LG 38GL950G - 37.5" 3840x1600/G-Sync/175Hz

V

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
7,091
https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38GL950G-B-gaming-monitor


38" Class 21:9 UltraGear™ QHD+ Nano IPS LED Gaming Monitor w/ NVIDIA G-SYNC (38" Diagonal)


medium01.jpg



Dan-LG rep:

38GL950G - this will be dedicated G-Sync model - we are expecting roughly September 2019 for launch here in the UK

there will be a Freesync/G-sync Compatible model coming as well, but this we wont see till 2020

Currently I do not have access to any specs of either model - but I have asked if I can have some that I can release to you all so once I hear back I will advise
 
This will probably be my next monitor and transition to ultra wide. Wonder what it will cost.
 
There have been those AUO "IPS" 27" 1440p 165 Hz displays out for years and actually do quite well.
 
It’s going to need dp 1.4 to push up to 175hz at the resolution, no? I hope this doesn’t need a fan to cool the g sync module.

If it doesn’t have a fan, this will also be my next display... if I can hold off on the 1440p 120hz super UltraWide Samsung coming out next month.
 
I’m hoping nvidia has figured out how to make a more efficient module without the need for a fan
 
No, that new G-Sync FGPA cost NVIDIA a lot of money to develop. It isn't going anywhere.
 
So... the options are: get a panel that’s limited by the v1 module, dealing with the fan in the v2 module, or dealing with the inconsistencies of FreeSync panels.

I personally love g sync for the insane variable refresh range but the options suck right now.
 
thelead said:
So... the options are: get a panel that’s limited by the v1 module, dealing with the fan in the v2 module, or dealing with the inconsistencies of FreeSync panels.

I personally love g sync for the insane variable refresh range but the options suck right now.
Click to expand...

If they use the same panels, why would it matter if it's gSync of Freesync in this case :)?(your comment about dealing with the freesync panels...?)
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
If they use the same panels, why would it matter if it's gSync of Freesync in this case :)?(your comment about dealing with the freesync panels...?)
Click to expand...
First, the freesync model won't be out until 2020 and second, there are other things that come into play like the scaler used in the freesync model and how that affects input lag.
 
The 34gk950f/g proved there is no hardware "input lag problem", as long as the OEMs get off their butts and make sure firmware doesn't have 10ms of dumb shit in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: p3sty
like this
I returned my 34gk950f due to some very subtle flickering seen occasionally in some solid colors. However, I also felt like there was more lag than my pg279q. I would like to see more than tftcentral post numbers comparing the two.
 
I would like more than one source of truth. Has anyone else compared those 2 monitors post-FW release?
 
It's pretty obnoxious that none of the current 38" Freesync monitors are G-Sync compatible. All the 75Hz models drop frames with an Nvidia card.

Seems like something you could fix if you wanted to sell more monitors...
 
I dropped frames with the 34gk950f as well.

Admittedly, that might be an nvidia driver issue. Who knows really.
 
Last edited:
Sounds interesting. Since I already have a 43" 16:9 on each side of my gaming monitor I'm still looking to the 43" 16:9 144hz 4k VRR ones personally considering my array and distance.

I definitely wouldn't be interested in the smaller 21:9's and have always thought a full featured 38" one would be way better than the 34" ones. Larger would be even better for my tastes.

34" 21:9 and 27" 16:9 are only ~ 13" tall. A 37.5" 21:9 like this is ~ 14.8" tall.

----------------------------------------------------

34.0" diagonal 21:9 .. 31.4" w x 13.1" h (3440x1440 ~ 109.68 ppi)


31.5" diagonal 16:9 .. 27.5" w x 15.4" h (2560x1440 ~ 93.24 ppi)

37.5" diagonal 21:9 .. 34.5" w x 14.8" h (3840x1600 ~ 110.93 ppi)

43.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 37.5" w x 21.1" h (3840x2160 ~ 102.46 ppi)
 
Last edited:
Have you considered just creating a 21:9 on your 43" and shifting (offset) to bottom of display?
 
I don't game on my 43" 60hz side monitors but when I replace my middle gaming display with a 43" 144hz g-sync someday I will be on a 43" for gaming.

I'd defintely try out 21:9 resolutions for some games that support it and which could benfit from it. I think it's a neat idea for the extra game world real-estate and a resolution that is slightly less demanding on the gpu than full 4k for certain games.. but some game's wouldn't work in 21:9 rez with bars on a 43" 16:9 due to engine/support issues. There are widescreengaming forum fixes and tweaks and windowed mode workarounds etc. depending on the game however.

38" UW is a lot better than a 34"UW though for sure. If I had a different setup I'd consider one but the 43" gaming ones announced would fit my setup perfectly. Still following along in thread.
 
Odd choice of aspect ratio. Games are just starting to get good support for 21:9 and now they're going with 12:5? How is the support for 32:9 looking these days?
 
Armenius said:
Odd choice of aspect ratio. Games are just starting to get good support for 21:9 and now they're going with 12:5? How is the support for 32:9 looking these days?
Click to expand...

Most modern games that support wider aspect ratios will work on anything from Ultrawide through Super Ultrawide through Eyefinity/Surround.
 
Armenius said:
Odd choice of aspect ratio. Games are just starting to get good support for 21:9 and now they're going with 12:5? How is the support for 32:9 looking these days?
Click to expand...

It's an awesome aspect ratio because it's actually a fairly tall monitor. It's almost as tall as a 30" 16:10 monitor.

Monitors have been too fucking short for a long time. 16:10 was so much better than 16:9. I really don't understand why the industry settled on such a stupid aspect ratio where everyone was stuck with monitors the height of tiny 4:3 monitors.
 
Many current "21:9" monitors are NOT 21:9. In fact on almost all the "21:9" 1440p out there are closer to 24:10.

MATH, that thing the marketing people didn't learn:

21:9 = 2.33_

24:10 = 2.4

3440x1440p = 2.38_

3840x1600p = 2.4
 
Aluminum said:
Many current "21:9" monitors are NOT 21:9. In fact on almost all the "21:9" 1440p out there are closer to 24:10.

MATH, that thing the marketing people didn't learn:

21:9 = 2.33_

24:10 = 2.4

3440x1440p = 2.38_

3840x1600p = 2.4
Click to expand...
Yes, but 21:9 sounds better than 119:50 and it gives a quick idea of what its proportions are compared to 16:9. I'd prefer this monitor be called 24:10, but 16:10 monitors have not been made and sold for quite some time.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
So nothing to do with the a actual panel , but other inconsistencies
Click to expand...
After testing with a few 34gk950f's and 34gk950g's I wanted to revisit this and respond with what I've seen from monitors that use the same panel but different VRR technologies (albeit a very small sample size of 2 of each of these monitors):

1. True G-Sync feels WAY smoother than G-Sync on a freesync monitor. Without a doubt, I could tell a difference but maybe I'm sensitive to it. This could also be nvidia drivers at play. This is weird as well because the freesync monitor has an extra 24hz advantage.

2. The calibration of the G-Sync monitor is HORRIBLE in comparison to the freesync monitor. They are less bright, have less contrast and can't be dialed in anywhere near as much as the freesync variant (less options available on the G-Sync monitor). Again, weird because it is using the same exact panel.

3. LG quality control is absolute garbage. All four monitors have some sort of issue and will be returned (reddit is cluttered with similar posts). Not sure I trust this upcoming 38gl950g any longer.
 
It’s a bit big for my taste but any word on cost?
 
Man they dropped the HDR ball on this one. It’s going to be the same fake HDR400 as the 34gk950f...
 
Puzzling why LG thought omitting HDR was the correct decision. We can argue how well monitors implement it, and how well games support it etc. but it's still a marketing buzzword and sells product! We have the two upcoming 43" 4K 120/144Hz options from Asus and Acer featuring it, and if the price info on them is true, they could both come in less than the LG. And the LG offers what exactly? Another game of 'swap the IPS monitor' until you find one with minimal bleed and glow? No thanks. I'll see what the reviews say, but the price on this is going to have to be very competitive, because I can't see the performance being anything special... it's basically just going to be a scaled up version of the 34GK950G, same PPI and all.
 
thelead said:
Man they dropped the HDR ball on this one. It’s going to be the same fake HDR400 as the 34gk950f...
Click to expand...

Eh, I'm fine with them putting in HDR just so it can accept the signal properly. I don't think we're at the point where we can get more without a ridiculous increase in price, especially if unit to unit variability is going to be under control.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Eh, I'm fine with them putting in HDR just so it can accept the signal properly. I don't think we're at the point where we can get more without a ridiculous increase in price, especially if unit to unit variability is going to be under control.
Click to expand...

There are backlight solutions that would enable them to easily reach VESA-600 if they wanted to. Even VESA-1000. You wouldn't get FALD at a decent price point, but even 600 would offer something noticeable over 400, if they used a decent backlight solution with a strong panel. HDR-400 is such a low bar it's a joke. It accepts the signal as you say, but that's about it. After that, you're at the mercy of the panel characteristics, and if this is anything like the 34GK950G, it will be just OK. They could have done more without jacking the price up too much, and as mentioned above, the soon to be released Acer/Asus 43" 4K monitors are going to put the LG to shame when it comes to HDR content, and almost certainly at a cheaper price point. They are VA, but given how many horrendous examples of IPS glow/bleed I've seen on LG monitors, I'd take my chances unless I was sure I'd get a near flawless panel... ESPECIALLY at the insane price this monitor is bound to be.
 
Last edited:
IdiotInCharge said:
Eh, I'm fine with them putting in HDR just so it can accept the signal properly. I don't think we're at the point where we can get more without a ridiculous increase in price, especially if unit to unit variability is going to be under control.
Click to expand...
I don't agree from what I've seen on the 34GK950F. Unless you can turn it off, which you couldn't on the 34GK950F, it's awful and a worse experience than SDR IMHO.
 
bananadude said:
There are backlight solutions that would enable them to easily reach VESA-600 if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

It isn't the backlight I'd be concerned about- it's the panel. Without FALD, excessive backlighting isn't of much use. This monitor has a pretty narrow application envelope, and like most, it's a stopgap for better panel and backlight technologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top