LG New 45" OLED Ultrawide Monitor

[Mr Latte]

Does HDMI 2.1 not support 3440 x 1400 upto 300Hz ?

Not my words below, taken from a website...

With 4,953,600 pixels, the 3440 x 1440 resolution pales in comparison to the 8,294,400 pixels of 4K, marking a 50.4% disparity or 3,340,800 pixels! Furthermore, while 4K adheres to a 16:9 aspect ratio, the 3440 x 1440 resolution proudly upholds its 21:9 widescreen essence.

Thats a lot less bandwidth needed but quite an illustration of how much below the pixel count, this aging resolution is, epically for large screen displays.

Id expect a higher res model, in 5K (5120x2160) to arrive in 2024 with DP2.1

 

[TeddyBearx]

It is 100% supported. The monitor officially supports full res, 240 Hz, 10-bit, RGB over HDMI 2.1.

It's barely a "hack". All you're basically doing with CRU is removing the TV resolutions (for console gamers). Everything is perfect.

sorry but will never use hdmi for gysnc and displayport nor CRU hack for a 1200€ monitor, so I guess it's not ideal for me.

I have bought the pg49wcd, asus, gsync compatible, no issue, perfect for me.
Nice to replace my triple 27". The price will probably drops later, but I wanted it now.

 

[Pär Öqvist]

We're talking here about a 45 inch screen. So even with 21:9 the pixel density is very low because it's spread over a very large screen, to low for my taste.

Inch is measured diagonally so its actually really small

 

[RasmusP]

Inch is measured diagonally so its actually really small

You say a 21:9, 45" monitor is "really small"?
I've attached the quotes that lead to your post to get everything bunched up.
A bit of math and specs:
This monitor is 17.9" in height (with frame) and has 1440 pixels vertically.
That's 80.4 ppi.
And 17.9" height is a bit higher than a 16:9, 32" monitor.
So.. "really small"? Only compared to TVs.

About pixels:
A 1080p, 27", 16:9 standard monitor is about 14.3" with frame, which is roughly a ppi of 76.

With 1440p, it's 101 ppi.

My 21:9, 34" has 3440x1440, which means about 101 ppi too. Same height as 16:9 27".

In summary, 45" 21:9 is a slightly bigger 32" monitor, but 21:9.
With 1440 pixels vertically, it's slightly better than standard 27", 1080p monitor and slightly worse than a 32", 1440p monitor.

However at that price point, many people would like at least 100 ppi.
So either 1600 pixels vertically like the 38" 21:9 LG monitors or straight to 2160.

It's only small in comparison to TVs, but has more height than all the 34" 21:9 monitors like mine and more height, than the 49" 32:9 monitors.

Dang, I hadn't noticed it was only 1440p instead of 4k until you mentioned it!

It's 21:9, not 16:9, so pixel density is about the same as 2160 on 4K.

We're talking here about a 45 inch screen. So even with 21:9 the pixel density is very low because it's spread over a very large screen, to low for my taste.

 

[Spinelli]

sorry but will never use hdmi for gysnc and displayport...

I'm not sure what you mean. You don't want to use HDMI and DP for G-Sync? What??

nor CRU hack for a 1200€ monitor, so I guess it's not ideal for me.

You don't have to use CRU. CRU is only if you want to use Nvidia DSR / DLDSR @ 240 Hz. You can use Nvidia DSR @ 144 Hz (or 120 Hz, I can't remember) without using the CRU tool.

The PG49WCD also has, both, HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4, like the 45GR95QE-B so they're the same in that regards. Besides DP 2.0 which is extremely rare, the combination of HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4 is what all highest-end monitors will offer. So I really don't know what you're trying to say.

I have bought the pg49wcd, asus, gsync compatible, no issue, perfect for me.
Nice to replace my triple 27". The price will probably drops later, but I wanted it now.

Again, I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating this. The LG 45GR95QE-B is 100% perfectly G-Sync compatible @ full 240 Hz with all of it's inputs: HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4 out-of-the-box by default.

Nice buy on the PG49WCD but I'm surprised you bought that considering you were originally looking at the 45GR95QE-B. They're 2 completely different monitors. The Asus is a 32:9 version of a tiny 27" monitor while the LG is a 21:9 of a huge 36"-37" monitor. Also, the Asus is only 144 Hz while the LG is 240 Hz. Underneath 180-200 ish Hz, you will not/barely see OLED motion clarity benefits compared to LCD due to sample-and-hold induced blur.

 

[Spinelli]

You say a 21:9, 45" monitor is "really small"?
I've attached the quotes that lead to your post to get everything bunched up.
A bit of math and specs:
This monitor is 17.9" in height (with frame) and has 1440 pixels vertically.
That's 80.4 ppi.
And 17.9" height is a bit higher than a 16:9, 32" monitor.
So.. "really small"? Only compared to TVs.

About pixels:
A 1080p, 27", 16:9 standard monitor is about 14.3" with frame, which is roughly a ppi of 76.

With 1440p, it's 101 ppi.

My 21:9, 34" has 3440x1440, which means about 101 ppi too. Same height as 16:9 27".

Your numbers are a bit off possibly because you used total lengths (incl. frame) instead of just the screen itself:
27" 1920x1080 = 81.5 PPI
45" 3440x1440 = 83 PPI
32" 2560x1440 = 92 PPI

In summary, 45" 21:9 is a slightly bigger 32" monitor, but 21:9.

45" 21:9 is a 36" monitor, but 21:9.
39" 21:9 is a 32" monitor, but 21:9.

Note: The numbers above are not 100% accurate because the vast majority of 32" monitors are actually 31.5" and the LG 45" monitor (and it's same-panel equivalents from Acer, Corsair, etc.) is actually somewhere between 44.5" and 45.9" (yes, a large discrepancy in measurements depending on the website and even different reviews from the same website).

P.S. If anyone has ever used 4x/8x Sparse Grid Supersampling + 4x/8x MSAA (or AMD's equivalent) - or used the resolution upscaling option in some games (eg. Battlefield) and set it to 200% - to get an incredible looking, very clean, "perfect" image of the entire scene, that's basically what DLDSR does. It's like a "pseudo 4k". It "magically" gets rid of all the typical stuff associated with a low PPI screen. It's stunning how it transforms the image of the LG. Of course native 4K would be the best but, believe me, everything looks incredibly sharp, detailed, and very "high-res" with DLDSR on the LG 45".

 

[RasmusP]

Your numbers are a bit off possibly because you used total lengths (incl. frame) instead of just the screen itself:
27" 1920x1080 = 81.5 PPI
45" 3440x1440 = 83 PPI
32" 2560x1440 = 92 PPI

Yep, I just used measurements from LG specifications of different monitor heights "without stand", since they are all a bit different, if not using the same panel.

45" 21:9 is a 36" monitor, but 21:9.
39" 21:9 is a 32" monitor, but 21:9.

Note: The numbers above are not 100% accurate because the vast majority of 32" monitors are actually 31.5" and the LG 45" monitor (and it's same-panel equivalents from Acer, Corsair, etc.) is actually somewhere between 44.5" and 45.9" (yes, a large discrepancy in measurements depending on the website and even different reviews from the same website).

Thanks for the 36" and 39" info. I didn't find any specs between 32" and 42" 16:9 monitors/TV and couldn't be bothered to calculate things.

I was trying to quickly underline my point of this monitor not being "really small" and the ppi being quite normal, but not great.

I know quite a few people using triple 32" 1080p, some using 32" 1440p and a few using around 50" 4k TVs.
But I don't know anyone using 27" 1440p or 32" 4k monitors for triples. They are just too expensive and need a too expensive GPU.

 

[Pär Öqvist]

You say a 21:9, 45" monitor is "really small"?
I've attached the quotes that lead to your post to get everything bunched up.
A bit of math and specs:
This monitor is 17.9" in height (with frame) and has 1440 pixels vertically.
That's 80.4 ppi.
And 17.9" height is a bit higher than a 16:9, 32" monitor.
So.. "really small"? Only compared to TVs.

About pixels:
A 1080p, 27", 16:9 standard monitor is about 14.3" with frame, which is roughly a ppi of 76.

With 1440p, it's 101 ppi.

My 21:9, 34" has 3440x1440, which means about 101 ppi too. Same height as 16:9 27".

In summary, 45" 21:9 is a slightly bigger 32" monitor, but 21:9.
With 1440 pixels vertically, it's slightly better than standard 27", 1080p monitor and slightly worse than a 32", 1440p monitor.

However at that price point, many people would like at least 100 ppi.
So either 1600 pixels vertically like the 38" 21:9 LG monitors or straight to 2160.

It's only small in comparison to TVs, but has more height than all the 34" 21:9 monitors like mine and more height, than the 49" 32:9 monitors.

I think so yes. Though in my setup 45" uw is probably the max practical size after that I need to waste more space by moving my cockpit further away from. It has the same width as my 48" 16:9 but a lot less height.

I sit 50 cm away I think I would really want at least 65" 16:9 before being overwhelmed. Height more an issue then the width so I would need 80" in 21:9 approx lol

 

[offroadracer516]

I love this monitor. Anyone talking down clearly hasn't had it on a rig.

 

[Spinelli]

I love this monitor. Anyone talking down clearly hasn't had it on a rig.

Did you try the brightness "fixrs" or at lesst the DLDSR "fix"? They elevate the monitor to a whole other level.

 

[Klingomucingo]

are you still enjoying your LG monitor @Spinelli?

 

[Spinelli]

are you still enjoying your LG monitor @Spinelli?

Absolutely. I use it almost every day (gaming/racing, working, general stuff, movies, etc.). Still the best single monitor available for gaming in my opinion along with the 2024 version (which is almost the same)...unless you only sim race - in that case, I think the the Samsung 32:9 57" is the best gaming monitor but that'll cost you like 2x-3x the price (2500-3000+ USD).

I still miss triples though for racing even if they're only 27" 16:9 monitors. I'd take 3x 27" monitors (let alone 3x 32") - easily - over either of the above single monitors and, on top of that, my triple 27s were 3D (which is debatable for movies but absolutely amazing for gaming).

If it wasn't for my Pimax VR headset - thanks to it's very large H.FOV and, of course, 3D vision - I would have kept my much bulkier and messier triple setup.

 

[Mr Latte]

While a decent screen, I'd challenge that "best single screen" factor....
Some reasons below because the Samsung 57" is unique.

Ive seen deals in the UK for the 57" model drop its price quite a bit.
I took the plunge with it at £1800, which is yes a lot for a monitor but its not just one monitor, it can be 2, it can be a nice sized 21:9 as well. So it can suit a wider range of usage scenarios.

These are some of its benefits. While it may not offer the full image quality of an OLED it certainly makes improvements over the previous models and can deliver a striking image.

What you dont see much about but I will say this again....

Simracing
When using the 57" combined with Tobii Head and Eye Tracking via Opentrack software (over 200 titles supported). It eliminates the need for triples, it gives you that VR perspective of placing you in the car, so you can look or lean wherever you want. You are in the car from a 32:9 perspective.

The extra FOV of triples or being able to see a car to each side, often used as a reason why triples is superior, is no longer a factor. Simply look to see what you want to see guys. Not only this, but now the GPU is only having to power 2x 4K screens, not 3. Congratulations, you just gained 1/3 extra performance for free.

Alternatively the user can drop down to the 5120x1440 resolution. So again, it will always have less pixels to push than a triple 27"/ 32" or triple 4K TV / Monitor solution . With such, it gives the user, better framerates and with the simple setup of installing / configuring one monitor compared to 3. As well as having no dumb looking plastic strips to cancel out borders neither (always disliked this).

All in, while it is not perfect.
My biggest gripes are the lack of picture control for each 16:9 if displaying dual sources.
PS5 with PC as an example is not ideal as you cant select image settings for each source.
Then again to better enjoy consoles, a TV is the best option.

What you get with the 57" is a sharp, high res and super high PPI with full 32:9 in your face at all times. Therefore even in productivity or multi-window scenarios the improved sharpness of text etc is better. Many reviews also highlighted this, that it is an excellent display for multi-tasking or with its dual 16:9 potential. Samsung also I believe, even improved the specs in the G9 over the G8 32" monitor. The G9 is not 2x 16:9 G8's built into one display as some expected.

Immersion
Here the 57" in bringing the extra physical height over the 49" models also improves things. It makes the 49" look small and I intend to install mine above the 57". Maybe it would have been even more impressive or better at 60" but its going to be a while before I consider upgrading or I think we see another big step.

I dont think the largest 21:9 monitors are wide enough to get the same benefits but using one with the Tobii would bring more enjoyment and level of immersion. Works in bright light, works in dark and requires no sensor placed to the users head.

It really is excellent but few people own the 57" with it being new and expensive to be able to express how good these two are together. I won't be going back to triples.

Did wish a company would have made a higher resolution model by now for the largescreen 21:9 format but some TVs now may also offer improved 21:9 ratios with 120Hz or higher? Also is the 32:9 format becoming more widespread too than the 21:9 models?

 

[Spinelli]

While a decent screen, I'd challenge that "best single screen" factor....
Some reasons below because the Samsung 57" is unique.

Ive seen deals in the UK for the 57" model drop its price quite a bit.
I took the plunge with it at £1800, which is yes a lot for a monitor but its not just one monitor, it can be 2, it can be a nice sized 21:9 as well. So it can suit a wider range of usage scenarios.

These are some of its benefits. While it may not offer the full image quality of an OLED it certainly makes improvements over the previous models and can deliver a striking image.

What you dont see much about but I will say this again....

Simracing
When using the 57" combined with Tobii Head and Eye Tracking via Opentrack software (over 200 titles supported). It eliminates the need for triples, it gives you that VR perspective of placing you in the car, so you can look or lean wherever you want. You are in the car from a 32:9 perspective.

The extra FOV of triples or being able to see a car to each side, often used as a reason why triples is superior, is no longer a factor. Simply look to see what you want to see guys. Not only this, but now the GPU is only having to power 2x 4K screens, not 3. Congratulations, you just gained 1/3 extra performance for free.

Alternatively the user can drop down to the 5120x1440 resolution. So again, it will always have less pixels to push than a triple 27"/ 32" or triple 4K TV / Monitor solution . With such, it gives the user, better framerates and with the simple setup of installing / configuring one monitor compared to 3. As well as having no dumb looking plastic strips to cancel out borders neither (always disliked this).

All in, while it is not perfect.
My biggest gripes are the lack of picture control for each 16:9 if displaying dual sources.
PS5 with PC as an example is not ideal as you cant select image settings for each source.
Then again to better enjoy consoles, a TV is the best option.

What you get with the 57" is a sharp, high res and super high PPI with full 32:9 in your face at all times. Therefore even in productivity or multi-window scenarios the improved sharpness of text etc is better. Many reviews also highlighted this, that it is an excellent display for multi-tasking or with its dual 16:9 potential. Samsung also I believe, even improved the specs in the G9 over the G8 32" monitor. The G9 is not 2x 16:9 G8's built into one display as some expected.

Immersion
Here the 57" in bringing the extra physical height over the 49" models also improves things. It makes the 49" look small and I intend to install mine above the 57". Maybe it would have been even more impressive or better at 60" but its going to be a while before I consider upgrading or I think we see another big step.

I dont think the largest 21:9 monitors are wide enough to get the same benefits but using one with the Tobii would bring more enjoyment and level of immersion. Works in bright light, works in dark and requires no sensor placed to the users head.

It really is excellent but few people own the 57" with it being new and expensive to be able to express how good these two are together. I won't be going back to triples.

That's why I said, if all you do is sim racing, then the 57" 32:9 is better simply due to more h.FOV...for everything else - gaming wise - the 45" 21:9 blows it out of the water in my opinion.

The PPI is a "nothing burger", trust me, the 45" 21:9 looks glorious, especially with DLDSR which basically gives every gamea "psuedo" 4K look. Think of DX9 games using SGSSA + MSAA @ 4x or 8x - same idea, ultra clean image, aliasing gone, shimmering gone, just pure bliss. Even without DLDSR, it's great. I just finished playing Battlefield 1 online MP. It was great.

I feel the PPI is just "copium" from non-owners / people trying to find reasons to justify not getting it.

The 57" 32:9 is a super ultra widescreen version of a 32" monitor - not small but not big - the 45" 21:9 is an ultra widescreen version of a 37" monitor. When the monitor is right in front of your face, the size difference between a 37" and a 32" monitor is probably bigger than going from a 27" to 32".

Switching the resolution down to non-native can be done on any monitor so that's irrelevant, plus, switching down resolutions always ruins image quality unless the resolution is exactly 2x2 (horizontal x vertical) less.

Even specs "on paper" (which I don't really care about), the Samsung only wins in PPI and h.FOV...well top-end brightness too but the LG can get extremely bright if you purchase a $7 LG service remote (easily found online) or get the 2024 model.

I had head-tracking with triples, let alone a single monitor. Head-tracking even on a 57" 32:9 is still not even close to the experience with triples - not even close. If I was going to use head-tracking, then even more reason to get the 45" 21:9 in my opinion.

On top of all that, doesn't the Samsung have major issues running 240 Hz at native res due to Nvidia not having DP 2.0 / 2.1 on their cards yet? 120 Hz has ridiculous amounts of motion blur. I've been using 144 Hz monitors since around 2014, the blur is a joke regardless of OLED, LCD, etc. unless the monitor is capable of strobing / black frame insertion but that's a completely different story.

Did wish a company would have made a higher resolution model by now for the largescreen 21:9 format but some TVs now may also offer improved 21:9 ratios with 120Hz or higher? Also is the 32:9 format becoming more widespread too than the 21:9 models?

120 Hz sucks, even on insanely quick 0.03 ms pixel response time OLEDs. The problem is the sample-and-hold method of refreshing the image which 99% of monitors and TVs have unfortunately been using since LCD came out and CRTs stopped being made. You can have 0.00000000001 ms response times and your image will still be a smear-fest if you're using 120 Hz with sample-and-hold. You need to get to around the 180 Hz region for the sample-and-hold "blur bottleneck" to start being visibly reduced. At 240 Hz sample-and-hold, combined with an ultra fast OLED, the visible motion blur is equal to a fast gaming LCD/ "LED" somewhere in the 360-480 Hz region.

I did tons of side-by-side tests with an ultra fast pixel response time 165 Hz 27" Asus TN panel, a 240 Hz 32" Samsung G7 VA panel, a 160 Hz 38" (24:10) LG IPS panel, and the 240 Hz 45" (21:9) LG OLED panel. Under 170-ish Hz, the image blur of the OLED was not much better than the other panels - because the refresh rate is the "bottleneck" regardless of actual pixel response times. However, at around 200 Hz, the refresh rate "bottleneck" really started to go away and the OLED clearly had better motion clarity. At 240 Hz, the OLED completely obliterated the others (even the Samsung VA also running 240 Hz). It was like night-and-day difference. The trackside signs and billboards actually stay sharp as they are panning across the screen with the 240 Hz OLED, lol.


P.S. In the end, both monitors suck because they're both only 2D.

 

[Mr Latte]

Heres the difference, I am giving my opinon of the G9 based on using it.
I dont think a G7 represents a G9 or way to form an ideal comparison.
People have to weigh up the pros and cons as to what matters to them but VR is not a replacement for a monitor and hassle free gaming. Convenience is also important dude and as you get older you want less hassle.

Plenty of people with triples will not even be getting 120Hz in some titles. Then again I do not see them saying, they need at least 180Hz. If you are saying PPI does not matter, then why do so many people want to move up to 4K in triples over 1440P? The main issue has been the demands on GPU but its kind of amusing how you keep defending the fact that a 45" display with 1440p is rather low in resolution.

With the higher PPI and increased resolution of the G9, you can place the monitor close, its additional physical height helps better fill the users view and it is like a windscreen. These are all benefits over its precedessors, just as people were excited when it moved up to 1440p based resolution, we cannot then say moving up to dual 4K is not an increase in quality or performance. Or one that does little or nothing to improve the users experience.

I have had triple projection in the past as well as triple monitors in various models.
People vary in their preferences, to me it also looks silly if a wing mirror of a car is the size of a 27" monitor. While it can add to initial wow factor (for me) it soon becomes odd looking, been their, done that.

Overview:
Why would I go out and buy or change to:

A) Triple 4K monitors
B) Triple 4K TVs
C) A 45" 21:9
D) VR

A) = More hassle, less framerates, with many monitor options likely less good of a panel with HDR, borders, additional stand, additional plugs. I do not feel I need a 3rd display or at much of a disadvantage with Tobii 5 in headtracking. If a Pimax 8K is dual 16:9, that is 32:9 in FOV and the 57" can pretty well fill your vision man. Honestly it is not an issue turning my head about 4" to let me see out the side of the car. I would rather have that and all the other benefits.

B) = Too large in scale, takes up too much room, larger screens, once again highlight the PPI factor with text or productivity. Exactly why we seen people wanting to move down from 48" OLEDs to 42" with desk setups. To some the screen scale will matter more, not though to everyone.

C) = I might gain more vertical height, but what use is that to me in sim racing? The OLED quality is nice too but 1440p is just not pleasing enough, (to me) on that size of a screen. I feel like I am going back in time to the Plasma days As a display I do not see it as good for sim racing, nor as good for dual screens and productivity. If someone does a lot of 21:9 gaming then yes here is, its main purpose. The G9 in this regard still offers a higher resolution @37" which I find more than fine with any 21:9 games.

D) I like VR, and its WOW factor for some quick playing but its too much hassle or still a comfort issue for longer sessions. I would jump into GT7 quicker (and have done) before I would use my Quest 3 on PC because it just makes VR so simple. Maybe I will try the Q3 on PC with newer GPU and if ACC2 supports it well.

People will differ, thats fine....