The 32 inch 4k IPS 144hz's...(Update - this party is started) (wait for it...)

kramnelis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
196
So when is the next round of panels that hopefully dont suck as bad due?
Funny people say these monitors suck. They still deliver the best images on the market right now.
They just have quirks like you buy a Ferrari and blame it bad at corners.
After I see the HDR 1400 Dolby Bright mode, I cannot go back to HDR 1000. It makes PG27UQ looks like a SDR monitor.
 

dgrdsv

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
152
So when is the next round of panels that hopefully dont suck as bad due?
Next year probably.
There have been some rumors of 20 to 30" sized LGD OLEDs too.

Funny people say these monitors suck.
People have some weird expectations from LCD technology.
Also it would probably help with perceived value if these would cost 1/2 of their current price.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
25,982
Bring on the 6k/8k gsync 31.5 inchers! :D I loved 4k at 24" but the screen was just too small. I have tried high refresh rate but I'd dump it for high ppi like that in a heartbeat. Currently on 4k60 gsync, planned on going high refresh 4k until I heard the higher res panels may be coming.
 

kramnelis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
196
People have some weird expectations from LCD technology.
Also it would probably help with perceived value if these would cost 1/2 of their current price.
Monitors are harder to make. It's funny every time people who don't have or know monitors compare a TV to a monitor.
It makes me feel like entering that 3rd world discord where people use their CRTs to judge how good current monitor reviews are while unable to afford any of them.
 

recusant

n00b
Joined
Oct 19, 2021
Messages
51
I think the current FALD monitors could be good if prices are lowered and dimming algorithms improved.
Most interesting upcoming monitor will be Asus PG32UQXE, which will be the first monitor with Gsync Ultimate + HDMI 2.1 if rumors are true.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
35
I have had alot of computer monitors for decades, IMHO value for cost these are just not really worth the price. (Especially the 1500$ + ones, while some look nice that is just ridiculously greedy margins right there!)
They dont look significantly better from a color, clarity, or motion handling than my 7 year old dell, not enough to think I would spend that much money.
Freesync is nice but not enough to justify the 900$ + prices.
If they had a much wider color coverage and better HDR then sure , but for nearly 1000$ (or more) the current options just dont do it for me.
While I can surely afford it, just doesnt seem like a good spend yet.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
35
They just have quirks like you buy a Ferrari and blame it bad at corners.
For the cost of any Ferrari (performance models) if it cornered badly that would be a huge flaw based on it's purpose. It would be a terrible value proposition vs a mclaren, lambo, or even porsche.
Honestly Im somewhat disappointed that my new Corvette corners poorly vs my BMW 1M, but the Corvette excels in other areas that make that an acceptable trade in performance vs price.
If the Z06 doesnt handle significantly better, than thats a big no-go for the price increase.
These 2000$ monitors feel like Ferrari cost for Corvette performance, IMHO.
 

kramnelis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
196
They dont look significantly better from a color, clarity, or motion handling than my 7 year old dell, not enough to think I would spend that much money.
This one really have me believe you belong to the discord group who still use CRTs from 2000 while judging 2020 monitor reviews without having any of them.
First, whatever a 7 year old Dell is not comparable to the current monitors. The HDR monitor doesn't even exist in 2015.
Second, $1500 is not much.
 

dgrdsv

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
152
Freesync is nice but not enough to justify the 900$ + prices.
I'd say that it's enough if you're upgrading from a 60Hz display without adaptive sync. Adaptive sync with 120Hz+ refresh totally worth $900+ even if the picture quality remains similar (which it kinda doesn't either because modern panels have a much higher color range).

The HDR monitor doesn't even exist in 2015.
Most LCD monitors aren't capable of HDR though. FALD ones do cost too much.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,795
Funny people say these monitors suck. They still deliver the best images on the market right now.
They just have quirks like you buy a Ferrari and blame it bad at corners.
After I see the HDR 1400 Dolby Bright mode, I cannot go back to HDR 1000. It makes PG27UQ looks like a SDR monitor.
I feel like you are putting HDR performance above basically everything else based on your posts. With a lot of these monitors costing anywhere between 1500-3000 euros depending on the make and model, you start to want it to perform at a top tier level in all aspects but instead they have problems like:
  • Crappy input selection with DP and HDMI 2.0 where you have basically one port that can do the full capabilities of the display so plugging in two computers to switch between is a no go. (Anything with G-Sync Ultimate)
  • Scanline problems (Samsung Neo G7/G8)
  • Issues with the way they handle the local dimming where it might be crushing blacks or causing blooming problems.
  • Sluggish pixel response time even for gaming LCDs.
  • Overshoot problems.
  • Worse pixel response/overshoot problems at specific refresh rates on screens without variable overdrive. Since hitting above 60 fps consistently on 4K is difficult in the first place this can be more of a problem.
  • Low contrast ratio in SDR content (IPS panels).
While it would be unreasonable to expect these to be perfect, at their cost they should be better. Or they just need to be cheaper so it balances out.

At this point I have pretty much given up on finding a 32" 4K high refresh rate screen that I want to buy and am now just separating my gaming and do-everything-else setups. It doesn't look like we are getting any significant improvements next year based on panel roadmaps from various panel vendors.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
35
This one really have me believe you belong to the discord group who still use CRTs from 2000 while judging 2020 monitor reviews without having any of them.
First, whatever a 7 year old Dell is not comparable to the current monitors. The HDR monitor doesn't even exist in 2015.
Second, $1500 is not much.
I feel HDR brings very little over all. It doesnt make a night an day difference to me, its a nice to have at best.
Better color and saturation would be great a much bigger win IMHO, as well as better contrast (but that I have given up on with IPS)
The problem is the 7 year old Dell is about 85% of the current monitors that are which I feel are egregiously over priced, and I certainly don't throw away money for little percived value.
If one of those 1500-2000$ monitors was 900-1000$ that would make me have a much harder look.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
35
I'd say that it's enough if you're upgrading from a 60Hz display without adaptive sync. Adaptive sync with 120Hz+ refresh totally worth $900+ even if the picture quality remains similar (which it kinda doesn't either because modern panels have a much higher color range).
That' just it, I tried one but it just wasn't really. I mean was is better, sure... but again it really didn't feel that much smoother. Maybe my eyes just top out early on the HFR scale, I dunno.
I was all excited to final get a HFR monitor a while back got the FI27Q-P, but the difference was so minimal I just couldn't internally justify the spend and sent it back.
 

dgrdsv

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
152
That' just it, I tried one but it just wasn't really. I mean was is better, sure... but again it really didn't feel that much smoother. Maybe my eyes just top out early on the HFR scale, I dunno.
I was all excited to final get a HFR monitor a while back got the FI27Q-P, but the difference was so minimal I just couldn't internally justify the spend and sent it back.
I went from 60 to 144 and then back to 60 (cause the new monitor died, thanks, Asus), and it took me ~2 months to adjust back to 60. HFR is incredibly useful everywhere. Gsync is also a huge bonus.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
35
I went from 60 to 144 and then back to 60 (cause the new monitor died, thanks, Asus), and it took me ~2 months to adjust back to 60. HFR is incredibly useful everywhere. Gsync is also a huge bonus.
Dont get me wrong, I wouldnt settle for a 60hz again, but 4k (Higher pixel density) was a much better visual value to me than HFR even in old games that were easily pegged at 144hz.
I think my eyes top out around 90-100hz, I couldnt tell the difference beyond that.
4k and great colors > text clarity > motion clarity > adaptive-sync > HFR > HDR thats my personal order of importance.
But that being said missing adaptive-sync or HFR with but having the items higher are not acceptable trades either =)
HDR is really the only one that I don't really care about, even in movies it just seems to have a very minimal value.
 

kramnelis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
196
I feel like you are putting HDR performance above basically everything else based on your posts. With a lot of these monitors costing anywhere between 1500-3000 euros depending on the make and model, you start to want it to perform at a top tier level in all aspects but instead they have problems like:
  • Crappy input selection with DP and HDMI 2.0 where you have basically one port that can do the full capabilities of the display so plugging in two computers to switch between is a no go. (Anything with G-Sync Ultimate)
  • Scanline problems (Samsung Neo G7/G8)
  • Issues with the way they handle the local dimming where it might be crushing blacks or causing blooming problems.
  • Sluggish pixel response time even for gaming LCDs.
  • Overshoot problems.
  • Worse pixel response/overshoot problems at specific refresh rates on screens without variable overdrive. Since hitting above 60 fps consistently on 4K is difficult in the first place this can be more of a problem.
  • Low contrast ratio in SDR content (IPS panels).
While it would be unreasonable to expect these to be perfect, at their cost they should be better. Or they just need to be cheaper so it balances out.

At this point I have pretty much given up on finding a 32" 4K high refresh rate screen that I want to buy and am now just separating my gaming and do-everything-else setups. It doesn't look like we are getting any significant improvements next year based on panel roadmaps from various panel vendors.
HDR is the best but also the hardest part of a monitor right now. Most of my posts are focused on HDR. It needs technology from other territories.

Most of the problems you listed are caused by the local dimming backlight, not the panels. If the backlight is slow, the panel won't be helpful even the panel has fast response time.

There is a reason Nvidia doesn't want to sacrifice G-sync computational power to support HDMI 2.1. It needs a more powerful FPGA or additional chipset, which is unavailable at the moment, to make fast backlight without sacrificing image quality. Simply support HDMI 2.1 will slow down backlight.

Besides G-sync module, so far PA32UCG only support Dolby Vision at 4K 60Hz YCbCr444 8bit. That is the limitation of the current FPGA to process dynamic tone mapping. HDR metadata is processed through the monitors. It needs at least 2.4x faster FPGA to support Dolby 4K 120Hz YCbCr444 10bit.

Monitors are not just about panels. In the future, they are more and more related to semiconductors.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,927
Interesting, HDR has been and is a big improvement for me in visual quality. Usually monitor/game/driver adjustment are needed for getting the most information out in the bright and dark areas but compared to SDR for me a huge difference. Each their own on that. I will have to try out OLED next, motion clarity, contrast in particular plus HDR with limited brightness but with no artifacting to go along with it. IPS is dead for me, while my Dell 34" does have good SDR colors, the contrast just plain sucks next to the VA panels I have that make such a difference in the impact of anything visual.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2022
Messages
21
I feel HDR brings very little over all. It doesnt make a night an day difference to me, its a nice to have at best.
Better color and saturation would be great a much bigger win IMHO, as well as better contrast (but that I have given up on with IPS)
The problem is the 7 year old Dell is about 85% of the current monitors that are which I feel are egregiously over priced, and I certainly don't throw away money for little percived value.
If one of those 1500-2000$ monitors was 900-1000$ that would make me have a much harder look.

I can't believe I have to say this on this forum, but HDR is how that color, saturation and contrast is expressed. Content mastered at a max of 100 nits (IE, SDR) can only convey so much color gamut and volume. HDR is how that's increase. Hence the sudden boost of FALD displays and why they cost so much. Or why LG OLEDs, with infinite contrast but still middling brightness (which, for WOLEDs at least, effects the color volume negatively but it is still far above non-HDR monitors,) are so hyped for their HDR performance.
 

kramnelis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
196
IPS is dead for me, while my Dell 34" does have good SDR colors, the contrast just plain sucks next to the VA panels I have that make such a difference in the impact of anything visual.
IPS will probably last the longest. What you said only applies to the native contrast.
IPS covers the most colorspace in Rec 2020. With FALD backlight dealing with the contrast, IPS delivers the best image.
If you bring FALD, enough brightness and colorspace, you can make SDR looks like HDR.
That's why monitors such as PA32UCG has a HDR Preview Mode which turns a SDR image into a 1000+nits, wide gamut HDR image. Other monitors like PG32UQX works the similar way. It can make SDR look like 500+nits, Adobe color space HDR.
On the other hand, VA always looks more washed out compared to IPS. If the brightness cannot be sustained, the color will shrink even more.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
35
I can't believe I have to say this on this forum, but HDR is how that color, saturation and contrast is expressed. Content mastered at a max of 100 nits (IE, SDR) can only convey so much color gamut and volume. HDR is how that's increase. Hence the sudden boost of FALD displays and why they cost so much. Or why LG OLEDs, with infinite contrast but still middling brightness (which, for WOLEDs at least, effects the color volume negatively but it is still far above non-HDR monitors,) are so hyped for their HDR performance.
But HDR doesnt absolutely mean better colors, look at the DCI-P3 coverage these IPS panels are around 86% for the best of them around 1000$. My projector for instance has ~97% DCI-P3.
Sure the super expensive monitors have better DCI-P3 coverage, but those are are nearly as much as my whole computer.
So for me the value prop just isnt there yet.
Hence my question... as Im hoping we get some new panels that are more cost effective and better performance.
 

dgrdsv

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
152
I can't believe I have to say this on this forum, but HDR is how that color, saturation and contrast is expressed. Content mastered at a max of 100 nits (IE, SDR) can only convey so much color gamut and volume. HDR is how that's increase. Hence the sudden boost of FALD displays and why they cost so much. Or why LG OLEDs, with infinite contrast but still middling brightness (which, for WOLEDs at least, effects the color volume negatively but it is still far above non-HDR monitors,) are so hyped for their HDR performance.
Tbh I'm not that impressed with HDR either, and I've used it on both OLED and FALD LCD. It can be good sometimes but for the majority of (HDR) content it doesn't bring that much of a benefit. This may be an issue with how said content is mastered but still I personally don't even consider HDR that important. HFR and good blacks are way more visible IMO.
 

Zahua

n00b
Joined
Jun 6, 2022
Messages
57
I hope a decently price fald 4k 32" IPS comes out soon. Maybe $1300-1400. None of this $2000-$3000 crap.

I recently tried going to OLED (C2/AW) and VA (NeoG7), and I just couldn't stand them. The VA curve was horrendous and had noticeably faded colors/whites compared to IPS. The OLEDs had worse text to the point were I didn't want to do work on them, notably dimmer desktop whites for work, and/or let out crazy heat with a loud fan for the AW.

For better or for worse, I can't escape IPS for the time being. I'm currently using the 32GQ950-B. Yes the HDR and blacks sucks, but I'm actually able to both work and play on it unlike the two above options. I just need something like this but with a decent amount of zones for a sane price.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 13, 2022
Messages
21
But HDR doesnt absolutely mean better colors, look at the DCI-P3 coverage these IPS panels are around 86% for the best of them around 1000$. My projector for instance has ~97% DCI-P3.
Sure the super expensive monitors have better DCI-P3 coverage, but those are are nearly as much as my whole computer.
So for me the value prop just isnt there yet.
Hence my question... as Im hoping we get some new panels that are more cost effective and better performance.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying hdr is how it is expressed. That doesn't mean it's expressed well in every case, but HDR is the next step for those things.

The other thing is that your dci-p3 argument only holds water with color gamut, which doesn't tell the whole picture. Take the AW2721DW. It has an amazing DCI-P3 gamut of nearly 98%! Unfortunately, it still looks like dog shit in hdr because the edgelit can't show the entire color gamut accurately all at once because large chunks of the screen are lit foe a small highlight despite the dark colors around it that need the dimming.

It also caps off at 600 nits. Combine those two factors and you got a color volume of 85%. In the best case scenario. Why best case? Because, in reality, the WOLED with 75% color volume will still look more vivid and accurate because the local dimming doesn't turn the entire screen on at once and ruin the entire spectrum of color.

This is also why QD OLEDs were such a big deal. Qd oleds have a brightness range in each color that's DOUBLE the WOLEDs. So, despite being the same brightness in real scenes (or less in the aw34's case,) the AW34 has a color volume that matches the color gamut and actually makes up for thr lack of brightness compared to the VA and ips panels that go past 1000 nits.

Either way, you're just wrong in this case outside of it being a poor value proposition in monitors. With the exception of the AW3423DW being priced well for cutting-edge, the fald monitors coming out now at 1300 usd+ with tech that's been in tvs for years now (like my $600 u8g looking better than the Neo G7) is a bitter pill to swallow.


But to say an ips panel with edgelit or global lighting has just as good color in HDR (or dcip3 coverage in general) as a fald or oled panel is more or less ludicrous. On paper, it looks similar. In practice, it's anything but.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,795
So let's recap this thread a bit.

What do you think are the current best 32", 4K high refresh rate displays on the market?

What about if you ignore HDR performance and focus more on the desktop usage side?
 

dgrdsv

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
152
So let's recap this thread a bit.

What do you think are the current best 32", 4K high refresh rate displays on the market?

What about if you ignore HDR performance and focus more on the desktop usage side?
For work? PG32UQ, MPG321UR-QD.
For gaming? M32U/FI32U or similar maybe? Depends on how susceptible you are to LCD panel motion blur.
I haven't seen any proper review of the 32GQ950-B thus far so I dunno where this one falls but considering that it's an edge lit LCD panel for $1500 I'd say its value is unlikely to be high.
Then there are also FALD options like PG32UQX if you're okay with spending that much money on what would still be a somewhat compromised HDR experience.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
25,982
So let's recap this thread a bit.

What do you think are the current best 32", 4K high refresh rate displays on the market?

What about if you ignore HDR performance and focus more on the desktop usage side?
Probably the gigabyte m32u. It's dipped as low as $600 to 650 before but often hangs around 700.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,795
Probably the gigabyte m32u. It's dipped as low as $600 to 650 before but often hangs around 700.
Yeah over here in Finland it's been under 800 euros once and that started to be an appealing deal even with the drawbacks it has.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,795
For work? PG32UQ, MPG321UR-QD.
For gaming? M32U/FI32U or similar maybe? Depends on how susceptible you are to LCD panel motion blur.
I haven't seen any proper review of the 32GQ950-B thus far so I dunno where this one falls but considering that it's an edge lit LCD panel for $1500 I'd say its value is unlikely to be high.
Then there are also FALD options like PG32UQX if you're okay with spending that much money on what would still be a somewhat compromised HDR experience.
Why PG32UQ or the MPG for work over e.g the M32U?
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2022
Messages
21
So let's recap this thread a bit.

What do you think are the current best 32", 4K high refresh rate displays on the market?

What about if you ignore HDR performance and focus more on the desktop usage side?
Absolute best is the PG32UQX/Viewsonic equivalent, the Neo G7, or the M32U. Unfortunately, those all have compromises (though the M32U is the least amount of compromises but also has no quality HDR.)

You could make an argument that the GQ950 is in the running if you absolutely can't live with ips glow. For sdr, it's incredibly competitent. More so than the M32U. Unfortunately, LG, even after the price drop, priced it too high.

If I was stuck buying a 4k/32", it would probably be Neo G7.
 

kramnelis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2022
Messages
196
What do you think are the current best 32", 4K high refresh rate displays on the market?

What about if you ignore HDR performance and focus more on the desktop usage side?
This is a misconception. If you just use 80 nits sRGB, any 32" 4K hrr, IPS or not, will probably do.

But 80 nits sRGB is a dull paper compared to 400 nits wide-gamut RGB. Some movies might be mastered in sRGB but games are not. And a vibrant desktop is better.

IPS is meant for higher image quality. HDR cannot be ignored.

The monitor won't simply look good in SDR if you ignore the HDR capability carried with colorspace, brightness, and contrast.

The best image quality is still on the PG32UQX or PA32UCG with the most vibrant color, high brightness, and enough contrast. When they display SDR in wide-gamut or Rec 2020 color space, the SDR images already look similar to HDR.

PG32UQ looks a lot inferior due to contrast compared to FALD UQX/UCG in SDR. The same applies to Sony M9.

VA G8/G7 is washed out because it lacks color. OLED 32EP950 lacks brightness, it is only meant for sRGB mode. Both of them are far away from displaying wide-gamut color space in SDR.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,795
This is a misconception. If you just use 80 nits sRGB, any 32" 4K hrr, IPS or not, will probably do.

But 80 nits sRGB is a dull paper compared to 400 nits wide-gamut RGB. Some movies might be mastered in sRGB but games are not. And a vibrant desktop is better.

IPS is meant for higher image quality. HDR cannot be ignored.

The monitor won't simply look good in SDR if you ignore the HDR capability carried with colorspace, brightness, and contrast.

The best image quality is still on the PG32UQX or PA32UCG with the most vibrant color, high brightness, and enough contrast. When they display SDR in wide-gamut or Rec 2020 color space, the SDR images already look similar to HDR.

PG32UQ looks a lot inferior due to contrast compared to FALD UQX/UCG in SDR. The same applies to Sony M9.

VA G8/G7 is washed out because it lacks color. OLED 32EP950 lacks brightness, it is only meant for sRGB mode. Both of them are far away from displaying wide-gamut color space in SDR.
Damn it Jim, I'm a programmer, not a graphics artist! When most content I work with is made for the sRGB color space, wide gamut etc will just result in oversaturated colors. I have always calibrated my displays for sRGB at around 120 nits. That is a comfortable brightness level for me to use day and night for desktop use.

I have to accept that I need to start looking at a more work-oriented manner at my displays since it's 80% that use and 20% personal use considering I work mostly from home. So HDR content and "vividly popping colors" are very low on my list of things, but I do like having high refresh rates even in desktop use as it's more pleasant.

The PG32UQX doesn't make sense to me because it is so expensive with high brightness HDR being its main claim to fame, with mediocre response times falling short from handling 144 Hz properly and only single DP and 3x HDMI 2.0. It also seems to get replaced by the PG32UQXE but if that is as expensive, I'd probably rather buy the regular PG32UQ. The UQX had such high promise but at that pricing, it needs to be absolute top tier everything to me.

The Neo G7 is a more wallet-friendly option that performs well enough for HDR content but with the caveats of VA viewing angles, excessive curve and also no USB-C option for easily connecting to the Macbook Pro that I use most of the time. It does have full bandwith HDMI 2.1 though so its full capabilities can be used with all ports as long as you have a HDMI 2.1 GPU.

Which brings us to the "IPS panel, 4K, high refresh rate, garbage tier HDR" options like the M32U. The lack of proper HDMI 2.1 bandwidth sucks but it does provide both Displayport and USB-C so I could have it pull dual duties with my personal PC and Macbook Pro. Not being able to charge the MBP via USB-C is another drawback. The big reason to buy this is that it's starting to get low enough in price that it might be worth picking up and just wait a few years for better options, whether they are OLED or mini-LEDs with less issues.

It's hard to pick the right display at the right time. I bought the Samsung CRG9 like a year before it got replaced by the G9 that has more curve (which I feel helps at that size), higher refresh rate and better response times. If the G9 wasn't such a shitshow with quality problems I would be a bit more upset about it, but the CRG9 has been a very solid display for me, even if it has a lot of its own quirks and drawbacks.

I feel we are in that limbo period where all the 32" 4K high refresh rate options have their own drawbacks and you gamble on buying something more expensive that could get just superceded by something more refined coming out next year. The panel roadmaps for 32" 4K high refresh rate panels seems pretty barren though so we will see.
 

dgrdsv

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
152
Which brings us to the "IPS panel, 4K, high refresh rate, garbage tier HDR" options like the M32U.
It's hardly "garbage tier". People are quick to call something which isn't ideal "garbage" while it's not, it just has a couple of issues - but guess what, ALL monitors have a couple of issues.

The lack of proper HDMI 2.1 bandwidth sucks
The only device where this will matter is PS5 which seemingly can't use DSC over HDMI. (Xbox Series can I believe?)

The big reason to buy this is that it's starting to get low enough in price that it might be worth picking up and just wait a few years for better options, whether they are OLED or mini-LEDs with less issues.
Yup.

I feel we are in that limbo period where all the 32" 4K high refresh rate options have their own drawbacks and you gamble on buying something more expensive that could get just superceded by something more refined coming out next year. The panel roadmaps for 32" 4K high refresh rate panels seems pretty barren though so we will see.
Well, there are several 32" 4K panels upcoming including a 32" WRGB OLED from LGD supposedly and a 240Hz IPS (which should at the very least be fast enough to run 120-160Hz 100% inside the pixel response range). But anyone expecting these to end up in "ideal" products without any issues will be disappointed again, 100%.
Me myself are thinking on getting a M32U for a while and waiting on how things will evolve. Another option is 42C2 but I don't like its TV nature, it will certainly give me headaches with the need to switch it on/off manually all the time, etc.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,795
It's hardly "garbage tier". People are quick to call something which isn't ideal "garbage" while it's not, it just has a couple of issues - but guess what, ALL monitors have a couple of issues.


The only device where this will matter is PS5 which seemingly can't use DSC over HDMI. (Xbox Series can I believe?)


Well, there are several 32" 4K panels upcoming including a 32" WRGB OLED from LGD supposedly and a 240Hz IPS (which should at the very least be fast enough to run 120-160Hz 100% inside the pixel response range). But anyone expecting these to end up in "ideal" products without any issues will be disappointed again, 100%.
Me myself are thinking on getting a M32U for a while and waiting on how things will evolve. Another option is 42C2 but I don't like its TV nature, it will certainly give me headaches with the need to switch it on/off manually all the time, etc.
It is garbage tier when a lot of other displays are moving towards having some form of FALD, even if it's low zone counts like 32-96. Those just haven't fallen in price yet so the M32U hold a good value proposition. If it was 1100 euros like the PG32UQ I certainly would not buy it.

HDMI 2.1 bandwidth limits to me mean potential compatibility issues in the future as more and more HDMI 2.1 devices come to market. For multiple computer setups USB-C might not always be an option so you have to use DP + HDMI 2.1.

I have not read about LG having any plans to make a 32" WRGB OLED. 27" 1440p is afaik the only one on the roadmap on top of vague hints at smaller panels.
 

dgrdsv

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2021
Messages
152
It is garbage tier when a lot of other displays are moving towards having some form of FALD, even if it's low zone counts like 32-96.
What's "a lot"? There are no such displays besides the delayed-for-a-year now X32 FP and Gsync 1152 LED models for $2500+.
There are some 27" ones and there are some in the roadmap for next year but that's about it.

Those just haven't fallen in price yet so the M32U hold a good value proposition. If it was 1100 euros like the PG32UQ I certainly would not buy it.
PG32UQ was $1000 at launch, it's likely less now. The price gap between all these first generation 32" 4K 144Hz displays isn't THAT big really.

HDMI 2.1 bandwidth limits to me mean potential compatibility issues in the future as more and more HDMI 2.1 devices come to market.
It will likely go in opposite direction - there will be less and less compatibility issues with new devices as more and more of them will be able to use DSC over 24Gbps HDMI 2.1 connection of M32U/FI32U.
In fact as I've said I kinda struggle to think of many issues besides those with PS5 even now. And using a gaming console with a desktop monitor is a weird use case anyway.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,795
What's "a lot"? There are no such displays besides the delayed-for-a-year now X32 FP and Gsync 1152 LED models for $2500+.
There are some 27" ones and there are some in the roadmap for next year but that's about it.


PG32UQ was $1000 at launch, it's likely less now. The price gap between all these first generation 32" 4K 144Hz displays isn't THAT big really.


It will likely go in opposite direction - there will be less and less compatibility issues with new devices as more and more of them will be able to use DSC over 24Gbps HDMI 2.1 connection of M32U/FI32U.
In fact as I've said I kinda struggle to think of many issues besides those with PS5 even now. And using a gaming console with a desktop monitor is a weird use case anyway.
I maybe got a bit mixed with the 27" models coming out with low zone count backlights. Still, 16 edge lit zones seems like very low at this point.

Here in Finland the PG32UQ is still at 1100 euros. I don't know what it was originally but probably higher. The M32U hovers around 850e but I've already seen it for sale for ~770e. These are all prices with 24% VAT.

For me compatibility is always on my mind because I use MacOS and it's horrible for external display handling. DSC may or may not work, HiDPI may or may not work, it may or may not support something else and so on. So the display requiring no special things for its ports is always a plus to me. One reason why I am considering the M32U is because it has USB-C, even if it's weak ass shit that cannot charge the Mac but would at least work for video signal and maybe as a USB hub. So even with the limited HDMI 2.1 ports it would work well enough for me.
 

Zahua

n00b
Joined
Jun 6, 2022
Messages
57
I haven't seen any proper review of the 32GQ950-B thus far so I dunno where this one falls but considering that it's an edge lit LCD panel for $1500 I'd say its value is unlikely to be high.

Ya it's full price is ludicrous. They had it down to $999 for a few weeks (which is still too much IMO) but now it's back to $1300 at all retailers for NA. What an absurd price. I currently have it, but mostly because I was able to get it for $900 with the sale + coupon I had.

It does have the least IPS glow I have ever seen. It also allows me to do full time WFH on top of gaming with a 1 monitor setup. A use case which sadly just didn't work well with the VAs or OLEDs I tried (for me at least).
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,282


Not sure how reliable this video is but there is one monitor that is relevant to this thread from the leak and that's this one:

1660686607059.png



Seems like it's a flat panel that's going to be a 31.5" version of the currently existing 28" G70A 4K monitor.
 

recusant

n00b
Joined
Oct 19, 2021
Messages
51
Sadly no FALD on that. And remember, there's a reason why 32" VAs are curved. Prepare to be disappointed by the viewing angles.
 
Top