Trying to decide between two 38" monitors.

S

Synomenon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
7,660
I'm looking to replace my dual 24" 1920x1080 monitors with a single 38" monitor. These are the two models I'm trying to choose from:

Dell U3818DW
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/del...c/monitors-monitor-accessories#configurations


LG 38WK95C-W
https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38WK95C-W-ultrawide-monitor#tech-specs



From some reviews I've seen, it looks like they both use the same LG panel. If that's true though, why is the LG able to be set to 75Hz, while it looks like the Dell can only be set to 60Hz? Also, LG lists the 38WK95C as being HDR10 while Dell does not list that for the U3818DW.

Are these differences due to firmware?


I tried to find these on display locally, but the only thing I could find was a LG 38UC99-W which looks to be the model being replaced by the 38WK95C. I was able to set the 38UC99 to 75Hz as well though LG's site says it does 60Hz / 75Hz with FreeSync.

I've been happy overall with Dell monitors I've used in the past. Good warranty, sturdy builds. Haven't owned a LG before.

My video card is a GTX 1080ti.
 
Last edited:
You may be able to force 75Hz on the Dell by creating a custom resolution through the NV control panel. I know on the LG, the 75 Hz option only shows when you have FreeSync enabled. I have the 38UC99 and have tried the 38WK95C-W. I didn't think the 38WK95C was worth the premium, HDR isn't very impressive on that panel as the nit output doesn't meet HDR standards.

One thing though, although you can enable it, the 75Hz on both LG monitors actually frameskip on a Nvidia card. I found a way to get it working without frameskipping, but you need an AMD card and a way to switch inputs like a KVM switch.

If I use my KVM switch to toggle the input between another PC with an AMD card and my main one running a 1080 Ti, it stops frameskipping on the 1080 Ti at 75 Hz. The fix won't persist through reboots or if the monitor goes to sleep, have to toggle inputs again. There must be something in the firmware that plugging in an AMD card activates.
 
Hmmm... I wonder if having a Ryzen system with the onboard GPU enabled would let it work without the frameskipping...
 
I hadn't considered a 4k display. Are there good ones in the price range of the two monitors I'm looking at above?
 
My friend bought the Acer 38” with HDR. He loves it and I’ve seen it in person and it is very impressive. Have you considered it? Make sure you choose the HDR version in the amazon menu system. It’s newer, cheaper, faster ms rating, and has HDR. Everyone claims it works at 75Hz with Nvidia cards. (Works @75hz without freesync)

https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XR382CQK-bmijqphuzx-UltraWide-FreeSync/dp/B075LQLJ52?th=1&psc=1


His unit had no noticeable backlight bleed, no dead pixels, and was perfect. He remains incredibly pleased with it.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
profiled said:
not either one.

why not go straight to 4k?
Click to expand...

Unless you go for a 40" 4k model then what's the real world benefit. Obviously you have the same pixel width on the 38" as a 4k monitor which is where you do your side-by-side window management typically. You do lose 560 lines vertically but then again unless you have the space to take advantage of them then on something like a 27-31.5" the PPI realistically is going to be too high to be comfortable and your going at add at least 25% scaling. You don't get the UW aspect ratio and so far until next year your fixed at 60hz on 4k ( not saying 75hz is hugely better but it's something). Also im not sure how many freesync 40" 4k monitors are out at the moment. a 40" monitor requires you to have the desk space to see vertically easy too as opposed to just horizontally with the 38". Finally it might not be a benefit to some but most 38" screens are curved to help with the width and it adds immersion for gaming, where as so far i haven't seen a curved 40" 4k screen.

The 3840 x 1600 resolution will be less demanding on the GPU too at 2Mpix less, so you could actually run the 75hz refresh.There are 144hz versions coming out next year also. So maybe id wait until the next models come out with proper HDR support and high refresh, or wait for a 40" 144hz 4k panel with HDR.


(edit* as for setting a custom aspect ratio on a 4k screen to make it 3840x1600, again unless you go for 40" the width wont be the same and the vertical height will be too small. also ask yourself do you like watching letter boxed movies on your TV with the thick black bars because that is what it would look like.)
 
Last edited:
I really think you should wait until next year. 2018 is a monitor atrocity. There's just nothing good out there. Nothing checks all the boxes in any tier of displays. Ultrawide, 16:9, 4k, work, gaming, etc. They ALL blow and have some crippling defect.
 
Archaea said:
My friend bought the Acer 38” with HDR. He loves it and I’ve seen it in person and it is very impressive. Have you considered it? Make sure you choose the HDR version in the amazon menu system. It’s newer, cheaper, faster ms rating, and has HDR. Everyone claims it works at 75Hz with Nvidia cards. (Works @75hz without freesync)

https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XR382CQK-bmijqphuzx-UltraWide-FreeSync/dp/B075LQLJ52?th=1&psc=1


His unit had no noticeable backlight bleed, no dead pixels, and was perfect. He remains incredibly pleased with it.
Click to expand...

yeah if the Acer works at 75 Hz without frameskipping that'd be the way to go. When I bought my LG it wasn't available, otherwise I would've went with that.

In my opinion... these 38" ultrawides are one of the best options right now. They give me the most screenspace without being too large, and without having to resort to any DPI scaling. 75 Hz makes quite a big difference over 60 too, afaik there are no >60 Hz 4K monitors apart from the Acer/Asus G-Sync one that is $2K and only 27".
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
x3sphere said:
In my opinion... these 38" ultrawides are one of the best options right now.
Click to expand...

Yea, if we could just get (semi-glossy / glossy?) mini-LED, real HDR, 144hz support with freesync (not buying a gsync device) then that would be a really nice spot for size / resolution. There are of course those exact screens coming down the line in larger TV sized 16:9 formats.

But you don't just need to own just one kickass screen amiright. Why not have a 21:9 UW1600p and a 16:9 4k ? No one screen fits all purposes, that much has become clear after many thousands of similar threads.
 
Looked at some 4k offerings today and didn't find anything that would be very practical in my usage. I think these ultra-wides would suit me better.

Was either going to upgrade my PC this year or replace my monitors. I've decided to wait on upgrading the PC until AMD and Intel release CPUs that aren't affected by Spectre and Meltdown.
 
GNUse_the_force said:
Yea, if we could just get (semi-glossy / glossy?) mini-LED, real HDR, 144hz support with freesync (not buying a gsync device) then that would be a really nice spot for size / resolution. There are of course those exact screens coming down the line in larger TV sized 16:9 formats.

But you don't just need to own just one kickass screen amiright. Why not have a 21:9 UW1600p and a 16:9 4k ? No one screen fits all purposes, that much has become clear after many thousands of similar threads.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear you. I eventually went with a Samsung Q7F 55" 4K TV to use as a monitor. I wanted 4K 16:9 for PS4 Pro, it has decent HDR, FreeSync, 120Hz (at 1440p or 1080p), semi-gloss w/ a good AR filter, and of course the picture quality is great (not necessarily OLED, but it looks nice to me). So I've been pretty happy so far. The only thing I really want that is missing is 120Hz at 4K and a better FreeSync range. I experimented with virtual 21:9 aspect, and I got the resolution to work but not at high refresh. Bandwidth-wise I think I should be able to reach around 90 - 100Hz but none of my attempts were successful. If I could get that working, that would be awesome. But I'm even okay with 60Hz as the GameMotionPlus mode works wonders.
 
GNUse_the_force said:
But you don't just need to own just one kickass screen amiright. Why not have a 21:9 UW1600p and a 16:9 4k ? No one screen fits all purposes, that much has become clear after many thousands of similar threads.
Click to expand...

Limited budget and deskspace would be the most obvious reasons why not.

Beyond that is there an easy way to configure a game to run full screen on something other than the default of what windows considers your primary display?
 
I second the 38" ACER monitor option. Last week I was debating on this and after reading reviews and watching YouTube videos I chose the ACER monitor. I bought it from AMAZON and yes, be careful to choose the HDR option that, in fact, is actually cheaper than the non HDR one.
 
Looks like that Acer model came out over a year ago. I'm going to wait or maybe try the newer LG 38" since it's native 75Hz.
 
Synomenon said:
Looks like that Acer model came out over a year ago. I'm going to wait or maybe try the newer LG 38" since it's native 75Hz.
Click to expand...
You are looking at the wrong Acer.

There is a newer Acer 38” that is HDR and 75Hz with Nvidia.

I’ve seen it. It’s a beautiful monitor.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Synomenon said:
Looks like that Acer model came out over a year ago. I'm going to wait or maybe try the newer LG 38" since it's native 75Hz.
Click to expand...

as I mentioned the newer 38" LG still frameskips on nvidia, I had both at one point but returned it and stuck with the 38UC99
 
anyone used nvidia card with the Acer XR382CQK bmijqphuzx 38 ?

any tearing issues? did you miss gsync?

How is the fakeishHDR?
 
Interesting specs. The PPI is 110, the same as what I have in my 27" QHD monitor (2560x1440) this one has tons more real estate while not dropping the PPI below 110, neat.

An interesting choice.
 
GNUse_the_force said:
Unless you go for a 40" 4k model then what's the real world benefit. Obviously you have the same pixel width on the 38" as a 4k monitor which is where you do your side-by-side window management typically. You do lose 560 lines vertically but then again unless you have the space to take advantage of them then on something like a 27-31.5" the PPI realistically is going to be too high to be comfortable and your going at add at least 25% scaling. You don't get the UW aspect ratio and so far until next year your fixed at 60hz on 4k ( not saying 75hz is hugely better but it's something). Also im not sure how many freesync 40" 4k monitors are out at the moment. a 40" monitor requires you to have the desk space to see vertically easy too as opposed to just horizontally with the 38". Finally it might not be a benefit to some but most 38" screens are curved to help with the width and it adds immersion for gaming, where as so far i haven't seen a curved 40" 4k screen.

The 3840 x 1600 resolution will be less demanding on the GPU too at 2Mpix less, so you could actually run the 75hz refresh.There are 144hz versions coming out next year also. So maybe id wait until the next models come out with proper HDR support and high refresh, or wait for a 40" 144hz 4k panel with HDR.


(edit* as for setting a custom aspect ratio on a 4k screen to make it 3840x1600, again unless you go for 40" the width wont be the same and the vertical height will be too small. also ask yourself do you like watching letter boxed movies on your TV with the thick black bars because that is what it would look like.)
Click to expand...


Interesting, a 38" at 3840x1440 has the same pixel density as a 40" at full 4K specs, which 3840x2160. Amazingly both return the PPI value of 110.

Not great and not really 4K territory but useful. I can definitely live with that. FWIW my 4k is a 32" model and has a much sharper PPI of 137 but it is only a 32".

38" / 40" are more suitable for gaming. So seems like a good choice.

what would be stunning on a 40" display is 5K, much higher resolution than 4K even on a 32" display. But that's outside the context of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top