, I know I want to wait for 4k120, but...

If this display rises above typical VA faults, I just might upgrade.
 
Top