there's always something else coming out, just last week, LG Displays announced a 3rd gen Tandem that can reach 540Hz so it's more for you to decide when it's good enough for you
[https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED\_Gaming/comments/1t56d6t/lg\_display\_shows\_720hz\_gaming\_oled\_39inch\_5k2k/](https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED_Gaming/comments/1t56d6t/lg_display_shows_720hz_gaming_oled_39inch_5k2k/)
for example for me I'm happy even with 120 Hz so the 39GX950B is more than enough for me, but some reviews called out that 165Hz was not enough, so probably that new panel that got announced would be better for them
There's also mentions that LG Displays also has a Glossy version of the panel that the 39GX950B uses, so people think that some other manufacturer like ASUS might pick it up and give us the same as the LG but on glossy
45" is too big, I use an LG 42" TV and thats the absolute maximum size to comfortably use as a monitor, and even then I still need the display upscaled.
39" seems ideal, pretty much the same width but a bit shorter, the vertical pixels at the top don't matter at all.
This. Many of us are on 38" 3840x1600 screens that have been waiting years for an upgrade. 45" is way too big for me. Plus that 800r curve is terrible. I would've preferred 2000r in the 39", but 1500r is a lot better than 800r.
The 45" is too big. 38/39" is the sweet spot for me. It covers my entire field of view. The smaller screen will also have higher pixel density. The 1500r curve will make it more versatile for gaming and desktop usage. I would've preferred a 2000r curve, but at least it's not a wild 800r.
Many of us have a 38" 3840x1600 screen that we've been waiting years for an upgrade. I have the money, but monitor makers refuse to make the product I want.
There's no reason to not be using DLSS. The image quality difference is negligible on Quality and minimal on Balanced. You're leaving performance on the table for no reason. Same with FG. It works great. What matters is the end result. Does it look good and feel good to play? If so, it doesn't matter how you got there. The 5090 is giving you the tools to achieve a good end result. Use those tools. You paid for them. This resolution is 11 million pixels too so you have to be realistic on what to expect. That's 33% more than 4k.
I have that monitor and a 5090. Cyberpunk and RE9 with path tracing and everything else maxed out get 60 FPS with DLSS Balanced. Adding in FG on top of that gets you to 120. This looks and feels great to play.
Not sure how you are barely getting 100 FPS with DLSS Performance and FG 4x. This would imply 25 base FPS from an internal resolution of 1080p. That is impossibly bad performance for a 5090. Something else must be incorrect with your setup for that to occur.
I just tested Crimson Desert. Maxed out at 5120x2160 with DLSS Balanced I get 55 FPS. FG 2X puts it at 110. Looks great. Feels good enough for me for such a slower paced/heavy controlling game. You can tweak a few settings down to get it to 60 base. This still doesn't line up with the extremely poor performance you saw at the lower 4k resolution, but I think you have other problems going on.
Yea I didn't think 34" -> 39" would be that big of a difference, but it feels way more immersive. The extra screen space with the extra curve is nice. I played a bit on my buddies LG 5K2K 45" before he returned it (Gave him bad motion sickness) and it was a bit too much for me.
My desk is 30” deep and the 45 has to be all the way back to get a good curve.
I would pick the 39” for the following: the tandem oled is a big improvement over the 45 and for a Mac user like myself the increased PPI is great for text clarity.
I had both side by side for a few days and the difference is easy to notice especially on web pages. The 45" with tandem would be very nice for those who want the size.
3nyder
