Hands-On With LG's $1,500 34WK95U UltraWide 5K Display

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Dec 5, 2018.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    At CES in January, LG debuted a new UltraWide 5K display, the 34WK95U, which just recently launched. We managed to get our hands on one of the new super huge monitors, and we checked it out in our latest YouTube video.


    LG's UltraWide 5K display is far from cheap, priced at $1,499, which makes it more expensive than many of Apple's notebooks and the new Mac mini. For that price, it includes a 34-inch Ultrawide 21:9 Nano IPS display, a 5120 x 2160 resolution with a 60Hz refresh date, HDR support, and Thunderbolt 3 connectivity.

    [​IMG]

    Design wise, the display features a curved base with height and tilt adjustment features, with several ports available on the back. There's a Thunderbolt 3 port, two USB-A ports, a DisplayPort, 2 HDMI ports, a USB Type B port, and a 3.5mm headphone jack. It supports up to 85W of power delivery, enough to power Apple's 15-inch MacBook Pro, and there are a set of 5W speakers at the bottom.

    [​IMG]

    There's a single control button on the display that you'll need to use if you want to adjust features like brightness or speaker volume, with controls not available in macOS.

    You can connect LG's UltraWide display to any of Apple's Thunderbolt 3-compatible Macs, including the new MacBook Air, the new Mac mini, and recent MacBook Pro models.

    At 34 inches, the UltraWide monitor offers up a huge amount of screen real estate to work with, ideal for photographers, designers, and videographers. The 5K display of the monitor looks great, and while we didn't think it quite matched the crispness of the iMac Pro, we appreciated the extra space.

    [​IMG]

    It's worth noting, however, that at its full 5120 x 2160 resolution spread over 34 inches, everything ends up looking quite tiny, but running at 2560 x 1080 as a Retina display results in content appearing too large. As a result, the best solution is to run at a scaled sweet spot resolution of 3360 x 1417, which gives you ton of screen real estate, and despite the scaling, content still looks good.

    Some customers who have purchased the UltraWide 5K Display have run into compatibility issues with the 2018 MacBook Pro models equipped with 560X graphics cards, with an update in the works to fix it. We tested the UltraWide 5K Display with a MacBook Pro model equipped with a 555X graphics card and found similar issues, although Apple has just released macOS 10.14.2 and the release notes mention a fix for what sounds like a similar but not identical issue, so we'll be checking to see if performance improves for us.

    The LG 34WK95U UltraWide 5K Display is undoubtedly a gorgeous display, but its high $1,500 price tag means that it's firmly aimed at creative professionals and not for the average consumer. Combine that price tag with the compatibility issues we and others have run into, and it's hard to recommend this display, at least until we're confident Apple and/or LG have the kinks worked out.

    What do you think of LG's UltraWide 5K Display? Let us know in the comments.

    Note: LG provided MacRumors with 34WK95U UltraWide 5K Display for the purpose of this video, and it was returned following the conclusion of filming. No other compensation was received.

    Article Link: Hands-On With LG's $1,500 34WK95U UltraWide 5K Display
     
  2. centauratlas macrumors 6502a

    centauratlas

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Location:
    Florida
    #2
    This might be what I use to replace my 30 inch 2004 Cinema display if (when?) it gives up the ghost. I do like the dimensions of the Cinema display though... 2560 x 1600)...I'd be interested in seeing if it is *too* wide though!
     
  3. H3LL5P4WN macrumors 68000

    H3LL5P4WN

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    #3
    $1500 and it doesn't do at least 144hz via G-Sync or Freesync?

    Useless.
     
  4. StellarVixen, Dec 5, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018

    StellarVixen macrumors 65816

    StellarVixen

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Location:
    Earth
    #4
    This has to be a troll post.

    I do not even know if there is 4K @ 144Hz, let alone 5K.


    Even if someone dared to make that, it would be insanely expensive.

    LOL, here you go. This is 4K at 27 inch, and is $2000: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236885

    This LG would near $3000, LOL
     
  5. SecuritySteve macrumors 6502

    SecuritySteve

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Location:
    California
    #5
    The bandwidth limitations of Thunderbolt 3 make 5k at 144 Hz impossible currently. You would need a dual-channel TB3 connection, which to my knowledge does not exist.
     
  6. diamond3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #6
    Are there any 4k/5k options that support 144hz? A quick look on Newegg shows a 16:9 4k monitor with 144hz is $2000. I don't think this is intended as a gaming monitor.
     
  7. SecuritySteve macrumors 6502

    SecuritySteve

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Location:
    California
    #7
    Can I get a link to that monitor?
     
  8. jimothyGator macrumors regular

    jimothyGator

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #8
    I've got my eye on the 38" Dell U3818DW. It's not retina, but at 3840 x 1600, this is potentially a more useful resolution. It's also about $600 dollars cheaper (it's frequently on Amazon for $899, though right now, the price is a bit over $1,000). It's curved, which for a large, ultrawide monitor should actually be a benefit. It's USB-C, not Thunderbolt, but it does delivery up to 100W power, and can operate as a KVM switch if you connect two computers to it.

    So a single USB-C cable connected to a MacBook would give you power, display, speakers, and whatever USB devices you have connected the monitor.

    It's basically one-and-a-half 30" Cinema displays, in that it's got 50% more horizontal resolution with the same vertical resolution. Compared to a 27" monitor (like the Apple Thunderbolt display), you've got 50% more horizontal resolution and 11% more vertical resolution.
     
  9. H3LL5P4WN macrumors 68000

    H3LL5P4WN

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    #9
    I wasn't trolling entirely. I near choked on $700 (I think it was) for my 27" 2k 165hz that I have, but I figured that if I was going to buy a monitor, I'm not going to be buying one again for a looooong time. (I was upgrading from a gaming laptop back to a desktop.)
     
  10. GrumpyCoder macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    #10
    Just save some money and go with a 38" ultrawide with 3840x1600 resolution.
     
  11. macduke macrumors G3

    macduke

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Location:
    Central U.S.
    #11
    I don't get why you would spend $1500 on a 5120x2160 when you can get a 5120x2880 (more of a true 5K) display for $200-300 less. Maybe because this one is bigger? But I don't see the point when that makes it less of a retina display and more of something in-between that doesn't seem ideal if you have to use weird scaling. It's just like you blew up a 5K display and then chopped the bottom off. Doesn't seem useful to me.

    I hope that when Apple comes out with their new display next year that it is 6K at 32", which is about the same PPI as the 5K iMac/iMac Pro.

    I'm not the person but I think I know what they're talking about. They use it a lot on LTT: https://www.amazon.com/Swift-PG27UQ-G-SYNC-Gaming-Monitor/dp/B07F1VGGLK
     
  12. StellarVixen macrumors 65816

    StellarVixen

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Location:
    Earth
    #12
    So, this...like...supports HDR?

    Too bad Mac OS doesn't. Windoze is another story...
     
  13. anthonymoody macrumors 68020

    anthonymoody

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    #13
    As I sit in front of a 5k iMac, it's tough to imagine swapping to a larger screen with fewer pixels.
     
  14. redheeler macrumors 604

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #14
    If I have to run it at a non-native resolution to get a decent amount of screen space, I'll pass. This doesn't have as good a resolution or pixel count as the cheaper LG Ultrafine 5K Display, or 5K iMacs from 2014 onward. Given the vertical resolution, I wouldn't even call it a true 5K display.
     
  15. SecuritySteve macrumors 6502

    SecuritySteve

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Location:
    California
    #15
    Yeah but it's not Ultrawide. I had my hopes up for a minute. Oh well. This monitor is still the king for pushing 60Hz 5k in an Ultrawide form factor.
     
  16. iBluetooth macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2016
    #16
    Why are you calling it 5K display, when it has a 4K resolution, with slightly increased width? This screen has 33% less pixels than a real 5K monitor (5120x2880)
     
  17. fanbrain macrumors 6502

    fanbrain

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    So. UT
    #17
    I just bought this monitor and it's fantastic . More vertical pixels than the 34" competitors, and you don't have to scale anything at the native resolution compared to the above LG 5k screen. The Dell 38" is better for my workflow than a 4k monitor (the physical height was too much) but your use cases will be different .
     
  18. Zoboomafoo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
  19. ghost187 macrumors 6502a

    ghost187

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
  20. lec0rsaire macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2017
    #20
    Just use a TV. It’s a much better experience than a notebook display anyway. Macs will eventually support it but right now the standards aren’t even really finalized. We’re in a sort of HDR format war split between DV and HDR10. HLG is for broadcast and used by BBC in the U.K. and then there’s Samsung with HDR10+, another dynamic metadata format similar to DV.
     
  21. Doc C macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    #21
    I second this. In fact, we have connections set up to all our 4K TVs.

    A decent TV can function as a monitor with 4K at 60Hz, and size is essentially unlimited (though I can’t see anyone needing a 110” monitor...) The downside is the refresh rates, but if you are gaming, I have been told that 1080p is better anyhow.

    For more detailed work, I go back to my 32” 4K triple-monitor setup (AOC - picked up for under $500 Cdn [about $350US] each, not exceptional but good for the price), though the MBP dies get kinda cranky when theres lots going on.

    Even on those monitors, I find I sometimes have to scale unless I get right up close. I must be getting old...
     
  22. Michael73 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    #22
    My 2013 Mac Pro can't run this which is too bad. I'll stick with my ten year-old 30" ACD. I'm eager to see the 2019 Mac Pro and new display from Apple.
     
  23. roland.g macrumors 603

    roland.g

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Location:
    One mile up and soaring
    #23
    The have a Dell 34” 21:9 Curved UW that runs at 3440x1440. So I’m not sure at 2160 this is a huge upgrade and while the Dell ran $800, this is twice that. The only real appeal is the TB3 charging for a 15” MBP and included hub like functionality, IF it really works as expected. I suppose I will be much better served keeping the curved Dell and getting a CalDigit.
     
  24. Jetfire macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    #24
    Check out Dell's U3219Q. It's should be a nice replacement and it's only $800.00
     
  25. androvboy, Dec 5, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018

    androvboy macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #25
    I have one of these. Was a nightmare for the first weeks as unsupported until 10.14.2 for the Macbook Pro 2018. (which is clearly their target market). I wasted hours messing with cables and contacting useless support at LG and Apple.

    It's also short of USB ports so I added the latest OWC Thunderbolt 3 dock. You only have 2 x USB out. I have the latest mac black external keyboard but those have no USB input for the mouse......so once I add a cabled mouse both ports are used and you have nothing left for an iPhone, SSD backup, iPod charging, GoPro and all that other junk we all use.

    Obviously I can add things to my spare ports directly on the Macbook Pro, but the idea is 1 cable in and out for quick release.

    It has also been very erratic at waking from sleep etc even with Beta versions of 10.14.2 but I am hoping the official release (I just downloaded) will fix that. I have also had problems with the battery not charging even with 80W power coming in.

    But finally getting there hopefully.
     

Share This Page