![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
LG UF7600 UHD Series (43"/49"/55")
- Thread starter jts888
- Start date
I played some older action FPSs (TF2, Quake 1) to get a feel, and I can't perceive any latency difference between my 49uf7600 and my old scaler-less HP LP3065 when running at 4k in game mode.
Upscaled 1080p feels super laggy even in game mode though, so be warned that reported latency figures for that resolution are likely correct.
Upscaled 1600p (what all my games started as by default) is completely non-functional, with the screen being some weird tint or other and crazy blocking and screen wrapping artifacts everywhere that was barely clear enough for me to navigate menus and choose a different resolution.
There's no standard Leo Bodnar etc. device for UHD yet (nor likely in the near future), so take every number you hear about UHD display latencies with a grain of salt unless it's your specific intention to play console or PC games at 1080p/720p.
I will say that I think 40"+ displays will benefit more from 120+Hz than will smaller screens, since identical content will seem subjectively smoother on a smaller display and choppier on a larger one. The physical length an object can jump between 1/60s frames on a ~50" screen when rapidly turning in an FPS was surprisingly large.
Upscaled 1080p feels super laggy even in game mode though, so be warned that reported latency figures for that resolution are likely correct.
Upscaled 1600p (what all my games started as by default) is completely non-functional, with the screen being some weird tint or other and crazy blocking and screen wrapping artifacts everywhere that was barely clear enough for me to navigate menus and choose a different resolution.
There's no standard Leo Bodnar etc. device for UHD yet (nor likely in the near future), so take every number you hear about UHD display latencies with a grain of salt unless it's your specific intention to play console or PC games at 1080p/720p.
I will say that I think 40"+ displays will benefit more from 120+Hz than will smaller screens, since identical content will seem subjectively smoother on a smaller display and choppier on a larger one. The physical length an object can jump between 1/60s frames on a ~50" screen when rapidly turning in an FPS was surprisingly large.
Last edited:
At UHD 4k, the latency feels indistinguishable from my old zero processing lag/moderate pixel transition time screen, for anything from desktop use to gaming. I can only really perceive lag in upscaled 1080p/720p, and I haven't really tried gaming in GPU-upscaled lower resolutions yet.
However, the UHD@60Hz with 4:2:0(?) chroma on my old GTX 670 looks horrendous for anything with colored text to the extent that I use UHD@30Hz/4:4:4 with little real complaint for now. To clarify, UHD@30Hz (choppy as it is) feels markedly more responsive than what I see at 1080p@60Hz. UHD@60Hz/4:4:4 is confirmed for HDMI 2.0, which limits you to using a 970/980/TitanX at present or presumably a 980Ti or R9 3xx series display this summer.
The biggest issue for me by far was finding the trick to mitigate the 120Hz PWM: the "backlight" setting appears to scale how strobe-like the lighting is while "brightness" is just the output voltage on the LEDs or something. The default, high-"backlight" setting gave me day-long eyestrain after ~1.5 hours of use, while having it set to zero I used the display for about ten hours straight the next day with no issue.
Then again, I tend to use mostly dark background/bright color text editors for work, and even the "flattened" backlight waveform I achieved might not be enough for someone who works with primarily bright windows and is notably PWM sensitive.
Looks like you just described eye fatigue from the bright screen which affects anyone. Try reading an IPad at night with full backlight and you'll see what I mean. If you were PWM sensitive, the 0 backlight would've caused the headaches while the 20 backlight would've alleviated it. You just described the reverse.
I'm pretty sure the flicker mitigation was what did the trick for me, since I now have the brightness and contrast cranked up to ~50 (all LG levels from 0-100) with no issue.
(Caveat: I'm away on a laptop right now and can't remember if I reversed the scale for the "backlight" levels.)
At the default "backlight" setting I could wave my hand in front of a lighter window and see multiple clear silhouettes when the room was dark, while pushing it to the other end gradually yielded a uniform blur, with no perceptible gaps past the ~85 point. I might be misusing the term PWM, but I have always had sensitivity to older fluorescent bulbs and sub-100Hz CRTs, and making this adjustment definitely made the display as comfortable to use as my older CCFL LCDs.
(Caveat: I'm away on a laptop right now and can't remember if I reversed the scale for the "backlight" levels.)
At the default "backlight" setting I could wave my hand in front of a lighter window and see multiple clear silhouettes when the room was dark, while pushing it to the other end gradually yielded a uniform blur, with no perceptible gaps past the ~85 point. I might be misusing the term PWM, but I have always had sensitivity to older fluorescent bulbs and sub-100Hz CRTs, and making this adjustment definitely made the display as comfortable to use as my older CCFL LCDs.
Hi,
Thanks for the information.
Sorry, I'm not sure if that replied my question or I missed it
With a 60ms lag, will the mouse pointer still move smoothly? And when I type on a text editor, will the typed key appear immediately (for my eye) on the screen?
I plan to be running at 60hz/4:4:4 with one of those HDMI 2.0 cards.
Thanks a lot!
Thanks for the information.
Sorry, I'm not sure if that replied my question or I missed it
With a 60ms lag, will the mouse pointer still move smoothly? And when I type on a text editor, will the typed key appear immediately (for my eye) on the screen?
I plan to be running at 60hz/4:4:4 with one of those HDMI 2.0 cards.
Thanks a lot!
Cursor/text/etc. responses feel instant to me at 4k (note: I am not a professional counterstrike player), and perceptibly laggy at 1080p.
I honestly believe the ~60ms latency only applies to up-scaled resolutions, which you would be insane to use for desktop stuff, since it looks like blurry bilinear sampling and not nearest-neighbor doubling/tripling for 720p/1080p content.
Like I said earlier, in game mode 4k, I can't notice any latency increase beyond what my scaler-less LP3065 (<20 ms) had, so I would guess it has at most ~30ms lag, with quite possibly less.
Maybe you are right. I know that Leo Bodnar shows a bit higher input lag then what it really is, but I never thought about that it might be even higher on a 4K display since the Bodnar is 1080p and the TV has to upscale it which might create a bit of lag.
Yeah, I already had Deep Color enabled, but the issue is that only GTX 960 and higher support UHD@60Hz/4:4:4 over HDMI 2.0 right now, and I don't plan to upgrade from my GTX 670 until I see how the R9 380/390 cards look in June.
I've been pretty impressed by the LG 2015 UHD (UF) series in general, but the lack of DP 1.2+ input is pretty annoying as a PC user.
After DP 1.3 GPUs start coming out, having 4k TVs that are internally 120 Hz but stuck on HDMI 2.0 inputs will be miserable.
Ive had my 49UF7600 in for 3 days so far. Game mode is amazing! It feels just like my 27 2710pt monitor, you should turn off the sharpening enhancer that they have on in that mode. Blacks are tolerable for IPS tech, they even put dimming features in that really knock down the glare its about on par with monitor level glow. Main and only gripe so far is the minor dirty screen effect in fog. Pretty amazing TV.
LG UF8500 review.. Another confirmation 2015 series seem to have input lag in the region of 55 ms in game mode.
I wanted a 4k monitor for productivity purposes and I initially went with a 40" Samsung JU6500 but I returned it after just two days. I sit about 2 feet from the TV and at that distance, I can see a some color distortion in the top left and right corners. It bothered me enough to return the Samsung and try the 43" LG UF7600.
I'm glad I did. I think the ~$275 premium over the Samsung was worth it
- IPS panel
- 2 HDMI ports that support 4k @ 60Hz and 4:4:4
- Magic remote
- Better placement of the joystick button. This button acts as a power, volume, and channel button. On the LG it's located on the bottom center behind the TV while on the Samsung it was located on the far right. This makes it much easier to turn on the TV.
I'm glad I did. I think the ~$275 premium over the Samsung was worth it
- IPS panel
- 2 HDMI ports that support 4k @ 60Hz and 4:4:4
- Magic remote
- Better placement of the joystick button. This button acts as a power, volume, and channel button. On the LG it's located on the bottom center behind the TV while on the Samsung it was located on the far right. This makes it much easier to turn on the TV.
1x GTX 970/980 for minimum/medium settings
2x GTX 970/980 for medium/high settings
2x Titan X for ultra settings
Something like that, when talking newer games.. But in ~4 weeks time new Radeon series comes out, so if you are not in a hurry. . .
deekortiz3
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2010
- Messages
- 68
I've had my 55UF7600 for a couple weeks now. I was hoping to check somethings on it but I haven't had a ton of time...
4:4:4 at 60hz does work on HDMI 1 and 2 with the settings mentioned in the Rtings.com review.
With Game Mode enabled and pretty much all the picture enhancements disabled at 4K I don't feel any noticeable input lag. I feel like current display lag results are pretty useless for 4K televisions. It is basically finding out how fast the TV can upscale content rather than how quickly the TV actually displays a native image.
4:4:4 at 60hz does work on HDMI 1 and 2 with the settings mentioned in the Rtings.com review.
With Game Mode enabled and pretty much all the picture enhancements disabled at 4K I don't feel any noticeable input lag. I feel like current display lag results are pretty useless for 4K televisions. It is basically finding out how fast the TV can upscale content rather than how quickly the TV actually displays a native image.
deekortiz3
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2010
- Messages
- 68
Maybe I'll see if the local computer store will let me buy their display Asus PB287Q, then I could replicate the image on the monitor and the TV and test the lag using one of those timer based test and return it.
I'd be interested in seeing just how much more input lag there is versus a standard 4K monitor.
I'd be interested in seeing just how much more input lag there is versus a standard 4K monitor.
I have the GTX 970 Asus Strix
So, with this card, i will be able to play with medium/high settings @4k ??
How would you compare the picture / image / quality two 40 inch displays : 40 inch display 4k, with medium / high settings, vs. 40 inch display full HD with ultra settings ?
I'm thinking about SLI GTX 970, or maybe GTX 970 paired with GTX 980Ti, with DX12 - Windows 10.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...able-amd-and-nvidia-gpus-to-work-side-by-side
Thank you
Which colors do you find better ? On Samsung VA panel or LG IPS ?
Doesen't bother you the glow - IPS on the LG ??
Really depends on the game and the frame rate.. If you are happy with ~30 fps, then perhaps yes..But generally one GTX 970 comes a bit short..Those more demanding games you will probably have to play on minimum settings, I imagine - especially if you want 60 fps.
That's easy.. 4k wins every day of the week.
Yep.. That would be a perfect solution.. Don't know about mixing different cards, as this was not possible until now, so we'll have to wait to see whether DX12 really delivers this functionality.... But in any case, 2x 970 is the cheapest option that offers good 4k gaming performance..
Yes, 2 x 970 is the cheapest option that offers 4k gaming performance, but still with medium settings, i guess
What about the single GTX 980Ti ?
I never used SLI before, and i don't know too much about the stuttering effect, at all
Is that very visible ? Something like tearing effect with V-Sync ON ?
What about the single GTX 980Ti ?
I never used SLI before, and i don't know too much about the stuttering effect, at all
Is that very visible ? Something like tearing effect with V-Sync ON ?
I never used it either, but I read the nuisances with SLI are pretty minor these days, and should be even more perfected under DX12.
As for the cards, 2x970 will certainly be faster than single 980ti and even faster than Titan X - and even more so if DX12 delivers stacked memory.
Well, it will affect it to some small degree..
Check these 4k game benchmarks.
Notice how GTX SLI has roughly the same minimum FPS than Titan X, but higher average FPS.. This is due to 3.5Gb RAM.. However, two gtx 970 are still better overall. Besides, these 4k tests were made with very high graphical settings, which requires more RAM.. With medium-high settings these FPS drops will largely disappear.
Not to mention if DX12 brings stacked memory, which would mean two GTX 970 will actually result in a total of 7Gb RAM.
Check these 4k game benchmarks.
Notice how GTX SLI has roughly the same minimum FPS than Titan X, but higher average FPS.. This is due to 3.5Gb RAM.. However, two gtx 970 are still better overall. Besides, these 4k tests were made with very high graphical settings, which requires more RAM.. With medium-high settings these FPS drops will largely disappear.
Not to mention if DX12 brings stacked memory, which would mean two GTX 970 will actually result in a total of 7Gb RAM.
7 GB Vram would be nice for 4k, i hope DX12 will do that
That's all conjecture at this point. There is no proof of that. However, logically speaking, even if those are used as separate frame buffers, the same textures have to be loaded into each separate 3.5GB. It's not possible to store texture on only one card's frame buffer than have the other card read it through the PCI bus or SLI bridge. That would slow everything down tremendously and cripple frame rate.
In theory, there will be two separate frame buffers in D12, but in reality, they each will still use up their RAM for loading of duplicate textures. You will not get a doubling of RAM to 7GB. After texture is loaded, what's left of that 3.5GB will be used as a separate frame buffer for processing. With Ultra HD texture pack becoming normal for 4K gaming, I doubt that 3.5GB will be future proof for 4K.
I blacks where definitely better on the Samsung VA but all other colors are more vibrant on the LG IPS. Since I sit about 2 feet from the TV, the color doesn't distort on the top left and right corners of the screen at that viewing angle, which is important to me.
The IPS glow doesn't bother me, I guess I'm use to it b/c my previous dual-monitors were both IPS as well.
I have both displays and the details in dark movies and scenes at night in games do miss details that the Samsung doesnt although the Sam does have VA cone effect when you sit to close but not near as bad as sitting close to the LG IPS glow. The colors are nearly as vibrant on the Sam as the LG!
One other thing i notice between the two, there are more artifacts present in the "120hz" interpolation on the LG in movies. Like for example antennae on ships or skinny wings on a plane flying by will hop back and forth as its panning, less so on the Sam.
290s in CF are a good match for 4K, but you can't use them to drive any of these 4K TVs - no HDMI 2.0 so you'll be limited to 30 Hz.
SlippinJimmy
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2015
- Messages
- 104
Supposedly, the LG UF7700 (not sure how different it is from the 7600) is 55 to 65 ms in practically every mode without trumotion and the Samsung is around 48ms in PC mode, though I think it's decreased a little with later updates.
I'd like to hear more about how this TV compares to the Samsung (and the new Sharp 43UB30)
I'd like to hear more about how this TV compares to the Samsung (and the new Sharp 43UB30)
The 49UF7600 is also on sale for $1100 at a lot of places.
I work mostly with monospace bitmap fonts in text editors, so the 91 dpi is actually a benefit over the 103 dpi for the 43".
Also, I can confirm the monitor "shrink" effect is quite real for anyone debating a 40"-43" vs. a 48"-50" display.
I work mostly with monospace bitmap fonts in text editors, so the 91 dpi is actually a benefit over the 103 dpi for the 43".
Also, I can confirm the monitor "shrink" effect is quite real for anyone debating a 40"-43" vs. a 48"-50" display.
Anyway you an post a picture of your setup? I have the 43" right now and I have a hard time using the top 6"-8" of my display because I have to tilt my head up.
I'm in the same situation as you. I mostly work in text editors with very little gaming.
Buy something like Silverstone arm + vesa 200x200 adapter and you will be able to lower the screen so that it'll be touching the desk.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I might post a pic tomorrow when I have things cleaned up to at least the point of not being totally embarrassing.
For additional info now though, I'm using an adjustable 4'x2' utility table with a 26" surface height and a Kinesis Advantage kb, which is kind of effectively lowering the monitor level by 1 or 2 inches compared to having a normal thickness kb and monitor sharing a surface.
My eyes end up just about level with the top of the viewable area, but it is a jump up from my previous 30" display (kept at the minimum stand height).
I am seriously considering an alternate stand configuration though to get tilt functionality back and to be able to lower the display by 2"-2.5".
When I was looking at the 40"/48" samsungs and the 43"/49" lgs, I thought long and hard about the height issue vs. pixel size and decided I could find ways to lower a larger display if I ended up being unhappy with that but I couldn't really add more rows of pixels if I needed to bump fonts sizes on a smaller display for legibility.