Pixel density is fine. Display looks great. I have one sitting in front of me right now that I've been using for a few months now to game on and there are no issues. There are no readily identifiable single pixels from 2.5ft away than there are with a 24" 1080p display.Interesting choice as it's close to a 1440p ultrawide but wouldn't be my selection due pixel density and having 5 times the amount of latency that a gaming monitor should have. At that size you might as well go 4k or 1440p Ultrawide because aiming won't be as easy because it's basically a stretched out 27" 2560 x 1440p panel with the same amount of pixels. The same can be said for 27" 1080p panels (As opposed to the 24" 1080p standard) which typically aren't a gamer's go to, especially for first person shooters where aiming is important.
The fact is that 1ms or sub ms response times are just overrated. Sure, if you can get a lower ACTUAL response time you're not going to turn it down, but it's not THAT critical.
Let's do a bit of math.
If your refresh rate is 60Hz, that means it takes 1/60th of a second to refresh, which comes out to ~16.7ms per refresh.
If your refresh rate is 144Hz, then it takes ~6.9ms per refresh.
So, any response time under 6-7 ms should always be sufficient.
Plus, that panel has down to a 1ms response time using motion blur reduction, which I know is not as good as a true GTG 1ms response time, but it's still well within what's acceptable and better than a lot of what's out there in this price range.
It also has freesync that actually WORKS, without any caveats, with Gsync.
I know of at least five heavy gamers on here including another member of the moderation team, and none of them have any complaints about it even with much better hardware than mine.
I'm just saying, for around 300 bucks, this is a display you can really live with.
Techspot, who is pretty well respected in this area of reviews, although certainly not as technical as TFT central or Rtings, both of whom gave this unit very good reviews as well, had this to say.
Rtings said this:Previously we have recommended monitors like the Viotek GN32DB or the Pixio PX329 in this category. The Viotek option is curved and about $330, while the Pixio is flat and $350. But with the LG 32GK650F also slotting in at $350, it simply offers more than the alternatives at a matching price point.
Specifically, the 32GK650F has faster response times, which reduces blur and provides a true 144Hz experience, unlike the Pixio which is advertised as 165Hz but really can’t deliver true 144Hz. The LG remains a large 32-inch flat VA with good contrast which we feel is better than curved alternatives and it comes with a better stand that’s height and pivot adjustable, neither of which the Viotek nor Pixio offer. Crucially, this monitor is also much easier to find in retailers worldwide although pricing will vary depending on the region.
And honestly, I haven't noticed ANY problems with transitions in dark scenes at all, so I think maybe they simply had a bad review sample. As we know, two different samples of the same monitor can have some wildly different results in some cases.The LG 32GK650F-B is a great gaming monitor, and it delivers decent all-around performance when you're not gaming. The VA panel delivers deep, uniform blacks, and it has outstanding low input lag. It has good peak brightness, excellent gray uniformity, and decent reflection handling. This monitor also supports FreeSync, even from a recent NVIDIA card, which is great. Unfortunately, although the average response time is great, some transitions are very slow, which is especially noticeable in dark scenes.