LG - 45GR75DC-B

Just posted this to a similar thread: Recently went down the "affordable ultrawide for work" rabbit hole after my Samsung G9 OG kicked the bucket. Ended up landing on the 45GR75DC-B. Less aggressive curve (1500R) and slightly reduced physical width but those work well with the same 5120x1440 resolution to achieve a higher PPI version of what I was working with before. Its also a much lighter package, has USB C 90 watt power delivery, not OLED (I was concerned with burn in from days long sessions) and up to 200mhz refresh rate while it came in at $799 which was good value versus the others I had been considering. Been pretty pleased with it overall so far, but still early on with it.

LG has a nice 45" 1500R 32:9 display as long as you are good with VA at 200hz. Here is a review link, I also have one of these and agree with the review. It has higher PPI than the 49 you mentioned since it's the same res but condensed form factor. [https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/lg-ultragear-45gr75dc-45-inch-mega-wide-200-hz-gaming-monitor](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/lg-ultragear-45gr75dc-45-inch-mega-wide-200-hz-gaming-monitor)

It looks crazy at distance, I agree. And I thought I would hate it. But that's not how it is intended to be used.When you sit at the correct distance \~80cm in front of it, you adapt really quickly to it and only really notice if you move further away. It is actually great at 80cm, because the center and the sides are the same distance from your eyes. Without the curve at similar distance I would have to move my neck to see the whole display, I have an 1800R 45" 32:9, and if I sat at that distance, it would be painful. It is really a good choice for this size in real life use at that intended distance as it fills your vision without neck strain. And instead of hating it, I now think it is perfect.

I'm using an oled now, but my 200hz 45" LG VA 32:9 panel is bright and has very accurate color when calibrated correctly and oversaturated colors that some people seem to enjoy if desired. It had a slight VA blur trail on fast moving objects, but at 200hz it was imperceptible to me outside of anything but a test designed to highlight it. Modern VA panels are much better than they used to be.

I stumbled across another, more modern one. [https://www.amazon.com/LG-45GR75DC-B-45-inch-Ultragear-Monitor/dp/B0CGFD39D1](https://www.amazon.com/LG-45GR75DC-B-45-inch-Ultragear-Monitor/dp/B0CGFD39D1) Bit expensive but it's gone on sale for $200 off this price a few times in recent months.

This is potentially the form factor and resolution we have been waiting for. Enough screen real estate with the 5k2k resolution to replace a plethora of multi-monitor setups while the curve allows the eye to still maintain a view of the peripheral areas on the screen such that it is still viable as a FPS and other gaming monitor where a view of every corner of the screen is important to be competitive. Having tested the previous generation 45" and found it nearly perfect but for the resolution, I would be excited to get my hands on this to determine if it is indeed the grail monitor that has been eluding me for years after my 34" LG was damaged a decade ago and I never settled on another ultrawide that could tick all the boxes once higher refresh rates were necessary.

I thought about 32:9 when I had my first 21:9 which was a 34, and was like... this isn't enough vertical space, I thought about S:UW and then i saw the 45" LGs, found the 1440 one on ebay for a damn fine price and man, I don't think 32:9 would be a very good choice for me, this 45 is PERFECT and mines only 1440, as 5k2k is overkill for what I can generally afford, or feel comfortable affording.

I have gone back and forth with this same question. I currently have a 32" 4k oled but tried the updated aw3425dw. To me, a 34" 1440p display makes everything feel super small. You get extended peripheral, but the view in front of you is reduced. I noticed myself looking up and down way more on the 34" to be able to see everything, which I found annoying. (Destiny, Oblivion, diablo 4, warzone). I have the older 1440p lg 45" and the larger screen and sharp curve are great. (Personal preference). I would be running the new 45" 5k2k if my rig could get more than 60frames. (4080 laptop)

If you have a 5090, run dldsr and set the resolution to 5120x2160 on your 1440p monitor. I have the older LG 45" and am running it at 5120x2160 and it looks great with my 7800x3d and 5090

FG I get not using since I only play FPS games, but DLSS4 is amazing. I'm still running the 1440p LG 45" UW but I wanna make the jump up soon.

I have the LG 45" 1440p, the 5k2k is great but the price wasn't worth it for just a resolution bump + 3440p is already taxing 5k2k was too much, even for my 5080. It CAN work, but I'd rather have 120 fps on lower res than 60 on 5k2k. Playing cyberpunk it was pretty obvious at first but after setting up the graphics settling right the resolution is not an issue anymore it looks amazing with the size and all, i play with Path tracing, frame gen x4 DLSS Quality and It looks great, I get 160-200 fps depending on the scene, never lower, the input lag is also great I don't really feel the frame gen latency because the base frame rate is already great, and I don't mind the slight ghosting of DLSS and MFG, the path Tracing makes it so much prettier that it outweighs the cons. Also the VRAM usage is abnormally high, idk why, it starts at 12Gb but goes up to 15-16Gb after some time, maybe a memory leak idk. But the game is fluid and never have any issues due to VRAM so idk. As for other games I played Witcher 3 it looked great, and GTA5 was amazing looking aswell, even better with DLDSR 1.75x but sometimes some games don't support it well so I keep it off. (Cyberpunk turns off VRR with DLDSR for some reason). I'm not sure this display would fit everyone but I personally love it, the size and aspect ratio is just the best out there for gaming in my opinion, I wish it was even bigger tbh, like 55" 21:9. But yeah good screen overall if you accept that text will look bad on desktop, for gaming it's amazing.

No it's worse. A 24" 1080p monitor has a ppi of 92. A 27" 1080p monitor is like 82. The lg 45" 21:9 1440p is 84. So it's roughly equivalent to a 1080p 27" monitor. So not that good. Usable yes. But not good

I've been waiting for an ultra wide in this resolution for so long. I'm currently using the 1440p 45in ultra gear and this is a very enticing upgrade.