LG 34UM95 34-Inch Ultra-Wide QHD Monitor Review

[ceberle]

When we looked at 29-inch ultra-wide displays last year, we asked for greater size and more pixels. LG answers that request with its 34UM95, a 34-inch panel with a resolution of 3440x1440. Today we run it through our performance and usability analysis.

LG 34UM95 34-Inch Ultra-Wide QHD Monitor Review : Read more

 

[InfinityPixels]

I want this so bad.

 

[rantoc]

4k gaming is amazing but demand alot from the computer hardware. Just got a dell 3214 and its hard to describe how much better the picture/emersion is with the way higher definition in the picture quality and still came from descent 2560x1600 before that.

Playing on "full" hd (LD? Low definition) feels like a joke once you get to know uhd/4k

 

[wtfxxxgp]

Rantoc, what does your comment have to do with the article? Seems to me that you were waiting for an opportunity to brag about your new monitor... Glad you got that out of your system. lol

With regards to this monitor...I LOVE the looks...very elegant. I think the price tag is fitting as well - it has great resolution and there are still plenty of people who are gaming on 60hz displays that may have just enough GPU power to actually game at this thing's native resolution, albeit with slightly lower settings. GG LG!

 

[ubercake]

Great to see larger-sized higher-than-HD res monitors.

 

[Nossy]

For a grand, you can get two Asus PB278Q.

 

[cknobman]

$1000?

Next

 

[xPandaPanda]

I have this monitor. Because of it's cinema format, market age, lower production numbers, and early adoption as competitors haven't offered this yet, it is reasonable to think this monitor would cost this much--a lot.

It would have been nice to include what revision this is, because LG is aware of uniformity issues, which is why the product was largely on backorder and a Rev.2 is in place (but Rev. 2 didn't fix the problem either). My first one had a glaring Uniformity problem, but LG is cool and offered an advanced exchange. The new one has some uniformity problem, but it is very 'livable' and discrete.

Overall, I am pleased with this product. I have a single 780 to push this and it works nicely. If I got a 4k monitor, I'd have performance issues as the GPU as a whole sector is behind.

 

[eklipz330]

as a pc gamer who has been playing for ~15 years, i have to say that this is one of the biggest changes that i've seen on the pc platform. this is a big step towards bringing pc back to relevancy. it's something that will be held to acclaim in productive and gaming environments. in fact, the only thing that i'm surprised that they didn't do is make it curved, simply because when a user sets up a multi-monitor setup, they set the outside monitors at an angle. this makes curved monitor solutions make sense more so than tvs, especially since curved monitors benefit solo users the most. im shocked they didnt make it curved. probably going to cash in next year on that.

seriously though, pc monitors have been lacking for some years now, falling behind in innovation and technology in general(phones have been jacking up their screen quality year after year, we've been stuck since like 2005). i bet 21:9 screens will have the biggest penetration on PCs.

 

[josejones]

Why still the old HDMI 1.4 instead of HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.2 instead of the new 1.4 ???

 

[Jamie Blumenfeld]

Wish this was 1600 pixels tall. Don't get the fascination with XX:9 at all.

 

[mikeangs2004]

don't post spam

 

[Phillip Wager]

i want this bad its a good compromise of between high framerate and high pixel count. honestly for gaming i would just run 2560x1440 but i would run the full resolution for the desktop

 

[SessouXFX]

This monitor...it's been at the top of my list for nearly a month now. I know most gamers would prefer to see something with a better aspect ratio, and certainly better response and refresh time. But if you use your monitor for more than gaming, say watching movies, streaming on twitch, and using multiple applications at a time, I'm not sure how you can ignore it as a possibility.

 

[photonboy]

21:9 ->
This is simply a horrible aspect ratio for most people.

The problem is that if you can see the entire monitor without moving your head then 16:9 is the proper ratio to maximize viewing area such as 3840x2160.

Ultrawide really only makes sense if it's WIDER than what you can see without moving your head. For that, I'd rather have more than one monitor.

Ultrawide for gaming makes little sense. Screens need to be curved, or have multiple angled monitors with minimal gap but a single super-wide screen just doesn't work.

*If you really think about it, it's hard to justify the 21:9 ratio.

 

[SessouXFX]

[quotemsg=13808888,0,67821]21:9 ->
This is simply a horrible aspect ratio for most people.

The problem is that if you can see the entire monitor without moving your head then 16:9 is the proper ratio to maximize viewing area such as 3840x2160.

Ultrawide really only makes sense if it's WIDER than what you can see without moving your head. For that, I'd rather have more than one monitor.

Ultrawide for gaming makes little sense. Screens need to be curved, or have multiple angled monitors with minimal gap but a single super-wide screen just doesn't work.

*If you really think about it, it's hard to justify the 21:9 ratio.[/quotemsg]
Don't knock it, if you haven't tried it. Seen the demos of this screen with 21:9, it's quite impressive looking, compared to the other ratios out there. At the very least, it's more compelling than given credit for.

 

[Home-World]

What to see the same density as 4k, the ultra wide is the way forward for me buy one instantly

 

[moogleslam]

This size/format needs G-Sync and a faster refresh rate, then it would be perfect for my gaming needs.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Next time, ask for an ULTRA TALL monitor. So we don't have to scroll too much. You know, just get back to 2560x1600. 1440p sucks and going further with width doesn't help my browsing etc. There's a premium on 1600P right now just because of all this 1440p crap taking over. How many people are using spreadsheets all day? Some width is ok but I'd rather have tall and more monitors to get more width (2 or 3 screens) vs. splitting crap on one HUGE wide screen. Give me 2 or 3 1600p 27/30inchers and I'd be happy to drop different apps on each or run games.

Impressive LOOKING and impressive FUNCTIONALITY are two different things I'm not saying wide isn't good for SOME applications, but not for the majority of us. Not sure where monitor makers are getting their data, but I don't think they're asking the right people what we users want

 

[ubercake]

...

[quotemsg=13815373,0,374745]This size/format needs G-Sync and a faster refresh rate, then it would be perfect for my gaming needs.[/quotemsg]

That's what I'm thinking. It seems like the wider the screen resolution the more perceivable tearing is. G-sync would help this situation. Acer is supposed to be releasing a 4K G-sync monitor in the next 6 months or so:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-g-sync-monitors-unveiled-shipping-soon-worldwide

 

[dehcbad25]

I had the 29UM95, and I am writing from that monitor. Christian...WHAT USERS WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SIZE? I can buy 2 29UM95 for the price of 1 34UM95.
Granted the 34" will have its uses and applications, but from the UWHD I don't think it will be the most sold. the 27" might be too small, but 29" is perfect for 2650x1080. BTW, I do game in this monitor too, and I work on it TOO

 

[knowom]

Resolution size is great that's plenty for awhile to come for gaming, but the price still too over the top when you can get a actual 4k Seiki SE39UY04 for $340 that can still run that resolution size no problem and at or around 60Hz.

 

[somebodyspecial]

[quotemsg=13820411,0,299576]...

[quotemsg=13815373,0,374745]This size/format needs G-Sync and a faster refresh rate, then it would be perfect for my gaming needs.[/quotemsg]

That's what I'm thinking. It seems like the wider the screen resolution the more perceivable tearing is. G-sync would help this situation. Acer is supposed to be releasing a 4K G-sync monitor in the next 6 months or so:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-g-sync-monitors-unveiled-shipping-soon-worldwide[/quotemsg]

Should be next 3-4 months everywhere Q3 worldwide.
http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/press/2014/77934
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-065-AC
pre-order already ETA 9/5 & usa can't be but a month or two behind them. I hope someone puts out a 1600P model at some point. I won't buy 1440p unless there are ZERO 1600p monitors available at 27 or 30in when I buy this xmas or early next year...LOL.

 

[d_kuhn]

Resolution size is great that's plenty for awhile to come for gaming, but the price still too over the top when you can get a actual 4k Seiki SE39UY04 for $340 that can still run that resolution size no problem and at or around 60Hz.

The Seiki is 30hz at 4k... just like all the other Seiki displays (though I hear there's a new one coming). There are no inexpensive 60hz 4k monitors.

Why is this monitor being called 'QHD' when it's quite a bit lower resolution than QHD (Quad HD is 4 1080p displays worth of resolution - 3840x2160)

 

[somebodyspecial]

[quotemsg=13855492,0,10647]

Resolution size is great that's plenty for awhile to come for gaming, but the price still too over the top when you can get a actual 4k Seiki SE39UY04 for $340 that can still run that resolution size no problem and at or around 60Hz.

The Seiki is 30hz at 4k... just like all the other Seiki displays (though I hear there's a new one coming). There are no inexpensive 60hz 4k monitors.

Why is this monitor being called 'QHD' when it's quite a bit lower resolution than QHD (Quad HD is 4 1080p displays worth of resolution - 3840x2160)[/quotemsg]

QHD or Quad-HD is actually 2560x1440 (4x qHD, quarter high definition, 960x540). UHD is 3840x2160 (or UHD-1 if you prefer). But everyone seems to be confused about who's saying what these days. However it seems they're underselling this spec, as 3440x1440 is above QHD but maybe because it's not UHD they have to call it QHD? ROFL. Jeez, I just confused myself reading that... This crap is really a mess these days.

4K is 4096×2160, which is funny because most Tv's/monitors are saying this but are really UHD...LOL. You'd think someone would buy one then sue saying hey, 3840x2160 isn't 4K, and it also has to do with encoding (rates, quality & color depth) not just that pixel# so lying two ways when doing this kind of and they KNOW it. Maybe lawyers are too stupid/ignorant to start the lawsuit?