34 – 35″ UltraWide or ~32″ 16:9 monitor

Hi antrhax and welcome (nearly called you anthrax – oops!)

Amazon reviews are always a tricky one and you certainly can’t put too much weight into negative comments there. Monitors are very subjective and there’s no perfect monitor. People are also far more likely to comment on something to complain and give negative feedback than to praise it and give positive feedback. Put that together and it’s easy to see a biased and negative picture emerge of a product, even though you yourself may absolutely love it.

Given the games you play and everything you said, I feel that you’d get more enjoyment out of one of the UltraWide models. I also agree that G-SYNC would be an addition that you wouldn’t get a lot of enjoyment out of and in many respects would be worthless to you – plus you’d be restricting your choices and paying over the odds. I think it’s helpful to help focus things by looking at the broad advantages and disadvantages of the 21:9 UltraWide models vs. the ~32″ 16:9 models. I’ve also re-named the thread with this theme in mind.

Advantages of the UltraWide models:

– The curve is more noticeable. Some of those models have a stronger curve on paper (1500R in the case of the C34F791), but the extra physical width makes it more noticeable and impactful. I say this in a good way. I still see it as a fairly subtle addition, but it draws you in a bit and adds to immersion better than on the 16:9 models.

– Alongside the larger width, the higher resolution provides more horizontal ‘real-estate’ on the screen.

– Lower ‘VA glow’ compared to the curved 31.5″ models. The LG 32GK850G is really good in this respect (it has a flat screen), but for whatever reason the curved 31.5″ VA models have higher levels of ‘VA glow’. It’s not extreme and not as bad as VA glow, but it’s a negative factor to consider. Obviously the PG348Q is an outlier here as it has an IPS panel. Refer to this post which gives a broad comparison between the VA and IPS UltraWide routes.

– 21:9 delivers a very nice experience in my view and is more widely supported than most people believe. For titles that don’t support it, you can just run with black borders at the side. Not ideal, but the image itself appears as a 27″ 2560 x 1440 model.

Advantages of the 16:9 models:

– More broad support for high refresh rate. 144Hz+ refresh rate is supported. For high resolution UltraWides, the upcoming LG 34GK950F is potentially very attractive due to its support of this refresh rate and its ‘Nano IPS’ technology (enhances colour gamut and hence vibrancy compared to current 3440 x 1440 IPS UltraWides).

– The curve is more subtle, for those who fear the curve (you shouldn’t).

– Resolution is less demanding and 16:9 is more widely supported than 21:9.

– Less desk space required.

So with all of this considered, I feel that you should go down the UltraWide route. I don’t rate the 35″ AUO MVA panels as highly as the 34″ Samsung SVA panels, so you can rule out the 35″ high resolution options. The only reason you’d want to go for one of those is if you specifically want G-SYNC. The AOC AG352UCG6 would be a good example there. Essentially the colour consistency, contrast (and to a minor degree screen surface) is better on the 34″ panels and there are less noticeable interlace pattern artifacts (refer to relevant reviews). The image is simply richer and it’s something keen eyed users such as myself appreciate. I’m not saying the 35″ options are bad, but I’m happily knocking products off your list here. In my view the final piece of the puzzle is that you mentioned you wanted low input lag. To me this leaves the ASUS MX34VQ as a very good option, and it’s also recommended as it happens. If you’re prepared to wait a bit, keep an eye out for the LG 34GK950F later this year – we’ll be reviewing that at some point, with any luck.

That’s correct. I’d recommend trying one of the 34″ UltraWide models given your uses and preferences – they offer better image quality than the 35″ models. In particular I recommend the ASUS MX34VQ. The Samsung C34F791 is excellent in many respects, but you mentioned you wanted low input lag and that is an area that the ASUS is quite a bit stronger in.

You’re right to wonder about the downgrade in refresh rate, though. And the pixel responsiveness would be a downgrade as well. That’s a very important point, although it depends on your sensitivity to those things. I would advise running your VG248QE at 100Hz and seeing if you can adapt to it. Personally I am very sensitive to frame rate, tearing and stuttering. And the games I play can certainly strain even the GTX 1080 Ti at 2560 x 1440 or moreover 3440 x 1440. So I’d prefer the 144Hz refresh rate myself and also very much appreciate G-SYNC and strong pixel responsiveness.

I use the Dell S2716DG as my main gaming monitor, but I spend a lot more time these days simply using whatever monitor I’m reviewing. Which is why I haven’t upgraded it to something nicer. If this wasn’t the case and I actually got to use it a lot, the LG 32GK850G is a model I would happily upgrade it to. It fits my own preferences just fine – although ideally I like a bit of a higher pixel density. So the ASUS PG27UQ and similar models tick more of my boxes, but I wouldn’t pay the current retail price for one and believe more suitable and cheaper alternatives will reveal themselves.

I also enjoy the UltraWide experience and all else being equal would take one over a 16:9 model. I also prefer a somewhat wider colour gamut, so for me a suitable screen would actually be something like the LG 34GK950G (not yet released). The AOC AG352UCG6 is a capable and well-priced G-SYNC UltraWide that delivers a decent 120Hz experience. And I’ve received plenty of positive feedback from users who liked what they saw in our review and bought it. But I feel the upcoming LG alternative would suit me better, personally, as I would appreciate the richer colour output and superior pixel responsiveness. But these are just my preferences; everybody has their own.

The important thing is what might work well for you here, not what would work for me. You are going to have to decide what compromises you are prepared to make. I had a very important suggestion for you (try your current monitor at 100Hz) which will help you decide which path to take. You seemed to find 100Hz decent, so you’ve got your answer. And you might find going for something like the MX34VQ and seeing it for yourself the only way forward. Otherwise you’ll probably just remain confused and conflicted.

I’ve also suggested some alternatives already, including not yet released models. So it’s over to you. Hint: re-read the last paragraph of my previous post, which I’ve edited slightly for clarity. To be completely clear, I prefer the UltraWide 3440 x 1440 experience but do not find the current models quite hit the spot for me.

There isn’t a thread comparing the LG 32GK850G and ASUS MX34VQ, although I would highly advise reading both reviews so you fully understand the differences. Or at the very least looking at the conclusion sections of both. The differences are largely subtle except for:

– The screen size, curve and pixel density. The ASUS is larger horizontally, smaller vertically, has a curve and a superior pixel density.
– The LG is more responsive. Higher refresh rate (Hertz- not kilowatt hours as you mentioned above) and better pixel response time tuning.
– The LG supports G-SYNC.
– The ASUS has a marginally higher colour colour gamut (in some regions) and is tuned to ‘2.3’ gamma on average. So the image is slightly richer.
– The LG has a ‘text softening’ issue, although it’s not an issue for the majority of users and many don’t even notice it at all.

Your ‘friend’ who suggested the ASUS PG348Q. Does he own one or prefer IPS over VA? Has he actually used all of the monitors he’s comparing? I’ve already pointed you to resources (in particular this) which specifically compare the VA and IPS UltraWide routes. Anybody saying it is “better” is misguided, oversimplifying and showing simple bias. Equally anybody saying it is “worse” is doing the same. Apples and oranges. Do you prefer contrast, far less ‘glow’ and generally much better dark uniformity over more consistent colour reproduction? And how about the refresh rate advantage of the LG?

I see regarding energy consumption. I thought you had mistyped the refresh rate of each model and were meaning Hz. Sorry about that. I’m not sure how you’ve calculated this, though. The ASUS XG32VQ has a typical power consumption of <43W and the LG 32GK850G has a typical power consumption of 55W.

If you really do feel that 100Hz is sufficient, then yes I feel the LG is the right choice. 🙂

Ah yes, dunno why I quoted for you the XG32VQ value there. It’s been a long day already. 😉 . The MX34VQ’s power consumption indeed higher than the LG, but 100W is actually the maximum power consumption figure at full brightness with the Qi charger active on the ASUS. Most of the time you’ll be running it at a lower brightness and not using the Qi charger, the power consumption won’t be so high.

It isn’t funny that the Dell Alienware AW3418DW isn’t recommended. As always, there are good reasons for that.

You can’t feel the difference between 100Hz and 60Hz @ 100Hz (i.e. an overclock), but there are some potential issues which are explained in the post on that topic, which you’ve read.

Not sure why you came to the conclusion that the LG is better at 144Hz than 165Hz, that’s clearly not the case if you read the relevant section of the review or listen to that section of the video. Perhaps you misunderstood something, or I’m misunderstanding what you’re getting at there? And as I say, overshoot is something that sensitivity to varies. But if you did happen to find it bothersome, the ‘Faster’ response time setting of the LG would be a better bet and works quite nicely.

I am entirely self-educated when it comes to monitors. Just a passion of mine and something I’ve developed a lot of experience and carefully researched over the years. I am a scientist in the field of neuroscience “by trade” and do happen to work in animal vision. There’s some crossover with the monitor stuff and I certainly work with people who work are involved in display engineering and studying human vision more specifically.

Be careful. Make sure you’re not comparing the final 3-picture column in each case. Because, at 165Hz, that shows the result with G-SYNC off and that is indeed slower. At any rate, don’t look too much into slight differences in the pursuit photographs as that’s just a slim range of transitions and any weaknesses are more obvious there than when gaming normally. The monitor does well at 165Hz when set up correctly and I feel the extra ‘connected feel’ and lower overall perceived blur (165fps content, ideally) is welcome. 🙂

I assume you’re not using VSync. Tearing (and associated effects) is less noticeable at higher refresh rates, even if the frame rate is at the levels you’re talking about.

TFT Central has a good review of the PG348Q. It has low input lag and quite good pixel responsiveness.