LG to offer 38UC99 Ultra-wide 38in Curved Monitor

2.4:1, not 2:4:1... I even started to wonder if they are counting curvature as a third dimension

 

Is it USB 3.1 only? Whats the point?

 

This is a fantastic size/aspect ratio display. Easier to run than a normal 4k.

(4k) 3840x2160 = 8,294,000 pixels
3840 x 1600 = 6,144,000

With a next gen GPU (Volta), would be a must have display.

 

You'd probably be better off paying more to get a G-Sync screen for an Nvidia GPU.

 

No. Not all people have same priorities. For me, no.1 thing I value in a display is SIZE. But a large display must have a decent res, PPI to avoid pixelation. This display seems to fit the bill. Lack of GSYNC (or freesnc) would not be a deal breaker for me. But since freesync support is there, I may lean towards AMD for next GPU.

 

Product page: http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor

$1500... er, no thanks. Hopefully over time, other large size/res 21:9 displays will be on the scene. Tops I would pay for a display like this maybe $800-900.

 

Gsync provides supreme smooth quality, once you try it, there is never going back, at least for me up to the point they developer monitors which may have such technology integrated by default and would not require any specific GPU. That would be great, however in terms of AMD vs Nvidia, Nvidia was leading, and seems to be leading for any foreseeable future, while AMD will constantly "catch up".

New upcoming GPU's wont be an exception, I have had plenty of AMD stuff in the past to know that its constantly an inferior product both on hardware and software sides.

 

I have the 34" lg, and tbh I think 38" would be the perfect size for ultrawide. Won't be changing my ultrawide for at least 5 years but more options are good

 

People have different priorities. 90% of my PC time is spent non-gaming, so things like Gsync are not as important to me as other display specs, like size, res, color accuracy, etc. And since I've enjoyed gaming so far without gsync, it will not likely be a factor in choosing a display for my needs.

 

True, its not a WIN factor, however it is a massive benefit when you do play. And as mentioned once you try it, everything else seems laggy. I guess i am one of those that see difference between 100-140fps (some say there is no difference after 30 fps xD), however once you add G-sync to the equation it feels that much smoother. Now that FastSync got introduced, it got even better. Hence where my opinion comes from.

But yes wise, probably Refresh rate would be the best positive factor for smooth comfortable work, and of course Large screen (38inch large ).

 

Nvidia has never been in a habit of releasing its proprietary technology to the public use, so the better G-sync will never be a standard. Unlike Freesync, which was adopted by VESA. Of course it's better this way since G-sync is more expensive like more or less everything ever created by Nvidia.

 

A lot more room to see that horrendous back light bleeding that LG is famous for on their curved monitors.

 

Only 75hz and no G-sync. Very lame for a monitor today this expensive. I just bought the ASUS 34" ROG Swift with 100hz and G-sync.

I am absolutely blown away by how much of a difference G-sync makes. Everything is silky smooth with no tearing or judder ever! I would never go back. Honestly I had my doubts but G-sync is a must for anyone.

G-Sync probably has had the biggest noticeable difference in gaming for me since I upgraded to a SSD.

 

Now this is the monitor tech I want to see more of. A little faster maybe, and with a Gsync model as well, that's an upgrade path I'd take.

 

I already posted on this in the monitor forum... but can it really not support 75Hz without an AMD card?

 

Even if i was interested to buy a freesync monitor there is no way i buy one with this ridiculous adaptive Hz range.

The worst i previously saw was 48-75 if i remember correctly. uke2:

 

@MegaFalloutFan
For what? So your 1gb files gets copied 2s faster?
Or your trying to say that you image your os to a usb stick?
LOL.

To me, it sounds more like somone complaining to rationalize why they wont/cant buy a +1000$ screen.

And if you would really be concerned about speed, you would use a sata/esata connected ssd, making the type of usb porton the screen irrelevant.

 

Are you talking to me? I asked why is this monitor is USB3.1, why it has no DP or HDMI, its useless for gaming if it gets image from USB 3.1 and not
GPU.
Your comment is strange since USB 3.1 is the fastest USB right now, so I dont understand how you came to that conclusion.
And my Monitor cost me over 5000K USD, so I dont need to rationalize 1000$, Im over it LOL