LG announces the first 1440p 240Hz OLED monitor and it only costs $999

mongeese

Posts: 632   +123
Staff member
Something to look forward to: Monitor aficionados have been salivating at the thought of an affordable (well, relatively) medium-sized OLED monitor with a high refresh rate since LG teased the concept on its roadmap. Now the LG UltraGear 27GR95QE-B has come along and ticked all the boxes. It has: a 2560 x 1440p resolution, a 240Hz refresh rate, and an OLED panel with 0.3 ms (GtG) response times.

LG rather quietly announced its first OLED gaming monitor with a 240Hz refresh rate at the beginning of the weekend by adding it to its site. But it's likely that LG will have a lot more to say about it in the near future because with its specs, it's something of a standout.

As you might have inferred from its code... er, name, the GR95 is at the 27" scale. It has 98.5% coverage of the DCI-P3 color gamut and as it's an OLED, a 1.5 million to 1 contrast ratio. It's also certified for AMD FreeSync and Nvidia G-Sync, but doesn't have hardware acceleration for either.

On the outside, the monitor has RGB and a stand with 11 cm of height adjustability and 20 degrees of swivel from side to side and up and down. For ports, it has two HDMI and one DisplayPort (no word yet on the versions), USB 3.0 up and downstream, and an SPDIF jack for audio passthrough.

For now, and until the GR95 hits the market, there are only two categories of high refresh rate OLED monitors to choose from.

LG and a few other brands have produced 42" and 48" 4K behemoths with a 120 Hz refresh rate that sort of pass as monitors (they are smaller TVs). Alternatively, several OEMs, again including LG, have recently introduced 34" ultrawide OLEDs with a 3440 x 1440p resolution and a 165-175 Hz refresh rate. Corsair is about to join the fray with a third option: a 45" version of the ultrawide with a 240Hz refresh rate.

But LG is the first to announce a 240Hz OLED monitor that is small and nimble enough to display competitive FPS games. At the listed price of $999, it'll be cheaper than half of the OLEDs on the market. LG is set to launch it on Q1 2023 and we'll likely hear more about it at CES in January.

Permalink to story.

 

emmzo

Posts: 813   +1,251
27" always felt too small for me for 2k. I got accustomed playing for years on 24" 1080p and now, 32" feels perfect screen size for 1440p. Make it 32" LG and I`m sold.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,698   +3,059
27" always felt too small for me for 2k. I got accustomed playing for years on 24" 1080p and now, 32" feels perfect screen size for 1440p. Make it 32" LG and I`m sold.
24 inch screen @ 1080p = 92ppi
32 inch screen @ 1440p = 92ppi

27 inch screen @ 1440p = 109ppi
This is about as high as I would take 1440p, any bigger and it looks just as bad as 1080p @ 24 inches.

32 inch screen @ 2160p = 138ppi

I've always felt like 2160p was a bit of a jump from 1440p, almost like we need something in between for 32 inch screens, like:
32 inch screen :1800p = 115ppi

Easier to run while still providing slightly better pixel density than 1440p@27inch but not as hard hitting on GPU's as 2160p.
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,320   +2,149
Now the marketing cheat of 240 and 500 Hz monitors started. This fish is not biting that bait. Nobody needs 240 Hz, let alone 500, except 0.001% playing with DLSS 3 activated.
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 9,363   +8,581
I've got a pair of LG monitors I've had for several years. Very dependable and very, very good .... in fact I'm wondering if I'll ever have a good reason to buy anything else ..... not a bad problem to have!
 
Now the marketing cheat of 240 and 500 Hz monitors started. This fish is not biting that bait. Nobody needs 240 Hz, let alone 500, except 0.001% playing with DLSS 3 activated.
Well, the highlight here is mostly the OLED panel plus the compact size, higher refresh rates, even if you play at 120hz only help A LOT with display and input lag, and ensure less to none ghosting.
 
My current monitor is a LG 22" IPS FHD @60hz, and THIS is exactly what I've been looking for since last year. Now have a 3060ti and 1440p is the sweetspot for that graphic cards, plus the high refresh rates for most of the titles I play (Old games, jrpg and fighting games), plus the high quality in color and constrat of the OLED panel. Hope to see it on my country soon.
 

defaultluser

Posts: 522   +392
Now the marketing cheat of 240 and 500 Hz monitors started. This fish is not biting that bait. Nobody needs 240 Hz, let alone 500, except 0.001% playing with DLSS 3 activated.

Well sure, but hopefully jumping this high means we have cheap versions of these at 120/144 within a few years!
 

Icysoul

Posts: 47   +19
Alienware AW3423DW is currently offered by Dell at a discount of 1090€, at least here in the EU - at this price I think it makes more sense than the LG presented here, at least for gaming and media consumption.
 

emmzo

Posts: 813   +1,251
24 inch screen @ 1080p = 92ppi
32 inch screen @ 1440p = 92ppi

27 inch screen @ 1440p = 109ppi
This is about as high as I would take 1440p, any bigger and it looks just as bad as 1080p @ 24 inches.

32 inch screen @ 2160p = 138ppi

I've always felt like 2160p was a bit of a jump from 1440p, almost like we need something in between for 32 inch screens, like:
32 inch screen :1800p = 115ppi

Easier to run while still providing slightly better pixel density than 1440p@27inch but not as hard hitting on GPU's as 2160p.
32" 1440p looks bad? I disagree. 92ppi is fine even if identical to 24" 1080p. More pixel density is better only when you can see it. On a smaller size monitor, you can't. On a smaller monitor it's indiscernible for your eyes from 1080p, unless you're watching from a very very short distance. But that's not really watching. 27" 1440p is on the edge, it looks a tiny bit sharper, but fonts, huds, etc are annoyingly smaller, because... Windows. But sure, there's people playing even 4k 27"... to each their own.
 
Last edited:

kapital98

Posts: 414   +381
32" 1440p looks bad? I disagree. 92ppi is fine even if identical to 24" 1080p. More pixel density is better only when you can see it. On a smaller size monitor, you can't. On a smaller monitor it's indiscernible for your eyes from 1080p, unless you're watching from a very very short distance. But that's not really watching. 27" 1440p is on the edge, it looks a tiny bit sharper, but fonts, huds, etc are annoyingly smaller, because... Windows. But sure, there's people playing even 4k 27"... to each their own.


Agreed on "to each their own". It may be more visible to OP. But, at least for me, it's only visible when doing side-by-side comparisons or other academic exercises. As soon as you start playing a game it never becomes noticeable. What is more noticeable is panel quality, refresh rates (60 v. 90), etc.

Disagree on the fonts issue. Windows and games have come a long way in that regard. It won't look pretty out of the box but with a few minutes of tweaking there really are no problems (unless you are using a really old OS or video game).
 

takaozo

Posts: 514   +812
32" 1440p 165hz IPS it's good for me since I got the Dell G3223D a few months back for $330.
Now only if I can find a GPU to max it since old 2060.....it's old.
Fonts look good, text it's large enough and I'm happy with it. I tried 4k 42", but that's a bit too much for daily usage.
 

emmzo

Posts: 813   +1,251
Agreed on "to each their own". It may be more visible to OP. But, at least for me, it's only visible when doing side-by-side comparisons or other academic exercises. As soon as you start playing a game it never becomes noticeable. What is more noticeable is panel quality, refresh rates (60 v. 90), etc.

Disagree on the fonts issue. Windows and games have come a long way in that regard. It won't look pretty out of the box but with a few minutes of tweaking there really are no problems (unless you are using a really old OS or video game).
Hah, you may be right. I owned a 27" 2k and the smaller HUD in games and smaller text fkin annoyed me, but I never bothered to look into it and try to change it. And you`re right, refresh rate is more important than a few more pixel density for gaming. Competitive gaming though is mainly played on 24" for a lot of reasons (see Google), especially shooters.
 
Last edited:

DukeJukem

Posts: 323   +361
"It's also certified for AMD FreeSync and Nvidia G-Sync, but doesn't have hardware acceleration for either."

what does that even mean? theres no physical g sync module? I cant turn on hardware accelerated gpu scheduling in windows? I cant use the overdrive modes on the monitor?
 

nnguy2

Posts: 649   +1,488
Hah, you may be right. I owned a 27" 2k and the smaller HUD in games and smaller text fkin annoyed me, but I never bothered to look into it and try to change it. And you`re right, refresh rate is more important than a few more pixel density for gaming. Competitive gaming though is mainly played on 24" for a lot of reasons (see Google), especially shooters.

You make an interesting point and that got me thinking. I think unless you're a pro, most gamers would go for as high of resolution on as big a screen that fits their budget. Limiting yourself to under a certain screen size and resolution seems to get high refresh/low latency for a competitive advantage only makes sense if you're a "pro" gamer. For me, I would want to have the best graphics which would be combination of graphics settings, screen size, and resolution.
 

Burty117

Posts: 4,698   +3,059
32" 1440p looks bad? I disagree. 92ppi is fine even if identical to 24" 1080p. More pixel density is better only when you can see it. On a smaller size monitor, you can't. On a smaller monitor it's indiscernible for your eyes from 1080p, unless you're watching from a very very short distance. But that's not really watching. 27" 1440p is on the edge, it looks a tiny bit sharper, but fonts, huds, etc are annoyingly smaller, because... Windows. But sure, there's people playing even 4k 27"... to each their own.
I'm using one of the bigger Ikea desks for my setup, just measured it and I'm around 50 to 60cm away from the screen depending how I'm sat in my chair.
I'm using an Asus ROG Swift PG279 (27inch,1440p@165HzIPS) and I can see the individual pixels. It's MUCH better than a 24 inch 1080p (and subsequently, 32inch@1440p) but I can still see the pixels.

I've not run into any issues with Huds being too small at 1440p, I don't change any settings either, usually, I'm looking for settings to shrink huds rather than make them bigger!

Wondering how far away from your monitor are you? Would make sense that you're considerably further away than me if you can't see the pixels on a 32 inch screen.

My dream though is the Alienware AW3423DW. I have a QD-OLED TV and I just cannot replace my monitor with anything other than a QD-OLED now.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,564   +1,469
Don't care about 1440p now, been using that for the last 15 years. Give me 32" 4K 120Hz OLED, 100% AdobeRGB, 100% DCI-P3, HDR1000. Even better give me a 4200 x 1800 35" version.
 

nnguy2

Posts: 649   +1,488
I'm using one of the bigger Ikea desks for my setup, just measured it and I'm around 50 to 60cm away from the screen depending how I'm sat in my chair.
I'm using an Asus ROG Swift PG279 (27inch,1440p@165HzIPS) and I can see the individual pixels. It's MUCH better than a 24 inch 1080p (and subsequently, 32inch@1440p) but I can still see the pixels.

I've not run into any issues with Huds being too small at 1440p, I don't change any settings either, usually, I'm looking for settings to shrink huds rather than make them bigger!

Wondering how far away from your monitor are you? Would make sense that you're considerably further away than me if you can't see the pixels on a 32 inch screen.

My dream though is the Alienware AW3423DW. I have a QD-OLED TV and I just cannot replace my monitor with anything other than a QD-OLED now.
I'm on Asus Pg32uqx 32in 4k and on standard desk depth about 20-24in it's been perfect for me. Using powercolor red devil 6900xt ultimate to power the monitor.

It's been a dream setup: High pixel density, ultra settings, and high refresh (and adaptive sync when the game is demand and can't push 144hz consistently).
 

PaladinNH

Posts: 8   +7
24 inch screen @ 1080p = 92ppi
32 inch screen @ 1440p = 92ppi

27 inch screen @ 1440p = 109ppi
This is about as high as I would take 1440p, any bigger and it looks just as bad as 1080p @ 24 inches.

32 inch screen @ 2160p = 138ppi

I've always felt like 2160p was a bit of a jump from 1440p, almost like we need something in between for 32 inch screens, like:
32 inch screen :1800p = 115ppi

Easier to run while still providing slightly better pixel density than 1440p@27inch but not as hard hitting on GPU's as 2160p.

I've actually done this with my 40" 4K screen in a 1:1 scale, reducing my image size to about 33". Running at 3200x1800 has been an excellent compromise on my GTX 1070, which can't quite handle 4K smoothly, but often gives me 40-50fps at 1800p. 3840x1600 is another nice option on this screen for games that support ultrawide.
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,759   +2,603
I'm confused by this.

"It's also certified for AMD FreeSync and Nvidia G-Sync, but doesn't have hardware acceleration for either."

Going to assume this is in reference to the G-sync module but on the AMD side there was never such a thing so unless I'm missing something that last part of this statement doesn't make sense.


"Alternatively, several OEMs, again including LG, have recently introduced 34" ultrawide OLEDs with a 3440 x 1440p resolution and a 165-175 Hz refresh rate."

This reference is to the Alienware Dell model but what does that have to do with LG they don't have a 34' UW OLED monitor on the market currently.
 

Skjorn

Posts: 740   +609
Plzzz have a glossy screen like the TVs and more than a lousy 1 year like most of the TVs.
 

DonquixoteIII

Posts: 126   +73
PPI might matter to people with extremely good vision. Say, 10/20. For the rest of us (90+%), it really is not much of an issue. I have found the perfect monitor size for myself to be in the 34 to 37 inch range, and a 1440p scale.4k might be better, but not really necessary for me. Once refresh rates get above 90, on a 32" 1440p unit, I am golden. YMMV.