Upgraded my PG35VQ to the PG32UQX

[SidneyDean]

Got tired of ultrawide so made the decision to go 4K.

[e22big]

That's some very expensive solution. I wonder why wouldn't you go OLED or cheaper mini-LED option like Neo G7 though? I find it very hard to justify PG32UQX, I mean three grands are hard to justify to begin with and it's slow and also IPS so HDR has a pretty big blooming issue compared to the alternative. 

[SidneyDean]

1 hour ago, e22big said:

That's some very expensive solution. I wonder why wouldn't you go OLED or cheaper mini-LED option like Neo G7 though? I find it very hard to justify PG32UQX, I mean three grands are hard to justify to begin with and it's slow and also IPS so HDR has a pretty big blooming issue compared to the alternative. 

there are no 32 inch OLED's yet. I don't want to go too big for my desk.

[e22big]

17 minutes ago, SidneyDean said:

there are no 32 inch OLED's yet. I don't want to go too big for my desk.

There's actually is but yeah.. insanely expensive. That's a surprise though, if you had ultrawide before, I think 42 inches will fit just fine with your set up

 

[Andrewtst]

24 minutes ago, e22big said:

There's actually is but yeah.. insanely expensive. That's a surprise though, if you had ultrawide before, I think 42 inches will fit just fine with your set up

 

Actually 42" is freaking big height compare with 34" Ultrawide as Ultrawide is just only 27" height. 

 

I will only stop at 32" only for 16:9 aspect ratio for use as a PC monitor. LG do have 32" OLED but insanity price with only 60hz.

 

I am still waiting for a least 120hz 27" or 32" OLED monitor.

 

https://www.lg.com/my/monitors/lg-32ep950-b

[e22big]

4 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

Actually 42" is freaking big height compare with 34" Ultrawide as Ultrawide is just only 27" height. 

 

I will only stop at 32" only for 16:9 aspect ratio for use as a PC monitor. LG do have 32" OLED but insanity price with only 60hz.

 

I am still waiting for a least 120hz 27" or 32" OLED monitor.

 

https://www.lg.com/my/monitors/lg-32ep950-b

Yeah but the width would be the same and that's the main limitation for most people set up, vertical space isn't that hard to manage atctually, you can basically treat them as a widget screen and such (and if you really don't want that, there's always 21:9 mode)

[Andrewtst]

11 minutes ago, e22big said:

Yeah but the width would be the same and that's the main limitation for most people set up, vertical space isn't that hard to manage atctually, you can basically treat them as a widget screen and such (and if you really don't want that, there's always 21:9 mode)

But height make eye pain, neck pain and etc. due to it is just too big.

 

The owner change from Ultrawide which means the owner no longer want Ultrawide. The owner change it not because of space issue but because tired of Ultrawide. 

[Stahlmann]

I wonder why you didn't consider the Neo G7? It seems to be a lot more reasonable, sitting at a 50% discount compared to the PG32UQX.

 

The PG32UQX is a monitor trying to be for gamers and content creators alike, but doesn't manage to deliver top-tier performance in either of the two. And at this price anything below top-tier is unacceptable imo.

 

I would be interested in your experience comparing the 512 zone VA and 1000+ zone IPS monitor in terms of blooming. Which is more noticeable?

[Andrewtst]

Ya, PG32UQX is too expensive and the performance did not justice the cost. 

 

I will get Neo G7 also in this case. 

[e22big]

1 hour ago, Andrewtst said:

But height make eye pain, neck pain and etc. due to it is just too big.

 

The owner change from Ultrawide which means the owner no longer want Ultrawide. The owner change it not because of space issue but because tired of Ultrawide. 

You can always adjust the browser to the hieght you're comfortable - and like I've said, there's also ultrawide mode that limit the height and the lower part for you (for the TV at least, not all 42 inch has that feature)

 

But yeah, the part you can't adjust is the width and if ultrawide is too much for you, it's probably also is in this case

[Andrewtst]

18 minutes ago, e22big said:

You can always adjust the browser to the hieght you're comfortable - and like I've said, there's also ultrawide mode that limit the height and the lower part for you (for the TV at least, not all 42 inch has that feature)

 

But yeah, the part you can't adjust is the width and if ultrawide is too much for you, it's probably also is in this case

It is simply too big. How adjust also big as I seat quick closed to monitor, using 42" is like looking at sunshine all time.

 

I prefer longer not taller. Height to me in 16:9 is max 32", anything above it is not suitable for me as a monitor. Also I won't use top and bottom black (Ultrawide mode in Wide display) in productivity, it just simply too silly.

[e22big]

43 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

It is simply too big. How adjust also big as I seat quick closed to monitor, using 42" is like looking at sunshine all time.

 

I prefer longer not taller. Height to me in 16:9 is max 32", anything above it is not suitable for me as a monitor. Also I won't use top and bottom black (Ultrawide mode in Wide display) in productivity, it just simply too silly.

Nah not really, here take a look at my screen for example. I make chrome tab lower so that it appears just slightly taller than the 32 inch, then used the extra upper space for something I don't use very often but convenient to have their, then use the lower space for music or some other app I might have more used while leaving muiltiple web tab open at the same time

 

If I want to I could lower the brower even more for easier reach. The key is to just have it on a monitor arm so that the lower space don't sit on the table but closer to your eyes level. It's essentially an ultrawide with secondary vertical screen that you may or may not use. 

 

*edit out Skype windows which I left on the vertical because it contains my client title that I was under NDA with

 

[MonitorFlicker]

Funny most people here never understand or never see how good HDR is on PG32UQX.

 

It has even better reference image quality than PA32UCG without 4x larger blooming and banding issue thanks to G-sync FPGA. 

 

Samsung's VA G8 fake HDR is completely dwarfed compared to PG32UQX in both color and brightness.

 

I assume you've bought the new batch made in May 2022. Can you check the 1000+nits APL scene?

 

Download and check the HDR photo in Windows HDR mode with the default Photo app. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cn72CyRg5MbDRURU-YQRx84i0yfMAbux/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18wqc7gfomBzUtz4Qxk997K9nSMj79brE/view?usp=sharing

 

 

ASUS still needs some tweaks in the backlight. 

 

One of my PG32UQX has ABL in these scenes.

ASUS said it's due to the Nvidia driver. I change the Game driver to the Studio driver. The issue is less pronounced. 

It's also interesting Samsung's HDR 1500 ad has 10,000 nits highlights. But it won't be seen through Chrome on YouTube. Chrome has a tone-mapping layer to match the current monitor HDR specs. It can be only seen from other video players such as mpv without additional tone-mapping setting.

 

Overall this is a completely different level of ABL on PG32UQX while other monitors with different specs look 3-5 times dimmer in such scenes. The contrast and colors will shrink further. 

[Andrewtst]

1 hour ago, e22big said:

Nah not really, here take a look at my screen for example. I make chrome tab lower so that it appears just slightly taller than the 32 inch, then used the extra upper space for something I don't use very often but convenient to have their, then use the lower space for music or some other app I might have more used while leaving muiltiple web tab open at the same time

 

If I want to I could lower the brower even more for easier reach. The key is to just have it on a monitor arm so that the lower space don't sit on the table but closer to your eyes level. It's essentially an ultrawide with secondary vertical screen that you may or may not use. 

 

*edit out Skype windows which I left on the vertical because it contains my client title that I was under NDA with

 

Those extra upper still light out. So it is still sunshine down to me.  (This is not a joke).

[e22big]

44 minutes ago, MonitorFlicker said:

Funny most people here never understand or never see how good HDR is on PG32UQX.

 

It has even better reference image quality than PA32UCG without 4x larger blooming and banding issue thanks to G-sync FPGA. 

 

Samsung's VA G8 fake HDR is completely dwarfed compared to PG32UQX in both color and brightness.

 

I assume you've bought the new batch made in May 2022. Can you check the 1000+nits APL scene?

 

Download and check the HDR photo in Windows HDR mode with the default Photo app. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cn72CyRg5MbDRURU-YQRx84i0yfMAbux/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18wqc7gfomBzUtz4Qxk997K9nSMj79brE/view?usp=sharing

 

 

ASUS still needs some tweaks in the backlight. 

 

One of my PG32UQX has ABL in these scenes.

ASUS said it's due to the Nvidia driver. I change the Game driver to the Studio driver. The issue is less pronounced. 

It's also interesting Samsung's HDR 1500 ad has 10,000 nits highlights. But it won't be seen through Chrome on YouTube. Chrome has a tone-mapping layer to match the current monitor HDR specs. It can be only seen from other video players such as mpv without additional tone-mapping setting.

 

Overall this is a completely different level of ABL on PG32UQX while other monitors with different specs look 3-5 times dimmer in such scenes. The contrast and colors will shrink further. 

It's still have significantly more blooming, and I've never IPS to be as vibrant as VA despite your claim (due to having the IPS glow) but I don't have that monitor so I guess I don't have much to say on that. 

 

I've never found wide colour gamut coverage to be of significant impact when it comes to vibrancy, my monitor has a fairly good coverage of rec2020 - around 80 percent, not as good as the UQX for sure but I don't see a significant benefit coming from a much lower coverage. At least not when it comes to vibrancy, I've got more accurate but not more punch out colours. That's typically more of an issue for the colour volume. 

 

I understood that you go at it more on a creator perspective but for the average consumer, I don't think PG32UQX worth its price tag. HDR maybe impressive but not without issues and there's other issue unrelated to the local dimming like atrociously slow response time and limited console and creative features. It's kind of like the 3090 imo, maybe great and affordable for pro but way overpriced for everyone else who just want it to cosume content (and can even be beaten in some aspect by a chaper 3080ti)

 

At the end of the day, most of the HDR content you consumed will be tone mapped in some way anyway, and as a monitor package, HDR is not the entire and only story.

 

*I did check the photo you sent from the other post. It looks fine I guess but blowing out a bit too much, although having spent a lot of time in this game I don't think it's that common of a situation. 

[Andrewtst]

25 minutes ago, e22big said:

It's still have significantly more blooming, and I've never IPS to be as vibrant as VA despite your claim (due to having the IPS glow) but I don't have that monitor so I guess I don't have much to say on that. 

 

I've never found wide colour gamut coverage to be of significant impact when it comes to vibrancy, my monitor has a fairly good coverage of rec2020 - around 80 percent, not as good as the UQX for sure but I don't see a significant benefit coming from a much lower coverage. At least not when it comes to vibrancy, I've got more accurate but not more punch out colours. That's typically more of an issue for the colour volume. 

 

I understood that you go at it more on a creator perspective but for the average consumer, I don't think PG32UQX worth its price tag. HDR maybe impressive but not without issues and there's other issue unrelated to the local dimming like atrociously slow response time and limited console and creative features. It's kind of like the 3090 imo, maybe great and affordable for pro but way overpriced for everyone else who just want it to cosume content (and can even be beaten in some aspect by a chaper 3080ti)

 

At the end of the day, most of the HDR content you consumed will be tone mapped in some way anyway, and as a monitor package, HDR is not the entire and only story.

 

*I did check the photo you sent from the other post. It looks fine I guess but blowing out a bit too much, although having spent a lot of time in this game I don't think it's that common of a situation. 

Actually mostly his photo / video is over exposure. It set too high contrast. Never look nice to me. I never reply his comment anymore after he said OLED is the worst, no deny this monitor great on HDR but said OLED is the worst in HDR is something very wrong.  

[MonitorFlicker]

Circlejerk is nothing unusual. It's way too funny most people down never experienced true HDR. People saying PG32UQX is trash simply because their salary is trash. G8 looks miles away washed out. And OLED is as good as a SDR monitor. These people are using the same game HDR setting for different monitors. Of course you can't see 1000+nits APL in Forza.

[e22big]

28 minutes ago, Andrewtst said:

Actually mostly his photo / video is over exposure. It set too high contrast. Never look nice to me. I never reply his comment anymore after he said OLED is the worst, no deny this monitor great on HDR but said OLED is the worst in HDR is something very wrong.  

I mean OLED do definitely has its issue when it comes to HDR, remember the images I've shown in the other posts. Some - and I dare say most, people simply prefer to deal with its issue than other monitor technology. 

 

And as a display package for content consumption, its benefits are simply outweight (and very noticeable) its drawbacks which is more niche - outside of the full screen brightness that is. 

 

Everyone who say OLED is the ultimate HDR, simply interjecting their opinion - Tim from HUB is one of those and I respect that he've made no secret about it. The fact is, none of the consumer display are capable of displaying a perfect HDR as it was intent. You'll always have to trade something to others but just like IPS for SDR, OLED simply made the right compromise for the general media consumption - brightness, text quality, and colour accuracy from the angle for lightining fast response time, no local dimming to deal with and zero blooming. 

[Andrewtst]

30 minutes ago, e22big said:

I mean OLED do definitely has its issue when it comes to HDR, remember the images I've shown in the other posts. Some - and I dare say most, people simply prefer to deal with its issue than other monitor technology. 

 

And as a display package for content consumption, its benefits are simply outweight (and very noticeable) its drawbacks which is more niche - outside of the full screen brightness that is. 

 

Everyone who say OLED is the ultimate HDR, simply interjecting their opinion - Tim from HUB is one of those and I respect that he've made no secret about it. The fact is, none of the consumer display are capable of displaying a perfect HDR as it was intent. You'll always have to trade something to others but just like IPS for SDR, OLED simply made the right compromise for the general media consumption - brightness, text quality, and colour accuracy from the angle for lightining fast response time, no local dimming to deal with and zero blooming. 

But it still one of the best. Local Dimming is not the solution, the weakness of local dimming is too many to compare with OLED. Current Mini LED still blooming and the hallow effect in Windows Dark Mode is unavoidable.

 

OLED is not perfect but it is the most perfect at the moment. Probably we need to wait till micro LED release to get the much perfect screen especially on HDR if micro LED can have highest than 1000 nits or 1400 nits or more, and really not burn-in, not like QD-OLED where it basically still possible burn in, else those prevent burn-in function will be totally not required and what Dell do is too aggressive to prevent the burn-in. Also current QD-OLED diamond pattern arrangement need to be eliminate to prevent the text purple fringing issue.

[xg32]

11 hours ago, e22big said:

That's some very expensive solution. I wonder why wouldn't you go OLED or cheaper mini-LED option like Neo G7 though? I find it very hard to justify PG32UQX, I mean three grands are hard to justify to begin with and it's slow and also IPS so HDR has a pretty big blooming issue compared to the alternative. 

  

8 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

I wonder why you didn't consider the Neo G7? It seems to be a lot more reasonable, sitting at a 50% discount compared to the PG32UQX.

 

The PG32UQX is a monitor trying to be for gamers and content creators alike, but doesn't manage to deliver top-tier performance in either of the two. And at this price anything below top-tier is unacceptable imo.

 

I would be interested in your experience comparing the 512 zone VA and 1000+ zone IPS monitor in terms of blooming. Which is more noticeable?

 

 

i can't speak for him, but for me there isn't smaller oleds at 120hz, the 32inch option is 60hz. Onto the G7, i think it's VA and slightly curved? personal perference i guess, and the uqx ucq has a wider color gamut that ive been wanting to see for awhile, i'll have access to a DW too hopefully for some comparisons. 

 

Blooming is the one flaw im willing to accept due to the other positives, i don't play shooters competitively anymore so acceptable response time is good enough.

Color gamut, LUT, and higher ppi takes priority for me, as for picking the ucg over the uqx, the reason is a dumb one.

 

I'll be able to compare the blooming once it gets here, i've selectively ignored it for years, at least i wont have to listen to the broken fan anymore.

[MonitorFlicker]

It's way too funny people talk, guess, imagine without owning the actual monitors.

Better not to post PG32UQX, PG27UQ, PG35VQ here. It's out of their league. 

This place is a 3rd world country of monitors. 

[Stahlmann]

19 hours ago, MonitorFlicker said:

It's way too funny people talk, guess, imagine without owning the actual monitors.

Better not to post PG32UQX, PG27UQ, PG35VQ here. It's out of their league. 

This place is a 3rd world country of monitors. 

You're just too elitist and think what applies to you applies for everyone. I owned the PG35VQ for over a year now before i decided to resell and replace it with a C2 OLED. Please stop throwing around dumb comments like this.

 

Also, it's not illegal to talk about products you don't own. There are plenty of resources online to be able to build an opinion.

[IPD]

You spent as much on that monitor as the Odyssey Ark is projected to cost.  So yeah....

 

http://displaywars.com/35-inch-21x9-vs-37-inch-16x9

 

You could easily put a 37" 16:9 display in there and have the same size width as your old 21:9.  "Too Big for my desk" is not even close to accurate.  You have a riser and a soundbar under it.  You have a solid 4" of space easily on both sides of it--without even trying.  And a 40" 16:9 is about 2.5" wider overall than a 35" 21:9.

 

There is a MASSIVE amount of space there to put a bigger monitor.  The 32" looks positively dinky in there. 

[SidneyDean]

On 8/7/2022 at 10:30 PM, e22big said:

There's actually is but yeah.. insanely expensive. That's a surprise though, if you had ultrawide before, I think 42 inches will fit just fine with your set up

 

There is but not for gaming. Those are mostly for productivity. I'm waiting for the Asus 32" oled gaming monitor.

[SidneyDean]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

You spent as much on that monitor as the Odyssey Ark is projected to cost.  So yeah....

 

http://displaywars.com/35-inch-21x9-vs-37-inch-16x9

 

You could easily put a 37" 16:9 display in there and have the same size width as your old 21:9.  "Too Big for my desk" is not even close to accurate.  You have a riser and a soundbar under it.  You have a solid 4" of space easily on both sides of it--without even trying.  And a 40" 16:9 is about 2.5" wider overall than a 35" 21:9.

 

There is a MASSIVE amount of space there to put a bigger monitor.  The 32" looks positively dinky in there. 

I personally tried it with a 48 inch oled before and it was giving me headaches. For me the sweet spot for a gaming monitor is 32 inches. Anything bigger than that i'd rather play on the couch on my ps5. Those big displays are really not meant as desk monitors to be honest.