According to the source article VESA is 100x100 and weight without stand is 10.98 kg. Every display that is DisplayHDR certified MUST have VESA mounting in the back.
Ever since OLED TV's came out it has felt like the ceiling for top of the line monitors has been $1,500. Especially now that LG is releasing a 48" CX option (which could be $1,500-2,000). If we're lucky, maybe next year will be a 3x" option nearer to $1k.
I expect it to be less than $1500. 55 inch C series is now going for about that. MSRP at launch may match the current 55 inch but by X-Mas I wouldn't be too surprised if the 48inch is around $1000.
No high-end monitor with these specs is going to be priced at $1500 or less in this confusing monitor market. Suppliers are adding a lot of bill-of-materials tax to monitors being made instead of using the material for TVs & smartphones instead.
Monitors that use the *same* panel but less features like the Alienware OLED monitor (no HDR, no HDR adaptive-sync, & no HDMI 2.1) are more than double the superior TV version (the LG C9 HDMI 2.1 Dolby Vision HDR OLED TV)
Comparing a TV to a monitor is not even remotely a good thing to compare. You can't even compare the exact same tech between the two because of how they operate different.
I used to not care about this, but the more and more displays I've purchased for pc use the more it has mattered to me. Tvs don't really make good pc monitors in most cases. Gaming is sometimes an outlier but if you are sitting as close as you are to a pc monitor, you won't enjoy using a TV for that purpose. And the features aren't made for that viewing distance either.
maybe you are well informed, but in case you aren't, find that 2020 LG 48 CX, or 2019 LG C9 models' description and how and why it is great as a top gaming monitor. and you will find out why so many people eagerly await its arrival, along with HDMI 2.1 equipped videocards this year. me included. that is why these 2500$ monitors are a bit dead on arrival, however great they may be.
Every year a certain TV model will be hailed as "THIS time this TV will be totally awesome as a monitor and better than all those monitors that are totally overpriced!". Every year it turns out to, in reality, be a TV and do TV things like all the other TVs before it and make for a pretty lousy experience as a monitor. But the NEXT generation surely...
I don't know about that pricing for a monitor with a vanilla 1000 cd/m² brightness, an unspecified static contrast ratio, a lukewarm dynamic contrast ratio ("up to..."), and less than 4K resolution.
Perhaps this isn't market to me, but I don't see the high refresh rate and full G-Sync support as a great enough value. Perhaps at half the price.
Vanilla 1000 cd/m2? How many monitors have this? And no, it isn't in your market as this is a gaming monitor. There are no 4k ultrawides (which aren't really 4k), in a 34" size with the specs you mention. There's an LG but doesn't come close to 1000 cd/m2, or refresh rate over 60hz, or low response time, or high contrast ratio. Not to mention we don't have a video card capable of driving that resolution at high frame rates for games anyway.
But technically you can buy that LG 48 TV when it's released, and use it in ultrawide mode (with black bars) - I bet the visual quality will be much higher. The only thing this one has going for it is 200Hz frame rate, which is probably not very relevant for gaming anyway, and even when you can output at this rate it will probably not enough of an improvement over 120Hz to justify the price.
Are you personally suffering when you're unable to play latest games at 200Hz? 120Hz is just not doing it for you, right? That insanely OC'ed quad 2080Ti rig you have is not getting its money worth... Yeah, I feel you.
There are true 4K ultrawides. I own one from LG and MSI has one too. They're just not the best for gaming not having G-sync. Their HDR600 panels are merely passable.
If you mean DCI 4K I stand correct; but in that cases most 4K monitors aren't 4K either. Don't see how you'd single out 5120x2160 panels not being true 4K ultra-wide but consider 3840x2160 monitors true 4K.
I'm skeptical of a VA panel having fast enough refresh to meaningfully hit 200Hz -- particularly with darker transitions. I say "meaningfully" because having a ton of overdrive overshoot and inverse ghosting for the VA panel to hit 5ms response or faster across the board seems unlikely.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong. My current and previous gaming monitors have both been VA, and I'd love for the technology to improve so that it has fewer compromises.
I know that enough of the 144Hz VA panels have trouble with response in darker transitions. Bumping the refresh rate by almost 40% is going to make "fast enough" response an even harder target to hit.
Your retina (never mind your visual cortex, which is far slower) is physiologically incapable of processing illumination changes at frequencies past about 30 Hz [1]. Above that, any perceived 'motion blur' isn't going to be alleviated by your monitor - because it'll be a consequence of your own physiological limitations.
(I'm continually amazed at this apparent fresh generation of mutants with superhuman abilities, at whom these new hyper-fast monitors are apparently aimed... :P)
I'm not qualified to debate the science in any real sense, but from my read of that article it doesn't mean what you're purporting it to mean.
I guarantee that 60Hz is smoother than 30Hz and that 120Hz is smoother than 60Hz. After that, increases result in severely diminishing returns. My best guess is that this has something to do with the nature of "sample and hold" used in modern display panels. I'm not saying that everyone is going to *care* that 120Hz > 60Hz > 30Hz in terms of smoothness, but it is definitely visible by the physiocomputational human visual system.
Realistically though, the super high refresh rates (lets say anything beyond 120-144Hz) aren't for perceived smoothness, but rather the incremental improvements to display latency and input lag. In an ultra-competitive fast paced game, your monitor displaying an opponent's move a few ms sooner means you can begin reacting a few ms sooner. The higher game engine rate also results in your mouse/keyboard input being processed ever so slightly sooner. This won't necessarily turn a bad player into a good player, but at even moderate levels of competence it can lead to a competitive advantage.
Um, is this a troll? That article you reference says no such thing. It says there's a 30 millisecond delay between light hitting the retina and processing happening in your brain. There's nothing in there about how frequently you can process illumination changes. You're literally just making stuff up.
And by the way, tricky photography techniques capturing display motion blur isn't reflective of what a ***human eye*** is actually capable - or in this case, objectively INCAPABLE, of perceiving in practice.
Anybody with a high refresh rate monitor can tell the difference between 60Hz and 144Hz, it's not subtle From 30Hz to 144Hz is night and day. There's been plenty of empirical evidence showing significant improvements in response times going from 60Hz to 144Hz, and much smaller improvements going from 144Hz to 240hz.
All that said, in this case, the "fast enough" comes from the fact that some transitions on a VA panel will take far longer than the frame time. With a 200Hz panel, you've got only 5ms between frames, and a VA panel can't even update that fast, especially on dark transitions.
Forget displays, just try to recall what it looks like when you see a fan or a wheel spinning fast, or what helicopter blades look like during flight. Past a certain rate of rotation, you can no longer perceive individual blades or wheel spokes: they all blend together. That's your retina and your brain just temporally averaging fast-changing inputs that they can't keep up with. Same thing happens when you're looking at fast-changing images on your monitor.
Past a certain threshold, whatever motion blur comes from the panel itself, becomes insignificant next to the motion blur caused by your own visual perception and neural processing limitations. That threshold is well below the frequencies that these monitors are now reaching.
You're misunderstanding the science, and how it applies to gaming. Is there a low threshold at which brain averaging begins? Yes. Does that mean that you can't improve the speed at which you can respond in game beyond that frequency? Very much _No_.
What kind of weird analogies are you using??? A helicopter blade (on faster spinning rotors) equals to about 8 fps. The reason they are blurry is the speed they are moving, which is normally around 210 m/s. That is very fast and movement like that will always be blurry. Yet you still see every blade only 8 times a second on the same spot.
Right. A placebo effect is that I can suddenly read moving text at 144Hz, and cant at 60 Hz. Dude... Your imaginations have been wtfpwned when that word was still relevant.
Why a VA panel? It doesn't make any sense. The only advantages that VA panels have over IPS is in their contrast ratio and backlight uniformity. They tend to be around 3000:1 (as opposed to IPS at 1000:1), and don't suffer from "IPS glow".
Except, as soon as you've got FALD, the contrast ratio is now primarily based on the local dimming performance, and IPS glow isn't an issue when you're controlling the backlight intensity.
So if FALD is already taking care of IPS's shortcomings, why VA, where you're going to get worse viewing angles and pixel response times?
IPS glow is always an issue on IPS monitors. No matter if FALD or not.
The real reason they use VA is that VA panels are very cheap. Even cheaper than TN. I terms of pricing for the manufacturer... that means $50 to $100 cheaper. But we know how overpriced gaming monitors really are and that $100 are easily inflated to $500.
Should have added HDMI 2.1 ports; other than that decent specs. Hard to be excited about monitors at the moment when Displayport 2.0 + HDR1600 monitors are around the corner
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
57 Comments
Back to Article
raywin - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
vesa mount? weight?quiksilvr - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
According to the source article VESA is 100x100 and weight without stand is 10.98 kg. Every display that is DisplayHDR certified MUST have VESA mounting in the back.EliteRetard - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
Yikes on the price.Ever since OLED TV's came out it has felt like the ceiling for top of the line monitors has been $1,500. Especially now that LG is releasing a 48" CX option (which could be $1,500-2,000). If we're lucky, maybe next year will be a 3x" option nearer to $1k.
Alistair - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
I get eye fatigue and OLED does wonders to fix it. I'm buying that 48" TV on launch day.djallel84 - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
you deserve an oscar for this comentSttm - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
I expect it to be less than $1500. 55 inch C series is now going for about that. MSRP at launch may match the current 55 inch but by X-Mas I wouldn't be too surprised if the 48inch is around $1000.lilkwarrior - Sunday, February 23, 2020 - link
No high-end monitor with these specs is going to be priced at $1500 or less in this confusing monitor market. Suppliers are adding a lot of bill-of-materials tax to monitors being made instead of using the material for TVs & smartphones instead.Monitors that use the *same* panel but less features like the Alienware OLED monitor (no HDR, no HDR adaptive-sync, & no HDMI 2.1) are more than double the superior TV version (the LG C9 HDMI 2.1 Dolby Vision HDR OLED TV)
looper - Monday, June 8, 2020 - link
Superior? Not for gaming...imaheadcase - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Comparing a TV to a monitor is not even remotely a good thing to compare. You can't even compare the exact same tech between the two because of how they operate different.lipscomb88 - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
I used to not care about this, but the more and more displays I've purchased for pc use the more it has mattered to me. Tvs don't really make good pc monitors in most cases. Gaming is sometimes an outlier but if you are sitting as close as you are to a pc monitor, you won't enjoy using a TV for that purpose. And the features aren't made for that viewing distance either.SSTANIC - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
maybe you are well informed, but in case you aren't, find that 2020 LG 48 CX, or 2019 LG C9 models' description and how and why it is great as a top gaming monitor. and you will find out why so many people eagerly await its arrival, along with HDMI 2.1 equipped videocards this year. me included. that is why these 2500$ monitors are a bit dead on arrival, however great they may be.edzieba - Monday, February 24, 2020 - link
Every year a certain TV model will be hailed as "THIS time this TV will be totally awesome as a monitor and better than all those monitors that are totally overpriced!". Every year it turns out to, in reality, be a TV and do TV things like all the other TVs before it and make for a pretty lousy experience as a monitor. But the NEXT generation surely...looper - Monday, June 8, 2020 - link
Word...Viktoria258 - Saturday, March 14, 2020 - link
Download coc hack apk new versionhttps://apkgreat.com/clash-of-clans-mod-apk/
Sivar - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
I don't know about that pricing for a monitor with a vanilla 1000 cd/m² brightness, an unspecified static contrast ratio, a lukewarm dynamic contrast ratio ("up to..."), and less than 4K resolution.Perhaps this isn't market to me, but I don't see the high refresh rate and full G-Sync support as a great enough value. Perhaps at half the price.
Dug - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
Vanilla 1000 cd/m2? How many monitors have this?And no, it isn't in your market as this is a gaming monitor. There are no 4k ultrawides (which aren't really 4k), in a 34" size with the specs you mention. There's an LG but doesn't come close to 1000 cd/m2, or refresh rate over 60hz, or low response time, or high contrast ratio.
Not to mention we don't have a video card capable of driving that resolution at high frame rates for games anyway.
p1esk - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
But technically you can buy that LG 48 TV when it's released, and use it in ultrawide mode (with black bars) - I bet the visual quality will be much higher. The only thing this one has going for it is 200Hz frame rate, which is probably not very relevant for gaming anyway, and even when you can output at this rate it will probably not enough of an improvement over 120Hz to justify the price.Kvaern1 - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
High refreshrate is totally relevant for gaming, and not much else.p1esk - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Are you personally suffering when you're unable to play latest games at 200Hz? 120Hz is just not doing it for you, right? That insanely OC'ed quad 2080Ti rig you have is not getting its money worth... Yeah, I feel you.Kvaern1 - Sunday, February 23, 2020 - link
I'm not personally a high refreshrate gamer and you're apparently an idiot who's incapable of admitting wrong and learning something new.Fact remains high refresh monitors are completely relevant for gaming.
looper - Monday, June 8, 2020 - link
What he said...lilkwarrior - Sunday, February 23, 2020 - link
There are true 4K ultrawides. I own one from LG and MSI has one too. They're just not the best for gaming not having G-sync. Their HDR600 panels are merely passable.lilkwarrior - Sunday, February 23, 2020 - link
If you mean DCI 4K I stand correct; but in that cases most 4K monitors aren't 4K either. Don't see how you'd single out 5120x2160 panels not being true 4K ultra-wide but consider 3840x2160 monitors true 4K.Dug - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
Panel says 37.5-inch VA. Just wondering if there might be another model with this size, which I would prefer.sorten - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
This thing is a beast. For $2300 I would want USB-C or TB so I wouldn't need a second cable for the USB hub, and another cable for power.Vitor - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
No hdmi 2.1 is lame.DigitalFreak - Monday, February 24, 2020 - link
Nvidia's Gsync module doesn't support it.MrCommunistGen - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
I'm skeptical of a VA panel having fast enough refresh to meaningfully hit 200Hz -- particularly with darker transitions. I say "meaningfully" because having a ton of overdrive overshoot and inverse ghosting for the VA panel to hit 5ms response or faster across the board seems unlikely.I'd be happy to be proved wrong. My current and previous gaming monitors have both been VA, and I'd love for the technology to improve so that it has fewer compromises.
MrCommunistGen - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
Meant to also say:I know that enough of the 144Hz VA panels have trouble with response in darker transitions. Bumping the refresh rate by almost 40% is going to make "fast enough" response an even harder target to hit.
boeush - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
"fast enough" in what sense?Your retina (never mind your visual cortex, which is far slower) is physiologically incapable of processing illumination changes at frequencies past about 30 Hz [1]. Above that, any perceived 'motion blur' isn't going to be alleviated by your monitor - because it'll be a consequence of your own physiological limitations.
(I'm continually amazed at this apparent fresh generation of mutants with superhuman abilities, at whom these new hyper-fast monitors are apparently aimed... :P)
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
MrCommunistGen - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
I'm not qualified to debate the science in any real sense, but from my read of that article it doesn't mean what you're purporting it to mean.I guarantee that 60Hz is smoother than 30Hz and that 120Hz is smoother than 60Hz. After that, increases result in severely diminishing returns. My best guess is that this has something to do with the nature of "sample and hold" used in modern display panels. I'm not saying that everyone is going to *care* that 120Hz > 60Hz > 30Hz in terms of smoothness, but it is definitely visible by the physiocomputational human visual system.
Realistically though, the super high refresh rates (lets say anything beyond 120-144Hz) aren't for perceived smoothness, but rather the incremental improvements to display latency and input lag. In an ultra-competitive fast paced game, your monitor displaying an opponent's move a few ms sooner means you can begin reacting a few ms sooner. The higher game engine rate also results in your mouse/keyboard input being processed ever so slightly sooner. This won't necessarily turn a bad player into a good player, but at even moderate levels of competence it can lead to a competitive advantage.
Beaver M. - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
Did you just come from the 90s in your time machine to troll people with decade old BS?Awful - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Um, is this a troll? That article you reference says no such thing. It says there's a 30 millisecond delay between light hitting the retina and processing happening in your brain. There's nothing in there about how frequently you can process illumination changes. You're literally just making stuff up.There's lots of room for improvement in motion display at refresh rates way above what we currently get. See https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-j...
boeush - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
If you read more than the first two sentences, you'll have noticed references [4] and [5] in that article - which go directly to the point.surt - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Those references don't say what you think they say either.Here's a good starter for understanding the limits of human perception:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_thres...
boeush - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
And by the way, tricky photography techniques capturing display motion blur isn't reflective of what a ***human eye*** is actually capable - or in this case, objectively INCAPABLE, of perceiving in practice.Guspaz - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Anybody with a high refresh rate monitor can tell the difference between 60Hz and 144Hz, it's not subtle From 30Hz to 144Hz is night and day. There's been plenty of empirical evidence showing significant improvements in response times going from 60Hz to 144Hz, and much smaller improvements going from 144Hz to 240hz.All that said, in this case, the "fast enough" comes from the fact that some transitions on a VA panel will take far longer than the frame time. With a 200Hz panel, you've got only 5ms between frames, and a VA panel can't even update that fast, especially on dark transitions.
Hxx - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
in case you didnt know , mankind moved away from CRT displays. Time to replace yours.boeush - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Forget displays, just try to recall what it looks like when you see a fan or a wheel spinning fast, or what helicopter blades look like during flight. Past a certain rate of rotation, you can no longer perceive individual blades or wheel spokes: they all blend together. That's your retina and your brain just temporally averaging fast-changing inputs that they can't keep up with. Same thing happens when you're looking at fast-changing images on your monitor.Past a certain threshold, whatever motion blur comes from the panel itself, becomes insignificant next to the motion blur caused by your own visual perception and neural processing limitations. That threshold is well below the frequencies that these monitors are now reaching.
surt - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
You're misunderstanding the science, and how it applies to gaming. Is there a low threshold at which brain averaging begins? Yes. Does that mean that you can't improve the speed at which you can respond in game beyond that frequency? Very much _No_.Beaver M. - Sunday, February 23, 2020 - link
What kind of weird analogies are you using???A helicopter blade (on faster spinning rotors) equals to about 8 fps. The reason they are blurry is the speed they are moving, which is normally around 210 m/s. That is very fast and movement like that will always be blurry. Yet you still see every blade only 8 times a second on the same spot.
Walkeer - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
so, you are telling me I cannot see difference between 60hz and 144Hz? are you blind or what?boeush - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Yes, I'm telling you exactly that. Whatever difference you thought you were seeing, was nothing more than a type of placebo effect.surt - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
You are completely wrong on this. You should read up more on the topic.Beaver M. - Sunday, February 23, 2020 - link
Right. A placebo effect is that I can suddenly read moving text at 144Hz, and cant at 60 Hz.Dude... Your imaginations have been wtfpwned when that word was still relevant.
12345 - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Check out hardwareunboxed's reviews of the pg35vq and predator x35. They both use the same panel.Ninjawithagun - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
Too expensive. Reduce it to $1999 and we might actually be tempted to buy it. Lottery winners can disregard this recommendation 😉Cellar Door - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Even at 2K USD, this is way too much. AOC will have stiff competition.Dizoja86 - Friday, February 21, 2020 - link
This is honestly exactly the monitor I've been looking for. Unfortunately, it's also a solid four times more than the price I can afford.Guspaz - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Why a VA panel? It doesn't make any sense. The only advantages that VA panels have over IPS is in their contrast ratio and backlight uniformity. They tend to be around 3000:1 (as opposed to IPS at 1000:1), and don't suffer from "IPS glow".Except, as soon as you've got FALD, the contrast ratio is now primarily based on the local dimming performance, and IPS glow isn't an issue when you're controlling the backlight intensity.
So if FALD is already taking care of IPS's shortcomings, why VA, where you're going to get worse viewing angles and pixel response times?
Beaver M. - Sunday, February 23, 2020 - link
IPS glow is always an issue on IPS monitors. No matter if FALD or not.The real reason they use VA is that VA panels are very cheap. Even cheaper than TN. I terms of pricing for the manufacturer... that means $50 to $100 cheaper. But we know how overpriced gaming monitors really are and that $100 are easily inflated to $500.
R3MF - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
lovely, now tell me about the freesync version of the 353...?Walkeer - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
most if not all VA panels have severe ghosting and are not good for gaming, get TN for best response times and IPS 1ms for better colors ands blacksAhnilated - Saturday, February 22, 2020 - link
Curved monitor = instant fail. I don't like them, will never purchase one.Kvaern1 - Sunday, February 23, 2020 - link
Good for you.flyingpants265 - Sunday, February 23, 2020 - link
No point in downgrading from my 40".lilkwarrior - Monday, February 24, 2020 - link
Should have added HDMI 2.1 ports; other than that decent specs. Hard to be excited about monitors at the moment when Displayport 2.0 + HDR1600 monitors are around the corner