LG 34UM95 Monitor Review

by Chris Heinonen on 6/18/2014 7:00 AM EST


Back to Article

  • blackmagnum - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    The Koreans are on a roll with product diversity! Reply
  • SulianJeo - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I've always felt that the Korean companies seem to push for innovation the most. There are certainly some redundant releases (GS 5), but so many products are really game changing. Reply
  • weiran - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    This is a nice idea using existing hardware and manufacturing with a very niche market.

    I fail to see where the innovation is.
  • darwinosx - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    You should read the article you are commenting on then. Also it's hardly a niche market. That is an uninformed and laughable comment. Reply
  • chophshiy - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    "Innovation" is becoming a meaningless word, thanks to marketing-speak. I agree with weiran; Making an obvious evolutionary step with tech that is easily available and understood should not be referred to as 'innovation'. Reply
  • inighthawki - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Sorry, these displays are definitely niche. Very few people see benefit of ultra widescreen displays. There are more people out there that want to go back to 4:3 than those who want to go to 21:9. Reply
  • FlyBri - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    @inighthawki I would have to disagree that this monitor is "niche". Based on the form factor and resolution, it's actually quite versatile, and a better option than a 4K monitor at the moment (due to the current state of graphics cards). Many reviewers are saying how versatile this monitor is for both productivity and gaming. For instance, you can even use this monitor as a regular 1440p 27" monitor (with black bars, of course) if you so choose. One review I watched had the reviewer stating that he already had negative preconceived notions about this monitor and form factor, and ended up realizing how absolutely amazing it is and how he couldn't be without it now.

    I don't think it's niche because I think it genuinely could be a better alternative to a dual monitor setup, and I don't believe those to be niche. Not as prevalent? Yes. Niche? No. I would would say 4K monitors are more niche than this monitor.
  • fokka - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    what you say makes sense, but i'd still call a 21:9 monitor with a unique resolution "niche". 4k is the future and will be the mainstream in a couple years. this? not so much. Reply
  • marcosears - Thursday, October 09, 2014 - link

    I agree... Most people will want to get one of the top monitors at a more reasonable price range. /Marco at http://www.consumertop.com/best-monitor-guide Reply
  • Marthisdil - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    It's niche because it's $1000 Reply
  • Samus - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    So is every other corporate grade monitor. My 24" Dreamcolor Display cost $2000 a few years ago. Reply
  • marcosears - Thursday, October 09, 2014 - link

    I agree. Most people will want to get one of the top monitors at a more reasonable price range. /Marco from http://www.consumertop.com/best-monitor-guide/ Reply
  • evilspoons - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I don't understand the attraction some people have to 4:3 monitors. Human vision is naturally "widescreen" and looking up and down is much less comfortable than looking left and right. Natural selection 'trained' us to look along the horizon, not up and down. Our retina may be 4:3, but it's not like a single monitor encompasses our entire field of view... now, talk about selecting an LCD panel for a VR display like the Oculus Rift and 4:3 will have my complete support... Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    For anything text related, wider lines are harder to read; so making the screen wider doesn't bring a benefit; but wider screens tend to be shorter meaning that fewer lines of text can be shown at a time. Reply
  • bigboxes - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I have a 16:10 monitor, but I don't run MS Word or my browser at full screen. I size the windows ~4:3. I have room to move things around and watch video in widescreen. I think that 21:9 @1440 is great. Two full size windows on one screen instead of two 20" monitors with a bezel between them. It's niche, but not for enthusiasts. Reply
  • TegiriNenashi - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    "Human vision is naturally "widescreen" "

    That widescreen propaganda is wrong, human vision is close to 4:3:
    Short screens are ridiculous waste of pixels on the sides.
  • TegiriNenashi - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Here is verbatim quote: "The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward"Let's do arithmetic, shall we? (95+95)/(75+60)=1.4

    Let me put it this way. Humans have 2 (two) eyes. Each eyeball is round. Even if both eyes vision didn't overlap, the maximally wide FOV covered by two eyes would be two adjacent squares. Which makes the aspect ratio to 2:1 max. However, non-overlapping view this is extreme scenario, more applicable to lower species (such as fish).

    To summarize, 2.35:1 is ridiculous invention from previous century. The framing of most scenes in movies is awkward, with actors top of the forehead chopped off. Hollywood should kill it once and for all.
  • Sabresiberian - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    No, human vision is not "naturally widescreen". It isn't just the retina alone that determines field of view, and normal field of view is 4:3. Also, I don't know why you would have more trouble looking up and down than side to side - I certainly don't.

    Your comment about "natural selection" - you are just making that up. Personally, I'm a big fan of watching where I put my feet, that doesn't involve looking at the horizon. I think that's pretty much normal, but maybe I'm wrong.

    You are confusing societal conditioning with the fundamental man. If you lived in a different kind of society, one that hunted animals in trees, for example, your conditioning would be entirely different, and you wouldn't think "wide-screen" was so "natural" because it would be "natural" for you to look above you as much as to the side. Movies are made wide-screen because of the limitations of seating arrangements for audiences more than anything else. There are scenes in which that view works well - like looking at a horizon with an unobstructed view, say from the deck of a ship or a mountain top, but there are areas where the wide screen utterly fails, as in the experience of walking down a city street between tall buildings.

    Movies largely turn us into floating entities without feet living in a sky-less world. It isn't natural, we are just conditioned to it.
  • Ktracho - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I may be betraying my age, but on my 30" 2560x1600 display + 24" 1920x1200 display set up, it is much easier for me to look at the bottom half of the display than the top half, and in fact, I prefer moving my head sideways a greater distance (towards the 24" display) than tilting it up. If it's just for a few seconds then it's not a big deal, but for longer periods of time, my body definitely has a preference.

    Also, I'm not sure field of view is the relevant thing to measure. Even if I were to only use a 24" or a 20" display, I am not trying to see the entire display as a whole, but a specific area at a time, so length:width ratio of the display is not significant. Length:width ratio of the window I am focusing on is far more significant, especially in terms of readability of text. Watching videos full screen or playing games would be a different matter, of course.

    I suspect for my scenario/working habits, a wider display (which allows moving less frequently-used windows off to the side) would be preferable to a taller but narrower display, requiring me to tilt my head more often (or waste real estate), as well as to having a dual-display set up as in my current one.
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    I seconds this, although with "just" one 16:9 or 16:10 monitor. I tend to put things I focus on at about the same height, independnet of how much space is left above and below it. Reply
  • TegiriNenashi - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    "... Oculus Rift and 4:3 ..."

    4:3 in nowhere in Oculus Rift spec. Each eye is fed with square image; actually the vertical dimension is slightly larger than horizontal one(!).
  • althaz - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Occulus Rift should still have widescreen displays - our vision is much, MUCH wider than it is high. Reply
  • AkumaX - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    well that's funny you say that since this is pretty close to have 2 x 4:3 monitors.. side by side lol Reply
  • petergreyhill - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link

    Only people with eyes prefer wide screen. Reply
  • Marthisdil - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    It is a niche market. The market for $1000 monitors is relatively small right now. Reply
  • vickyksoni - Monday, March 20, 2017 - link

    the monitor is perfect i have it from last 2 years, great review at https://smarttopten.com too Reply
  • Frenetic Pony - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    In screens maybe, in other things no. EG there isn't even a Korean camera company worth mentioning. Even Samsung just plays way behind while Japan dominates still consumer cameras and the US and Germany have the only two pro movie camera companies anyone actually buys. Reply
  • jjj - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    If it was 2160p and half the price i would totally buy it,as it is now ... i want it but i know better than to not go at least 4k at this point in time.
    Anyway,good to see the 29 incher getting a bigger brother.
  • rituraj - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    2160 vertical with 21:9 will make it 5040/2160. That's even higher than 4K you are expecting for half the price Reply
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    They're making them as 2.37:1 5120x2160 displays, perfect for watching scope movies. Right now there are only a few large (80"+) models in the wild, but I'm hoping we'll see these so-called 5K displays work their way down to desktop size. Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I'd much rather have a 5k display in 5120x2880 at ~30", 16:9 in that size would play nicer with my existing multi-monitor setup and the resolution would give 2:1 scaling options for software that isn't hDPI aware. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    My solution is simply not to scale anything. Every 4K monitor I've tested out so far (including the UP2414Q) has been great at 1:1. From my experience so far, either people are overhyping the scaling issue or they need glasses. I'm not saying that to be a d!ck - I've got glasses and can see everything clearly with them on. Reply
  • twistedgamez - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    this 100%, i can understand some people increasing the page zoom setting bit a little on chrome for example, but there is no reason the UI elements, url bar and any other stuff needs to be zoomed - i love my 2880x1800 at native Reply
  • cheinonen - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    I have the 24" NEC EA244UHD here right now, and without scaling enabled it's unusable to me. Text elements are just too small to read from my regular seated distance so I have to use scaling with it. The 32" 4K monitors have been semi-usable without scaling but the 24" ones just are not IMO. Reply
  • fokka - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    5k is just awkward. 4k content will be upscaled and future 8k will be very much downscaled.
    same with this model, just with 1080p and 4k.

    if you need such an awkward screen for your workflow, go ahead, but for movies it doesn't seem to be ideal.
  • acejj26 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I'm pretty sure 1720:1440 is more of a 7:6 ratio, not 6:5. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    1720/1440 = 1.19444
    7/6 = 1.16667
    6/5 = 1.2
    Pretty sure 1.19 is closer to 1.2 than to 1.17. :)
  • acejj26 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    1. Too early for me to post my post...no caffeine yet
    2. Then this isn't a 21:9 monitor, since if it were, each half of the monitor would be 21:18 (7:6)
    3. This is nitpicking to the extreme
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I wonder if there's a typo on the specs and it's not really 3440 pixels wide? Technically, 21:9 with a 1440 height should be 3360 pixels wide. It's not like 1440 isn't easily divisible by 9 (it's 160), and 3440 doesn't really have any particular importance. I guess you just get a "free" 80 extra pixels in width (again, assuming it's not an error on the spec sheets).

    Of course, the 2560x1080 displays aren't 21:9 either. The correct resolution for 21:9 would be 2520x1080, so there customers are "gaining" 40 pixels of width. 2560 as a width at least makes sense, though, as there have been lots of 2560x1600/2560x1440 displays. There ought to be some logical reason for the choice of resolution, so perhaps there's a technical aspect to the displays that makes the slightly odd AR easier/cheaper to manufacture. However, I can't think of what that reason would be, at least not for a 3440 width.
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I don't know why they fudged the width/aspect ratio slightly either; but Google reports a number of companies launching 3440x1440 monitors but nothing at 3360x1440. Possibly the extra width lets them reuse existing production lines, just cutting at different points, with less wastage. Reply
  • japtor - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I figure they're sticking with the "21:9" terminology for marketing reasons, like it's easy to compare it to the usual 16:9 screens in that sense. Reply
  • acejj26 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    The graph on the top of page 6: "Processing Lag Comparison (by FPS)" and then you have the units on the graph in terms of ms. At a quick glance, it looks like there is 18 FPS of lag which would be ridiculous. Reply
  • inighthawki - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    The only thing ridiculous about it is that it makes no sense because FPS is not a measurement of time, it's a rate. Reply
  • ERJ - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Dang'it...we've been waiting a month for these to come back into stock (except for the price gougers) and you posting a review is not going to help the situation :) Reply
  • Gambit2K - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I ordered one this morning to replace my three 23" 1080P NEC screens. Bought them for Eyefinity and have used eyefinity once in 3 years :) Reply
  • RagnarKon - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Bought three Dell 23" screens for the same purpose. Used Eyefinity four times, and then stopped using it. Now I'm down to two monitors (rarely used the third).

    BUT, I can get behind this 21:9 monitor. Not ready to order yet though, price too high.
  • jslater - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Unless I'm mistaken, this monitor comes with Thunderbolt 2, and not Thunderbolt 1 - do you know if it'll still work alright on an older Mac with only Thunderbolt 1 though? Reply
  • mackjam - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I was wondering the same thing. According to this form it does work. http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=19&am... Reply
  • crazysurfanz - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    thanks for that link, lots of good information there. Reply
  • DrKlahn - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I bought a Dell 21:9 (1080) last year. My work machine has 3 1080 monitors, but I don't have the desk space to replicate that at home. This lets me see about a monitor and a half when remotely controlling my work PC. Which is a big improvement. The extra width makes it feel somewhat like a 3 monitor setup. The resolution isn't crazy, so it's not hard for the video card to drive while gaming. Editing video on it is great. The extra width gives you a lot more room to play with timelines. The vertical resolution is no more constraining than a normal 16:9 1080p monitor. Of course the extra resolution of this monitor would only make it better. Just wanted to chime in on using a monitor with this aspect ratio in the real world. Reply
  • cknobman - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Now just get the price down below $600 and I'll be interested. Reply
  • Sm0kes - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Thanks for the review. I've had this on pre-order for a couple of weeks. For someone with both a Mini-ITX gaming PC and a Macbook Air, the inclusion of both DP/HDMI and Thunderbolt is a nice touch.

    Like many, I've been considering the jump to 4K, but it still feel like there's too many compromises given the price. The Asus ROG 27' 1440p display is interesting (despite the TN), but I'm tired of waiting.
  • Azurael - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    It's a shame it doesn't support running at 1/2 its native resolution when pretending to be two monitors. I frequently watch full screen video in one of my monitors whilst working on the other, which doesn't really work the same on one wide monitor, else it'd be perfect. Oh well, I'm sure somebody will release something that meets my needs eventually. I just hope it happens before much more of the backlight on one of my 2405fpws turns yellow... Reply
  • Gast - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Can we get a good picture with this display on a desk with a keyboard & mouse so we can get a good feel for the size? And maybe one with a standard 24" and/or 20" display for comparison? Reply
  • cheinonen - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I can try to place it next to a standard 20" 4:3 display and a 27" 16:9 display today or tomorrow. I'll use my wife's desktop since no one needs to see the mess that is my workspace. Reply
  • crazysurfanz - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    there is such a picture (your first request at least) on the forum thread at ars that mackjam linked earlier: http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=19&am... Reply
  • Mark_gb - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Just over a month ago, I purchased a 29" AOC ultra-wide 21:9 format monitor. AOC 2963Pm. I've been using monitors on computers since they were experimental (and they were TV's at first). Thats going back to the 1970's. This is my first Ultra-Wide. You will not get me to ever buy another "normal" monitor again. If I had known this one was coming out, I might have waited for it. I have no use for thunderbolt ports and those are expensive add-ons, so they must be going after the Apple market more with this monitor.

    In any case, when I need another monitor, I will be looking for the largest affordable ultra-wide monitor that I can get.

    And please dont call these a niche product. You should hear the oooohs and aaaahs I get when people see my screen. The more that people see these,, the more they will sell. I believe that eventually, most monitors will be ultra-wide.

    Just use one. Then you will know.
  • madmilk - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    So what benefit does your 29" 2560x1080 21:9 monitor have over a 32" 2560x1600 16:10? Reply
  • fokka - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    @anandtech: not wanting to step on anyone's toes, but i think the product pictures could use a bit more polish. better lighting could go a long way in this regard. kthxbye! Reply
  • crazysurfanz - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I have to politely agree with you on that one, they are not great. Reply
  • cheinonen - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    I wish I had the space for a better picture setup, but I really do not right now. Finding the space to photograph a small device (smartphone, tablet) isn't too hard, but for a 34" monitor it is a challenge. Reply
  • FroggyTaco - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Shopping this monitor @B&H I found a cheaper version. It appears to only lacking the TB option.

    LG 34UM65-P for $699 no TB ports
    LG 34UM95-P for $999 has TB ports
  • FroggyTaco - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Nvm I failed to notice the resolution diff in my initial search. Reply
  • Pork@III - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    "Very long array" :) Reply
  • cas1 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    What input was used when calculating input lag? I've seen other users report awful input lag on this monitor. Your review makes it seem amazing.

    Did you try DisplayPort 1.2 & did you have issues with it?
  • cheinonen - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    HDMI is used for input lag, as it is for every display. I have had no issues with DisplayPort 1.2 with it, and I've had DP 1.2 issues with other displays. Reply
  • japtor - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    I'm wondering about the lack of internal LUT...cause this guy says there is one, is he just mistaken?:
  • cheinonen - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    I tested the internal LUT with the HDMI input and doing it manually it does not improve the image. Instead it improves 100% saturations and causes issues at every other level. For the PC, accessing the LUT requires using the LG calibration software, which I mention in the review would not run for me. They have sent me a new sample and I'm going to try to do it again. Reply
  • japtor - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    Thanks, hope it works out.

    BTW according to this guy the display can also apparently work as a KVM with the TB and USB uplink port on separate machines:
  • TrackSmart - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Nice review.

    A photo showing two documents side-by-side on the display might give readers a better sense of how a wide-aspect monitor compares to dual monitors for productivity. Maybe with something in the image for a sense of scale? In either case, your thoughts on productivity were quite helpful for those of us who don't watch movies on their computer screens.
  • GTVic - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    A 20" 4:3 + 24" 16:10 dual monitor setup is a decent setup and wider. You would need 3:1 or 27:9 instead of 21:9 to match. So about 8" more width, 880 more pixels, giving 4320x1440. Reply
  • bigboxes - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Why doesn't this have any of the input ports on the side? Whenever I want to slip in a flash drive I want an easily accessible port. Reply
  • ggathagan - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    Given the width of this monitor, I suspect most users would actually find it easier to reach the ports in back.
    The ports aren't too densely packed, so once you acclimated yourself to the location, the back ports are probably pretty easy to access by feel.
  • twistedgamez - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    5120x2160 would be amazing - once you get that you'd probably wont need to buy another display again Reply
  • sseemaku - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    Everything is fine except the price. When will the price of monitors greater than 24'' come down! Reply
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    Based on this model I would like to:
    Remove Thunderbolt, USB und audio to make it cheaper.
    Make it a bit smaller (27 - 29") but keep the resolution.
    Add variable refresh rate for stutter-free movies and games.

    At this point I'd be willing to spend 500€ on it even though I'm pretty pleased with my current model.
  • Conficio - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    Wow those pictures are grainy. Reply
  • Footman36 - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    I really like this monitor. I currently have a Dell U2711 at 1440 x 2560 and would love a little more horizontal real estate to play with. 4K is just too much screen and does not scale well currently.
    It is a niche product but IMO way overpriced at the moment. I would consider an upgrade to this monitor if it was priced at a more reasonable $800 or less... Part of the cost is most likely due to the non standard IPS panel size. Still having an IPS panel with these dimensions is a great idea, certainly for the way I use my PC...
  • Larzy - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    Some really misinformed replies in the comments section..

    "It's niche but it's not for enthusiasts" ?
    - Enthusiasts are a niche market as they are a minority.

    "The Human eye is actually 4:3"
    - lol

    "4K is the future but 21:9 is not" ?
    - Err so what about a 21:9 4k display ? Not so much ? Fine I'll take one.

    "more people want 4:3 than widescreen"
    - WTF ?

    Ever since the 21:9 ratio was released in displays people whom have gone out of thier way to find ways of shunning it. Perhaps because they are trying to justify everything where they have spent thier moneies and is the only way the can react to not being able to buy the latest and greatest??

    21:9 is finally here,thankgod, and its here to stay, so get used to it.

    My thoughts on the physical aspects of the display...
    It seems like they have got a lot right here, but I cant stand plastic silver finish. I really don't like materials that are cheaper knock offs made to look like something they're not.

    Also these un even sized bezels, they should be equally thin on all four sides. NEC was the only company to do this right imo.


    Make it black or make it with high quality materials like Apple do, or even better do both.

    Bet the panel itself is very impressive though.
  • Footman36 - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    I like 21:9 but not the initial panels that had a horizontal resolution of 1080. This panel has a more usable 1440..... Reply
  • TegiriNenashi - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    "21:9 is finally here,thankgod, and its here to stay, so get used to it."

    Fine. Turn this monitor to portrait mode and be happy. Excuse me if some of us wan't IMAX experience, not embrasure world view.
  • GTVic - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    Because if you want the width of 2 screens without 2 screens 21:9 is not it. Not even as wide as two 4:3 monitors (24:9). So yes, the 21:9 "standard sucks", get used to that. Reply
  • gochichi - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    The panel itself is moderate, I wouldn't call it impressive. I think what makes this more of a premium device is the Thunderbolt, the USB hub and connectivity. Reply
  • mike8675309 - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    Now just get the monitor manufacturers to build reasonably priced monitors at a reasonable size with better than 1080 vertical resolution. The move to this utterly stupid 1080 vertical resolution for desktop monitors has gone on long enough. Some people actually try to do work on their computers these days. We are not all just watching movies. Reply
  • gochichi - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    I share your frustration. The solution to our problems seem so exceedingly simple and yet it seems like not a single company can set aside the marketing hype of wide screen.

    Now we get even more radical on the display... like the display is the god you worship or something. I say, the display is just one tool of many tools... and I wish the tool were good. Very very few good displays available right now. None have the most obvious necessities available. 1600 vertical res should be far more common. This honestly looks like a kickstarter campaign to me. I'd buy into a standard display port display with 2560 x 1600 at less than 30".
  • oranos - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - link

    niche indeed. good for rich folk who want a unique look. thats about it. if you disagree you clearly don't understand the pc market Reply
  • scottrichardson - Thursday, July 03, 2014 - link

    Yeah. Not really hey. It's got nothing to do with not understanding the PC market. I'm looking at buying this screen and I can see many ways how this is going to improve my productivity and work. As a designer it's going to give me a tonne of space for my tools and palettes all while remaining in single screen mode. Reply
  • Larzy - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link

    Err what ?

    Actually it gives you more width than x2 of your typical 4:3 display

    1280 x 1024 is a typical resolution for 4:3.
    so, 1280 x2 = 2560px wide, but this screen is 3440 px wide so its more workspace than x2 4:3 displays.

    Even if your talking about 1600 x 1200 1600 x2 = 3200, yet this panel has 3440 so its still 40 pixels wider in ratio than most types of 4:3.
  • y.a.k - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link

    What he meant is probably that 4:3 x2 is 8:3. That can be expressed as 24:9 which is more than 21:9. Reply
  • DarkXale - Sunday, June 22, 2014 - link

    1280x1024 is a 5:4 resolution. Reply
  • Larzy - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link

    Sorry I meant 240 px wider,. so in conclusion this display can give you more horizontal space than x2 4:3 displays. Reply
  • Ubercake - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link

    Put G-sync on a monitor with this resolution and I'd consider it. I've found the wider (in pixels) the monitor, the worse the perceivable tearing when gaming. I'd consider a 60Hz monitor only for productivity. Reply
  • JohnUSA - Friday, June 20, 2014 - link

    Only 1 year warranty is no good.
    Should have been 3 years.
  • gochichi - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    You're absolutely right, if I spend $150 on a monitor, then sure 1-year is fine. But if I invest $1000, I want a 3-year advance exchange situation. Reply
  • LudumHair - Sunday, June 22, 2014 - link

    I bought one of these yesterday but the backlight bleed is awful. There are two bright yellowish patches in the bottom left and right corners of the display that are barely noticeable in daylight and downright distracting during evening and night use. Even with brightness set to its lowest the patches are still clearly visible. Buyer beware with these panels - I'm requesting a repair from LG and will take back to the store if that doesn't pan out. Reply
  • arpiggies - Sunday, June 22, 2014 - link

    I feared there would be some light bleed issues with this size panel. Usually happens with first few production runs before it's fixed. May I ask what vendor you procured yours from and do you know the manufacture date of your unit? Reply
  • LudumHair - Monday, June 23, 2014 - link

    Sure, I bought it at Micro Center in NY. The manufacture date is May 2014 and there's a "(Rev 2)" by the serial/model number. Reply
  • Larzy - Monday, June 23, 2014 - link

    Thanks for Sharing that, lets hope LG can iron out leakage in further revisions. I guess each of the manufacturers will be using this panel though, to make thier versions, so I think I'll wait a few months till they've all been reviewed. Reply
  • Laststop311 - Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - link

    I don't like 21:9 makes you move your head too much. 16:10 32 inch 4k monitor with 120hz is my dream monitor. Reply
  • gochichi - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    That's a great dream. I'd certainly consider the monitor you describe. And if it came in at $1000, I'd actually buy it too. Reply
  • genomecop - Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - link

    Seems the backlight bleed is a known problem. I copied this from the thread at HardOcp.com

    ...We have asked our distributor. This product currently has an unknown delivery time. The LG screens are called back because of a fabrication error in the backlight. At the moment it is not known when this model will be available...
  • SeanFL - Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - link

    Thoughts on moving from using two 24" 1920 x 1200 monitors to this one? I'll lose some horizontal pixels and pick up some vertical. Used mainly for video and audio editing. Reply
  • scottrichardson - Thursday, July 03, 2014 - link

    SeanFL, I'm in the same boat as you. Running two Apple LED 24" Cinema displays but one is about to die. Apple doesn't sell a replacement display compatible with my 2009 Mac Pro, so I'm looking at this LG. The extra vertical resolution will be nice, and possibly more useful in many cases for my design/coding work.

    Wondering if there are any further updates on the backlight bleed issues?
  • SeanFL - Saturday, July 19, 2014 - link

    Scott, I picked one of these up a few days ago and am very impressed. No backlight issues that I can detect, and the display is beautiful. A much nicer display than the Dell Ultrasharp 2407. Not having a bezel in the middle of my workspace has also been an upgrade. Haven't missed any of the vertical pixels that I gave up when setting aside two 1920 x 1200 monitors.

    Now I'm looking for a mount to be able to switch between sitting and standing. The
    Ergotron LX seems like a nice fit.
  • SeanFL - Saturday, July 19, 2014 - link

    correction, make that horizontal pixels I gave up. btw, mine was manufactured June 2014, mentions rev02 on the back. Reply
  • scottrichardson - Monday, July 21, 2014 - link

    That's great news Sean. I have mine ordered through my local computer store. They were told there's a 'worldwide shortage' and are not expected to hit the country until after the end of July. I don't mind waiting. Apple ended up replacing the panel in my 5 year old 24" LED display for FREE, which was very nice of them (after how much I paid for my Mac Pro setup, they felt it was fair!!!). Really looking forward to the display for the same reasons you are enjoying yours. No bezel in the middle, extra vertical pixels etc. Reply
  • inperfectdarkness - Wednesday, July 09, 2014 - link

    Never! There shouldn't even be 22/9 screens. We need more 16:10 screens. Screw hollywood's ridiculous widescreen formats. Reply
  • gochichi - Thursday, July 31, 2014 - link

    You're so right about this. Just to think about how simple the connection would be at this point to a 2560x1600 screen. I have no clue why 2560x1600 is stuck at a 30" display option and no other option. I would love to see 2560x1600 at 20", 23", 25", 27" etc. It would so awesome, and finding a computer or laptop with a DisplayPort is all that would be required. We can dream... Reply
  • gochichi - Saturday, July 26, 2014 - link

    This technology segment has had a true lapse in innovation in very many years. So much so, that these obvious products finally coming is more than welcome. And if I have to bite my tongue and call it "innovation" then I will.

    I think that companies assume that people don't have decent eyesight way too much.

    Where is the obvious 23" 2560x1440? Where is it? Where in this stagnant,-no-good market is such a product? We have 11" laptops with 2560x1440... but no 20" or 23" desktop monitors?

    Well, I got tired of waiting, so I got the UP2414Q which is really fantastic. So much less dorky looking than the 27" displays. But it won't run flawlessly on every machine.

    Here's the difference between stupid reality, and the wonderful non-innovation that should really be: I WILL buy an $800-$1000 display for myself, but if the market weren't so retarded... I'd buy 70 units of 23" 2560x1440 IPS displays (with DisplayPort and HDMI) for $500 a pop. I'd buy 70 units, if not more.

    So this whole market is stagnant from sheer greed and this imaginary notion that nobody cares, where the reality is that anybody with a 2010+ MacBook (Air or Pro) would love nothing more than to plug into a 23" "retina" display for that price.

    Example of devices that run 2560x1440 flawlessly, but 4K at only 30Hz
    Surface Pro, X1 Carbon, MacBooks,

    Just to be completely clear, I would, and so many others would too... prefer to spend $500 on a 23" instead of the 27" units available for years now.

    I'm so disgusted with this market... sure this particular product is less stale than most, just like my Dell UP2414Q is also less stale. But why not have a vibrant product that everyone could enjoy? Why are they pretending that there's a niche market when the reality is that there's a massive, unaddressed market of people who want nice, and need practical. Of people that need other things on their desks other than a screen. Of people who have money but don't want to waste it on junk.
  • Gadgety - Friday, August 01, 2014 - link

    Thanks for the review. It's a tempting proposition when looking at the screen, but taking everything into account I find that $999 is too much money for what I'd get. I'll stay with a 29 inch 21:9 instead, and I'll get some daylight on my desk as well.... Reply
  • GerardFreeman - Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - link

    Can some one tell me what GPU will run this monitor at full res? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now