LG To Release 144 Hz 34GN850-B 34" Gaming Monitor with Nano IPS Panel

Successor of the 34GK950F?

 

Just can't get use to 21:9 as gaming monitor.. Too damn wide

 

I love my LG 950-F. This looks like almost the same? We need the new "DP 2.0" to run 10bit hdr 4:4:4 on 144hz+.

 

Yeah the 27" 850 I'm using has been a nice little upgrade over the prior Dell display, not sure on ultra-wide but when it works it's probably pretty amazing plus the latest improvements although I suppose for computer usage there's no GPU's yet doing HDMI 2.1 or Display Port 2.0 but perhaps NVIDIA's 3000 series or AMD's 6000 (?) series will be adding that.

Suppose going down to ~90 Hz or so should also allow for retaining the full 4:4:4 color stuff in the meantime due to bandwidth requirements particularly with both higher display resolutions and 10-bit or above as HDR implementation and support improves.

...Or the even wider 32:9 aspect ratio. Can't imagine support for this being very widespread though what with 16:9 so dominant and designed around.
(And here's Quake 1 from 1996 and it just does whatever. Heh well not the fairest comparison I suppose.)

EDIT: Plus support for *expanding* the view area not cropping it.
Or the fancy tall-screen support some few engines (Unreal Engine 2 I think?) ran with for a while depending on if you did negative or positive scaling vertically instead of horizontally.

EDIT: Also, FOV support in general. Ha ha. (Or not ha ha because it kinda sucks when it's 55-ish degrees.)

(Separate control over the overly-large first person weapon models would be appreciated but that's probably incredibly unlikely to see other than a few console commands in a few game engines.)

 

I have a 34 LG ultrawide that i love so i like this one even more but the price...

 

32:9 here, I will never go back.

 

Good luck trying to find it in stock when it goes 'on sale from 24th April' especially in Europe. There will be like 10 available for whole of Europe.

 

Couldn't imagine leaving my ultra-wide.....

 

I never understood the point of ultrawide, as opposed to just simply going bigger. Our vision is roughly 3:2. We once had a form factor that came very close to that - 16:10. But for whatever reason that wasn't "cinematic" enough or whatever.

If you like the idea of having a lot of peripheral vision, a lot of games can be configured to change the FOV. You can basically emulate ultra-wide with a 16:9 display, and have none of the downsides. There are 16:9 displays that curve for extra immersion.

In a practicality standpoint, I'd rather have multiple monitors because at least then everything is naturally organized.

 

^^It's called immersion. We all see things in our periphery. For some, it adds to the experience.

 

I simply can't go back after getting an ultrawide. Games like Rocket League where you can see the whole playing field make me feel like I have tunnel vision when I play on a 16:9 monitor.

 

If you say so. 21:9 is perfect. I use a 35 inch curved 1440p.

16:9 sucks, and sucks hard. 32:9, the 48+ plus ultrawides are too wide for most gaming except sim racing.

 

If you have never used one, which its pretty obvious you havent, you would not be making such baseless and ignorant claims.

 

There is nothing ignorant in what he is saying. If you have anything to counter his claims, then how about stating them instead of attacking him?

 

Looks good but isn't it a bit weird to advertise its overclocking potential? Does that mean overclocking the monitor is protected under its warranty?

 

Some of them have overdrive modes or what it could be called pushing into 165Hz or above although it's not very common and yeah it's not often at least as I can recall that displays advertise using third party tools like CRU or what not to unofficially add support for untested higher refresh rates and much less for actually supporting doing this if something happens to the hardware.

EDIT: Though some displays do get recommended by users for how good they take to these overrides without issue or at least nothing too problematic but far as officially supporting going above the specs yeah that's unusual.

 

For me Ultrawide is amazing. And i think it provides a more natural field of view than a normal screen but this is my opinion/experience. I understand that not everyones likes it but i don´t think i will ever buy a "normal" monitor again.

From what i understand, overdrives modes degrades the image quality because of motion blur and also shortens the lifespan of the panels. I don´t use that kind of stuff but that´s me.

 

Again - you can increase the FOV in games where it matters, so that's a bit of a moot point. You're actually getting less immersion with an ultra-wide because your vertical view is effectively cropped. Think of it like this:
You can either get a 34" display at:
A. 3440x1440@144Hz (~5MP), which is 31.4" wide and a total area of 419.42 inches squared. Costs about $1000.
B. 3840x2160@120Hz (~8MP), which is 29.6" wide and a total area of 494.32 inches squared. Costs about $1100 (going by Asus as an example).

So, with option B, you get more pixels along the X axis, more pixels overall, a 16% larger overall display, a conventional form-factor that all modern games and applications can comfortably use (and one that more closely represents human vision), and it covers more of your vertical peripheral vision (which is important, especially if you like immersion). The only thing you lose is 24Hz in refresh rate, sacrifice a 6% loss in width, pay 10% more, and you have to manually adjust the FOV in games where necessary (which frankly, is hardly a loss compared to all the letterboxing you're going to get with a lot of content on an ultrawide).
If you opt for a lower refresh rate, 4K becomes the cheaper option.
I just don't see how option A is worth all the downsides in comparison. But.... whatever floats your boat I guess.


As a side note, I could see how curved ultrawides would be great for racing sims. You don't really benefit at all from vertical peripheral vision in those games.

 

This monitor is the beast, but IMO just cost too much and it seems like the reason for that is lack of competition, exactly why I did not fall for GK950F.
I am struggling to understand schmidbags point. How are you losing vertical crop. The way I see monitor market:

27" in mostly the sweet spot:
- 1440p very good pixel density, plenty of high refresh rate Very reasonably price products.
-1440p above 27" suffers from lowish pixel density
- 4k Beautiful but can be appreciated at 32"+, only low refresh rate or silly money

But if you want something more you can buy 34" 1440p Ultrawide, have still great pixel density, height of 27" screen, high refresh rate at Very good price.
And extra