Opinions on The LG 38GL950G Gaming Monitor

• 

  Caped Baldy on 30/08/2019 - 14:33

  There's not many systems capable of doing 120fps at that res on the highest settings of the latest games. Give GPUs a few years to get to that level.
  If money is no object to you, go for it.
  You could do SLI but that is fraught with issues.

  Looking at anandtech, you could probably get 60+ fps, probably 70-90 for most games. YMMV.

  • 

    CustardShot on 30/08/2019 - 14:40

    Thanks mate, little tricky to tell as that shows 2560x1440 then 4k and on ultra settings. Might look at a different monitor, if trying to push 144 frames on that much screen is going to be too much of an issue.

    • 

      Caped Baldy on 30/08/2019 - 14:45

      The monitor should last for quite a few years - longer than the gpu if you plan to upgrade. Since it is new tech the price will come down in a few years - similar to the 3440x1440 ultrawides.

  • 

    Ryanek on 30/08/2019 - 14:50

    +3

    SLI is dead.

• 

  Ryanek on 30/08/2019 - 15:09

  You can get the LG 34GK950F-B for about 1k cheaper, albeit from overseas :|

  I've been waiting for this monitor to be released here for ages so I don't understand how they can release the 38" first.

• 

  Kangal on 30/08/2019 - 16:14

  +1

  Graphics is a fickle thing.
  There's three portions to it: Resolution, Framerate, Fidelity.

  In summary, if you want the best bang for buck, you should be targeting 1440p/65fps/High Settings, something all* titles achieved:
  Previously with 4-core CPU, 8GB DDR-2000Mhz, 4GB vRAM, and a graphics card like HD7870/R9 380/GTX 760/GTX 960.
  And today with a 6-core CPU, 16GB DDR-3000Mhz, 8GB vRAM, and a graphics card like GTX 1070/RTX 2060/Vega56/RX 5700.
  Probably Next with 8-core CPU, 32GB DDR-4000Mhz, 12GB vRAM, and a graphics card like RTX 2080Ti (or better).

  Incoming rant in…3…2…1…
  And while it depends on title to title, there are some patterns to pull from.
  Firstly, framerate has varying effects on people, depending on their neural latency and how close they sit to the image.
  Secondly, some games also don't benefit much from resolution because they are designed to not be "realistic". For instance, think Mario or think CupHead.
  Thirdly, Fidelity or Game Settings varies depending on the title. There are many special effects that are added to the game, which barely makes a visual improvement but requires a lot of extra resources.

  C) Where 15fps is very SlideShow-like, at 30fps you get a much smoother movie-like experience. Bumping up to 60fps you get a more TV-like smoothness, and people generally call 120fps (or higher) a more realism-like experience. Currently, the most efficient target is 61fps-average, with your 1% Lows hitting 50fps. This will ensure your (sync) display will show the right number of frames almost all the time, and it won't require a huge performance deficit.

  B) And whilst 360p is very patchy, at 720p things look clearer. Bumping up to 1080p you get more Cinema-like detail. Bumping further to 1440p or to 2160p has a more realism effect, when sitting close to the screen with high pixel density. Images usually look detailed at 1080p but show some aliasing, and using some algorithms to remove the aliasing reduces sharpness and detail. Currently, the most efficient target is to use a 4K monitor, but use a 1440p game resolution, to scale up. There's noticeably less aliasing, so use a lightweight anti-aliasing solution to improve that aspect. And further use some post-effects like sharpening to improve the image detail. This brings you close to a Native 4K Image, but at a much lower performance deficit.

  A) Finally, Very Low Settings is usually crude, at Low Settings most games look more 2010-ish. Bumping up to Medium Settings sees a huge uplift in fidelity, and it looks sufficient for fast-paced titles. Bumping to High Settings sees a modest uplift with not too much requirements in performance. Going further to Very High Settings and the improvements look much smaller and the performance requirements get much higher. And at Very Very High Settings (Ultra) there's almost no discernible improvements for most titles, and the performance plummets from the extra mathematical/computational requirements. Currently, the most efficient target is to use High Settings. You can get away with Medium Settings for games using 120fps targets, or you can enjoy some improvements of Very High Settings in slow-paced titles.
  …End Rant.

  • 

    CustardShot on 30/08/2019 - 16:24

    Thanks, I think. I get all that - but it didn't answer the topic question. Game on high settings, is 120 frames+ likely in most cases is what I'm asking, on an ultrawide at 1440p res.

    • 

      Kangal on 30/08/2019 - 16:42

      It really depends on the title, and how much bottleneck from the CPU/RAM.
      Don't expect to push SottR at +120fps even with a RTX 2080 Ti, especially with Ultrawide or high resolutions like 1440p. Might be doable at 720p ?

      You need to drop your expectations, most games won't hit 120fps and 1440p.
      Maybe you could achieve it with Medium Settings, and not High Settings, for games that are fast/medium-paced.

      My Advice?
      Be happy using an RTX 2080Ti with Low Settings, on either 1080p/1440p, with/out 21:9, but with +120fps.
      Or accept defeat, with only framerates above 60fps and below 120fps…
      ….but enjoy your RTX 2080Ti with High Settings, at 1440p, and 21:9 ultrawide.

      That way, you get a better idea of which monitor meets your needs.

• 

  spackbace on 30/08/2019 - 18:11

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgDykMvzoG8

  Worth a watch