LG New 45" OLED Ultrawide Monitor

[Mr Latte]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TeddyBearx]

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

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

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

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

 

[Pär Öqvist]

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

Inch is measured diagonally so its actually really small

 

[RasmusP]

Inch is measured diagonally so its actually really small

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

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

With 1440p, it's 101 ppi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Spinelli]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Spinelli]

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

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

With 1440p, it's 101 ppi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RasmusP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pär Öqvist]

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

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

With 1440p, it's 101 ppi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[offroadracer516]

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

 

[Spinelli]

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

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