Recommend an HDR Ultrawide

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
I'm currently using an LG 34UC89G-B, which is a 34" 2560x1080 IPS 166Hz panel.

I am happy with the monitor, but I'm interested in HDR and also maybe going up to 3440x1440.

I did some searching, and this monitor looks nice but it got some bad reviews:

https://www.amazon.com/Gaming-VG35VQ-Monitor-FreeSync-DisplayPort/dp/B07YP6PFFT

I'm looking for good HDR and FreeSync that is compatible with Nvidia. Probably 100 Hz as well.

Anyone have the VG35VQ or something similar they can recommend?
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
Closest thing is the pg35vq but the answer is theres really no good LCD HDR monitors in general.
Yeah, that looks nice but the price is ridiculous. Almost the cost of like my whole machine.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
I'm flexible on the price, within reason. Like under $1,000 would be nice, but I could spend a little more if it was worth it.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
This one from LG also looks interesting, the 34GN850-B. Has FreeSync 2 and 160 Hz refresh which is pretty nice.

https://www.newegg.com/black-lg-ultragear-34gn850-b-34/p/N82E16824026027

Aside from HDR, can anyone share their experiences with 3440x1440 monitors?

I did a quick test on my system with DSR and frame limiting to get an idea of performance, and I think 100 Hz is too low for me. Some of my games were struggling to get to 100 fps at that.

Seems like 3440x1440 is still pretty taxing for a 2080 Ti once you get into high refresh. Not sure if the resolution increase would be worth the loss in performance. Any thoughts?
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,404
This one from LG also looks interesting, the 34GN850-B. Has FreeSync 2 and 160 Hz refresh which is pretty nice.

https://www.newegg.com/black-lg-ultragear-34gn850-b-34/p/N82E16824026027

Aside from HDR, can anyone share their experiences with 3440x1440 monitors?

I did a quick test on my system with DSR and frame limiting to get an idea of performance, and I think 100 Hz is too low for me. Some of my games were struggling to get to 100 fps at that.

Seems like 3440x1440 is still pretty taxing for a 2080 Ti once you get into high refresh. Not sure if the resolution increase would be worth the loss in performance. Any thoughts?
I mean 3440x1440 is basically just 2560x1080 but with higher PPI assuming the same screen size. 1440p is a huge leap over 1080p though IMO. You could always offset the increase in pixel count by lowering some settings, seriously some graphics settings hardly give any improvement to visual quality but will tank frame rates that it's just not worth it to leave them on.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
That Samsung does look pretty nice, but I really like the 34/35" ultrawide category.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
Actually, 100 Hz isn't so bad. I think I forgot a step in my test.

I mean, it's definitely a step down from 166 but still seems playable and okay.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
So I think the LG looks pretty close to what I'm looking for.

https://www.lg.com/hk_en/monitor/lg-34GN850-B

Wish the HDR was for real, but it should be better than nothing and there are not a lot of choices.

Definitely not paying $2.5K for the Asus, especially with the bad reviews.

Anything else I'm missing?
 

criccio

Fully Equipped
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
12,938
Still quite happy with my PG348q. Even with my 2080 Super, not all games can even hit 100fps and when they don't, G-Sync keeps the gameplay buttery smoother and I don't notice a thing.

If the game will easily do over 100fps, I cap it or use VSync depending on which feels better (mouse feel) and just game.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
Cool. I noticed with my DSR test that recent games are getting in the 100 - 110 fps range on very high settings 2080 Ti.

I'm really on the fence whether higher than that is needed. I mean, I can feel it is smoother at 150 or 160 fps but 100 is still a lot (and even if I got that 160 Hz panel, new games won't run that fast outside Doom).

I could save some money and just get a 100 Hz panel, but that would feel like a downgrade in some ways. Still have to think this through a bit.
 

criccio

Fully Equipped
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
12,938
In my situation, the only upgrade would be to something with HDR. I don't want a higher resolution seeing as how 3440x1440 is already hard to run at times and I can't seem to find a problem with the 100Hz Refresh with G-Sync. It honestly comes down to that. Now having had G-Sync, i couldn't be without it.

Also what is a DSR test. Google is definitely not giving me the correct definition.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
Right, that makes sense. I said I was going to wait for decent HDR kits to become available, but it seems that is taking a while and the high end ones are way too much right now.

Basically what I have been doing is using Nvidia DSR (Dynamic Super Resolution) to "fake" higher resolutions on my current monitor. It was originally meant to allow simulated 4K gaming on 1080p monitors, but you can adjust it to be different sizes. So I have created one that is 3620x1527, which is as close as I could get to 3440x1440. Then I used the frame cap feature in RivaTuner (could also do this in Nvidia panel now) to cap my fps at 100 to simulate 100 Hz, as an example. It's not exact, but it gives me a good idea of what the performance will be like on the new monitor, and I can see some increase in picture quality as well.

From what I saw, Doom Eternal can still be very smooth around 140 - 150 fps. Rage 2 was around 110, same with Far Cry 5. Dirt Rally looked like the full 160 fps. Ghostrunner was full speed as well, and older games like Left4Dead were no problem. I also like playing slightly older games, so I think I should be able to still get high fps if I go with the LG. And I've read that the HDR is okay, not great, but it should be an upgrade from what I have.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,759
Right, that makes sense. I said I was going to wait for decent HDR kits to become available, but it seems that is taking a while and the high end ones are way too much right now.

Basically what I have been doing is using Nvidia DSR (Dynamic Super Resolution) to "fake" higher resolutions on my current monitor. It was originally meant to allow simulated 4K gaming on 1080p monitors, but you can adjust it to be different sizes. So I have created one that is 3620x1527, which is as close as I could get to 3440x1440. Then I used the frame cap feature in RivaTuner (could also do this in Nvidia panel now) to cap my fps at 100 to simulate 100 Hz, as an example. It's not exact, but it gives me a good idea of what the performance will be like on the new monitor, and I can see some increase in picture quality as well.

From what I saw, Doom Eternal can still be very smooth around 140 - 150 fps. Rage 2 was around 110, same with Far Cry 5. Dirt Rally looked like the full 160 fps. Ghostrunner was full speed as well, and older games like Left4Dead were no problem. I also like playing slightly older games, so I think I should be able to still get high fps if I go with the LG. And I've read that the HDR is okay, not great, but it should be an upgrade from what I have.
Just started Doom Eternal and on a 2080 Ti even 5120x1440 runs at 120 fps with the highest graphics preset. The game looks far better with HDR enabled even with the mediocre HDR of my Samsung CRG9. 5120x1440 is not all that pleasant for fast FPS games though and I wish I could run it at 3440x1440 or 3840x1440 but it seems to give me a blank screen if HDR is enabled in this resolution. It's weird because every other game has worked fine with custom resolutions and HDR.

The real issue is that aside from the Acer X35 and ASUS PG35VQ there are no HDR ultrawides with particularly good overall package. Samsungs have limited local dimming with HDR1000 brightness while LG (and everyone using their panels) is stuck in low contrast ratio HDR400 with no local dimming and HDR600 with bad local dimming. HDR400 is not going to give a satisfying HDR experience.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
Well the PG35VQ/X35 do sound nice, but they would have to be *really nice* for that price. I mean, I can afford it but it's a *huge* purchase. It better be worth it.

Otherwise the LG 34GN850-B has basically everything I want, but only HDR400. The other option would be to wait, but I feel like I could be waiting for a long time given how long some of these panels have been in development.
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,404
Well the PG35VQ/X35 do sound nice, but they would have to be *really nice* for that price. I mean, I can afford it but it's a *huge* purchase. It better be worth it.

Otherwise the LG 34GN850-B has basically everything I want, but only HDR400. The other option would be to wait, but I feel like I could be waiting for a long time given how long some of these panels have been in development.
HDR400 looks even worst than SDR. How do I know? I have an HDR400 monitor with 16 local dimming zones, the HP Omen X27. HDR on it looks like hot garbage on it to the point I'd rather use SDR instead. There's really zero point in getting an HDR400 or probably even an HDR600 monitor. Only an HDR1000 monitor with FALD like the Acer X27 or Asus PG35VQ OR an OLED display have worthwhile HDR effects.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
You're probably right but I had the upgrade itch and ended up going with the LG 34GN850-B.

I know it won't be the best HDR, but all the other features will be a big upgrade for me: 1080p -> 1440p, 5ms -> 1ms, better colors, FreeSync so I can buy an AMD GPU if I want, and HDR400 is just a bonus (if it works at all).

Honestly, I can't with good conscience spend over $2k on a monitor. And if I was, it would have to be 100% perfect, and the reviews were somewhat mixed.

I'd rather get something affordable now, that is still a nice upgrade, and then see what happens in the next year or two. Thanks for all your help.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
So the LG came today. Overall I like it. Default settings were pretty bad, so I didn't have the greatest first impression (and did kind of wonder about returning it).

However, after tweaking everything I could, I got to a pretty good place. I still have to play with it more to get the settings perfect in Windows, but right now I am satisfied.

HDR does surprisingly work. It's not mind-blowing, but there is a noticeable difference in some games (like Doom Eternal). It does look nice. Obviously it's entry-level but it is doing something.

Aside from HDR, I do like the higher resolution, and performance is still good with the 2080 Ti. Most notably, the response time is at least 2 or 3 times better than my old monitor, it is so smooth, even with lower fps.

I'm getting around 100 - 120 fps in most games, but it is so smooth and responsive. Input lag seems less, and the overall feel is much better. I am surprised because it is an IPS panel but it's almost TN level.

I will start a new thread with some more detailed results, just wanted to update you peeps to say that it worked out.
 
Top