LG 38GL950G 38 inch UltraGear™ Nano IPS 1ms Curved Gaming Monitor w/NVIDIA G-SYNC®

[Turtle Rig]

I made a previous thread about how this monitor gives you nano IPS and HDR400 and 175hz for 1000 dollars more then the 60hz cousin.  The monitor looks sick but 3840x1600 gaming is not gonna happen for me.  Maybe if I had SLI 2080 Ti and what not.  Honestly Im happy with 1440p gaming with all AA options on and all game settings set to max.  I usually competitively play Quake Champions and right now Im on Fast option in vsync since I have a 60hz,  I get 120fps sustained pretty much.  If I get this LG monitor am I doomed with poor frame rates ?  That is almost 4k resolution and we know 4k is 60fps, but I need 120fps or higher.  Would this monitor have a lower resolution without black borders ?  Or are we forced to play at that high resolution and get double digit bad frame rates and what not.

[Turtle Rig]

9 minutes ago, Turtle Rig said:

I made a previous thread about how this monitor gives you nano IPS and HDR400 and 175hz for 1000 dollars more then the 60hz cousin.  The monitor looks sick but 3840x1600 gaming is not gonna happen for me.  Maybe if I had SLI 2080 Ti and what not.  Honestly Im happy with 1440p gaming with all AA options on and all game settings set to max.  I usually competitively play Quake Champions and right now Im on Fast option in vsync since I have a 60hz,  I get 120fps sustained pretty much.  If I get this LG monitor am I doomed with poor frame rates ?  That is almost 4k resolution and we know 4k is 60fps, but I need 120fps or higher.  Would this monitor have a lower resolution without black borders ?  Or are we forced to play at that high resolution and get double digit bad frame rates and what not.

This thing has it all but no USB C or Freesync as I know of.  Also who can game at 3840x1600 @ 144fps with all options jacked up.  I want 120fps sustained not 60fps with almost 4k as this monitor is.  Is there a different resolution that won't stretch and give me better frame rates.. All I ask for is 1440p gaming lol

[atomicus]

No, you won't get 120FPS+ in all games with options jacked up. But even 1440p won't give you that in ALL games. There are plenty of decent 1080p monitors to choose from if that's what you want though, and 27" 1440p is also very good and I'd say the sweet spot for gaming these days. GPUs simply aren't powerful enough to give you those frame rates at this resolution though, not in AAA titles anyway. This is more of a productivity/gaming hybrid monitor... but it does neither perfectly. If you're an out and out gamer who demands high FPS, this really isn't the monitor to go for. Same as if you only used your monitor for work tasks, then 4K would be far better suited.

 

The price is what makes this monitor so stupid though IMO, it just makes no sense. I genuinely hope no one buys it and LG realise they got this wrong, but sadly, I know plenty will.

[Turtle Rig]

1 hour ago, atomicus said:

No, you won't get 120FPS+ in all games with options jacked up. But even 1440p won't give you that in ALL games. There are plenty of decent 1080p monitors to choose from if that's what you want though, and 27" 1440p is also very good and I'd say the sweet spot for gaming these days. GPUs simply aren't powerful enough to give you those frame rates at this resolution though, not in AAA titles anyway. This is more of a productivity/gaming hybrid monitor... but it does neither perfectly. If you're an out and out gamer who demands high FPS, this really isn't the monitor to go for. Same as if you only used your monitor for work tasks, then 4K would be far better suited.

 

The price is what makes this monitor so stupid though IMO, it just makes no sense. I genuinely hope no one buys it and LG realise they got this wrong, but sadly, I know plenty will.

I agree with you my friend.  I got the first Samsung 4k display 28" flat no led.  I used it for years... But then when I went to 40" 4k curved and once you go curved there is no going back. Now I can actually read and see things nice.  For productivity for 4k should be 40" or more.  For 4k gaming 27" and that will be tiny,, I think 32" 4k gaming makes more sense then 27" 4k..... Youll can barely see anything.

 

I use 4k 40" desktop and I cant downgrade just because its 60hz ,, if it was 120hz we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.  When I bought I wanted a upgrade to 4k, like size of monitor and it was amazing.  27" 4k is tiny for desktop but good for gaming as you said.

[atomicus]

7 hours ago, Turtle Rig said:

I agree with you my friend.  I got the first Samsung 4k display 28" flat no led.  I used it for years... But then when I went to 40" 4k curved and once you go curved there is no going back. Now I can actually read and see things nice.  For productivity for 4k should be 40" or more.  For 4k gaming 27" and that will be tiny,, I think 32" 4k gaming makes more sense then 27" 4k..... Youll can barely see anything.

 

I use 4k 40" desktop and I cant downgrade just because its 60hz ,, if it was 120hz we wouldnt be having this conversation right now.  When I bought I wanted a upgrade to 4k, like size of monitor and it was amazing.  27" 4k is tiny for desktop but good for gaming as you said.

 

27" is definitely too small for 4K... 32" is OK, but I'd prefer 40", and high refresh of course. Sadly, the Asus XG438Q is a joke, and I don't see Acer's CG437K equivalent doing much better. The whole monitor market is rather depressing at the moment tbh... it's either specs that fall short of what we want, inherent flaws to the tech or faults in general, and no evidence of any QC process on monitors that have four-figure price tags. It's absolutely ridiculous.

[dizmo]

If you want those high refresh rates I'd stick to 1440p screens. Though, I think if you're fine not going balls out with the settings, you'd be fine hitting just north of 100 if you used the bigger screen and have a 2080. The difference between High and Ultra isn't really that great, but the differences in performance can be massive. You can also knock down a little on the AA.

[jones177]

On 9/17/2019 at 7:56 PM, Turtle Rig said:

I made a previous thread about how this monitor gives you nano IPS and HDR400 and 175hz for 1000 dollars more then the 60hz cousin.  The monitor looks sick but 3840x1600 gaming is not gonna happen for me.  Maybe if I had SLI 2080 Ti and what not.  Honestly Im happy with 1440p gaming with all AA options on and all game settings set to max.  I usually competitively play Quake Champions and right now Im on Fast option in vsync since I have a 60hz,  I get 120fps sustained pretty much.  If I get this LG monitor am I doomed with poor frame rates ?  That is almost 4k resolution and we know 4k is 60fps, but I need 120fps or higher.  Would this monitor have a lower resolution without black borders ?  Or are we forced to play at that high resolution and get double digit bad frame rates and what not.

A couple of times a week I check the LG site to see if the "coming soon" is off the 38GL950G.

I do this because the sooner it comes out the sooner it will be discounted.  I am not in a hurry to get one since I don't expect to have the power to run it until the next gen cards come out.

 

I did get the 38WK95C-W, the "60hz cousin" and find it a better match for my RTX 2080 ti than my 4k monitor.

 

I agree with your assessment.  With the setup you have now you are only good for the 60hz/75hz cousin and to get the frames you want 1440p is the way to go.

 

 

[AManWithPlan]

On 9/19/2019 at 9:30 AM, jones177 said:

I am not in a hurry to get one since I don't expect to have the power to run it until the next gen cards come out.

 

I did get the 38WK95C-W, the "60hz cousin" and find it a better match for my RTX 2080 ti than my 4k monitor.

Are you overclocking your 2080? Because I am running mine at 2 GHz clock and 7GHz memory at 60 degrees centigrade. I get 90-100 frames in Witcher 3 on all max with a 3440x1440 monitor.

 

I am confident I can run around 80 frames at the newer 3840x1600 resolution, as it would only be 24% more pixels to draw. It would run better than 4k currently does on a 2080 TI.

[AManWithPlan]

On 9/17/2019 at 7:56 PM, Turtle Rig said:

I made a previous thread about how this monitor gives you nano IPS and HDR400 and 175hz for 1000 dollars more then the 60hz cousin.  The monitor looks sick but 3840x1600 gaming is not gonna happen for me.  Maybe if I had SLI 2080 Ti and what not.  Honestly Im happy with 1440p gaming with all AA options on and all game settings set to max.  I usually competitively play Quake Champions and right now Im on Fast option in vsync since I have a 60hz,  I get 120fps sustained pretty much.  If I get this LG monitor am I doomed with poor frame rates ?  That is almost 4k resolution and we know 4k is 60fps, but I need 120fps or higher.  Would this monitor have a lower resolution without black borders ?  Or are we forced to play at that high resolution and get double digit bad frame rates and what not.

A couple of things.

I am getting this monitor, but I'm on a custom-looped 2080 TI so I run on heavy overclocks. I can drive this monitor on many of the games I play which is what's important for me.

 

I also plan on upgrading my graphics cards as new ones come out, so the monitor will only continue to pay dividends for me.

 

Finally, once you exceed 1440P, anti-aliasing no longer has a good cost per perceived benefit. You are taxing your GFX card, getting lower frame rates, and can't see aliasing anyway on higher DPI displays. This monitor has a DPI of 109, you will not be able to see aliasing even with AA turned off.

[jones177]

3 hours ago, AManWithPlan said:

Are you overclocking your 2080? Because I am running mine at 2 GHz clock and 7GHz memory at 60 degrees centigrade. I get 90-100 frames in Witcher 3 on all max with a 3440x1440 monitor.

 

I am confident I can run around 80 frames at the newer 3840x1600 resolution, as it would only be 24% more pixels to draw. It would run better than 4k currently does on a 2080 TI.

I use a FTW3 Ultra RTX 2080 ti that averages 2040 to 2070mhz with 7800 on the vram. Frame rate is in the 80s on most AAA games unless I use RTX.

Most settings are on ultra since all I have to do is stay over 75fps.

 

The other reason I am not in a hurry is when the 2 LG 3440 X 1440 Ultragears came out just before Black friday of last year the prices stayed high until February this year. The price drop was over $200.  Even my LG 38WK95C-W dropped to $1000 on sale and is now $1076. I payed $1200.