Me personally, I'd actually prefer it if they stop putting speakers in higher-end monitors. Not only because it can slim down the overall size/thickness, but also because I have yet to hear monitor speakers that cant be beat by $25 Logitech speakers...
nah i disagree, I use headphones 99% of the time but for watching youtube videos while I eat dinner or something I want some kind of speaker. I also don't have the desk space for external speakers either. Built-in are good enough for odd videos here and there.
100% agree, i've not heard a set of speakers included in a monitor that weren't complete ass compared to what i use normally. HOWEVER, the pair on my Gigabyte 48 inch OLED aren't horible... and if i hadn't bought my KEF speakers, i probably woudln't have an issue using them.
Which is a good plus on a monitor. A good display is like a good pair of headphones. As long as there are no fundamental flaws, it should last you a proverbial lifetime.
Internal power boards on TV's and monitors are usually pretty easy to replace to be fair, though admittedly not as easy as an external brick. And external bricks suck for cable managing your desk area, honestly I don't care either way but they both have pros and cons
I 100% have no idea what you're talking about because it is way easier to find a cable for a internal power supply than it is to find an external power supply in fact I got a monitor that's really good for super cheap because it had no power supply. If it had had an internal power supply and just had the standard cable that comes out of everything like you use on a PC power supply for example then it would have went for way more money.
It engulfs you in the game though. Great for working on too. These are def the future for visual data until we get all the current problems with AR/VR ironed out.
RU-vid does support wider aspect ratio videos, Anamorphic on a Budget channel uploads sometimes in 2.39:1 or 2.35:1 and it fullscreens on my 21:9 monitor without any plugins (at least on Firefox)
I still use chrome and it just depends on the video you are watching as I come across videos in 21:9 all the time, I have even uploaded videos in 21:9 that playback just fine at that aspect ratio
Yeah I've played full 32:9 videos on my G9 that take up the whole display, though that's not exactly common. It really depends on the video and if it's been rendered at a wider ratio or if the pillars are baked in
I'd love to see a main channel video making a video testing the cables included with a bunch of brands monitors to see if they actually include cables that meet the specifications. Then maybe a robot to check the reliability of the cables by bending from each brand. Labs special
Unless it's required for a particular profession, the quality improvement of 4k vs 1440p is not going to be as impressive as the improvement from the colour and contrast from mini-led or OLED displays. For gaming, OLED is the best. So not only will OLED monitors be best in class for visual experience, they will also be the best for responsiveness
@@Adlore I would argue turning on DLDSR with a 4090 on my Alienware Oled going from 3440x1440 to 5120x2160 really improves the visuals in some titles getting rid of that 1440p blur and seeing fine textures in much more detail.
I got one and really like it. As he said, I have it on an arm so I can adjust it for the best angle depending on what I'm doing. It's my first OLED anything, and I really love the deep blacks and it made me realize why I hate black bars on content, they are really just grey. But not on this OLED panel. The reaction time is great, the colors are great, the brightness is great. The only complaint I have is the fact it's a 1440p panel and this big, it makes text and other icons look screen doorish. But in games and video, it's amazing. I never notice it once I start one up. Like he said, this is not for creators, but for anyone who games or watches videos.
Yeah careful with anything that has bars or does not fill out the 21:9 aspect ratio. It will unevenly burn the pixels in, and, after sometime burn in whatever aspect ratio it is. So RU-vid would burn in a 16:9 aspect ratio into it
This has been my.biggest complaint. We're seeing a lot 1440p screens, but not seeing things for 4k. Yet the screen size and refresh rates keep climbing.
@@georgejones5019 That's because 4k will bottleneck with hdmi 2.1 unless they keep it on 120hz and WILL add compression because companies aren't using the new display port, so we can't actually get 4k without compression for now, all the displays you see 4k 240hz or 4k 144hz are full of compression and quality compromises. So that's why it's better they stay with 1440p until the new display port becomes standard.
@@georgejones5019 personally I would much rather drive a 3440x1440 panel at 34in than 4k. That said, a large display like this should be 4k as you will see pixels reading stuff. For gaming with some AA on it won't be too bad.
I am happy that OLED gaming monitors are becoming a thing, but this should have been at least 3840x1600 minimum or 5120*2160 maximum. I hope that those models with higher resolution will come in the future.
true but the problem with 4k or more is that you need the new display port standard or else you would introduce compression or actually just compromises in terms of quality, if it came with the new display port sure 10000% it would've been the play but as it doesn't then it's better that they stay away from it.
6880 x 2880 should've been the target, tbh. 1440p240 is great but having the option to double the PPI at 120 for when necessary would be great. I'd imagine that that's where they're gonna go with next gen versions.
@@SiriusXification wouldn't that be 5k ultrawide? They're not even using the new displayport, that would just be full of compression and lower quality which is pointless for an oled panel and no gpu would be able to play any games on that because being honest no one is using these big ultrawide monitors for esports which realistically are the only games that can run decently and you wouldn't buy a display like that to play games on low graphics either and for watching content you would just get an external media center or a oled tv because windows hdr and content sucks compared to native apps from either of the 2 I mentioned before. I understand your point, 1440p ultrawide is already meh on 34inches now 45 it's like even more questionable, I'd say the minimum for a good display for gaming specially should be 100ppi AT LEAST because first you're sitting close and second this display is 800r so sitting further away is contradictory.
Okay the reason why I’ve truly always loved external power brick is that if they ever quit, you can replace them easily without buying a whole new monitor or replacing it.
Got this monitor 4 days ago from Best Buy. Coming from a 32" 1440p VA Panel. First OLED monitor ever and I say with confidence that I will never go back. OLED is in a league of its own. Now some may complain about the PPI, but I use my PC strictly for gaming and cannot say that it is even noticeable. If you're reading text in your browser, or even your desktop, you can tell that the resolution is not as sharp, but you turn a game on and you literally can't tell that you're looking at 83 PPI. Plus if this was 4k, they'd probably be charging close to $3,000. This thing's already expensive enough.
If your coming from a 1440p 32 inch monitor the PPI is at worst the same as your old monitor except now you have inky blacks, unreal response time, silky smooth motion and about 4 inches of extra screen real estate on both sides. I think this is definitely my next monitor
@@karmaplus87 34 inch is ultra wide. 32 inch is 16:9. Both the 45 inch LG and 32 inch monitor are 1440p. Exactly the same number of vertical pixels and as well as the same height in inches, meaning they have the same PPI. 34 inch ultra wide is a different story. Same amount of pixels vs the other 2 with less vertical height meaning higher PPI. And I personally wouldn't get a 34 inch ultrawide because it is a bit of a downgrade coming from a 32 inch 16:9.
Yeah not sure what they're talking about, their own videos on the main channel are not in the standard 16:9 but a little bit wider (not ultrawide but it's a weird aspect ratio for phones). RU-vid definitely supports it.
Having had this monitor for 80+ hours, it is not ready for daily use. The resolution and PPI for the size just doesn't work outside of games. For reference, when using this, I got text fringing until I scaled text to 275%, which makes no sense for daily use. Additionally, in standard use at 100-150%, you could see both green and red pixels on the same edge of lettering on almost everything. This was with using Grayscale Anti-Aliasing in Better ClearType. For the premium they're asking for this, they absolutely needed to go 3840x1600 or even 5120x2160 for it to work. Ended up returning it for the LG C2, which also has text issues, but it's also half the cost. Most won't pick this up for anything competitive since it's 240hz, because they'll go with the 27" option instead. I really wanted to love this thing, but it's just too unusable outside of gaming, and for $1700, I cant really justify that and deal with the issues. Hopefully LG revises this for 2024.
@@Abu_Shawarib I understand it's due to the layout, but my point is that unfortunately, due to the size of the screen paired with the lower resolution, it compounds the issue making it even worse.
Your feedback especially about the PPI is what I figured out too. Glad I didn't order. I'd go for the 1440 or the C2 as well I'm very torn between them. I have good daily/work IPS so text/burn in isn't a major issue.
@@Abu_Shawarib It is also due to PPI. It's like 90 or so. A 1440 27" is 120 DPI which I would consider minimum viable DPI for a monitor having used it for 13 years. With good eyes at the correct distance you basically can't make out pixels unless you really really look for them.
@@Abu_Shawarib With good eyes 27" 1440p already has way less sharp text than 4k... 1440p at this size is really bad for non-gaming. Again, probably depends a lot on how good your eyes are as well.
Well... 1440 x 2560 = 3686400 pixels 1440 x 3440 = 4953600 pixels 2160 x 3840 = 8294400 pixels Granted, 1440p ultrawide is a million pixels short of being in the exact middle between 1440p and 4k but it still is between them and does have significantly more pixels than the former.
32" one monitor is great for editing, gaming, movies at office level. Photography editing in lightroom the picture you are editing in develop mode is exactly 30x40cm, probably the largest size a client will print or pick to include in the album. It's just great.
I definitely would like to see this in a 3840x1600 version at that size. Granted I currently have an ultragear that is a 3440x1440 at 34 inches or whatever so it would likely be more noticeable for me than others
im on the exact same boat, my 1440p is perfect for 38 inch, not too much or little, you need to lean in a bit and try to be able to see the pixels, but at 45 inch, that res should bump with the size increase
No even at 3840x1600 a 45" would have 92 ppi. Not quite as bad as the 45GR95QE but still terrible. Any display with pixel density below 110 ppi (37.5" 3840x1600 or 27" 2560x1440) should be considered unacceptable in this day and age. I will check back again the day someone makes a high refresh 5120x2160 display at 40" (there is a DELL IPS productivity monitor at that size & resolution, but it is only 60hz).
I have the same curved 32 1440 and unfortunately I think That 32 1440 is still the way to go. with a 3080 ti I'm getting over 100 fps with max settings on everything I play.
It's so disappointing that the resolution is just 3440x1440 and not something like 3840x1600. I'd MUCH rather have that extra vertical resolution at 120/144Hz than a narrower view at 240Hz. The 21:9 aspect ratio is just too narrow for me, even on a giant screen like this.
I literally just returned this monitor after 72 hours with it. The Alienware QD-OLED is simply better in every way, apart from it being “only” 175hz. QD-OLED is 100% the next big thing to look for, it blows LG’s WOLED out of the water. The Alienware is staying on my desk until the new QD-OLED G9 comes out later this year.
@@viking9442 colors are SIGNIFICANTLY better / more saturated due to there not being a white subpixel in QD-OLED. Furthermore, the Alienware has a glossy coating, which makes it look like you're almost looking through a window. The LG has a traditional matte screen so it doesn't look nearly as impressive as a traditional OLED would. I also thought the lower pixel density on the LG wouldn't bother me, but other than in game, it really is a deal breaker.
@@GyliuDot because I watch too much LTT. In all honesty, it's just one of my hobbies, and I think the OLED G9 is just the natural upgrade path from the Alienware. Higher resolution and refresh rate, and apparently it's a new "2nd gen QD-OLED" panel they're using which is supposed to be even better.
Soon enough samsungs g9 oled is coming out. Same 240hz but QD-oled over normal oled that LG uses. 32:9 aspect ratio and will likely cost same if not less
Considering the G9 Neo launched at $2299, I doubt the G9 OLED will be less than $1700. I'd expect it to match the original Neo's $2299 or for Samsung to round it up to $2499.
You're out of your damn mind if you think the G9 OLED is going to be anything less than $2000 USD. The regular G9 is $1500 and it's only QLED. Analysts and insiders have been saying we'll be lucky to see sub-$2300.
I got the corsair xeonon flex definitely worth the extra money 800r curve is to aggressive for anything other gaming and even then more first person games. So having the “flex”ability to adjust curve on the fly is a godsend
it really feels weird when people with good camera reviews high end monitor especially with the anti-glare on you could tell me the video on the screen is green-screened in and i would've believed it
I've got an LG 38" ultrawide that has a 1600 pixel height rather than 1440, and I definitely prefer the extra bit of height when it comes to productivity.
Same, i also got that monitor and i love it. I just wished it was oled. Because the HDR on this 38GL950-B monitor is just awefull. It’s not true HDR if this monitor was oled then it would have been different
@@Michplay Agreed. The edge lit backlight on my 38WN95C is pretty terrible at HDR, so I just turned off HDR altogether. OLED would solve that. Otherwise, the 38 is a fantastic monitor.
Check out hardware unboxed's stuff they've got far more monitor reviews, data etc so if you're looking for a monitor check those guys out instead of short circuit alone
Would like to see a comparison with LG's 42" OLED TV. Especially with the pixel density on thing. Wondering if there is any different in how text looks on each.
Best Buy has this display for $700 off right now ($999.99). The catch is that you have to spend $50 to buy a My Best Buy Plus membership for a year. I just picked one up today and now I almost need a bigger desk. Much bigger than the 34" ultrawide that it just replaced and so much better.
3440 x 1440 resolution is an instant deal breaker to me so sad as everything else is just amazing, but as a designer / artist its just unacceptable that DPI
IF it were closer to 4K then I would say the asking price would be a bit more reasonable. And that panel, while capable of much higher brightness has been factory locked down to limit possible burn in. But it can handle more brightness and I fell like LG should have focused on tweaking it to be brighter with anti-burn-in features like on the LG OLED C1,C2 and C3 TV's, rather then lazily just locking down the brightness.
@@blaness13 No, it literally is. The PPI is significantly lower than panels of the same size that cost much less and offer the same tech aside from 240hz and a curved screen. If PPI is a measure for clarity, 83 PPI is bad. It looks like a window screen is placed on the monitor because of the pixel separation.
As a review, it did feel like you became very nitpicky on finding negative things to say, especially as about 70% of the negatives where you personal preferences, and not really something negative about the hardware itself. Honestly this personal opinion should not be part of professional reviews. OR, if you want to specify your own opinion, maybe make it a segment in the video called: "Personal View and Preferences.". This at least would make it clear to the viewer that it might not affect him personally.
I don't know if it's a terminology thing, but I feel like people often (mis)attribute Screen Door Effect to low DPI, but isn't the issue actually inter-pixel spacing? Sure, the two are often go-together, but they are technically separable.
give it a couple more years and one of 'em vendors will have height and flex adjustments and then some, and with more reasonable prices. Also, like after work i want to do some flight sims. so, switching between flat, for work then curve for gaming is very reasonable for me.
I had this monitor for a day before I returned it. Used it for 7 hours and the vrr flicker was way too noticeable. I was amazed by the picture but man the flicker was driving me nuts. I was able to get rid of the flicker by disabling gsync and capping the fps…. But I didn’t feel like it was worth it. So I’ll stick to my c1.
Did you have another display attached? Mine didn't have the flicker when it was the sole display but as soon as I added another panel, the flickering started and, yeah, it was unbearable. There is a "fix" by disabling GSYNC compat in control panel.
@@braisedtoast9002 there’s a known VRR/GSYNC thing with oleds. I’ve read it has to do with oled tech specifically and how fast it is. Over the 7 hours I had it I just couldn’t deal with it. It felt like my brightness was on a knob and someone was constantly making it brighter and dimmer. Basically flashed. My c1 does it too with my 4080. However it’s not as pronounced and when I went to look for it I noticed it flickered too. Some people don’t care but I was just sensitive to it.
@@cyanidex yeah I had my c1 attached and it was really terrible. Once I tried it solo it was not as bad but still there enough to make me notice it. It was like one of those things where you noticed it once and it’s all you see now type of thing. I did get the flicker to stop but it had me turn off gsync. When I did that and capped the fps I would noticed like micro tearing in the middle. I figured , if I have to do all this crap then it’s not worth keeping.
Just buy a 42C2 for 40% of the price of this monstrosity, which also looks way better since it's actually 4K and true glossy. The PPI of this 1440p at 45" is CRAZY low. Maybe the lowest ever for a monitor lol.
Got this one at home. Superior for gaming, sucks in Windows applications due to the low resolution. Thinking of sending it back. You can clearly see the pixelations.
I would love this thing if it was 3840x1600. I have a 3440x1440 35" ultrawide right now, and stepping down from ~100 ppi to ~80 ppi for that price... Woof.
External power bricks make servicing them much easier. I'd love a single cable, but since I had problems with internal power supplies in the past... I don't mind anymore.
"Would you like to spend an extra $300 on a feature you won't even use that much" is.. one way to look at that feature. I would prefer to think of that feature like this - Would you spend an extra $300 for a feature that allows you to tailor the curve of the panel to your specific needs. Yup, I'd pay the extra money for that feature. As a matter of fact, that's going to be my next monitor. I seriously hope more manufacturers are going to offer that feature.
I would love something like this for my work/play monitor, but I sadly need a bit more DPI for work. I'd sacrifice refresh for resolution, but I know I'm not a typical buyer for this type of monitor.
The guy who tests and reviews monitors for a living tells us that the image looks crisp and good from 2 feet away, and all the experts in the comments tell us pPi ToO lOW! Hilarious
Except other people have reviewed this monitor and say the thing looks pixelated when sitting in front of it. And some of us actually use our heads before making decisions. So...
@Flash Cloud I have the monitor and it's a gaming monitor. You could sit as close as you want to see the pixels if you want. I also have a 42 inch c2, and while I enjoy the extra pixels, I enjoy the ease or running the ultrawide
@@Dionyzos For competitive gaming you can just use a custom resolution to make a smaller monitor. 48" screen perfectly translates to a 24" 1080p resolution.
@@gamingmarcus then you risk burning that smaller screen into the monitor... It's OLED. You want to fill the entire screen and not have bars. Seeing as you said competitive gaming I assume that the person would play it a lot... Which will then burn in the smaller aspect ratio as the other pixels are not getting used
@@lilpain1997 Of course you'd still need to be using the display for mixed usage and content consumption. Otherwise the space is just wasted. Personally, when I say competitive gaming I mean going hard at csgo for 2-3 hours which leaves me pretty tired. But then there's another 2-3 hours of content consumption which I assume does balance things out.
1440p on a 45" monitor that you're supposed to sit 3 feet or closer from is criminal, the ppi is the same as a 27" 1080p which is hilarious for the price, this SHOULD've been 2160p
He is on point about the blur, on glossy screen it just fazes out not to mention colors are more accurate. But blur from anti reflective coating is super annoying, my brain just can’t stop trying to process it just like when I don’t have my glasses on.
12:40 I got a Samsung G7 that’s 32Inches, 1440p, QLED and 240Hz and it’s like £550, u cannot tell me 10 inches and OLED ups it by £1200, plus it should really just be a 4K oled at like 165Hz, that would be much better and even then I wouldn’t pay more then £900 or £1000 for it
There is no TV/monitor/milling machine head that is wobbly because it is heavy. Stop that. It's wobbly because they put long, skinny legs on the base. It was an engineering + style + cost choice/equation. They styled the base to be that way, and there is no cost effective (even for a $1700 monitor) way to make that stiff enough to not have that monitor be wobbly. But don't make the excuse that it's wobbly because it's heavy.
Thanks for this helpful review. Can you suggest an ultra wide screen that is as good as this but has the higher pixel count as I do a lot of CAD work on my screens and would find a ultra wide really helpful, not just for gaming 😎
omg my CORSAIR Xeneon Flex doesn't have rgb and the LG does... Oh the irony :D Oh and I like my curve not so extreme, so it's kind of at a midpoint. But yea, I leave it there. So FLEXING is kinda just a FLEX. :)
12:00 A lot of that crispiness and responsiveness is just due to it being an OLED panel. That perfect pixel response is going to make the refresh rate feel faster while you are gaming. I am a big fan of the resolution too. It should be relatively easy to fully utilize the HDR and refresh rate of the display with hardware up to two generations old. For the price, a higher resolution would be great, but this looks like a really nice overall package.
I think yall are missing the point. This monitor isn't meant for productivity, but strictly for gaming at 240hz. Yeah if you wanna game at 4k then get a C2 42 that has 120hz but also suffer performance if you don't have a 3090 or higher. I personally love this monitor for Apex Legends, Destiny 2, and Star Citizen.
Powerbricks are 100% superior to inbuild PSU. It makes the monitor thin, removes a heatsource away from it, can be replaced and is easy to hide together with the cable management tray you should have anyway.
Год назад
I dont agree with your points. The monitor is allready large. A centimeter or two more in depth doesn't matter. I never had any power supplies on monitors failing so I see no need to replace them and having it inside the monitor is way more clean. I have no clue about the heat issue but I doubt it can't be solved with a couple bucks worth of aluminum heatsinks.
@ I had one monitor that had a broken internal PSU and one that smelled really "hot". (Both were very old) I agree it is probably not a big deal. But I am a tinkerer (engineer) and love to repurpose things. A monitor that runs on DC current is ideal to run directly off a battery and the PSU I can use for other thingd too
I want a 38" max OLED with 240hz. 45" is a little too much. I currently rock a 34" ultrawide 165hz. Waiting for the day a nice 34"/38" 240hz OLED will be accessible and I'll get one.
I've been using the Samsung 43" for several years now. I love it but I want a screen with more vertical real estate. The monitor seems smushed if I could call it anything. I wish Samsung didn't nerf the ARC especially for the price. So I was hoping for a nice upgrade ... but the resolution should be 4k for this price
People hating on this cause they can’t afford it, it’s the best monitor out right now and it’s not even close. If you do just office work then you shouldn’t even be watching these videos lol. 1440 240 oled with this response time is way better and faster than anything a tv lg c2 can do. Things a beast.
As a hardcore supporter of glossy monitors, the trend of _everything_ having some hideous AR coating is still disheartening. I shouldn't have to use a TV just to get a shiny screen. Get back to me when they have 27"-32" 4K glossy OLED monitors.
I've yet to find a pc gamer who is actually in favor of matte coated displays, yet for some reason these companies still aren't listening. It's so backwards because, in my experience, TV rooms suffer the most from glossy reflections and glare from being in more brightly lit rooms with lots of windows. PC setups tend to be in more dimly lit areas where glare is easier to manage. So why is it that computer monitors need it more than TVs?
Does LG's warranty include burn-in? Given the price and the fact that both most of the QD-OLED monitors as well as the Xeneon Flex, which I believe uses the same panel as this monitor, explicitly cover burn-in in their warranty, one would expect this to be covered and for me would absolutely be a requirement when spending this amount of money.
As much as I enjoy the idea of an OLED gaming monitor, I have concerns about it burning in, as I both work and play on my monitors and I leave static objects up a LOT for hours at a time.
OLED protection has come a long way and it was only really a serious problem for early adopters. Just get a good warranty and you'll never need to worry about that anyway. I have 5 year best buy protection on my LG C2 and they'll even come to your home to replace it.
I'd like to just say one thing: Looking from a consumer standpoint, I think it's always better to have a external power brick than a built-in. In case it stops working like a I had many times with laptop power bricks, it's much easier to replace than a built-in version. So yes I like them external and I don't mind taping it to the desk and forget about it.
LG: I absolutely love what you produce, and my house is a product of this; including the 48" LG Oled CX that I am writing this on. I would love a 55" curved OLED with all of the amazing features you produce with NVidia and HDR+. I am pretty particular, and desire the following feature before a purchase: Quantum Dot(I know Samsung) OLED, 4K 240 hz, curvature, HDR10/10+, AMD/NVidia sync, no stand(I will wall mount and reduce cost due to never using stand), Dolby Vision, other flagship features and the most amazing color/experience a participator can enjoy. You make amazing products LG, and I know you can do it! Samsungs' MicroLed in the near future is also looking pretty solid...
How is the dimming working with this monitor when having bright windows opening up like for text editing. In general it would be nice if you would cover desktop usage a bit more. I'm using a Dell 34" QD-OLED where this is ok - but I read that's annoying with OLEDs with a little more aggressive burn-in protection mechanisms.
Sitting here at my corner desk that can barely contain my 27" monitor.. I wonder how many people actually have the desk space for these leviathans. Nice SC lads.
Need that resolution to catch up with those physical dimensions. I am on a 42" 4k here. 3840x1600 on a 38" was barely there.. 3440x1400 @ 45" is just not dense enough PPI. Still, nice to see the industry pushing forward to more OLED, faster OLED and OLED all the things!
