Looking for new primary display

[PenguinJim]

Korean el cheapo displays are fairly terrible quality, both image-wise and build-wise. Creaky plastic, poor - if any - adjustment features, and so on. Some don't even seem to have on-screen menus, so no adjustments of any kind pretty much, maybe a rocker switch to adjust backlight intensity and an input selector, if it has more than one.

Bad image quality is worse than bad build quality - do you really want a bad monitor even if it's cheap? Better to save some more money and buy something decent if you're gonna drop several hundred bucks anyway IMO.

A lot have cheap and nasty stands, but they're all VESA, so it's not unfixable.

But this is the first I've heard about terrible image quality (and I've idly read a few dozen articles/threads about them in the past couple of years, specifically looking for problems). Aren't they using the same panels as US $1,000 monitors? Is there a specific problem with the image quality? And the ones that have caught my interest and I've investigated further have OSDs and buttons!

Could you share your source(s)? For example, some have adequate stands and decent quality. You do understand that there are many different models to choose from when importing from Korea? It seems important to be discerning when making your purchase, and thoroughly review any model that catches your interest to be aware of any flaws, but then... duh! Surely anyone would do this with any purchase! (Grrr, there's a quote that's on the tip of my internetsearchtongue about someone refusing to buy a monitor from Korea because they're all terrible, and they'll buy a Samsung screen instead, but I can't quite remember the phrasing! )

Although obviously those who require perfect color accuracy will need to spend a bit more. And in the States I imagine some local models could be better value when they are on sale (and possibly the same is true in La-la Land - I've never shopped there).

(And a wider field of view in 16:9? Comparing 1080P to 1200P, the width of field is identical, and again when comparing 1440P to 1600P - but by pushing top/bottom informatics further out of the way in 1st/3rd-person games, you're enjoying more of it, and (as RedVi points out) making a better use of your own vision's aspect ratio! Gamers don't prefer 16:9 - they settle for it. As my grandmother always used to say, 16:9 is a waste of time. 16:10, time and again!)

 

[Grall]

Aren't they using the same panels as US $1,000 monitors?

Panels from the same manufacturers, yes. SAME panels? No. They buy up the surplus panels that don't meet Apple/Dell/etc top grades. Like with so much else, that's why they're cheaper: you get what you pay for.

Is there a specific problem with the image quality?

Poorer uniformity, poorer color spectrum, generally poorer quality. Higher risk of dead pixels, obviously...

You do understand that there are many different models to choose from when importing from Korea?

Yeah, but since they're all using lower grade panels in order to push down price it won't matter that much.

And a wider field of view in 16:9? Comparing 1080P to 1200P, the width of field is identical, and again when comparing 1440P to 1600P

16:9 is per definition wider than 16:10... What's there to argue about?

 

[PenguinJim]

The '16' is the width. You just said that 16 is wider than 16. I think you mean that 16:9 is by definition shorter than 16:10.

And look up "perfect pixel" or some reviews on the panels. I can't help but feel that you've only read one single review or article, perhaps two or three years ago, and based your opinion on the entirety of the Korean imports upon it.

 

[AlphaWolf]

A 16:9 30" display will be wider than a 16:10 30" display.

 

[Rodéric]

Pythagore's theorem:
d² = w² + h²

For 16:10 screen (w=16h/10) : with d=30" : h~=15,9" & w~=25,44"
For 16:9 screen (w=16h/9) : with d=30" : h~=14,7" & w~=26,15"

So a 16:9 screen is wider than a 16:10 screen of the same diagonal...

 

[RedVi]

(And a wider field of view in 16:9? Comparing 1080P to 1200P, the width of field is identical, and again when comparing 1440P to 1600P - but by pushing top/bottom informatics further out of the way in 1st/3rd-person games, you're enjoying more of it, and (as RedVi points out) making a better use of your own vision's aspect ratio! Gamers don't prefer 16:9 - they settle for it. As my grandmother always used to say, 16:9 is a waste of time. 16:10, time and again!)

Pretty much all games calculate FOV vertically. In other words, you have the same vertical view no matter what monitor you play on, only the horizontal FOV changes. So yes, a 16:9 monitor shows more of the gaming world than a 16:10 one.

For strategy/puzzle etc games however, 16:10 is an advantage. For productivity, it depends on how you work, but I prefer my vision to be maximised which is what 16:10 excels at.

 

[Malo]

Anyone able to comment on how much a 34UM95 will look better than a 34UM65? Both are 34" 21:9 monitors but resolution is 3440x1440 compared to 2560x1080. I'm worried 34" dpi on the 65 will be too low. I'll be viewing from around 2.5 feet away.

I'm replacing 3x 20" 1680x1050 monitors for a single ultra-wide display instead of getting 3 new DP monitors. I want the ultrawide for both gaming and work. Currently I'm often working on 2 screens with football or something on the 3rd.

If I go for the 34UM95 then I'm also worried a new 970 might not be enough for the next 3-4 years. My initial budget was to be around $1000-1200 for new monitors and GPU but a UM95 + 980 is over $1500.

 

[Rodéric]

Looks like many games are running well (~60fps) in QHD (2560) resolution, but <60fps for UHD (3840) with the currently fastest cards.
So depends what hardware & framerate you prefer, I'd go QHD since I expect games to be ever more demanding...

 

[Lightman]

Looks like many games are running well (~60fps) in QHD (2560) resolution, but <60fps for UHD (3840) with the currently fastest cards.
So depends what hardware & framerate you prefer, I'd go QHD since I expect games to be ever more demanding...

I'm currently playing FarCry 3 in QHD maxed without AA on single R290X and it is 95% of time above 60FPS. Very pleased with this performance! Same goes for BF4 but not for Crysis 3.
Everything else is easy on R290X with 2560x1440 screen.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Playing at QHD on the ultra-wides (WQHD?) would be an interesting option. There's even 2304x1440 to go 16:10 if that works, and 1920x1440 for the very old games.

 

[John Reynolds]

Haven't pulled the trigger yet, birthday is in mid-Nov so I'm getting close to be forced into it. And along comes this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...005733&cm_re=lg_34uc97-_-24-005-733-_-Product

A mere $1.3k, $300 more for that slight curve to the display and small input improvements I'll never take advantage of. Better stand than the 34UM95 too, though no VESA mount on the back (which I wasn't going to use).

Trying to imagine how glorious Shadow of Mordor would look with the 34UC97 running on a GTX 970. Worth $1300?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Hard to say if it's worth that much, but it sure is sweet and tasty Pity that it doesn't have the VESA mount, my setup requires the monitor to have it, not that I'm looking for a monitor right now...

 

[Rodéric]

Well you know you can ask for money for your birthday and purchase the monitor later when you made up your mind, or when something new hits the market, no need to rush things.

 

[Malo]

Haven't pulled the trigger yet, birthday is in mid-Nov so I'm getting close to be forced into it. And along comes this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...005733&cm_re=lg_34uc97-_-24-005-733-_-Product

A mere $1.3k, $300 more for that slight curve to the display and small input improvements I'll never take advantage of. Better stand than the 34UM95 too, though no VESA mount on the back (which I wasn't going to use).

Trying to imagine how glorious Shadow of Mordor would look with the 34UC97 running on a GTX 970. Worth $1300?

If I had the ready cash for that I would have as I would have loved the resolution of the UM95 in the curved design. I just ordered my UM65 today, at $600 it was a lot more palatable and my 970 will drive it easily.

 

[John Reynolds]

Well you know you can ask for money for your birthday and purchase the monitor later when you made up your mind, or when something new hits the market, no need to rush things.

The wife wants me to open something in front of the kids; otherewise, I'd go that route. Maybe I'll talk her into a Amazon gift card in a big box.

After writing my most recent post, I got myself into a Gsync tear and starting looking at all the upcoming TN panels that support it. 4K, ASUS' 27" 25x14 144hz panel, Acer's panels, etc. I'm definitely getting a 970, got a friend lined up to buy my 1yo 770 for $150, and Gsync and a 16:9 ratio display would give me tangible bennies without compatibility concerns I'll have with a 21:9 unit. Even though that LG 34UC97 is *really* tempting.

As indecisive as I am with big purchases and generally hesitant to spend $$ on myself (we bought a new house last year after living in the old one for almost 15 years, and the new mortgage officer told me my debt to income ratio was half the national average for Americans, which is exactly the way I like it), I'll probably end up waiting. Seems like the display market is really in flux right now, lots of new stuff coming out, so probably wise to wait until the middle of next year. Assuming my Dell 3007 doesn't die on me before then.

It's definitely nice having so many options though. Almost too nice since it makes it harder for me to narrow down on a choice.

 

[Rodéric]

I wouldn't go g-sync just because it's more expensive, I would assume NV will also support FreeSync, so I'd wait for screens supporting it to show up, before making a choice.

 

[John Reynolds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfrQ6UAEmU <drool>

This and the ASUS RoG 2560x1440 Gsync panel are the only ones coming to market anytime soon that tempt me at all.

 

[John Reynolds]

Pulled the trigger tonight on the Acer XB280HK and a MSI GTX 970.

 

[Davros]

Does it use 1 tcon or 2 ?
ie: do you need to set it up like a 2 monitor eyefinity/nvsurround setup ?

 

[John Reynolds]

No, Windows sees it as a single (TN) panel. Not like the early 4Ks.