LG UltraGear OLED 45GR95QE-B

~105 vs ~83 PPI will make a difference no matter what.

To me the biggest difference is if you use DLSS, since it's a ratio based on the native resolution of the display. The main reason people complain about it on 1440p displays is that the render resolution of "DLSS Quality" is lower res than "DLSS Performance" on a 4K display.

But does 83 PPI vs. 105 make a noticable difference while gaming on OLED with HDR and everything enabled?

Yes, I understand the low PPI and low resolution kinda sucks for desktop use in Windows and Office work. Yes a higher res would be better on this monitor for that.

But in games, am I missing something with this 83 PPI? Games look amazing and beautiful and stunning as they are. Or would a 4k display give me even more details and a crisper image?
 
Tempted to try out an LG C3 42. But I did try the C2 42 last year and returned it quickly, didn't like the 16:9 aspect ratio, and the flat screen no curve was weird and just felt like a TV I hooked my PC up to, wouldn't turn on or off like a computer, etc...

Monitors I've had the past year;

AW3420DW LCD ( had for 3 years )
AW3423DW OLED ( have had for 1+ years )
AW3821DW LCD ( 2 weeks and returned it )
LG C2 42 OLED ( 2 weeks and returned it )
Asus ROG 42 OLED ( 2 weeks and returned it )
Back to a AW3423DW
Now the LG 45 Ultragear OLED

I do find myself attracted to the 21:9 Ultrawide aspect, I like the look and shape of the rectangular display, and in games I far prefer 21:9 over 16:9. But yes the low resolution on my LG 45 isn't the best, and I do wish it was higher, but not 5120 X 2160 no thanks, that would be a monster to run games on. But once in a game, I really don't notice the lower res on this display, the OLED goodness overtakes me; the inky deep blacks, the vibrant punchy colors, the fast and smooth refresh rate.

I still have my AW3423DW, so if I want super crisp high PPI and better detail, I can just go back to that, but I don't want to, because of the size, now 34" feels tiny and lacks the immersion this 45: gives me. And I'm not trying to justify my purchase for myself, I wanted a gaming monitor that had the "immersion factor" like no other, but also still wanting all the OLED goodness these panels give us, and this crazy large 45" size and extreme 800r curve give me the immersion feel like nothing else I have seen before. So yes I really like this monitor, a lot, and yes I would love a little higher res like 3820 X 1600 or so, but not much more than that. But that's not an option right now, maybe next Fall in one year it will be, or 2025 for sure, and I'll just see what's out at that time. For now I think I'm keeping this LG 45 beast.
 
Last edited:
There is something about the letterbox/ ultra wide aspect ratio. I just prefer over typical square 4K monitors.

Couple screenshots of a YouTube video I watch but it shows just how cool this monitor looks and the size and shape I think is pretty much perfect;
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20231219-203833.png
    Screenshot_20231219-203833.png
    871.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Screenshot_20231219-203825.png
    Screenshot_20231219-203825.png
    791.8 KB · Views: 0
But does 83 PPI vs. 105 make a noticable difference while gaming on OLED with HDR and everything enabled?

Yes, I understand the low PPI and low resolution kinda sucks for desktop use in Windows and Office work. Yes a higher res would be better on this monitor for that.

But in games, am I missing something with this 83 PPI? Games look amazing and beautiful and stunning as they are. Or would a 4k display give me even more details and a crisper image?

It is not the PPI that matters in games, it's the actual resolution. 83 PPI is about the same PPI as a 55" 4K display, so do games look terrible on a 55" 4K display? Absolutely not. Meanwhile a Nintendo 3DS is 236 PPI with a resolution of 240p, so games must look stunning on such a high PPI display correct? Wrong. The reason why games look crisp and sharp is NOT because of PPI, it's the RESOLUTION. And 4K simply looks more detailed and crisp than 1440p period. So are you missing out on much by not having 4K? IMO, yes you are.
 
Last edited:
Or would a 4k display give me even more details and a crisper image?
Exactly this. While in something fast paced like eSports games you are unlikely to notice that much, for any AAA graphics oriented game it's going to be noticeable. Like MistaSparkul said, it's not the PPI but the resolution. More pixels = being able to resolve more fine detail.

For something in between the two, how about the LG Flex? At least in my country the prices of those have come down a lot. It's basically same performance as a 42" C2 TV. 4K 120 Hz, but with the ability to make it flat or curved. You could add a custom resolution of 3840x1600 to run it as an ultrawide.
 
It is not the PPI that matters in games, it's the actual resolution. 83 PPI is about the same PPI as a 55" 4K display, so do games look terrible on a 55" 4K display? Absolutely not. Meanwhile a Nintendo 3DS is 236 PPI with a resolution of 240p, so games must look stunning on such a high PPI display correct? Wrong. The reason why games look crisp and sharp is NOT because of PPI, it's the RESOLUTION. And 4K simply looks more detailed and crisp than 1440p period. So are you missing out on much by not having 4K? IMO, yes you are.
Exactly this. While in something fast paced like eSports games you are unlikely to notice that much, for any AAA graphics oriented game it's going to be noticeable. Like MistaSparkul said, it's not the PPI but the resolution. More pixels = being able to resolve more fine detail.

For something in between the two, how about the LG Flex? At least in my country the prices of those have come down a lot. It's basically same performance as a 42" C2 TV. 4K 120 Hz, but with the ability to make it flat or curved. You could add a custom resolution of 3840x1600 to run it as an ultrawide.

Heavily disagree. This is mostly personal. Using numerical measures to dictate what you should and should not use at your desk is sort of like trashing everyone that uses a tube amplifier because numerically it is "objectively" less accurate. Except the receptors, ear shapes, etc for every human is different. Well, that and PPI is literally calculated based on resolution vs size, so I literally have no idea what the point of picking hairs about that is. Sure, you can claim that you'll discern more fine details on a given object at a higher resolution... but I'm also going to call that into question. Most of what I noticed about 4k vs 3440x1440 was that... my framerate went down. A lot. Yes. That was the main difference.

I have tried both this monitor (in person, though only briefly), and currently also have an LG C3 42" sitting on my desk. After personally experiencing both of them, I think people are greatly overreacting about the resolution/ppi/whatever (especially if they're able to deal with text clarity and edge fringing on the 4k OLEDs). While this sort of runs counter to what I said above, I can almost guarantee you that many people that actually give this monitor an honest try, at proper sitting distance with a proper desk, will like it quite a bit. Especially while gaming. Even after trying out this LG C3, I would easily run back to this 45 inch LG if it didn't have that horrible AG coating. The aggressive curve (no, even that LG curve can't match it at its modest curve... well and $2k price tag) coupled with the ultrawide resolution and size makes it an incredibly immersive monitor. It's also much easier to drive at its native resolution, so the 240Hz starts making sense. As far as detailing, at 4k you're often running DLSS, whereas at 3440x1440 you can often get away with running DLAA. From my experience the extra sharpness due to resolution is sort of a mixed bag when weighed against the resolution just being easier to drive without AI upscaling.

And this is the thing, it's like every single freaking topic I found about this monitor on Reddit or otherwise has a bunch of PPI people running around trashing it. Then almost anyone that just stops and decides to give it a fair shake ends up REALLY liking it (or at least a lot of aspects of it). You can go google this yourself. This sort of feels like gatekeeping based on your personal preferences. If someone likes something, don't assume it's trash and tell them that because of this or that theoretical factor. Buy it and give it an honest try yourself. I sort of regret talking out of my ass to other people that liked having this LG C3 sitting on their desk, too. After trying one, I'm starting to see the appeal (although it has a lot of drawbacks...).

Another underrated part of curved 45" is when your eyes are getting older -- and your eyeglasses prescription. The curve means your eyes are about the same distance for the whole radius. This is less strain on the range of your reading glasses.

Also going to note that windows scaling really sucks and doesn't work for some apps. This 45 inch ultrawide was bar none one of (if not the) the easiest displays on the eyes I've ever worked with. I thought the aggressive curve would suck for productivity, but it was workable. The size of text, HUD elements, etc, made this incredibly easy on the eyes to actually use day to day. I'm sure people will scoff at this, but anyone who suffers from eye strain when squinting at certain display elements will find that valuable.

It just pisses me off that they used such an ancient AG coating on it. I literally just couldn't deal with it, personally. It pisses me off because I loved everything else about it so much, but it was a deal breaker (which no one else seems to have, though).
 
Last edited:
Heavily disagree. This is mostly personal. Using numerical measures to dictate what you should and should not use at your desk is sort of like trashing everyone that uses a tube amplifier because numerically it is "objectively" less accurate. Except the receptors, ear shapes, etc for every human is different. Well, that and PPI is literally calculated based on resolution vs size, so I literally have no idea what the point of picking hairs about that is. Sure, you can claim that you'll discern more fine details on a given object at a higher resolution... but I'm also going to call that into question. Most of what I noticed about 4k vs 3440x1440 was that... my framerate went down. A lot. Yes. That was the main difference.

I have tried both this monitor (in person, though only briefly), and currently also have an LG C3 42" sitting on my desk. After personally experiencing both of them, I think people are greatly overreacting about the resolution/ppi/whatever (especially if they're able to deal with text clarity and edge fringing on the 4k OLEDs). While this sort of runs counter to what I said above, I can almost guarantee you that many people that actually give this monitor an honest try, at proper sitting distance with a proper desk, will like it quite a bit. Especially while gaming. Even after trying out this LG C3, I would easily run back to this 45 inch LG if it didn't have that horrible AG coating. The aggressive curve (no, even that LG curve can't match it at its modest curve... well and $2k price tag) coupled with the ultrawide resolution and size makes it an incredibly immersive monitor. It's also much easier to drive at its native resolution, so the 240Hz starts making sense. As far as detailing, at 4k you're often running DLSS, whereas at 3440x1440 you can often get away with running DLAA. From my experience the extra sharpness due to resolution is sort of a mixed bag when weighed against the resolution just being easier to drive without AI upscaling.

And this is the thing, it's like every single freaking topic I found about this monitor on Reddit or otherwise has a bunch of PPI people running around trashing it. Then almost anyone that just stops and decides to give it a fair shake ends up REALLY liking it (or at least a lot of aspects of it). You can go google this yourself. This sort of feels like gatekeeping based on your personal preferences. If someone likes something, don't assume it's trash and tell them that because of this or that theoretical factor. Buy it and give it an honest try yourself. I sort of regret talking out of my ass to other people that liked having this LG C3 sitting on their desk, too. After trying one, I'm starting to see the appeal (although it has a lot of drawbacks...).



Also going to note that windows scaling really sucks and doesn't work for some apps. This 45 inch ultrawide was bar none one of (if not the) the easiest displays on the eyes I've ever worked with. I thought the aggressive curve would suck for productivity, but it was workable. The size of text, HUD elements, etc, made this incredibly easy on the eyes to actually use day to day. I'm sure people will scoff at this, but anyone who suffers from eye strain when squinting at certain display elements will find that valuable.

It just pisses me off that they used such an ancient AG coating on it. I literally just couldn't deal with it, personally. It pisses me off because I loved everything else about it so much, but it was a deal breaker (which no one else seems to have, though).

It is not personal preference that 4K is more detailed than 1440p...higher resolution will be more detailed than lower resolution. Nothing about that is personal preference, it is hard facts. If you prefer a lower resolution over a higher resolution because of other factors like aspect ratio or higher frame rates then yeah that is indeed personal preference and hey I too would prefer 240fps at 4K vs 60fps at 8K. But personal preferences doesn't change the fact that 4K has more detail than 1440p.
 
It is not personal preference that 4K is more detailed than 1440p...higher resolution will be more detailed than lower resolution. Nothing about that is personal preference, it is hard facts. If you prefer a lower resolution over a higher resolution because of other factors like aspect ratio or higher frame rates then yeah that is indeed personal preference and hey I too would prefer 240fps at 4K vs 60fps at 8K. But personal preferences doesn't change the fact that 4K has more detail than 1440p.

What do you mean by "detailed"? Details are extra features that you can meaningfully pick out in an image. Mathematically the only way you would get extra details from a 4k image is if it actually presented with many fine elements that could not properly be represented in one resolution vs the other, that you can actually notice. Do you want to give concrete examples of this? I would think in almost any video game, you would be quite hard pressed to actually give examples of this.

Otherwise in my experience all resolution actually really does is give you less jaggies. Actual perceivable details will be dependent upon texture and graphics settings. Which, again, if you're using DLSS with 4k, you're technically losing details vs 3440x1440 with DLAA. So at best this is debatable. You can say that 4k has a greater capacity to represent details, but again I'm not sure if that's actually meaningful in practice. The reason people do pixel pitch and ppi calculations is because your ability to perceive details in an image depends on the layout of the discrete pixels meant to represent the image. In an ultrafine monitor, you would be fine even starting at it almost face to face distance. That's what phones are. Monitor ppi and its effects on the user vs distance kind of depend on where you sit and how picky your vision is.

So again, all of it is imo debatable.
 
Well also there doesn't seem to be any large sized 4k OLED monitors in 21:9 aspect ratio. Most of the big 4k OLED displays are 16:9 which I'm not a fan of. I love the Ultrawide letterbox view.

Call me a blind dumb ass or idiot for liking this monitor. Sorry, not sorry saying I love it.

I've had the LG C2 42 and the Asus ROG 42 both 16:9 OLED displays, and yes they are very detailed from what I remember last year, but that aspect ratio is just a deal killer for me.

Plus even my system which is pretty badass had a hard time keeping up with that 4K resolution with ultra settings while gaming.

I do recall almost creaming my pants with the Alienware 38" Ultrawide 3840 x 1600 res. That size and shape of a monitor was almost display heaven, except for the outdated washed out lcd screen.

An OLED version of a 38" UW on that 3840 X 1600 res would be the holy grail unicorn monitor to me.

But for now, this LG 45 Ultragear is just AMAZING to game on. The immersion factor is on a level none of the previous monitors I've tried can give. The 800r curve seemed silly extreme at first, but now I'm do used to it, I wouldn't want anything less. A flat no curve monitor = yuck, no thanks.

Yes the low res isn't the best on a 45" screen, I'm not going to argue that, and yes of course 4k would be much sharper and obviously give a noticeable better image. But where is a 21:9 ultrawide 4k OLED monitor in a large size of 40" +? Don't think they exist yet. Yeah they coming in a year from now, Fall 2024 or for sure in 2025.

My plan is to stick with this LG until Alienware release the rumored 39" Ultrawide OLED at the higher res, or maybe LG will update this 45 Ultragear to have a 5k display, but I think that's still a year+ away.
 
What do you mean by "detailed"? Details are extra features that you can meaningfully pick out in an image. Mathematically the only way you would get extra details from a 4k image is if it actually presented with many fine elements that could not properly be represented in one resolution vs the other, that you can actually notice. Do you want to give concrete examples of this? I would think in almost any video game, you would be quite hard pressed to actually give examples of this.

Otherwise in my experience all resolution actually really does is give you less jaggies. Actual perceivable details will be dependent upon texture and graphics settings. Which, again, if you're using DLSS with 4k, you're technically losing details vs 3440x1440 with DLAA. So at best this is debatable. You can say that 4k has a greater capacity to represent details, but again I'm not sure if that's actually meaningful in practice. The reason people do pixel pitch and ppi calculations is because your ability to perceive details in an image depends on the layout of the discrete pixels meant to represent the image. In an ultrafine monitor, you would be fine even starting at it almost face to face distance. That's what phones are. Monitor ppi and its effects on the user vs distance kind of depend on where you sit and how picky your vision is.

So again, all of it is imo debatable.

Then set your monitor to 144p and get 1000fps if you don't think you lose anything by going to a lower resolution.
 
Then set your monitor to 144p and get 1000fps if you don't think you lose anything by going to a lower resolution.

That's both a hyperbolic argument and a strawman argument. No one ever said resolution just doesn't matter. I said as much in my post. Resolution gives greater capacity for details. But this is strictly about 3440x1440 vs 4k in practice. Your argument here is analogous to me saying that I don't see much of a difference with a 1.5 foot jump to the ground vs a 3 foot jump to the ground and then you telling me that I must think that gravity doesn't matter and I should just jump off the Grand Canyon.

At 144p, yes, I'm pretty sure that discrete details would get lost. In fact, being someone that used to play on 640x480 when I was younger, I'm basically 100% sure of that. But 1440p ultrawide vs 4k? Yes I'm sure you could see some difference, but I really doubt it's going to just be earth shattering. Just my own personal experience is that it's not. I don't notice more details on textures, just mostly less aliasing (which DLAA is great at reducing to begin with), and then a huge FPS hit to compensate. Which I then have to turn on DLSS to compensate for, which will then alter the image anyway...
 
That's both a hyperbolic argument and a strawman argument. No one ever said resolution just doesn't matter. I said as much in my post. Resolution gives greater capacity for details. But this is strictly about 3440x1440 vs 4k in practice. Your argument here is analogous to me saying that I don't see much of a difference with a 1.5 foot jump to the ground vs a 3 foot jump to the ground and then you telling me that I must think that gravity doesn't matter and I should just jump off the Grand Canyon.

At 144p, yes, I'm pretty sure that discrete details would get lost. In fact, being someone that used to play on 640x480 when I was younger, I'm basically 100% sure of that. But 1440p ultrawide vs 4k? Yes I'm sure you could see some difference, but I really doubt it's going to just be earth shattering. Just my own personal experience is that it's not. I don't notice more details on textures, just mostly less aliasing (which DLAA is great at reducing to begin with), and then a huge FPS hit to compensate. Which I then have to turn on DLSS to compensate for, which will then alter the image anyway...

That still doesn't change the fact that 4K is still more detailed than 1440p. You are simply arguing that the difference isn't that big or it isn't big enough for you to care about which is totally fine. I think the exact same thing when it comes to 4K vs 8K actually, I know there is a difference in detail and clarity at 8K but it's just not enough for me to care about vs 4K. I'm just stating simple facts here that the higher resolution is simply going to be more detailed, personal preference has nothing to do with any of this.
 
That still doesn't change the fact that 4K is still more detailed than 1440p. You are simply arguing that the difference isn't that big or it isn't big enough for you to care about which is totally fine. I think the exact same thing when it comes to 4K vs 8K actually, I know there is a difference in detail and clarity at 8K but it's just not enough for me to care about vs 4K. I'm just stating simple facts here that the higher resolution is simply going to be more detailed, personal preference has nothing to do with any of this.

Again, you're using the word "detailed". That's my problem. 4k is simply more pixel information in a 2 dimensional matrix. It is definitely more information. That's why your GPU has to try harder to process it. Does it actually lead to more meaningful details, and how do you prove it? Especially when you're using DLSS? Do you suddenly see some tiny insignia on your character's sleeve that you didn't notice before? That's detail vs simply information. When I played Hogwarts Legacy, the texturing on the characters' outfits, the foliage, the scenery, the details on the buildings... these were virtually unchanged. Those are actual meaningful details. If anything they were slightly worse because on 4k I was forced to turn on DLSS whereas at 3440x1440 I was using DLAA.

Anyway, we're just going to keep talking past each other at this rate, I think, I'm calling it quits here. I'm just sort of tired of people gatekeeping others' enjoyment of a display because of numbers...
 
Well the other big difference between a C3 42 and a 45 Ultragear is the aspect ratio.

16:9 vs. 21:9 to me is night and day as far as gaming goes in what you see on screen.

Isn't it true you just see more game world in 21:9? I don't just mean the sides of course due to the Ultrawide, but don't you just get more to see in 21:9 compared to 16:9.

From what I remember, 16:9 looks like a blown up extra large image as far as the character size, the game UI, and overall game world viewing goes.

Yes the game world itself does look more detailed and extra sharp in 4k. I recall ground textures and mountains or objects just looking extra sharp and detailed compared to 1440p. But that was about it.

But I do remember in 16:9 it just overall looking like the game was on extra large zoomed in setting. The guns you hold in a fps looked huge in 16:9, where in 21:9 they looked smaller in your hand, and thus you see more around you.

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong?
 
Again, you're using the word "detailed". That's my problem. 4k is simply more pixel information in a 2 dimensional matrix. It is definitely more information. That's why your GPU has to try harder to process it. Does it actually lead to more meaningful details, and how do you prove it? Especially when you're using DLSS? Do you suddenly see some tiny insignia on your character's sleeve that you didn't notice before? That's detail vs simply information. When I played Hogwarts Legacy, the texturing on the characters' outfits, the foliage, the scenery, the details on the buildings... these were virtually unchanged. Those are actual meaningful details. If anything they were slightly worse because on 4k I was forced to turn on DLSS whereas at 3440x1440 I was using DLAA.

Anyway, we're just going to keep talking past each other at this rate, I think, I'm calling it quits here. I'm just sort of tired of people gatekeeping others' enjoyment of a display because of numbers...

This isn't rocket science if you wanna see the lost in details then you could simply drop in DLSS levels and see how the lower resolution results in your detail lost. Go from DLAA in increments down to DLSS Ultra Performance and you'll see it for yourself the effects of a lower resolution. And if stating some facts about resolution is now considering gatekeeping? Lol okay. I guess we all must live in an echo chamber where people can only have the same opinions as us otherwise we are now trying to ruin other people's enjoyment.
 
Well the other big difference between a C3 42 and a 45 Ultragear is the aspect ratio.

16:9 vs. 21:9 to me is night and day as far as gaming goes in what you see on screen.

Isn't it true you just see more game world in 21:9? I don't just mean the sides of course due to the Ultrawide, but don't you just get more to see in 21:9 compared to 16:9.

From what I remember, 16:9 looks like a blown up extra large image as far as the character size, the game UI, and overall game world viewing goes.

Yes the game world itself does look more detailed and extra sharp in 4k. I recall ground textures and mountains or objects just looking extra sharp and detailed compared to 1440p. But that was about it.

But I do remember in 16:9 it just overall looking like the game was on extra large zoomed in setting. The guns you hold in a fps looked huge in 16:9, where in 21:9 they looked smaller in your hand, and thus you see more around you.

Maybe I'm remembering this wrong?
That heavily depends on the title in question. Ultrawide isn't all sunshine and rainbows as far as that goes for sure. The most common resolution is 16:9, so many games are designed with it in mind, first and foremost. Some games won't even properly play in 21:9. They just letterbox themselves. Some games are lazy with their UW implementation, so to get you to "ultrawide" they just take the base 16:9 image and bloom it up till it fills in the sides, so you actually end up with less field of vision than if you were in just 16:9. Some also did some stupid stretching or shrinking. All of those tend to be getting more rare, but they exist.

Persona 5 Royal also didn't really play in Ultrawide properly. But many titles can be forced into it via something like this tool:
https://www.flawlesswidescreen.org

It works pretty well in my experience, and is pretty easy to get up and going. The only downside is you might encounter some weirdness in certain titles that weren't intended to render that far on the edges. For instance in Persona 5 many of the actors sort of just walked "off screen", but with the ultrawide patch they weren't really off screen anymore.
 
I recall when I picked up the LG C2 42 last year, I booted up World of Warcraft and I was immediately shocked at how large my character was and the UI at the bottom of the screen took up a big chunk of the screen, I was like WTF? Seemed like everything was zoomed in or in extra large mode. I checked the resolution in the game settings, 3840 x 2160, and the game render was set to 100% normal like always. But everything looked so big and large.

I recall immediately unplugging the C2 42 and plugging back in my AW3423DW and everything was back to "normal" to me, the character size was smaller in the game world, the game UI wasn't taking up such a large portion of the bottom, it was only taking up a tiny bit. Everything just seemed smaller and more compact and tighter looking.

I went back to the C2 and again WoW was in extra large mode. I think it's the 16:9 aspect ratio. So I just played WoW really zoomed out, which I don't normally, and it looks great, and the ground foliage and things did like crisp and sharp.

First person shooters, I booted up Halo-Infinite and Doom Eternal, and on the LG C2 42 the weapons you hold looked HUGE, they took up a big section of the screen, and the screen just looked zoomed in, or less to see in the game world. But everything was extremely detailed and very sharp looking. Again, I unplugged it, and went back to the AW3434DW to compare, and in shooters the weapons looked normal, only taking up a bit of the bottom of the screen, not extra large huge like the C2. And it seemed you could actually see more of the game world on the AW3423, and I don't mean just the sides. I then went back to the C2 42, and immediately the guns were huge again and taking up so much screen space, but I got used to it. I will say the details on the ground and walls and stuff were super sharp very detailed looking in 4k.

I ended up returning the LG C2 42, and just kept my AW3423DW for a year, as I seem to prefer the 21:9 aspect ratio, and the OLED display the colors, the brightness the HDR were just better on the AW than the LG, but I will say 4k detail is noticeable on those TV screens, everything did look super sharp and very nice.
 
Put my AW3423DW in front of the 45"
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20240103_022646440.jpg
    PXL_20240103_022646440.jpg
    385.3 KB · Views: 0
  • PXL_20240103_022634394.MP.jpg
    PXL_20240103_022634394.MP.jpg
    276.3 KB · Views: 0
  • PXL_20240103_022706979.jpg
    PXL_20240103_022706979.jpg
    164.1 KB · Views: 0
  • PXL_20240103_022734004.jpg
    PXL_20240103_022734004.jpg
    124.6 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: Otto
like this
I put the AW3423DW back up, played some Diablo IV, and browsed the web. yeah no thanks, the LG 45 Ultragear just smokes that. The large 800r curve is actually great and the Alienware curve felt almost flat or weirdly like it was bulging out at me. The vibrant colors seems a bit more punchy and better on the LG as well. Yes the font and reading things is clearer and more detailed on the AW3423DW, but other than that, I'll take the LG 45 Ultragear all day.

In games, holy cow, not even a fair comparison, the LG just looks jaw dropping, and actually a nicer deeper vibrant image over the AW, and the 240hz 0.03 response time feels ultra smooth. Diablo IV looked better on the LG than the AW even my daughter said yeah.

I'm keeping this, can't go back to a 34", and the 45" or 42" sizes are the way to go.
 
Again, you're using the word "detailed". That's my problem. 4k is simply more pixel information in a 2 dimensional matrix. It is definitely more information. That's why your GPU has to try harder to process it. Does it actually lead to more meaningful details, and how do you prove it? Especially when you're using DLSS? Do you suddenly see some tiny insignia on your character's sleeve that you didn't notice before? That's detail vs simply information. When I played Hogwarts Legacy, the texturing on the characters' outfits, the foliage, the scenery, the details on the buildings... these were virtually unchanged. Those are actual meaningful details. If anything they were slightly worse because on 4k I was forced to turn on DLSS whereas at 3440x1440 I was using DLAA.
I'd say that on a 4K res you have both the capability to render and also display those differences. To simplify, say that we have a 4K and 1080p TVs. Let's assume the 1080p TV supports an EDID that lets the game think it can render at 3840x2160. We would have the game render at 4K on both displays, but on the 1080p it then gets downscaled by the TV. It would still look better than native 1080p, but it would also not be able to display all the fine detail the 4K display can. The 3440x1440 will sit somewhere in between in the same scenario just by having 2560x1440 pixels to display instead of 1920x1080.

If you add DLSS vs DLAA in the mix, you get into weird areas. DLSS Quality on a 4K display would be 2560x1440 render resolution, but with the AI upscaling it can end up looking either similar, better or worse on a totally case by case basis compared to 3440x1440 + DLAA. I've seen DLSS able to squeeze out more fine detail from some areas than native 4K can, and correct me if I'm wrong, in that case DLAA would not improve the situation, it would just have smoother antialiasing. Then you still have the higher res of the 4K display to be able to show that fine detail.

I do think overall 3440x1440 vs 4K in gaming would be pretty hard to tell apart with 3440x1440 + DLAA vs 4K + DLSS. At native res the difference would be seen, but it would be just fine detail, distant objects etc. Game assets also vary a lot in the level of detail and eventually you will be capped out on texture and model quality. HD remaster/reworked mods for various games exist for a reason.
 
Is there anyone using a 55" 4K tv as a computer monitor? If so how close do you sit and what does text look like?
I was. I have 40 inch desk depth and a 50 ich TV was fine but with 55 the X on top of any window is out of my natural viewing angle. I switched back to a va 50 inch one since i need mine for work. And don't get an ads panel if you have to read a lot up close.
 
I’m a first timer on this forum. And I literally read thru all the comments regarding this 45GR95QE-B monitor on this site. You guys are way knowledgeable about monitors. If I was to decide on a monitor based off all the comments I’d never buy a monitor. Luckily for me.I bought this monitor right after New Years. First ever monitor and I have to say I’m blown away with the size and graphics. I use it strictly for gaming. Shadow Hunt. CoD. Forza name a few……love it. I have nothing to compare from other than the m18r1 screen. You guys obviously have years experience with various monitor sizes and brands. Way too many pros and cons for me. Not being tech savvy has its benefits on this purchase. Because I see nothing wrong with my games I play regarding resolution. It was mentioned the anti glare is a deal breaker. I had to google that. I don’t even know what to compare that to. Yeah I like the 45” I purchased. It’s a keeper. I’ll grab some speakers for it. I really enjoyed reading the back n forth comments about this and other monitors. I learned a lot and amused at the same time.
 
I'd say that on a 4K res you have both the capability to render and also display those differences. To simplify, say that we have a 4K and 1080p TVs. Let's assume the 1080p TV supports an EDID that lets the game think it can render at 3840x2160. We would have the game render at 4K on both displays, but on the 1080p it then gets downscaled by the TV. It would still look better than native 1080p, but it would also not be able to display all the fine detail the 4K display can. The 3440x1440 will sit somewhere in between in the same scenario just by having 2560x1440 pixels to display instead of 1920x1080.

If you add DLSS vs DLAA in the mix, you get into weird areas. DLSS Quality on a 4K display would be 2560x1440 render resolution, but with the AI upscaling it can end up looking either similar, better or worse on a totally case by case basis compared to 3440x1440 + DLAA. I've seen DLSS able to squeeze out more fine detail from some areas than native 4K can, and correct me if I'm wrong, in that case DLAA would not improve the situation, it would just have smoother antialiasing. Then you still have the higher res of the 4K display to be able to show that fine detail.

I do think overall 3440x1440 vs 4K in gaming would be pretty hard to tell apart with 3440x1440 + DLAA vs 4K + DLSS. At native res the difference would be seen, but it would be just fine detail, distant objects etc. Game assets also vary a lot in the level of detail and eventually you will be capped out on texture and model quality. HD remaster/reworked mods for various games exist for a reason.

I forgot to respond to this, but I think it's a decent and balanced take on it. I'm glad you understood what I meant when I said "detail vs information". As far as DLAA, I've been incredibly impressed with it. I've used it on No Man's Sky and it essentially made it suddenly look like an almost current gen title (at the time I tried anyhow). I'm quite a fan of it. DLSS, I can see the need for, but as you said you're getting into strange territory once you start talking about native+DLAA (even if the native is lower) vs (higher) native + DLSS. And from my experience, DLSS is more or less just required at 4k, in any recent title. Hogwarts Legacy at 3440x1440+DLAA is quite playable on my 4090, but when I upgraded to 4k, it's just not smooth enough anymore. The 67% resolution bump is just too much. I was forced to turn DLSS on.

Higher resolutions definitely have the potential to show more detail, but in practice I'm not sure how meaningful that is. I think at the end of the day the only good judge of what is better or isn't is trying everything with your naked eyes. Numbers are just numbers. What you're seeing is what matters. For instance, I'm apparently the only one that's bothered by the matte coating on this monitor, everyone else is fine with it lol.
 
I googled DLAA DLSS. Wonder what the Best Buy salesman would’ve said had I asked him does this monitor support DLAA and DLSS. I spend a good portion of my shifts at work reading thru this forum. Did y’all go to school for all this tech knowledge. I play there on the monitor as it came out the box. Had to go in the windows settings to turn hdr on believe that was it.
 
I googled DLAA DLSS. Wonder what the Best Buy salesman would’ve said had I asked him does this monitor support DLAA and DLSS. I spend a good portion of my shifts at work reading thru this forum. Did y’all go to school for all this tech knowledge. I play there on the monitor as it came out the box. Had to go in the windows settings to turn hdr on believe that was it.
Just a lifelong interest in tech and personal research.
 
But does 83 PPI vs. 105 make a noticable difference while gaming on OLED with HDR and everything enabled?

Yes, I understand the low PPI and low resolution kinda sucks for desktop use in Windows and Office work. Yes a higher res would be better on this monitor for that.

But in games, am I missing something with this 83 PPI? Games look amazing and beautiful and stunning as they are. Or would a 4k display give me even more details and a crisper image?
I would add that using mine as a secondary work monitor, its not bad at all and well worth the trade off to have breathtaking gaming. I mean every game I have seems like a new game. Its ridiculous. Oh and Cyberpunk, don't get me started.
 
I googled DLAA DLSS. Wonder what the Best Buy salesman would’ve said had I asked him does this monitor support DLAA and DLSS. I spend a good portion of my shifts at work reading thru this forum. Did y’all go to school for all this tech knowledge. I play there on the monitor as it came out the box. Had to go in the windows settings to turn hdr on believe that was it.
Yep, calibrated right out of the box. Just enable HDR in windows and I let it fly.
 
I would add that using mine as a secondary work monitor, its not bad at all and well worth the trade off to have breathtaking gaming. I mean every game I have seems like a new game. Its ridiculous. Oh and Cyberpunk, don't get me started.

Totally :)

In games, it's jaw dropping. Seriously, it literally is mind blowing how immersive games look on this monitor.

Just for fun, I unplugged this monitor, and put my AW3423DW OLED back in place, did some desktop stuff and gaming, and LOL it's not even a fair comparison, immediately hated the AW, it first off looked tiny like gaming on my smartphone, and the vibrant deep colors seem more muted on the AW compared to the LG. And the 240hz vs the 165hz the LG does look and feel smoother as well.

So for a gamer, the AW3423DW OLED or the LG 45 Ultragear OLED? 100% the LG. I really like the extreme 800r curve too, the 1800r curve on the AW looks flat now.
 
Back
Top