LG 39GX950B 39" 5120 x 2160 OLED 165hz Ultrawide

[Vega]

Vega did your order get delivered? I just got my monitor and it's pretty amazing. I'm trying to figure out all the settings but right off the bat it's much better with desktop text vs the 45GX950A-B.

No, how did you get yours so fast? When I ordered it said shipping May.

 

[StryderxX]

No, how did you get yours so fast? When I ordered it said shipping May.

No idea... I got a FEDEX notification that a shipment was out for delivery and it was the monitor. A few people on the r/ultrawidemasterrace forum on reddit also reported getting it early.

 

[TwistedMetalGear]

Does it feel tiny compared to the 45? My concern is loss of immersion coming from a larger scale display.

Also, any pink tinting on either side of the screen when viewing a full white image?

 

[StryderxX]

Does it feel tiny compared to the 45? My concern is loss of immersion coming from a larger scale display.

Also, any pink tinting on either side of the screen when viewing a full white image?

It's obviously smaller and you'll notice it right away but I got used to the new size pretty quickly. The improved punchy color and brightness in "Color 2" mode will convince you to keep using it. I was having issues with motion sickness using the 45" so this new monitor has been a great choice for me personally.

 

[Vega]

It's obviously smaller and you'll notice it right away but I got used to the new size pretty quickly. The improved punchy color and brightness in "Color 2" mode will convince you to keep using it. I was having issues with motion sickness using the 45" so this new monitor has been a great choice for me personally.

Ya that was my problem with the 45 too. I loved it but for FPS's the large size was too much as I've gotten older/motion sickness. I used to LOVE large displays but prefer something more in the middle like the 39. Hopefully my 39 ships this week!

 

[elvn]

Does it feel tiny compared to the 45? My concern is loss of immersion coming from a larger scale display.

Also, any pink tinting on either side of the screen when viewing a full white image?

Good question, but that can be exacerbated by sitting too close - when the fields where pixels are off axis on the sides are then larger areas. So, stating the viewing distance can be important when asking or answering questions like those. Who sees what and how bad it looks can be different depending how near they sit to a screen.

1000R/1000mm ~39" center of curvature, or the same image would apply to other curved screen's center of curvature and sitting much nearer than it :

. .
search results regarding pink tint on different LG panels

The pink/magenta tint on the side of many LG OLED panels (often WBE/EX panels) can appear more pronounced or larger when sitting closer. This is because viewing the screen from a closer, more off-angle position—especially the edges—exacerbates the color shifting of the panel coating and structural uniformity issues, making the tint more visible.

Why it Appears Worse Up Close:

• Off-Axis Viewing: When sitting near, the edges of the screen are viewed at a sharper angle compared to the center. These panels often exhibit slight color shifts (pink/green) at non-perpendicular angles.
• WBE Panel Characteristics: Many recent LG OLEDs use WBE panels, which are notorious for a subtle, inherent, and generally accepted "tinting" that is most apparent on white or light gray screens.
• Panel Uniformity: This is a, often called the "panel lottery," where some units show significant pinkish tinting on one side.

What You Can Do:

• Wait for Improvement: Some users report the tint slightly improves after 100+ hours of use, allowing the panel to "settle".
• Run Pixel Cleaning: Run the Pixel Refresher/Cleaning from the picture settings to improve uniformity.
• Check Return Policy: If the tint is distracting during normal content (not just white screens), it is considered a defect by many, and you may want to exchange the TV for a better panel.

I haven't had all of these, so just pasting the search result here. According to that, the 39gx850b-b is a tandem "evo" WBE panel.

WBE panels (OLED EX/Evo) are newer, more efficient LG Display OLED screens utilizing deuterium compounds, offering up to 20–30% better efficiency, higher potential peak brightness, better color, and reduced burn-in risk compared to older WBC panels. They are often identified by a pinkish tint.

Technology: Often branded as "OLED EX," these panels use deuterium to improve efficiency, allowing for higher brightness without increased risk of premature degradation.
Performance Advantage: WBE panels offer a narrower blue spectrum and better red/green separation, leading to better color accuracy and brightness.

LG C Series (C3/C4/C5): The current C series (C4, and expected C5) primarily uses WBE panels (often branded as OLED EX or EVO). While in previous years there was a mix of WBC and WBE, especially in the 42-inch model, modern C-series units generally feature the more efficient WBE panel.
.. LG 45GX950A-B (45" UltraGear): This monitor utilizes a high-performance W-OLED panel, specifically described as an MLA+ (Micro Lens Array) panel or, in some markets, marketed under the "evo" designation, which uses WBE materials to achieve higher brightness.
.. LG 39GX950B-B (39" UltraGear): This 2026 monitor is explicitly marketed with a 4th Gen Tandem W-OLED panel, which is an advanced iteration of the WOLED technology designed for superior brightness and longevity, effectively placing it in the same "evo"/WBE class of high-efficiency OLED materials.

These devices all use the newer generation WBE/W-OLED "evo" or "Tandem" panel technology designed for better brightness and longevity, rather than the older WBC panels.

 

[elvn]

Regarding the size discussion:

The 800R(adius) / 800mm / ~ 32 inch center of curvature of the 45gx950a as your optimal viewing distance might on paper seem nearer than the 1500R of the 39" one, since 1500R(adius) = 1500mm = ~ 59 inches. However, 1500R isn't curved much at all really, as it is a short, shallow arc of a ~ 120 inch diameter circle. Considering that, more realistically I'd go by the screen size as it it was a flat screen.

I think the 39" 1500R is probably more like a 40" 4k screen's width if there was such a thing. The whole screen width if it were 4k 16:9 for that central viewing angle scenario would be around 32" at 60 deg width (to 40" at 50 deg) away, but more accurate to how people would use them would be where you would be keeping the uw side portions outside of the middle 4k portion of the screen into your periphery, so that viewing distance scenario would be closer than that and would probably fit normal 24" desks distances.

. . . .

If you placed the 39gx950b screen where the 4k central portion was 60 deg to your perspective, the you would have around 80 deg overall viewing angle width with the uw "wings" portions of the screen on each end. That would put 10 deg worth of the screen in each "wing" on each end of the screen, 10/60/10, and would end up being 22" view distance and 64 PPD. If you were to sit closer, the 4k portion of the screen would then be being pushed into the periphery at that point, the PPD would be lower, and the screen would span farther into your periphery.

640px / 3840px / 640px
10deg / 60deg / 10 deg

. . . . . .

Ya that was my problem with the 45 too. I loved it but for FPS's the large size was too much as I've gotten older/motion sickness. I used to LOVE large displays but prefer something more in the middle like the 39. Hopefully my 39 ships this week!

I didn't use the 45gx950a for more than a week and a half and a lot of that was trying to squeeze a better picture quality out of it before I ended up returning it. However I loved the format and curvature. I could see where it could be perceived as a quasi-"VR" effect to a degree, though VR uses stereoscopic vision of 2 screens with a different perspective to each eye, which results in a 3D "holographic" display of objects and environments on top of that field of view effect. Still, it could be enough where it might give some people nausea over time. Some people over time adapt to VR and get their "VR sea legs", by slowly increasing their time using VR (starting out with shorter sessions) - but some have more difficulty than others. If hitting a "nausea wall", and this was the only screen you were using for gaming so were trying to just brute force it without breaks and increasing your exposure over time, or just didn't want to bother with any of that, I could see where that wouldn't work out.

The view distance of the gx950a might also come into play. I viewed it from the center of curvature, 32" away, but that was still filling my field of view a lot. I think the screen was spanning about 14 degrees (total) outside of my central 60 deg viewing angle, so it might have been something like 7/60/7. It did have a strong immersion effect due to the nature of the curve, but I liked that. For reference since I mentioned it - I've used VR in the past, but it was several years ago for only about 1.5 years.

.

 

[Blade-Runner]

View: https://youtu.be/-doSos8XtAk

 

[Blade-Runner]

View: https://youtu.be/Y-KS176nyi4

 

[Vega]

Just got this baby in. Definitely prefer it over the 45". More reasonable size for the desk and the brightness is the first OLED monitor to not leave me wanting. The HDR is pretty epic. The monitor specs besides refresh rate are end-game. With frame gen basically being lag free now; a 240 Hz version of this monitor would be epic.

 

[Drags]

Reviews now live from TFTCentral:


View: https://youtu.be/U1Upy7jhRHc?si=8KBhCLjgC4ktF43J

Also their full written review (early access only for now): https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg-ultragear-evo-39gx950b

And Monitors Unboxed


View: https://youtu.be/9JFDLilNhLc?si=A4EIR49SHGQbDFXK

 

[xDiVolatilX]

Starting to wonder if the 1440p version of this screen is the better buy at less than half the price and faster 240hz speed since for gaming the speed is arguably (for me) more important than the ultra high resolution which is going to be knocked down by DLSS anyway.

 

[StryderxX]

Starting to wonder if the 1440p version of this screen is the better buy at less than half the price and faster 240hz speed since for gaming the speed is arguably (for me) more important than the ultra high resolution which is going to be knocked down by DLSS anyway.

The PPI for that display is about 95. Not good for text based work.

 

[elvn]

It's too bad they didn't use this panel tech in the 45gx950a. That screen did a weird hdr lift to hit peak brightness and was a worse overall panel (plus the matte ag on top flattening the blacks didn't help).

Search result aligns with my experience pretty much :

. . .

"
The "normal" HDR range (mid-tones and full-screen brightness) is generally dimmer on the LG UltraGear OLED 45GX950 compared to the 39GX950B
.
The RTINGS score of 7.Xfor HDR brightness on the 45GX950A reflects its struggle to sustain high brightness across large areas, a common trait of older WOLED panels. In contrast, the 39GX950B utilizes a newer 4th Gen Tandem OLED panel specifically engineered to address these brightness limitations.

HDR Brightness Comparison

• Technology Difference: The 39GX950B uses "Tandem OLED" technology, which stacks two organic light-emitting layers to achieve higher sustained brightness and better efficiency. The
  45GX950A uses a more traditional WOLED structure that is more prone to aggressive Automatic Brightness Limiting (ABL).
• Peak vs. Sustained Brightness:
  • LG 39GX950B
    : Can reach a peak brightness of 1,500 nits in small highlights and maintains at least 300 nits of full-screen brightness.
  • LG 45GX950A
    : While it can hit impressive peaks for tiny highlights, it is reported to be significantly dimmer in "normal" scenes. Some users find its HDR curve "distorted," making the overall image look dull compared to peak moments.
• SDR Comparison: The difference is also noticeable in standard content. The 39GX950B is rated for approximately 200 cd/m² more brightness than the 45-inch model in typical use cases.

"
. . .

I'm sticking with larger screens and will probably end up with a 48" C6 (which is reportedly using a tandem stack panel, "brightness boost" chip/tech, with some high HDR results) once the price dips a bit after the release price point. Hopefully they'll do a bigger 21:9 one again in the next few years but without the PQ compromise.

. .

 

[elvn]

Starting to wonder if the 1440p version of this screen is the better buy at less than half the price and faster 240hz speed since for gaming the speed is arguably (for me) more important than the ultra high resolution which is going to be knocked down by DLSS anyway.

That's not really how DLSS (+FG) works.

Nothing wrong with setting up a 1440 high based screen and gpu scenario, it could be a better buy for some people for sure.. but there is better available. I disagree with the "ultra high resolution which is going to be knocked down by DLSS anyway" statement which is suggesting that the results on the 1440p native screen would be just as good as a 4k ~ 2160px high based screen across the board no matter what gpu you had "because DLSS is upscaling from 1440p anyway".

==================

"
The end result of upscaling from 1440p to 4K using DLSS on a 4K screen typically provides higher detail and superior image quality compared to native 1440p on a 1440p screen.
While it sounds counterintuitive to prefer an upscaled image over a "native" one, several factors contribute to this:

1. Superior Anti-Aliasing
Modern games rely heavily on Temporal Anti-Aliasing (TAA) to smooth out jagged edges. Standard TAA often results in significant blurring, especially in motion. DLSS uses AI-driven temporal reconstruction that is much more effective at retaining fine details while providing a cleaner, more stable image than native 1440p with TAA.

2. High Internal Data Resolution
When you use DLSS Quality mode to target a 4K output, the game is rendered internally at 1440p.

• 4K DLSS Quality: Internal 1440p reconstructed into 4K pixels.
• Native 1440p: Internal 1440p displayed on 1440p pixels.
  Because the DLSS algorithm has more total pixels at the final output stage (8.3 million for 4K vs. 3.7 million for 1440p), it can reconstruct and represent much finer details, such as distant thin lines or foliage, more accurately than a native 1440p display can.

3. Pixel Density Advantages
A 4K monitor naturally has a much higher Pixels Per Inch (PPI) than a 1440p monitor of the same size. This higher physical resolution helps eliminate "pixel crawl" and creates a smoother, more "printed" look to the image that native 1440p cannot match.

"

===================

Other comment (long) :

Even on the DLSS available from 2 years ago, people were saying this, which, (ignoring the effect of DLAA or higher resolutions on frame rates) sounds right. I haven't used a 1440p screen for gaming in a long time now though, personally.

"4K DLAA > 4k native > 4k DLSS quality > 1440p DLAA > 1440p native > 1440p DLSS quality.... and so on. "

. . .

"Can't get blood from a stone"

Generally, I think that the higher the native frame rate and - the higher the base resolution upscaled from and the native rez upscaled to - the less difference there will be between frames to predict and the finer the detail differences that are being affected...

The less % difference in the scene between frames, the higher the % accuracy. The tinier the pixels and the faster the frame rate, the less obvious any articafts/issues (if any) will be, too, (tinier and more brief).



For sure 165hz - 240hz and higher can be gpu dependent for higher quality DLSS + FG and higher rez screens (and more-so if using extreme ray tracing settings, etc) - so it probably depends on what you are working with and what you are playing (and maybe whether you insist on using raytracing in demanding games).

To counter the FPS drop from ray tracing, NVIDIA heavily relies on DLSS 4 Multi-Frame Generation (MFG).

• Massive Boosts: Enabling DLSS 4 can more than double your visible frame rate in supported games.
• Trade-offs: While it makes the game look much smoother, it can increase input latency, meaning the game might feel slightly less responsive than its high FPS count suggests.

If you plan on playing at 4K with Path Tracing (the most advanced form of ray tracing), the RTX 5090 is a much safer bet because its 32GB of VRAM prevents the massive stutters and crashes that can happen on the 5080's 16GB

The higher your native frame rate minimum, the lower your effective input lag will be when using DLSS + (multi) FG, too. For example, a native floor of 100fps might be 10ms, which is decent and comparable to some 120Hz gaming tvs - while a native 80fps average's floor could be 65fps (15.4ms) or worse , and native frame rate graphs bottoming out lower than 80fps ("I'm getting 60fps in cyberpunk" might be a floor of 45fps(22ms) or worse). They are trying to make reflex work better to reduce lag by minimizing the reder queue, but last I looked it was also focusing development on prediciton for side to side horizontal plane panning games like mall-arena shooters (sort-of like how VR does projection/warp based on the headset movement).

. . .

Both higher native frame rates and higher resolution screens significantly improve the accuracy and stability of DLSS Multi Frame Generation.

The Role of Native Frame Rate
Higher native frame rates provide more data points for the AI to analyze, leading to several key improvements:

• Reduced Prediction Errors: Frame Generation works by predicting the next frame based on consecutive rendered frames. At lower frame rates, the visual "gap" between frames is larger, forcing the AI to guess more data, which often results in noticeable artifacts like ghosting or shimmering.
• Smoother Motion: Experts recommend a base frame rate of at least 60 to 90 FPS for a smooth experience; using Multi Frame Generation at very low base rates (e.g., 30 FPS) can cause "quicksand-like" input latency and heavy artifacting.
• Faster Response: While Frame Generation adds latency, starting with a high native frame rate helps minimize the overall impact on responsiveness.

The Role of Resolution
Resolution acts as the "source quality" for the AI reconstruction:

• Higher Information Density: At 4K, the algorithm has significantly more pixel data to work with than at 1080p. This leads to sharper textures and cleaner edges in generated frames because the "starting" image is closer to the final output.
• Lower Artifact Perception: Artifacts like "flickering" or "bubbling" are much more visible at low resolutions. Feeding a high-resolution image into the AI reconstruction engine contributes more to final image quality and decreased artifacts than just increasing the frame rate alone.
• Advanced AI Models: Newer versions like DLSS 4.5 utilize a second-gen transformer model specifically trained to handle complex spatial relationships at high resolutions, enabling up to 6x multipliers (e.g., 4K 240Hz) with improved temporal stability.

. .

A higher native frame rate is the most effective way to reduce input lag when using DLSS Multi-Frame Generation (MFG).
While Frame Generation (FG) makes motion look smoother, it fundamentally adds latency because the GPU must hold and delay "real" frames to interpolate "fake" ones between them. The higher your native (base) frame rate, the less time the system has to wait between those real frames, which directly lowers the total delay you feel.

How Base Frame Rate Affects Latency

• Reduced Frame Buffer Delay: If your base frame rate is low (e.g., 30 FPS), each "real" frame stays in the buffer for a long time (~33ms) while the AI generates the extra frames, making inputs feel sluggish. At higher base rates (e.g., 60–100 FPS), this buffer delay is significantly shorter.
  
  
• The "Feel" vs. "Look" Gap: When using MFG multipliers like 4x or 6x, you might see 240+ FPS, but the game's responsiveness is still dictated by the much lower base frame rate. If your base rate is too low, the disconnect between fluid visuals and laggy controls becomes more noticeable.
  
  
• Reflex Mitigation: DLSS FG automatically enables NVIDIA Reflex, which works to minimize the "render queue" and synchronize the CPU/GPU to offset some of the added FG latency. However, Reflex cannot entirely eliminate the delay caused by a very low base frame rate.

 

[MistaSparkul]

It's too bad they didn't use this panel tech in the 45gx950a. That screen did a weird hdr lift to hit peak brightness and was a worse overall panel (plus the matte ag on top flattening the blacks didn't help).

This screen does the same thing. Setting peak brightness to high in order to reach 1300 nits will lift the entire EOTF, although it affects dark scenes much more than it affects bright scenes. Setting peak brightness to low is pretty accurate but caps peak brightness to around 800 nits.

 

[Blade-Runner]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JFDLilNhLc

 

[xDiVolatilX]

That's not really how DLSS (+FG) works.

Nothing wrong with setting up a 1440 high based screen and gpu scenario, it could be a better buy for some people for sure.. but there is better available. I disagree with the "ultra high resolution which is going to be knocked down by DLSS anyway" statement which is suggesting that the results on the 1440p native screen would be just as good as a 4k ~ 2160px high based screen across the board no matter what gpu you had "because DLSS is upscaling from 1440p anyway".

==================

"
The end result of upscaling from 1440p to 4K using DLSS on a 4K screen typically provides higher detail and superior image quality compared to native 1440p on a 1440p screen.
While it sounds counterintuitive to prefer an upscaled image over a "native" one, several factors contribute to this:

1. Superior Anti-Aliasing
Modern games rely heavily on Temporal Anti-Aliasing (TAA) to smooth out jagged edges. Standard TAA often results in significant blurring, especially in motion. DLSS uses AI-driven temporal reconstruction that is much more effective at retaining fine details while providing a cleaner, more stable image than native 1440p with TAA.

2. High Internal Data Resolution
When you use DLSS Quality mode to target a 4K output, the game is rendered internally at 1440p.

• 4K DLSS Quality: Internal 1440p reconstructed into 4K pixels.
• Native 1440p: Internal 1440p displayed on 1440p pixels.
  Because the DLSS algorithm has more total pixels at the final output stage (8.3 million for 4K vs. 3.7 million for 1440p), it can reconstruct and represent much finer details, such as distant thin lines or foliage, more accurately than a native 1440p display can.

3. Pixel Density Advantages
A 4K monitor naturally has a much higher Pixels Per Inch (PPI) than a 1440p monitor of the same size. This higher physical resolution helps eliminate "pixel crawl" and creates a smoother, more "printed" look to the image that native 1440p cannot match.

"

===================

Other comment (long) :

Oh yeah for sure. I tried it on my 4k/1080p tandem monitor and it looks much better with the higher resolution even on dlss ultra performance vs hd on native. I don't doubt 1440p doesn't look as good as 5k. For less than half the price if you're not picky about 5k resolution the 1440p version is good value and looks good imo for more performance because it's motion clarity is faster.

 

[Niner]

Starting to wonder if the 1440p version of this screen is the better buy at less than half the price and faster 240hz speed since for gaming the speed is arguably (for me) more important than the ultra high resolution which is going to be knocked down by DLSS anyway.

I have both 45” displays. The 1440P and the 5K version. I actually prefer playing games on the 1440P version tbh.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Alienware version coming at some point: https://tftcentral.co.uk/news/dell-expected-to-launch-the-alienware-aw3926qw-what-we-know-so-far

No idea if glossy or matte.

 

[Vega]

So I decided to return it. I absolutely love everything about it besides the refresh rate. I got so used to 4K/240 Hz OLED that 165 Hz is hard to go back to. Also the fact while running ultra low input lag mode, FPS gets limited below max refresh. So 240 Hz gets limited to 225 FPS/Hz which is tolerable, but 165 Hz gets limited to 156 Hz/FPS which is quite annoying for first person shooters. Especially now in the days of near input-lag less frame generation this refresh rate doesn't cut it anymore.

If they release a 240 Hz version like they had on their roadmap; that's an instant buy.

 

[rhcliff]

So I decided to return it. I absolutely love everything about it besides the refresh rate. I got so used to 4K/240 Hz OLED that 165 Hz is hard to go back to. Also the fact while running ultra low input lag mode, FPS gets limited below max refresh. So 240 Hz gets limited to 225 FPS/Hz which is tolerable, but 165 Hz gets limited to 156 Hz/FPS which is quite annoying for first person shooters. Especially now in the days of near input-lag less frame generation this refresh rate doesn't cut it anymore.

If they release a 240 Hz version like they had on their roadmap; that's an instant buy.

I agree 100 percent. 165HZ is too low if you're using a 4080 and above GPU.

I have a 4K/240 32" OLED but switched to a C4 42" which tops out at 144hz. The size and higher HDR brightness were great but the 144HZ is too restrictive for my 5090. Even without frame-gen, the 5090 can often go much higher than 144HZ. Nvidia Reflex actually doesn't play nice with such a low refresh rate. There would be occasional stuttering when the framerate would go above 144hz even with V-Sync on.

For heavy PT games, even 2X frame-gen didn't work great with only 144hz. Not only is the base framerate limited to 69 fps since reflex caps refresh at 138, there's stuttering/tearing whenever the framerate goes above that. 3X and above MFG don't work great because now the base framerate is only around 40FPS which creates significantly more lag and artifacts.

After almost a year of the C4, I switched back to the 240hz monitor. It took a few days to adjust to the much smaller size. HDR also had a little less oomph. But the clarity was so much better. I tried RE Requiem with 3X MFG and max settings and it ran perfectly. The whole game was so much crisper in motion and gameplay felt noticeably more responsive. With a high tier Nvidia GPU, you really aren't taking full advantage of it with anything less than a 240hz display.

 

[MistaSparkul]

I agree 100 percent. 165HZ is too low if you're using a 4080 and above GPU.

I have a 4K/240 32" OLED but switched to a C4 42" which tops out at 144hz. The size and higher HDR brightness were great but the 144HZ is too restrictive for my 5090. Even without frame-gen, the 5090 can often go much higher than 144HZ. Nvidia Reflex actually doesn't play nice with such a low refresh rate. There would be occasional stuttering when the framerate would go above 144hz even with V-Sync on.

For heavy PT games, even 2X frame-gen didn't work great with only 144hz. Not only is the base framerate limited to 69 fps since reflex caps refresh at 138, there's stuttering/tearing whenever the framerate goes above that. 3X and above MFG don't work great because now the base framerate is only around 40FPS which creates significantly more lag and artifacts.

After almost a year of the C4, I switched back to the 240hz monitor. It took a few days to adjust to the much smaller size. HDR also had a little less oomph. But the clarity was so much better. I tried RE Requiem with 3X MFG and max settings and it ran perfectly. The whole game was so much crisper in motion and gameplay felt noticeably more responsive. With a high tier Nvidia GPU, you really aren't taking full advantage of it with anything less than a 240hz display.

I disagree. I have a 5090 and absolutely do not like anything above 2x FG due to obvious artifacts and it simply feeling more "off" playing at 240fps with a real frame rate latency of 80fps or under. 165Hz is what I can feasibly target with a base frame rate of 80 before 2x FG and there is less artifacts and the latency does not feel as off. 240Hz would mean I need to have a base fps of 120 with 2x FG and even a 5090 just can't do that with everything cranked up so I would say even without 240Hz I am still taking full advantage of my 5090. Besides, if I wanted to be an ultra sweat on FPS games then I would just get a 500+Hz monitor why stop at 240.

 

[Vega]

Yup, 240 Hz is the minimum I'm sticking to for any future displays. Even if I have to turn down some graphics.

And NVIDIA Reflex with DLSS frame generation is really quite something at keeping input lag down:

https://hothardware.com/news/nvidia-dlss-45-dynamic-mfg-tested

 

[undertaker2k8]

Will wait for the AW version to test out, though a QD-OLED will be much preferred, I know Tandem this and that but QD-OLED uniformity alone is a big reason to get that over LG products even if everything else were the same.

 

[MajorMullet]

I picked one of these up, ordered directly from LG. I used the chat feature and asked if they had any specials at the moment and they gave me a 10% off coupon so that was nice.

It has a fan inside which I was apprehensive about. I bought an Alienware monitor with a fan years ago and it was very noticeable. I haven't used it in a totally quiet room yet but with the Alienware I could hear it with the same ambient noise level I'm at right now so definitely better.

For the matte coating, I have an LG 38" 1600p model (38WN95C) that I use for work and I find anti glare coating better noticeable on it. It doesn't bother me at all in games but I do notice some sparkle in normal desktop use with the OLED. My monitor is right next to a window though so it is nice not looking into a mirror. It should also be a bit easier to clean.

I went from an LG 42 C2 to a 32" 240hz MSI MGP321URX QD-OLED and now this ultrawide. IMO this is the best combination of form factors out of the three. Big enough to fill your vision with great picture quality and pixel density. I played a decent amount of BF6 over the weekend and it really looks great.