What's a good upgrade from my 45" LG Ultragear 1440p to something newer and better?

I've had my LG 45" Ultragear 3440 X 1440 OLED monitor since they came out a couple years ago, I mostly use my PC for gaming, web surfing, and YouTube stuff. Games i play World of Warcraft, Diablo IV, POE2, BF6, Doom games, and some older titles like Quake 2, or older shooters.

Anyways this 45" LG has been GREAT as far as immersion goes, the large size and extreme curve are incredible for gaming, especially shooters, this display truly sucks you into the game world.

But the 3440 X 1440 res just plain sucks for this size of a monitor, the PPI blows, especially for web browsing and regular computer work stuff. Also the OLED panel doesn't seem near as good as my older Alienware AW3423DW, which I gave to my daughter, and her PC is near mine, and the image quality on the AW is noticeably better than the LG's, the brightness, the deep vibrancy, games just look much sharper and clearer with amazing colors on that Alienware.

I'm aware of the newer 5k2k monitors out now from both LG in 45" and 39" and Alienware also has a 39" version coming out, but the one negatives I read about is the 165hz refresh rate kinda sucks, and that huge resolution is a beast to run smoothly. 5120 X 2160 res is crazy to run games on, even my system which is pretty good, probably can't run games natively at that, and get high frame rates.

I do like these new 5th gen panels on the Asus and MSI 34" Ultrawide OLED monitors, read the colors and high 360hz refresh rate are amazing, but dropping down to 34" size is a lot smaller, and I do like larger displays.

Or go to like a 4k LG 42" or 48" C6?

What am I looking for? A batter OLED panel that's more vibrant with punchier colors and brighter than my current display. A higher resolution but not 5K 2K. I'm just scared of that extreme res.

then stay with what you have.
but i say 48" c6, yes you might have to lower settings

View: https://youtu.be/VeA6A6gsuyo?is=HVym4fm2Nf3GsVnE

A later firmware supposed made this a little better, but if you got the 45gx950a, I found out some time after I had returned it that you had to keep the brightness down some, otherwise it would dim the typical scene / normal scene brightness. People outline the way to avoid this as being dropping high brightness mode to low or off (avoiding the HDR lift/stretch), and setting the peak to 600 nit.

The aw3926qw 's ABL is also a bit less aggressive when it's peaks are clamped more (it has 3 different brightness modes). Both of the screen's dimming are rated as pretty aggressive, unfortunately.

The quotes below are about the LG 45gx950a:

. .

Cranking the master brightness or using certain peak brightness combinations triggers aggressive internal algorithms that actually crush your overall ambient scene light. This occurs because the LG 45GX950A utilizes aggressive Automatic Brightness Limiter (ABL) curves and built-in software mechanics designed to prevent overheating and panel burn-in.
When you push the display too hard, it compensates by dimming the rest of the image to handle the massive power load.

Click to expand...

Why This Happens on the 45GX950A

• The High Mode Trap: Setting Peak Brightness to High scales the entire Electro-Optical Transfer Function (EOTF) curve upward to chase small 1,300-nit highlights. This stretches the lower-end black depth and forces the monitor to hit its aggregate power limits much faster, resulting in a sudden drop in full-screen average picture level (APL).
• The "Smart Energy Saving" Conflict: LG ships this monitor with a global eco-setting that forces dynamic, stepped contrast shifts whenever large bright elements appear on the screen.
• Dynamic Tone Mapping Oversaturation: Leaving tone mapping on "Active" forces the monitor to constantly re-evaluate frame data, frequently dropping base brightness to make highlight elements "pop" more artificially.

Click to expand...

Step-by-Step Calibration to Stabilize Brightness
To get a bright, punchy, and consistently stable image without the monitor constantly dimming itself, adjust your On-Screen Display (OSD) settings to the following baseline profiles:

1. Disable the Automated Dimming Triggers

• Smart Energy Saving: Set to OFF. This is the most crucial step to stop rapid brightness pulsing and shifting.
• OLED Care: Ensure Screen Move is enabled, but turn off any localized auto-dimming features if you use split windows for desktop work.

2. Calibrate for Balanced HDR (Gamer 1 Profile)
Instead of maxing out every slider, back the baseline limits off slightly to allow room for the panel to breath without hitting the ABL ceiling:

• Game Mode: Gamer 1
• Brightness: 90 (Dropping this slightly below 100 prevents the panel from forcing aggressive full-screen protection drops)
• Contrast: 70
• Peak Brightness: Low or Off for an accurate EOTF tracking curve; use High only if you have updated to the latest 3.07+ firmware, which features a smoothed highlight transition that mitigates full-image dimming.
• Dynamic Tone Mapping: OFF (Let Windows or your PC game handle the tone mapping natively via HGiG).
• Black Stabilizer: Set to 35 – 40 (Dropping this to 20 or lower will completely crush your dark gray steps into pure black).

3. Recalibrate Windows HDR Source Output
Because the 45GX950A handles its peak highlights using internal tone-mapping curves, you need to tell Windows exactly where the clip point sits to avoid sending a blown-out signal:

1. Open the Microsoft Store and download the official Windows HDR Calibration Tool.
2. Set the Minimum Luminance to 0.
3. Set the Maximum Luminance and Full Frame Luminance sliders to exactly 600 nits (visually, the app may let you scale higher, but clamping it to 600 nits aligns perfectly with the monitor's natural unlifted clipping boundary).

Click to expand...

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


Note that I ran mine in HDR mode when I had it, and while I was aware the high brightness mode was doing a HDR lift/stretch, I didn't realize that setting windows HDR calibration, game hdr calibration, and the peak brightness setting of the screen was going to dim the normal scene range - but I saw it's effect and combined with the matte screen making things look a little flat on top of that, it made me return it. Had I realized the clamp limits of the screen I might have tried that. As it was, the SDR was performing better than the HDR which was unacceptable.


Per Reddit: ThriceAlmighty on ultrawidemasterrace (6months ago) https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/comments/1r4z9jp/comment/o5fb2ho/

Huge improvements! Shout out to Gemini Pro. Many issues I've run into (or complaints I have) should be fixed. Excited to update mine!
The firmware update for the LG 45GX950A (specifically version 3.07) primarily targets the aggressive Automatic Brightness Limiter (ABL) and enhances color stability. While LG's official notes are notoriously vague, user data and technical testing of this specific version reveal several key improvements.

Click to expand...

Summary of Updates

• Reduced ABL Impact: Adjusts the "weird darkening" behavior where the screen would dim significantly when a small bright window was opened.
• Color Temperature Stability: Fixes a bug where color temperature would shift (becoming noticeably cooler or warmer) as the overall screen brightness changed.
• VRR Flicker Mitigation: Improvements to G-Sync/FreeSync stability, particularly in low-frame-rate scenarios where OLED monitors often struggle with "gamma flicker."
• OSD & Input Speed: Enhanced responsiveness of the on-screen display and slight optimizations in the monitor's "wake-from-sleep" wake time. Detailed Technical Improvements

The 45GX950A is a "5K2K" powerhouse, but early firmware was plagued by an overly cautious safety protocol regarding OLED burn-in, which manifested as distracting brightness fluctuations. This 3.07 update is the "quality of life" patch many were waiting for to make it a viable productivity tool alongside gaming.

Click to expand...

Brightness & Dimming (ABL) The most significant change in 3.07 is the refinement of the Automatic Brightness Limiter (ABL). Previously, if you were in Dark Mode and opened a white browser window, the rest of the screen would aggressively dim to compensate for the power draw/heat.

• The Change: The transition is now smoother and less "stepped." Users report that the monitor maintains a higher sustained brightness level in SDR mode when "Peak Brightness" is set to High.
• The Result: White backgrounds are more stable, and the "pulsing" effect during fast-paced HDR scenes is reduced.

Color Accuracy & Tracking A known issue with the initial firmware was color drift. As the monitor reached higher luminance levels, the white point would shift toward blue.

• The Change: Version 3.07 includes a recalibrated EOTF (Electro-Optical Transfer Function) curve. This ensures that the color temperature remains consistent (targeting 6500K) regardless of whether the screen is at 10% or 100% brightness.

VRR & Flicker Fixes Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) flicker is common on OLED panels when frame rates fluctuate (especially between 40-80 FPS).

• The Change: This update optimizes the sub-pixel voltage delivery during refresh rate shifts.
• The Result: While it doesn't eliminate OLED flicker entirely (which is a hardware characteristic), it significantly reduces the "strobe" effect seen in dark loading screens or low-FPS menus in titles like Starfield or Cyberpunk 2077.

LG Switch App & "Monitor Software Update" The version numbers shown in your screenshot (3.07, 4.23.16, 2.04) represent the three-part handshake between the monitor's core firmware, the scalar, and the USB controller.

• Stability: This specific version fixes a "loop" bug where the LG Switch app would repeatedly claim an update was available even after a successful install. Next Steps for You
• Re-plug the USB: After the update, LG recommends power-cycling the monitor (unplug from the wall for 30 seconds) to ensure the new MCU (version 2.04) settings initialize properly.
• Check Black Stabilizer: Some users found that this update reset the Black Stabilizer. For the best "true black" OLED experience on the 45GX950A, ensure this is set between 45 and 55. Values below 40 may crush shadow detail, while values above 60 will wash out the blacks.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the details elvn, appreciated.

Right now I'm sort of torn between the newer Asus 34" 5th gen OLED 360hz ( 3440 X 1440 ) monitor, which I've read looks AMAZING with the most beautiful colors and high refresh rate, plus that resolution is easy to run games on. But 34 inch is a bit small to me now.

Or the LG 39" 5k2k which is a 4th gen OLED, that high res I would imagine looks very sharp and crisp and games probably look super detailed too, but...5k2k YIKES that's a tall order and brutal resolution to game at and still get good frames per second.

My current monitor the 45" Ultragear 45GR95QE-B from 2023 I think uses a gen 1 OLED panel? I'm mainly looking for a brighter more vibrant colorful display, that's detailed and sharp to the eye. My current 45GR95QE-B seemed more dim and muted in colors even compared to the older AW3423DW which had AMAZING colors and super deep blacks back then.

Microcenter had an open box of the new Asus 34" OLED 360mhz monitor for $799, was in the box all wrapped up still, and all parts and had the full warranty. Just got it home, put it together, did some tweaks in the settings and tried some WoW, and Doom Dark Ages and HOLY CRAP, the colors, and vibrancy, and the inky black blacks, but almost immedatly noticeable in each game was the fluid refresh rate, the smoothness of just moving around was crazy silky smooth, like it was instant that I noticed how freaking smooth fast things moved around with zero lag or jitters. Buttery smooth.

Yeah 34" is a small monitor, I do prefer larger displays but I just can't do 5k2k yet, a RTX-5080 will struggle gaming at that res, and yeah I know, use DLSS and frame gen, but I love running games at native resolution with high frames. My system gaming @ 3440 X 1440 res is silky smooth and super fast.

Begs the question, which is more important? High resolution with low frames, or lower res with her frame rates? That's a tough one, as I do love high res monitors, but gaming on them just can't give you the 200+ FPS with all settings to ultra max like 1440p UW can. But 5k2k I'm sure looks sweet AF, but that resolution scares me for gaming. I'm a sucker for super smooth silkly gameplay at higher frame rates.

I was super temped on getting the LG 39" 5k2k, but at $2,000 w/TAX that was just too steep for me, compared to getting this Asus for $800. That LG 5k2k really needs to come down in price, if it was like $1200 or so, I would have bought it, but not at $1800+

And I'm coming from the 2022 model year LG 45 Ultragear OLED monitor. I love love love that huge size, but the low PPI was killing me on that thing, 3440 x 1440 res on a 45" size display just isn't good. And for an OLED the colors and vibrancy were rather dim or muted, no matter how many tweaks I did. I also had the AW3423DW OLED and man the colors and deep blacks were so much better on that monitor than my LG 45, like a really big difference. I wanted to go back to something like my old Alienware OLED with the punchy colors and vibrancy and smooth motion, that for whatever reason the LG 45 wasn't giving.

Doing some research my LG 45 Ultragear was first gen W-OLED or something, and this new Asus is 5th gen QD-OLED and geeze it's noticable.

I had no problem returning that 45gx950a to LG partner store. Best buy also has a great return policy - even better if you join their normal tier membership for $30 a year (the dropped it from $50 a year). That gives you a 60 day return policy among other things.

If you live anywhere you can use either of those places I'd try one of the screens you are seriously interested in out once they hit a price point you are aiming for. Just keep the box and packaging together for a few weeks as if expecting to return it. I can relate to window shopping and researching a display without trying one out though in all honesty so not trying to pressure you or anything

Personally I don't like small monitors anymore so I get what you mean about screens based on 27" 16:9 or 32" 16:9 screen heights, even if wider in uw format. Depending how far from the screen size you are sitting, less then 4k can look less blocky on some screens, especially those larger than 27" 16:9 based screen height. I had a 32" 2560x1600 at one point which didn't look as nice unless I set it back a bit farther, and at that point it might as well have been a 27" screen since it had shrunk to my perspective a bit.

1440p is much easier to get higher fps on for sure. It was the high rez gaming format for quite a while, and was still the best option im in regard to having g-sync/vrr at 144hz when some people started using 4k screens at 30hz or 60hz and with worse input lag, no vrr etc when 4k was becoming niche adopted by a few people.

5k2k isn't any more detailed, pixel per degree wise or "pixel granularity" wise than a 4k screen viewed at the same distance, it just sort-of has a 640px "wing" extension of the screen on each side of a central 4k screen space, so it shows more of the game world on the sides (or in your periphery depending how close you are sitting to whatever sized screen). 5120x2160 is more demanding than 4k though, with a 20 - 30% fps drop from 4k in order to render those extra areas of the screen.


. . .

This (googled) might give a general idea of some numbers vs. a 5080 gpu, which agrees with your evaluation of the 5080.

Real-World RTX 5080 Performance Comparison (No Frame Gen)

1. Cyberpunk 2077 (Max Settings)

• With Path Tracing Enabled:
  • 3440 × 1440: 88 FPS (Quality) | 104 FPS (Balanced)
  • 3840 × 2160: 58 FPS (Quality) | 70 FPS (Balanced)
  • 5120 × 2160: 43 FPS (Quality) | 52 FPS (Balanced)
• With Path Tracing Disabled (Ultra Preset / Standard RT Only):
  • 3440 × 1440: 134 FPS (Quality) | 152 FPS (Balanced)
  • 3840 × 2160: 93 FPS (Quality) | 110 FPS (Balanced)
  • 5120 × 2160: 69 FPS (Quality) | 82 FPS (Balanced)

2. Black Myth: Wukong (Cinematic Settings)

• With Full Ray Tracing Enabled:
  • 3440 × 1440: 84 FPS (Quality) | 99 FPS (Balanced)
  • 3840 × 2160: 55 FPS (Quality) | 66 FPS (Balanced)
  • 5120 × 2160: 41 FPS (Quality) | 49 FPS (Balanced)
• With Full Ray Tracing Disabled (Cinematic Rasterized):
  • 3440 × 1440: 125 FPS (Quality) | 143 FPS (Balanced)
  • 3840 × 2160: 86 FPS (Quality) | 102 FPS (Balanced)
  • 5120 × 2160: 64 FPS (Quality) | 76 FPS (Balanced)

3. Alan Wake 2 (Max Settings)

• With Path Tracing Enabled:
  • 3440 × 1440: 80 FPS (Quality) | 95 FPS (Balanced)
  • 3840 × 2160: 52 FPS (Quality) | 63 FPS (Balanced)
  • 5120 × 2160: 38 FPS (Quality) | 47 FPS (Balanced)
• With Path Tracing Disabled (Max Rasterized / Standard RT Only):
  • 3440 × 1440: 120 FPS (Quality) | 138 FPS (Balanced)
  • 3840 × 2160: 84 FPS (Quality) | 99 FPS (Balanced)
  • 5120 × 2160: 62 FPS (Quality) | 74 FPS (Balanced)

4. Forza Horizon 5 (Extreme Settings)

• With Ray Tracing Enabled:
  • 3440 × 1440: 182 FPS (Quality) | 204 FPS (Balanced)
  • 3840 × 2160: 135 FPS (Quality) | 154 FPS (Balanced)
  • 5120 × 2160: 101 FPS (Quality) | 116 FPS (Balanced)
• With Ray Tracing Disabled:
  • 3440 × 1440: 212 FPS (Quality) | 235 FPS (Balanced)
  • 3840 × 2160: 158 FPS (Quality) | 176 FPS (Balanced)
  • 5120 × 2160: 118 FPS (Quality) | 132 FPS (Balanced)

---

Three-Resolution Performance Matrix (RTX 5080)
This matrix directly mirrors the performance shifts across target displays, listing standard DLSS Quality (Q) benchmarks directly alongside DLSS Balanced (B) profiles:

Game Setting Profile	3440×1440 (Q)	3440×1440 (B)	3840×2160 (Q)	3840×2160 (B)	5120×2160 (Q)	5120×2160 (B)
Cyberpunk 2077 (PT ON)	88 FPS	104 FPS	58 FPS	70 FPS	43 FPS	52 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077 (PT OFF)	134 FPS	152 FPS	93 FPS	110 FPS	69 FPS	82 FPS
Black Myth (Full RT ON)	84 FPS	99 FPS	55 FPS	66 FPS	41 FPS	49 FPS
Black Myth (Full RT OFF)	125 FPS	143 FPS	86 FPS	102 FPS	64 FPS	76 FPS
Alan Wake 2 (PT ON)	80 FPS	95 FPS	52 FPS	63 FPS	38 FPS	47 FPS
Alan Wake 2 (PT OFF)	120 FPS	138 FPS	84 FPS	99 FPS	62 FPS	74 FPS
Forza Horizon 5 (RT ON)	182 FPS	204 FPS	135 FPS	154 FPS	101 FPS	116 FPS
Forza Horizon 5 (RT OFF)	212 FPS	235 FPS	158 FPS	176 FPS	118 FPS	132 FPS

Click to expand...

. .

Most if not all of the desktop monitors are clamped to lower (considerably inferior to gaming tvs') HDR output, and they have much more aggressive ABL/ASBL. Their ABL/ASBL is a little better when they are set to lower HDR ranges like HDR400/600, but they still aren't great compared to a modern tandom oled gaming TV like the C6 or G6.

You might be able to run a 3440x1440 custom resolution with bars all arround, or a 3840x1600 resolution uw strip across the whole screen width, etc., at 1:1 pixel with no scaling, for more demanding games on a LG 4k OLED gaming tv like a C4, C5, C6, like a 42" or 48" model if that kind of thing interests you (just watch which panel types are used at different sizes b/c they may differ) . Personally I use a separate stand on larger screens to keep a larger gaming tv far enough away yet still filling my central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, which also keeps the perceived pixel density, pixels-per-degree, at or above 60 PPD.

.

LOL 34" didn't even last a day. It was just too small for me. Packed it up this morning, and got an open box LG 39 5k2k for $1500 out the door at Microcenter.

Ok, haven't even gamed on it yet, but this is it the size damn near perfect, the 5k2k resolution is sooooo much better than 3440 X 14400.

Just love the footprint of the monitor on my desk.

I had the old AW3821DW briefly several years ago, and I recall saying that size of a monitor was pretty much the sweet perfect spot. I just hated the LCD washed out colors of that specific display.

Now to tweak the settings and test out some games.

Zorachus said:

LOL 34" didn't even last a day. It was just too small for me. Packed it up this morning, and got an open box LG 39 5k2k for $1500 out the door at Microcenter.

Ok, haven't even gamed on it yet, but this is it the size damn near perfect, the 5k2k resolution is sooooo much better than 3440 X 14400.

Just love the footprint of the monitor on my desk.

I had the old AW3821DW briefly several years ago, and I recall saying that size of a monitor was pretty much the sweet perfect spot. I just hated the LCD washed out colors of that specific display.

Now to tweak the settings and test out some games.

Click to expand...

If you don't mind, once you've done some gaming can you try and get across how the 165 Hz LG compares to the 360 Hz Asus?

var0 said:

If you don't mind, once you've done some gaming can you try and get across how the 165 Hz LG compares to the 360 Hz Asus?

Click to expand...

Played some BF6 with my son and his friends ( gave my son the old LG 45 Ultragear 3440 X 1440 monitor ) before that he was running an old 2015 era 4k 41" or so monitor, which was super taxing on his computer plus looked like beef.

Anyway, I played some BF6, some WoW, Doom Dark Ages, and this monitor looks AMAZING, I mean breathtaking image quality, super sharp and detailed, great colors and vibrancy, and the deepest darkest blacks ever, but...to play BF6 and DA, I absolutely needed to enable DLSS 4.5 and Frame Gen 2 otherwise I could feel the stutters and a bit of jank, the biggest improvement is running frame gen X 2, with that off it's noticeably worse, but with Frame Gen 2 on it's instantly buttery smooth.

Was playing BF6 @ 5120 X 2160res, "High" graphic settings, DLSS set to Balanced, and Frame Gen X 2, and the game played very smooth. Then I tested no DLSS and no Frame gen and it was stuttering and choppy, then just tried DLSS and no Frame Gen, it was smoother but still a bit choppy, then turned on Frame Gen X 2 and that did the trick, making an immediate difference in smoothness. Pretty similar story with Doom The Dark Ages.

World of Warcraft doesn't have DLSS graphic settings, I ran it last night @ 5120 X 2160res, Pretty much Ultra settings except a few I set to High, and 4xAA, game played very smooth, yeah it's choppy in the main city, but in the zones just walking around I was getting anywhere from 90 to 120 fps, and that's with me moving the mouse back and forth really looking around the environment, then ran a dungeon, and just walking around the dungeon getting maxed out 165 fps, or maybe 130 to 140 fps, in big boss fights with everyone there casting spells, it drops down to the low 100s or lower with tons of stuff lighting up. But overall playing World of Warcraft I seemed to be getting on average maybe 130 to 160 fps, but like I said not in the cities, the frames drop there, but overall it looks FANTASTIC.

Now to compare to the Asus 34" OLED 360hz, yes that monitor was crazy buttery smooth in every game, WoW I was easily getting 250+ fps all the time, and BF6 was also super smooth at ultra settings. But that display and res is just too small for me now, the immersion factor just isn't there with that monitor, and the colors on the Asus compared to the LG seemed the same, both had great vibrancy and deep blacks, really no difference in image quality, except the 39" has a way higher resolution which looks so much better.

And Desktop use, which I use my computer more than just for games, I like to surf online news sites, gaming forums, social media, watch YouTube videos, look up stuff online, check e-mails, etc...for desktop that 5120 X 2160res BLOWS away the Asus 3440 X 1440res, like no joke, 5k2k res is ten million times better than 1440p, really no comparison, now 3440 X 1440res looks super outdated.

The size of the 39" monitor and 1500r curve are darn near perfect to me, chef's kiss. I find 34 UW too tiny now, but that 45" just too much of a monster size with that extreme 800r curve looking too gamer kiddy'ish if that makes sense, where the 39 inch hits that sweet spot right in the middle of the two.

I've don't have any to test with but I can tell you that 360fpsHZ , provided you can achieve that frame rate, would get:

- just over double the motion clarity (1/2 the FoV movement blur) of the 165fpsHz screen. Every time you double the fpsHz, you cut the sample-and-hold blur in half again (aka persistence blur).

- you'd get more than double the motion articulation of 165fpsHz if you are maintaining over 330fpsHz.. Pathing articulation/path-shapes and curve definition of your movement including mouse movement pathing, # of animation cycle frames shown, increase in smoothness/"glassiness" of movement etc.

Those are some great aesthetic and ergonomic feel gains for sure, and realized gains in single player game or lan tournaments. Online is different.
. .

Multiplayer Games
---------------------------

You'd get gains in multiplayer games using 360fps on a 360Hz sceren, but if a 165Hz player unlocks his frame rate and runs 300fps or 500fps, he'd get a little shimmer instead of tearing, and while technically a 360fps player on a 360hz screen or a 500fps player on a 500hz would still have some micro advantage - the difference/advantage in online servers won't be apparent realistically vs the 300 - 500fps player a 165Hz screen imo, other than that the frames of action seen are bit less blurred on the higher Hz screens (but they would still not be pristine).

That is complicated by the fact that in online games, your local machine is showing you predicted/guessed frames of action and showing you a "ghost" opponent / interpolated path of the opponent while it waits on the next adjudicated tick of the "true reality" from the server. So part of the time, that is what you are seeing and reacting to (e.g. aiming at and shooting at). Best servers are 128tick typically, but some games are lower. 300fpsHz or 500fpsHz greatly exceeds what the server is delivering so you are seeing and operating on a lot of predicted action frames locally in between each tick.

Another complication is that some few games (CS2) determine shots by sub-tick granularity and others don't. The ones that do are counting what happens on your predicted frame periods of what/where of the opponent, rather than what/where they really are on their own screen or on the server's last tick. The next tick may correct but on sub-tick server the shots already register from the predicted/interpolated frame version of your target(s). To me, the sub-tick system is kind of strange. Online game servers also tend to have their own "flavor" of net code biases in how the resolve results and latency.

Game Title	Base Tick Rate	Sub-Tick Registration?	Netcode Behavior Summary
Counter-Strike 2	64-tick	Yes	Client timestamps actions down to the exact millisecond between ticks. Server uses micro-timestamps to calculate hits rather than relying on discrete tick snapshots.
Valorant	128-tick	No	Runs entirely on a rigid 128Hz server-side loop. Inputs are grouped and processed at the next immediate discrete tick boundary using backward reconciliation.
FACEIT (CS2 Platform)	128-tick	No	Leverages custom, high-performance community servers configured for native 128-tick environments rather than the official matchmaking sub-tick architecture.
Quake Champions	128-tick	No	Operates on a high-frequency 120Hz to 128Hz server update loop to match the extreme velocity of arena shooter combat.
Overwatch 2	64-tick	No	Uses high-bandwidth discrete tick updates alongside standard "favor the shooter" client-side lag compensation and interpolation rules. Custom tournament lobbies can scale to 128-tick.
Rainbow Six Siege	60-tick	No	Processes physics, destruction, and combat logic within a standard 60Hz discrete loop, evaluating hits within short server-side temporal windows.
PUBG	60-tick	No	Runs on a standard 60Hz loop, though server performance and real tick rates frequently degrade during the chaotic early drop phase of a match.
Fortnite	30-tick	No	Relies on a 30Hz server update rate, resolving complex building grids and standard shooting logic linearly within discrete server frames.
Apex Legends	20-tick	No	Updates physics and player positions on a low 20Hz loop. It relies heavily on aggressive backward reconciliation to compensate for desync.
Call of Duty: Warzone	20-tick to 60-tick	No	Uses variable tick rate architecture that dynamically adjusts based on the current player count and regional lobby sizes.

. . . .

Click to expand...

Frame Gen
----------------
Frame gen adds a ton of latency. It doesn't get "sufferable" imo until after you hit, post dlss upscale, a base of 140fps or 160fps (120 post DLLS upscale as your base using FGx2 to achieve 240fps maybe) , and even then it's still around 20ms input lag which by most other metrics on screens themselves and peripherals etc would be frowned upon. On a 165fps screen that makes it pretty useless to my sensibilities, let alone for multiplayer games.


This chart shows the frame rate averages and the latency averages ,but your ranging through to your 10% lows are probably roughly from your average through to a notch worse (between your average and a row up above your average in the chart)

Real-World Latency Chart

Visual Output Rate	Underlying Engine Base	Avg Latency (No Reflex)	Avg Latency (Reflex ON)
Native Render Tiers
60 FPS (Native)	60 FPS	~50.00 ms	16.67 ms
80 FPS (Native)	80 FPS	~38.00 ms	12.50 ms
90 FPS (Native)	90 FPS	~33.50 ms	11.11 ms
120 FPS (Native)	120 FPS	~26.00 ms	8.33 ms
140 FPS (Native)	140 FPS	~21.00 ms	7.14 ms
160 FPS (Native)	160 FPS	~18.00 ms	6.25 ms
FrameGen x2 Tiers
120 FPS (via x2 FG)	60 FPS Base	~62.00 ms	36.67 ms
160 FPS (via x2 FG)	80 FPS Base	~48.50 ms	28.50 ms
180 FPS (via x2 FG)	90 FPS Base	~42.00 ms	24.00 ms
240 FPS (via x2 FG)	120 FPS Base	~35.66 ms	19.66 ms
280 FPS (via x2 FG)	140 FPS Base	~29.78 ms	16.78 ms
320 FPS (via x2 FG)	160 FPS Base	~25.00 ms	15.00 ms
FrameGen x3 Tiers
180 FPS (via x3 FG)	60 FPS Base	~69.00 ms	41.67 ms
240 FPS (via x3 FG)	80 FPS Base	~53.50 ms	31.50 ms
270 FPS (via x3 FG)	90 FPS Base	~46.50 ms	26.50 ms
360 FPS (via x3 FG)	120 FPS Base	~39.66 ms	21.66 ms
420 FPS (via x3 FG)	140 FPS Base	~33.28 ms	18.28 ms
480 FPS (via x3 FG)	160 FPS Base	~28.50 ms	16.25 ms
FrameGen x4 Tiers
240 FPS (via x4 FG)	60 FPS Base	~74.00 ms	44.67 ms
320 FPS (via x4 FG)	80 FPS Base	~56.00 ms	32.00 ms
360 FPS (via x4 FG)	90 FPS Base	~49.33 ms	27.33 ms
480 FPS (via x4 FG)	120 FPS Base	~42.66 ms	22.66 ms
560 FPS (via x4 FG)	140 FPS Base	~36.78 ms	19.78 ms
640 FPS (via x4 FG)	160 FPS Base	~32.00 ms	18.00 ms

Click to expand...

. .

holy shit...
do you have these responses saved and ready to copy and paste?!

Are you being serious? I have my post history~library in my user menu like any user on this forum

.

same thing. i thought i had seen all this before...

The personal responses were not from before, but that 2nd table was and is relevant imo, and the whole reply was liked by the couple of people active in the thread today. Not everyone reads every thread or even visits regularly. I really don't care if you don't like what I type or what I paste or what ultimately, even if I respond to a few of your stabs occasionally. You aren't a mod.

.

End of the day, my Cliff Notes here;

-Had the LG 45 Ultragear 3440 X 1440 OLED monitor since 2023, I really loved the size for gaming immersion and the smooth 240hz smooth display, but never liked the resolution,it was way too low for such a huge monitor. Plus the colors being just ok, it seemed rather dim or not vibrant like QD-OLED, so was looking for something different.

-Read up on the Asus 34" OLED 360hz with glowing reviews, and I love a smooth display, bought it, hooked it up, and was in love with the buttery smooth and fast refresh rate, which was immediately noticeable in games. Turning on World of Warcraft and just running around Silvermoon, the fluid smooth and fast refresh rate was incredible, it was instant how I noticed just how SMOOOTH it was. But then as the hours went by, the overall 34 inch size was bugging me, just too small, and that resolution was getting to me, 3440 X 1440 just seems ok to me, I wanted something higher.

-Went crazy, returned the Asus to Microcenter and went for the LG 39" 5k2k OLED and oh my goodness, it hits that sweet near perfect spot, the size is SPOT ON AWESOME, the resolution is great, just soooooo much better than 1440p. The picture quality is top notch, literally every bit as good as that Asus, this LG 39 is very bright, very vibrant with deep punchy colors, and black blacks.

Only draw back is 5k2k res for gaming, that's a beast of a resolution to game on, you absolutely need DLSS and Frame Gen to game on this monitor, there's no way you can natively run this 5120 X 2160 and get good good frames without DLSS, except old school titles like Quake 2 Remaster or old games, from like a decade ago. But certainly no games from the past 5 years or so.

I miss the 45" 5120x2180 800R, (just not the hdr PQ on that one). It's a great aspect ratio and rez.

.

elvn said:

I miss the 45" 5120x2180 800R, (just not the hdr PQ on that one). It's a great aspect ratio and rez.

.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. Yesterday I was on the fence on getting that one at microCenter, but they were out of stock, plus I wanted that 39 in anyways, but if they had the 45 in stock I probably would have gotten it to at least test out.

But the one drawback I think it's a 3rd gen OLED panel that still doesn't get as bright or vibrant as the newer LG 39 panel does, so I'm happy I got the new 39" over last years 45".

Rumor has it, there will be a 240hz version of that 45-in 5k2k with a newer gen OLED panel towards the end of the year/ early next year.

My only beef now, is World of Warcraft doesn't offer DLSS or FrameGen, so I'm running it natively @ 5120X2160 res, and my frames just running around in a zone doing world quests are like 80 to 110 fps.

Not sure if some settings change in the game or nVidia CP would help?

That's my only beef with this monitor, the 5k2k res is brutal to game on and get high frames to match the refresh rate of a monitor.

That Asus monitor I had for a day got crazy high frames, and was silky smooth but still nowhere near getting its 360hz refresh rate in franes pet second. Plus I don't want to go for smaller, 34" is too small for me, this 39" is the right size or even still borderline a hair small. I like the 42" or so size nowadays, I think the 45" is too big, and 39" just about right.

Wonder why they didn't go with that classic 38" UW resolution of 3840X1600? That was a good one, better than 34x14 but not as demanding as 4k and higher.

Thanks for the reply

reginaldbelvarion.​

Yes for desktop use 5k2k is a godsend, just amazing. Blows away 3440X1440res.

And most games I can make this monitor shine thanks to DLSS and FrameGen, titles like Battlefield 6, Doom Dark Ages, Path of Exile 2, that I play all have options for that, which makes the games playable and smooth. Heck BF6 with DLSS-Balance and FrameGenX2 is smooth as butter same with the new Doom game. It's just WoW that is funky due to it not supporting the DLSS stuff, but I'll try your settings tonight.

Overall this 39 inch size hits that sweet spot for me, bigger than 34" which I find too tiny now, but not a monster 45 inch size which is a bit comically huge.

It's funny I gave my son my previous LG 45 Ultragear 1440P monitor, And watching him play BF6 on it. It does look super cool with the extreme 800r curve and plays soooo smooth on that display, bought yikes 1440p at 45 in is horrifically bad in desktop use.

I suppose if I used my computer purely almost 100% for gaming only and literally nothing else I probably would have kept that 1440p 45-in Ultragear, but I do other stuff with my computer besides gaming. Do some email and work stuff. Lots of web surfing YouTube videos, stuff like that in the 5K. 2K revs is just beautiful and near perfection.

So I've had the LG 39 5k2k for a week now. It's a dialed in, correct settings for the monitor and nVidia CP all set for this extreme resolution and my system for gaming.

Have to run DLSS-Performance + FrameGenX2 and in-game settings at High not ultra/max to get good and smooth frames. But games like BF6 and Doom Dark Ages play super smooth with those settings.

Colors pop, really pretty display, also gets very bright for an OLED. And the 5k2k res in desktop is OUTSTANDING and just awesome for non gaming stuff.

But...

I'm kinda missing the extreme size of the 45 inch Ultragear I had before, which I gave to my son and he loved it instantly after one session of BF6 The immersion and wow factor of that 45 inch screen is hard to beat. I feel the 39 inch is just a tad short on the height, wish it was a bit taller both top and bottom.

Now I'm contemplating do I return this LG 39 5k2k ( I get 15 days for a full refund, I'm on day 6 now ). And pick up the 45 Ultragear 5k2k which is on sale for $1299?

Or even go crazier get the 2025 panel version of the 45 Ultragear 3440X1440 which is on sale for $899 ( but the prices don't really matter ) it's more what I want? I had the original 2023 version with a 1st Gen panel, I think the 2025 version uses a 3rd gen updated panel?

I do like the extreme 45 inch size. It's so fun for games. But I also like punchy vibrant colors. And smooth fast frame rates is also very important.

The one thing I've noticed this huge 5K2K resolution in games doesn't look radically different than 3440x1440res. Both monitors are 21:9 aspect ratio. Was watching my son play BF6 on my old 45-in monitor and me playing the same game with him on my 39-in monitor. And yeah mine does look brighter and a bit more detailed but not radically so, just a bit different.

In gaming i thought 5k2k would be mind-blowing and night and day like black and white TV compared to HD color TV in regards to the higher resolution, but it doesn't seem so?

World of Warcraft, yeah it's sharper and crisper details at 5k2k but compared to 3440X1440 it doesn't seem like a whole new world or jaw dropping difference like I would've thought. Overall the game world at the extreme high resolution does look better but not like ten million times better I was expecting.

So... I'm pretty sure going to return the LG 39-inch regardless, I want to go back to 45-in. It's just a matter of do I pick up the 5K 2K version? Or go with the last updated panel version of 3440x1440 the 2025 LG 45 Ultragear?

So the big question this week, do I get the LG 45 Ultragear 5k2k and return my LG 39? I'm so torn, as I'm getting pretty comfortable with this 39 inch size now, but man the 45 has that IMMERSION in spades, but...it's also comically large almost a bit too much in your face at times. I have a narrow counter / desk setup, so my monitors are pretty darn close to my face, but the extra height on top and bottom is nice with that size, but the extreme 800r curve is great in shooters but not really helpful in MMO's or RPG's?

Ugh, so torn, need some [H]ard advice

My setup;

The thing with this 39" 5k2k is the image detail / quality is so freaking great, sharp and crisp. And the colors just pop and brightness is very high for an OLED.

I would be worried going to the LG 45 I'd lose like 20% PPI meaning less sharp detailed image quality, and I heard last years LG 45 runs a 3rd gen OLED panel, I think the 39 inch runs 4th gen new OLED panel.

Ugh...at this point to get the LG 45 Ultragear 5k2k I think I'd rather wait till a new gen panel is released, ideally the holy grail 5th gen panel with 240hz, which should be out in 2027.

No matter what you get there are almost always a few tradeoffs. It usually comes down to what games you play, what frame rates vs graphics settings you can live with, and if you ever use it for watching media full screen (e.g. 4k material 2160 high), overall budget and upgrade path if any, etc. So it's a personal decision.

Personally I wasn't satisfied with the high brightness mode hdr stretch the 45gx950a was doing, and how it did load balancing of % windows, has more aggressive FALD if pushing the panel rather than clamping it at 600nit, and I found LG's matte abraded surface on it made the oled blacks look flat, bright solid fields of color look granulated, and games with ambient yellow or green light filters, fogs, as well as media with film grain look way more noisy than they should.

I absolutely loved the 45" 5120x2160 800R format though, so it was disappointing that I had to end up returning it. I'm hoping that flagship true large format gaming displays come back in a few years. They are all small now. The 45 gx950a might be the last one for some time that isn't based on 27" 16:9 or 32" 16:9 height wise.

I'm targeting the 48" C6 tandem oled gaming tv when it drops a bit more in price sometime during the last quarter. I'll hold on to that until some other large format screen can compete, hopefully 2028 but who knows, and like you said, 240Hz or more.

.

$1299 is a sweat deal, my LG 39 was $1799 a week ago, ugh

I am worried though, the LG 45 Ultragear 5k2k is last years panel, and the LG 39 is a newer gen panel.

The vibrant colors and brightness is super on this LG 39, and of course the super detailed PPI, I'm afraid the LG 45 is a lesser quality and lower image in comparison?

Or can the LG 45 be tweaked to give the near same quality image?

Zorachus said:

$1299 is a sweat deal, my LG 39 was $1799 a week ago, ugh

I am worried though, the LG 45 Ultragear 5k2k is last years panel, and the LG 39 is a newer gen panel.

The vibrant colors and brightness is super on this LG 39, and of course the super detailed PPI, I'm afraid the LG 45 is a lesser quality and lower image in comparison?

Or can the LG 45 be tweaked to give the near same quality image?

Click to expand...

LG's matte abraded surface on the 45" gx950a will makes the blacks look flat compared to a glossy screen and will make bright solid fields of color look granulated. Can make film grain in media, ambient green/yellow light filters in games, and fog all look way more noisy than they should.

Other than that, this is what google shows as the comparison between all of them

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

Here is the updated comparative analysis for the Dell/Alienware AW3926QW, LG UltraGear 39GX950B, and LG UltraGear 45GX950A, mapping out window levels, dimming anomalies, and the critical color quality and volume performance differences under active HDR gaming workloads.

---

1. Unified HDR Real-Window Gaming Brightness & Color Performance Matrix
Measurements are in nits (cd/m²). Color volume ratings indicate how well each display preserves rich saturation at high brightness states.

Monitor & Smart Profile	10% Window	25% Window	50% Window	75% Window	100% Window	ABL Severity	Normal Scene Dimming	Color Quality & Volume in HDR
Alienware AW3926QW (True Black 500)	500 nits	480 nits	360 nits	300 nits	250 nits	Very Low	No Dimming: Zero load-balancing shifts.	Reference Accuracy: Pure RGB tracking. Zero wash out. Colors stay dense and deeply saturated up to the 500-nit hard clip.
Alienware AW3926QW (Peak 1300)	1,000 nits	450 nits	320 nits	280 nits	250 nits	High	Severe Dimming: High specular loads cause the background to dim.	Maximum Saturation: Specular highlights (lasers, fires, explosions) maintain deep primary color hue without turning white.
Alienware AW3926QW (Peak 1300 Bright)	1,150 nits	490 nits	340 nits	290 nits	250 nits	Moderate	Fluctuating Dimming: Constant background brightness shifts.	Degraded Quality: Artificially skews mid-tones, causing minor color bleeding and inaccurate, overly neon hues.
LG 39GX950B (Peak Brightness Low)	630 nits	600 nits	400 nits	320 nits	260 nits	Low	No Dimming: Stays clamped inside native power parameters.	Balanced & Accurate: Clean, accurate color rendering. Minimal white subpixel dilution at this lower brightness ceiling.
LG 39GX950B (Peak Brightness High)	850 nits	680 nits	410 nits	320 nits	260 nits	Moderate	Mild Dimming: Small background variations past 25% window load.	High Highlight Dilution: White subpixel aggressively fires to hit 1,300+ nit peaks, washing out colors into pastel/white shades.
LG 45GX950A (Peak Low / 600 Clamp)	600 nits	580 nits	390 nits	310 nits	260 nits	Minimal	No Dimming: Hard-clamped HGIG environment.	Excellent Continuity: Strong uniform color tracking. Best mode for maintaining saturated mid-tones across the huge canvas.
LG 45GX950A (Peak Brightness High)	700 nits	673 nits	390 nits	310 nits	260 nits	Mod-High	Noticeable Dimming: Large-screen loads trigger visible dimming.	Moderate Dilution: High-nit highlights look brighter but lose absolute saturation compared to the 39" due to power steering.

Note: Peak specular highlights for both the Alienware (Peak 1300) and LG 39" (Peak High) push between 1,250 and 1,350 nits on microscopic window sizes (1% to 2%) before the Automatic Brightness Limiter aggressively takes over.

---

2. Core Color Quality Differences Between the Models

Alienware AW3926QW (Tandem RGB-Stripe)

• Pure RGB Emission Benefit: Unlike the LG models, the Alienware creates all of its light using pure Red, Green, and Blue subpixels. It does not possess a booster white subpixel. As a result, when an object gets brighter (even at 1,300 nits), the color remains highly saturated. A bright red lightsaber or neon green laser stays deeply red or green rather than fading into a pale white-pink or light mint green.
• Deep Shadow Fidelity: In True Black 500 mode, the Alienware displays exceptional near-black detail with minimal color tinting. In both Peak 1300 modes, however, the rapid ABL power shifting can occasionally cause a subtle, warm/reddish color shift in dark surrounding textures when a bright object suddenly leaves the screen.

LG UltraGear 39GX950B & 45GX950A (Tandem RGWB WOLED)

• The White Subpixel Dilemma (Wash Out): To achieve their impressive 1,100 to 1,300-nit specular highlight targets, both LG monitors route extra voltage directly to their built-in White (W) subpixels. While this makes elements like a midday sun or a flashlight beam look incredibly bright and intense, it dilutes the underlying color. Specular highlights lose structural color volume, causing very bright colored objects to clip or look washed out compared to the Alienware.
• Color Uniformity Across Surface Area (39" vs 45"):
  
  • The 39" LG concentrates its light tightly, keeping colors punchy and vibrant in mid-tone scenes (like blue skies or green fields).
  • The 45" LG must stretch its available power budget across a massive physical panel. Because the larger screen triggers power-saving limits sooner, massive bright, colorful landscapes (like a vibrant desert sunset) will see their overall color volume step down. The deep oranges and purples will shift toward a slightly more muted matte tone until you look away from the bright horizon.

Click to expand...

.

So for brightness, and punchier colors sounds like the 39 inch is better?

But it is running a newer gen panel. I think there will be an updated 45 next year.

To me the 39 inch just feels like a larger 34 inch whereas the 45 inch is a different beast, it feels completely different like nothing else, if that makes sense?

But the new 39 inch uses a 4th gen panel, with better colors and brightness, whereas last year's 45 inch uses an older gen panel that doesn't look as good as the 39.

And isn't the PPI like 145 on the 39 inch and 125 or so in the 45 inch? Does that mean the 39 inch is 20% sharper and more detailed display?

Ugh, so hard to settle on which I'd like better? I mostly use my PC for gaming #1, and then for just web surfing and YouTube stuff #2.

Do I want the full immersive almost VR like 45 inch, but uses last years tech, or the smaller 39 inch that uses the newest and better OLED tech.

I will go back to what I just said, now after having the 39 inch a full week, it just seems like a slightly larger 34 inch ultrawide, where the 45 inch is in a completely different category.

AI Overview

LG 39-inch 5K2K
monitor is noticeably sharper than the
LG 45-inch 5K2K model
. Because both screens pack the same 5120 x 2160 resolution into a smaller physical footprint, the
39-inch model
delivers 143 pixels per inch (PPI) compared to the
45-inch model's
125 PPI. This ~14% increase in pixel density makes fine text, coding lines, and timeline details distinctly crisper on the 39-inch display.

Clarity & Visual Differences

• • Text Sharpness: Small fonts are cleaner and less prone to softness or fringing on the
    39-inch
    screen, making it superior for multi-window productivity and reading-heavy tasks.
  • Image Detail: Fine details in photo and video editing timelines appear tighter and less stretched on the
    39-inch
    panel.
  • Immersive Trade-off: The
    45-inch model
    trades some pixel density for a massive, highly wrapped field of view (often featuring a tighter 800R curve), which prioritizes cinematic immersion over absolute visual crispness.

Would you prefer the higher pixel clarity for work, or the larger, more immersive screen size for gaming and media?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/comments/1tsfu39/lg39_vs_lg45_the_struggle_is_real/

LOL

Zorachus said:

To me the 39 inch just feels like a larger 34 inch whereas the 45 inch is a different beast, it feels completely different like nothing else, if that makes sense?

But the new 39 inch uses a 4th gen panel, with better colors and brightness, whereas last year's 45 inch uses an older gen panel that doesn't look as good as the 39.

And isn't the PPI like 145 on the 39 inch and 125 or so in the 45 inch? Does that mean the 39 inch is 20% sharper and more detailed display?

Ugh, so hard to settle on which I'd like better? I mostly use my PC for gaming #1, and then for just web surfing and YouTube stuff #2.

Do I want the full immersive almost VR like 45 inch, but uses last years tech, or the smaller 39 inch that uses the newest and better OLED tech.

I will go back to what I just said, now after having the 39 inch a full week, it just seems like a slightly larger 34 inch ultrawide, where the 45 inch is in a completely different category.

Click to expand...

You have to go by view distance as it resolves to PPD (pixels per degree of your vision, derived from your PPI + viewing distance).

The 45" gx950a has a 800R curvature so I sat a 800R(adius) = 800mm = ~ 32 inches away.
At that center of curvature, all of the pixels across the whole screen remained on axis, pointed directly at me like laser pointers. That helps to keep uniformity, distortion/geometry issues minimal.

At 32 inch view distances, the gx950a gets around ~ 70 PPD, which imo is perfect for a 4k screen. I don't consider anything under 60PPD as viewing a real 4k pixel density in effect.


. . .

You'd be sitting closer to a 39" model, and it's curvature isn't aggressive enough to sit at the center of curvature vs. it's dimensions.

Viewing a 39" 5120x2160 from

24" away = ~ 60 PPD

30" away = ~ 75 PPD.
.

They aren't dissimilar if viewed accordingly, at least in regard to PPD and perceived size relative to your viewing angles. The 1500R ones have their side pixels off axis from you though which isn't optimal imo.

Damn, I might just buy the the LG 45 5k2k while I still have a week to return my 39 inch, and test both out.

Crazy me

Wowww. Congrats, man.


.

So my 5080 FE was able to play games @ 5k2k resolution, but with lots of lowered settings and DLSS-Performance and FrameGenX2 and fake settings mixed with medium to high.

Doing all that I would get anywhere 80 to 110 FPS and higher when not outdoors or open areas in games. And turn off all Anti-Alasing.

Now with the 5090, I can have game settings high to ultra and DLSS-Balance and I'm getting near max FPS which my monitor is 165hz, I have it set not to go above 160, and most games it's pretty consistently at that in franes per second.

Like World of Warcraft for example, I had to turn off AA/af and turn down some settings from Ultra to medium or high and I would get in the low 100s FPS and it would be all over the board when flying around anywhere from 70 FPS to 130 fps. Now with the 5090 I was able to go back up to 4 x AA and put settings back up to high high/ Ultra and in a bunch of areas FPS is maxed out at 157fps majority of the time, and dips down to 120s to 140s when flying around where there's a bunch of trees and environmental stuff on the screen.

So with the 5090 @ 5k2k res I could definitely go higher on the graphical settings and go to a better quality dlss mode and I'm getting significantly higher FPS and the big thing the FPS is more consistent. It's not dipping way down and way up, it seems more steady sticking to a frame rate range if that makes sense?

Played a little bit of Doom Dark Ages. I had it on Ultra nightmare settings DLSS Balanced, the only thing I turned off was Path tracing/ Ray tracing OFF. I was getting well above my monitor's refresh rate FPS I was getting consistently 200 FPS

Similar story with Battlefield 6 on those settings. It was smooth as butter with ultra settings.