Images: LG

As part of a promotional brochure for its CES 2021 lineup, LG has shared the first details and images of its new UltraGear monitor, the 27GP950. This is an evolution of the company’s current 27-inch UltraGear 4K UHD Nano IPS (27GN950) with HDMI 2.1 support, enabling enhanced gaming features such as Variable Refresh Rate (VRR), Auto Low Latency Mode (ALLM), and Quick Frame Transport (QFT). The panel also features a 1 ms GtG (gray to gray) response time and refresh rates of up to 160 Hz when overclocked.

Prospective buyers can check out LG’s 27GN950 landing page to get a feel for what the aesthetics and other specifications of the monitor might look like. Pricing and availability will presumably be revealed in a press release sent out during the all-virtual CES trade show, which begins tomorrow.

Join the Conversation

35 Comments

  1. Oh LG.

    Everything they make is either too large, or too small.

    48" 4K LG OLED TV’s, or 27" 4K Desktop monitors.

    My ideal screen? One of the LG 4K OLED TV’s in 43".

  2. Oh LG.

    Everything they make is either too large, or too small.

    48" 4K LG OLED TV’s, or 27" 4K Desktop monitors.

    My ideal screen? One of the LG 4K OLED TV’s in 43".

    I agree, my 43" is good monitor size… but when I got it I was crying "oh why don’t they make a 40" version". I did eventually get used to it. I suspect the 48" would be similar, awkward at first but you’d get used to it. Size wise anyway, perhaps not cost.

  3. Oh LG.

    Everything they make is either too large, or too small.

    48" 4K LG OLED TV’s, or 27" 4K Desktop monitors.

    My ideal screen? One of the LG 4K OLED TV’s in 43".

    Well said. As far as I am concerned, 40-43" at 4K is perfect. Even 32" displays are too small for 4K in my opinion.

    I agree, my 43" is good monitor size… but when I got it I was crying "oh why don’t they make a 40" version". I did eventually get used to it. I suspect the 48" would be similar, awkward at first but you’d get used to it. Size wise anyway, perhaps not cost.

    I’ve used 48 and 49" TV’s for some time. After more than two years I still never got used to it. I found those sizes to be too large for productivity. For gaming, they were fantastic in terms of picture and image quality. The size was great for immersion but the top most corners were almost useless for anything else. At least with my eyes anyway.

  4. I agree, my 43" is good monitor size… but when I got it I was crying "oh why don’t they make a 40" version". I did eventually get used to it. I suspect the 48" would be similar, awkward at first but you’d get used to it. Size wise anyway, perhaps not cost.

    I used a 4K 48" Samsung JS9000 TV as a monitor from summer 2015 until end of 2019. It got better than it was when I first bought it, but I never got quite used to it. The DPI was just a tad low, allowing individual pixels to be visible at my standard desktop viewing distance. The size was just a little too much, too.

    4K at 43" has a near perfect desktop DPI of ~100 (102.46) 4k at 48" was just too low for me at 91.79.

    I would consider 40" usable too, but honestly, I never got quite used to my fiance’s 27" 1440p screen (108.79 DPI) it was just a little too high for me. 40" 4k would be above that at 110.15.

  5. Well said. As far as I am concerned, 40-43" at 4K is perfect. Even 32" displays are too small for 4K in my opinion.

    I have to run mine at 150%, 125% is doable but honestly just requires me to strain my eyes a little bit too much. I still don’t get why they keep shoveling this 27” garbage. 1440P at 32” is perfect but there’s maybe 1 high end monitor at that size.

  6. I have to run mine at 150%, 125% is doable but honestly just requires me to strain my eyes a little bit too much. I still don’t get why they keep shoveling this 27” garbage. 1440P at 32” is perfect but there’s maybe 1 high end monitor at that size.

    You might like 4K@48" then, as they ahve about an identical DPI. It’s a bit low for me at my seating distance. I can see too much pixelation.

  7. I’ve used 32" 4K for years now and find it perfect for photoediting, great for gaming.

    I sit pretty close tho, shallowish old wood desk.

  8. I’ve used 32" 4K for years now and find it perfect for photoediting, great for gaming.

    I sit pretty close tho, shallowish old wood desk.

    My seated position to my 43" 4k screen is such that if I stretch my arm straight out in front of me the tips of my fingers can almost touch the screen. I have pretty long arms though. The distance to my eyeballs if probably 2 to 2.5 feet. It’s what I consider a normal seated position in front of a Desktop monitor, but everyone’s normal varies I guess.

    From that range, I find that ~100 DPI is perfect. 90DPI is a little too low, and 110 DPI is a little too high.

    It just so happens that classic desktop resolutions and screen sizes (like 1600×1200 at 20", or even the much newer 2560×1600 at 30") also wind up being almost exactly 100 DPI. Maybe it is that I am accustomed to those classic resolutions, and that’s why I like it this way, or maybe it’s because those classic resolutions were developed to some human eyeball science that I am unfamiliar with, but around 100DPI just winds up being perfect for my seated position.

    I’ll admit that the first time I sat infront of a 40+" 4k screen the large size took some getting used to. Then again, so did the first time I sat infront of my 22" 1600×1200 (20" visible) Iiyama CRT back in 2001, or the first time I sat in front of my 24" 1920×1200 Dell 2405FPW in ~2005, and my 30" Dell 2560×1600 screen in 2010. It turns out every time I have upgraded screen size in the last 20 years I have been a little overwhelmed at first, but then gotten used to it.

    You wind up playing the game a little differently that way I think. By necessity more focus on the center, less on the corners which become "peripheral vision". It’s probably not something you’d want if you play most competitive multi-player games, but in a visually stimulating story based single player FPS it can really just suck you in.

    43" is perfect for me at 4K. 48" just a tad big, with just a tad too visible pixels. 40" would probably make me squint in day to day productivity use without scaling, and scaling always feels like kind of a kludge to me.

  9. I too would like to see LG drop their OLEDs in size, and even better would be tuning for desktop use; just turn them into monitors.

    Also, somewhat separately, I’m warming up significantly to higher-DPI monitors. At least in terms of being able to use scaling. 4k at 32" with 150% scaling looks quite good!

  10. How can there be such a thing as too high of a DPI?

    I can see how scaling could be imperfect. Windows does a very poor job with this. But as far as DPI goes, apart from diminishing returns, how can it get too high?

  11. I agree, my 43" is good monitor size… but when I got it I was crying "oh why don’t they make a 40" version". I did eventually get used to it. I suspect the 48" would be similar, awkward at first but you’d get used to it. Size wise anyway, perhaps not cost.

    I’ve used 48 and 49" TV’s for some time. After more than two years I still never got used to it. I found those sizes to be too large for productivity. For gaming, they were fantastic in terms of picture and image quality. The size was great for immersion but the top most corners were almost useless

    My seated position to my 43" 4k screen is such that if I stretch my arm straight out in front of me the tips of my fingers can almost touch the screen. I have pretty long arms though. The distance to my eyeballs if probably 2 to 2.5 feet. It’s what I consider a normal seated position in front of a Desktop monitor, but everyone’s normal varies I guess.

    From that range, I find that ~100 DPI is perfect. 90DPI is a little too low, and 110 DPI is a little too high.

    It just so happens that classic desktop resolutions and screen sizes (like 1600×1200 at 20", or even the much newer 2560×1600 at 30") also wind up being almost exactly 100 DPI. Maybe it is that I am accustomed to those classic resolutions, and that’s why I like it this way, or maybe it’s because those classic resolutions were developed to some human eyeball science that I am unfamiliar with, but around 100DPI just winds up being perfect for my seated position.

    I’ll admit that the first time I sat infront of a 40+" 4k screen the large size took some getting used to. Then again, so did the first time I sat infront of my 22" 1600×1200 (20" visible) Iiyama CRT back in 2001, or the first time I sat in front of my 24" 1920×1200 Dell 2405FPW in ~2005, and my 30" Dell 2560×1600 screen in 2010. It turns out every time I have upgraded screen size in the last 20 years I have been a little overwhelmed at first, but then gotten used to it.

    You wind up playing the game a little differently that way I think. By necessity more focus on the center, less on the corners which become "peripheral vision". It’s probably not something you’d want if you play most competitive multi-player games, but in a visually stimulating story based single player FPS it can really just suck you in.

    43" is perfect for me at 4K. 48" just a tad big, with just a tad too visible pixels. 40" would probably make me squint in day to day productivity use without scaling, and scaling always feels like kind of a kludge to me.

    I can handle a 43" 4K without scaling. At 40", I don’t need it, but 125% scaling is necessary for long term use.

  12. Oh LG.

    Everything they make is either too large, or too small.

    48" 4K LG OLED TV’s, or 27" 4K Desktop monitors.

    My ideal screen? One of the LG 4K OLED TV’s in 43".

    I agree, my 43" is good monitor size… but when I got it I was crying "oh why don’t they make a 40" version". I did eventually get used to it. I suspect the 48" would be similar, awkward at first but you’d get used to it. Size wise anyway, perhaps not cost.

    Got a story coming out today where they’ll be offering OLED televisions from 88" all the way down to 20", including a 42" model.

  13. I remember having various meetings with companies like ASUS, MSI, etc. at HardOCP. They would always bring up their monitors and talk up some 27" or 32" offering and Kyle and I would both tell them that 4K and 40"+ was what we were looking for. They often looked at us like we were insane and it was clear they didn’t understand it.

    We were both big into NVSurround and Eyefinity setups. We both used them for years and couldn’t go back to a single small display like a 27". Both of us had wanted a single large format display that would be good for productivity and gaming which would give us what we had with multiple displays, but without the issues that go with them.

  14. I was already keeping an eye open for a 48" CX, knowing that it was bigger than I wanted, but since it had almost every other item on my wishlist, I am willing to make that compromise.

    I was due to rebuild my rig (4790K, GTX980), it’s due. I’ve been running a pair of Dell 2715 4K monitors for a while now – yeah, I know a lot of people say 27" is too small for 4K, and a 980 can’t drive a 4K panel, but I’ve been pretty happy with both to be honest. I run 175% scaling on my rig now, and I sit back a good 4" from my two monitors.

    But now that computer parts are… less-than-available, I’ve been putting money at other items. A lot of kitchen upgrades. For my computer, I’ve decided I’m going to get a new chair, and go ahead and plunge on a single new monitor when I can snag 120Hz, VRR, 4K, and OLED all at the same time. I’d also like to upgrade the GPU at some point, but that is dependant on availability, and I’m not willing to throw a ton of money at it.

    So the CX already checks every box I want, except it’s a hair too big. I’d have to re-arrange my setup considerably to make it work. I’d be keeping at least one of the 2715’s for web browsing and general work, and throwing a larger-than-27" panel in there will take some doing. But it could be done, just have to find a way that’s wife-approved.

    Now that a 42" OLED may be in the works, yeah, I’d seriously consider getting that Day 1 depending on pricing. I’d still rather the 32", which does exist as IPS/VA models .. but the choice between IPS and anything OLED hangs more than the difference in my preferred size. Not sure I’d sit and wait on a 42" if a good deal on the 48" pops up though.

  15. LG reveals that a 42" OLED TV is coming this year. 42" 4K is a similar PPI to a 27" 2560×1440 screen (104.9 vs. 108.8)

    http://www.lgdisplay.com/eng/prcenter/newsView?articleMgtNo=5299

    Also a 31.5" OLED monitor in their UltraFine lineup, which unfortunately means 60 Hz, but it could lead to gaming monitors in the future.

    https://www.engadget.com/lg-ultrafine-oled-pro-monitor-ces-2021-135201171.html

    Yep that pr link is the one I prepped this morning. Should be out by this afternoon.

  16. Unless it has unforseen problems, this might just be the one that makes me go OLED.

    Biggest thing with OLED is potential burn in from static images being on the screen too long. Other than that. . .pretty much all good. I thought IPS was incredible and then when I got my LG C9 it was a whole new world.

  17. Biggest thing with OLED is potential burn in from static images being on the screen too long. Other than that. . .pretty much all good. I thought IPS was incredible and then when I got my LG C9 it was a whole new world.

    I have been concerned about this, but every time I bring it up with actual owners of LG OLED sets who use them on the desktop, I have been told its a complete and utter non-issue on modern screens.

    I have no personal experience to speak of though.

  18. I’ve had a 55” C7 for a while now. It’s our main screen for watching TV and PS4. I guess going on 4 years old.

    Well a few weeks ago the kid had a sleepover and they left the TV on the PS login screen when they passed out. Pretty much a solid red screen with the login in the center for … hours – god knows how long, at max brightness and no power saving.

    Yeah, it got some burn in. I can only see the faint outline of the login on a solid red screen; it isn’t present in any other color, including white. I can’t see it in any moving images. It does bother me that I know it’s there, but unless I changed the color of the PS background back to red, I never see it.

    But even after that – the screen still looks incredible, and I absolutely would get another. So I won’t lie and say it’s impossible. It is a drawback for OLED. I could see if you were a shop or something and just left the screen on CNN chyron or something all day, or left it as a monitor with the start menu on all day without letting it sleep – yeah could be an issue. I went years of standard gaming with static HUD elements and what not with no issues though.

  19. I have been concerned about this, but every time I bring it up with actual owners of LG OLED sets who use them on the desktop, I have been told its a complete and utter non-issue on modern screens.

    I have no personal experience to speak of though.

    I admit that I don’t take risks when I do sessions on the C9. I usually disable MSI AB and I keep track of how time I spend playing something with static OSD items. Probably overkill but I don’t want to take the chance. The good news is that this tech has been out long enough in the wild reports should start popping up around the internet if it really is an issue.

  20. Know what I would appreciate? Some modern 16:10 solutions. After 1920×1200 back around 2010, I always intended to move to 2560×1600 at some point (I had been using 30" and 32" 1600p monitors at work, which is where I grew fond of them). In the end I winded up on 2560×1440 because 1600p monitors don’t really exist anymore. Certainly not any with HDR and high refresh rates and VRR. I don’t even see 16:10 that much in the professional sector anymore. The only places I really see 16:10 crop up are with some random-@ss laptop models that have screens like 3840×2400, as well as 2560×1600. 1600×1200 was the last non-widescreen resolution I was on. Ever since I left CRTs permanently and made the jump to widescreen formats, I’ve been on 16:10, starting with 1680×1050. I don’t like being on 16:9 on PC. It feels weird, feels a wee bit too restrictive vertically. I wish 1920×1200, 2560×1600, and 3840×2400 were was common as 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p. Ah well, a man can dream.
  21. Know what I would appreciate? Some modern 16:10 solutions. After 1920×1200 back around 2010, I always intended to move to 2560×1600 at some point (I had been using 30" and 32" 1600p monitors at work, which is where I grew fond of them). In the end I winded up on 2560×1440 because 1600p monitors don’t really exist anymore. Certainly not any with HDR and high refresh rates and VRR. I don’t even see 16:10 that much in the professional sector anymore. The only places I really see 16:10 crop up are with some random-@ss laptop models that have screens like 3840×2400, as well as 2560×1600. 1600×1200 was the last non-widescreen resolution I was on. Ever since I left CRTs permanently and made the jump to widescreen formats, I’ve been on 16:10, starting with 1680×1050. I don’t like being on 16:9 on PC. It feels weird, feels a wee bit too restrictive vertically. I wish 1920×1200, 2560×1600, and 3840×2400 were was common as 1080p, 1440p, and 2160p. Ah well, a man can dream.

    I don’t understand this train of thought. You get the same height on a 27" 16:9 as you do a 25" 16:10, but more horizontal space.

  22. I’ve had a 55” C7 for a while now. It’s our main screen for watching TV and PS4. I guess going on 4 years old.

    Well a few weeks ago the kid had a sleepover and they left the TV on the PS login screen when they passed out. Pretty much a solid red screen with the login in the center for … hours – god knows how long, at max brightness and no power saving.

    Yeah, it got some burn in. I can only see the faint outline of the login on a solid red screen; it isn’t present in any other color, including white. I can’t see it in any moving images. It does bother me that I know it’s there, but unless I changed the color of the PS background back to red, I never see it.

    But even after that – the screen still looks incredible, and I absolutely would get another. So I won’t lie and say it’s impossible. It is a drawback for OLED. I could see if you were a shop or something and just left the screen on CNN chyron or something all day, or left it as a monitor with the start menu on all day without letting it sleep – yeah could be an issue. I went years of standard gaming with static HUD elements and what not with no issues though.

    I admit that I don’t take risks when I do sessions on the C9. I usually disable MSI AB and I keep track of how time I spend playing something with static OSD items. Probably overkill but I don’t want to take the chance. The good news is that this tech has been out long enough in the wild reports should start popping up around the internet if it really is an issue.

    I’m not too concerned about games and video content. I’ll play the same game for ~40 hours at a time, but when I move on to the next one, and they are rarely particularly high brightness or contrast.

    My main concern is that most of what my desktop gets used for is not entertainment or media consumption. I do a lot of work, with the desktop visible for hours at a time. I’d imagine menu bars and start menus can start getting burned in.

  23. I don’t understand this train of thought. You get the same height on a 27" 16:9 as you do a 25" 16:10, but more horizontal space.

    Just wish I had more vertical space to go with that extra horizontal space. That’s actually a negative for me, that my 27" 16:9 display has basically the same vertical dimensions as my previous 24" 16:10 display. My primary display grew wider, but didn’t get taller. I think that’s also why my 27" didn’t feel as big as I expected when I first got it. The jump from 16:10 22" to 16:10 24" felt bigger than the jump from 16:10 24" to 16:9 27". I think 27" 16:10 would have made a bigger impact on me. Ah well, no biggie. But yeah, if I could just have the same exact monitor I got now, same width but with the extra vertical space, that would have been awesome. I’ve grown really accustomed to 16:10. Shiat, I wouldn’t mind seeing it with HDTVs as well.

    Always been a pet peeve of mine when a PC game doesn’t truly support 16:10, just displays letterboxed 16:9. Yeah game devs, I like having a 16:10 monitor but pretending it is a 16:9 display, and just wasting the extra space. That’s a real hoot.

  24. Just wish I had more vertical space to go with that extra horizontal space. That’s actually a negative for me, that my 27" 16:9 display has basically the same vertical dimensions as my previous 24" 16:10 display. My primary display grew wider, but didn’t get taller. I think that’s also why my 27" didn’t feel as big as I expected when I first got it. The jump from 16:10 22" to 16:10 24" felt bigger than the jump from 16:10 24" to 16:9 27". I think 27" 16:10 would have made a bigger impact on me. Ah well, no biggie. But yeah, if I could just have the same exact monitor I got now, same width but with the extra vertical space, that would have been awesome. I’ve grown really accustomed to 16:10. Shiat, I wouldn’t mind seeing it with HDTVs as well.

    Always been a pet peeve of mine when a PC game doesn’t truly support 16:10, just displays letterboxed 16:9. Yeah game devs, I like having a 16:10 monitor but pretending it is a 16:9 display, and just wasting the extra space. That’s a real hoot.

    I too like 16:10. My 2560×1600 Dell U3011 was awesome. As was my 24" 1920×1200 Dell 2405FPW

    I don’t know why you’d want it on a TV though. POretty much all Movie and TV content available to consumers is formatted in 16:9. A 16:10 TV would spend most of its life letterboxed.

  25. Dell started putting 16:10 panels in their XPS line last year, and they’re putting them in their Latitude line this year.

    I’m enjoying the 15" on my XPS15, I’d definitely missed 1920×1200 myself too!

  26. I don’t know why you’d want it on a TV though. POretty much all Movie and TV content available to consumers is formatted in 16:9. A 16:10 TV would spend most of its life letterboxed.

    Well I mean I’d want videos to start coming in full 16:10 format. But yes I agree, a 16:10 TV would go to waste most of its life displaying only letterboxed content.

    My 24" was a Dell U2410 (RIP), and my brother has a Dell U2412. LG panels in both. I heard a lot of praise for the 2405FPW, awesome that you have a U3011!

    Dell started putting 16:10 panels in their XPS line last year, and they’re putting them in their Latitude line this year.

    I’m enjoying the 15" on my XPS15, I’d definitely missed 1920×1200 myself too!

    Ahhh very good!

    Yeah 1200p was f*cking awesome. I longed for 1600p for so many years. I also enjoyed 2400p when I used nVidia DSR on my 1200p display. When I move to 4K, that’s what I want, 3840×2400, not 3840×2160.

  27. Just wish I had more vertical space to go with that extra horizontal space. That’s actually a negative for me, that my 27" 16:9 display has basically the same vertical dimensions as my previous 24" 16:10 display. My primary display grew wider, but didn’t get taller. I think that’s also why my 27" didn’t feel as big as I expected when I first got it. The jump from 16:10 22" to 16:10 24" felt bigger than the jump from 16:10 24" to 16:9 27". I think 27" 16:10 would have made a bigger impact on me. Ah well, no biggie. But yeah, if I could just have the same exact monitor I got now, same width but with the extra vertical space, that would have been awesome. I’ve grown really accustomed to 16:10. Shiat, I wouldn’t mind seeing it with HDTVs as well.

    Always been a pet peeve of mine when a PC game doesn’t truly support 16:10, just displays letterboxed 16:9. Yeah game devs, I like having a 16:10 monitor but pretending it is a 16:9 display, and just wasting the extra space. That’s a real hoot.

    Well aspect ratio is horizontal to vertical dimensions, which is why we use the "widescreen" terminology instead of "shortscreen." Meaning the vertical pitch is going to be fixed. Since we measure displays along the diagonal the length of the hypotenuse is going to get longer as the aspect ratio increases. Meaning a 25" 16:10 screen is the same size as a 27" 16:9. You would have to compare a 29.2" 16:9 screen against a 27" 16:10 to get an apples-to-apples comparison.

  28. Have a look here if you haven’t already for burn in test results Real Life OLED Burn-In Test on 6 TVs – RTINGS.com

    I’m still contemplating my choices, my bad eyesight would make it seem bigger would be better, but too big is also not good, my 40 inch samsung TV is nice for TV use and console, but for PC when I sit closer it is too big.

    Yep, I’m an avid rtings reader. This was one of the first articles I read before I got my C9. I keep hoping they’d update it again since it’s been well over a year now.

  29. I’m always flapping about my first IPS 4K display that I got years ago and it changed my expectations forever in terms of anything I’d expect from a display afterward. At the time I got it on sale for $1100.

Leave a comment