On prior 21:9 monitors I always felt they had a niche where they worked well, but they weren't a product for everyone. Perhaps it is just using too many 27' monitors at this point, but only having 1080 vertical pixels with such a wide screen feels very limiting. With menu bars and everything else that occupies program windows, you are left with very little vertical space and a plethora of horizontal space. For gaming and movies it works very well, but for a regular monitor it leaves me wanting.

With 1440 vertical pixels, the LG 34UM95 frees me of that problem. Using the 34UM95 as my only monitor for two weeks I never feel cramped or that I am lacking the space for work. On the contrary, it does a very good job of providing space for two programs side-by-side and allows me to actually be productive in both of them. While editing this article I almost have the space to run three programs at once since they need very little horizontal space but the vertical space is far more important.

When I started using dual monitors ages ago, like most I started with a pair of 17" or 19" CRTs. Having those two screens opened up productivity but dominated space on the desk. The LG 34UM95 is a very similar design to having two of those old 4:3 or 5:4 CRTs on your desk again. The resolution is higher, and the depth is much slimmer, but the overall experience is similar. Make no mistake: 34 inches is a lot of display for a desk, but if you're used to dual monitors already that shouldn't be a problem.

The little gaming that I do on the LG 34UM95 is also very enjoyable. I have covered this more in my prior 21:9 reviews, but the extra field of view makes for a more immersive environment than 16:9. The larger screen size of the 34UM95 compared to prior 21:9 monitors only increases that. It also has a very low input lag, making it a useful choice for those that are competitive at FPS and other games.

A direct competitor here is the Apple Thunderbolt Display. It is the only other Thunderbolt display on the market but it's a few years old now. It is lower resolution and lacks the HDMI and DisplayPort inputs, USB 3.0 support, and cannot use a VESA mount without an adapter. The Apple display includes a (now outdated) MagSafe adapter, webcam, Firewire 800, and Gigabit Ethernet Ports. Given the choice of the two, I would pick the extra resolution of the LG. The contrast ratio of the LG, and the uncalibrated numbers, are superior as well.

At $1,000 you have a number of display choices. The 24" Dell UP2414Q is a 4K panel available for the same price right now that offers even higher resolution. It has the 4K limitations involving DisplayPort 1.2 and MST that I mentioned in my other 4K reviews, so it won't work quite as easily. You will also need DPI scaling on it which can lead to some OS or Application appearance issues, but those should work out over time. The main thing is you're still in the 16:9 aspect ratio, so running two apps side-by-side isn't as easy as it is with the 21:9 ratio. Dual 27" monitors will provide more space for even less money than the LG 34UM95, but they also take up far more of your desk.

If I sound like I've come away liking the LG 34UM95 a lot, I really have. It has surprised me at what a difference the extra vertical resolution makes with 21:9. It does a wonderful job as a single monitor while not impacting my ability to multitask at all. Even though I don't play many games that would utilize the extra field-of-view I would still strongly consider the LG 34UM95 as my only monitor. It performs very well on the bench, it looks very good in use, and most importantly it helps me get things done. If you've previously discarded 21:9 as a niche, obscure format, you should try out the 34UM95. It has managed to convince me that 21:9 isn't so much of a niche anymore.

Input Lag, Gaming and Gamut
Comments Locked

110 Comments

View All Comments

  • 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.
  • Pork@III - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    "Very long array" :)
  • 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.
  • 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?:
    http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1213797-lg-34um9...
  • 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.
  • 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:
    http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=26774...
  • 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now