When we looked at 29-inch ultra-wide displays last year, we asked for greater size and more pixels. LG answers that request with its 34UM95, a 34-inch panel with a resolution of 3440x1440. Today we run it through our performance and usability analysis.

Last year LG introduced the first ultra-wide monitor we’d ever seen, the 29EA93. With a 21:9 aspect ratio, the screen tried answering a question we weren’t sure anyone was asking. But after reviewing two competing displays based on the same panel, NEC’s EA294WMi and AOC’s Q2963PM, we came away with some fresh ways to work with this new concept in monitors.
|
|
|
| Read the Review | Read the Review | |
|
|
|
|
My own experience, along with feedback from the Tom's Hardware community, told me that there were two main problems with the 2560x1080, 29-inch form factor. Number one was a lack of pixel density. With only 1080 pixels of vertical resolution, it proved difficult to use for Web browsing and word processing. The second issue was overall screen size. Even if it had greater pixel density, a 29-inch ultra-wide is only 11.4 inches in height, resulting in too-little screen real estate for most tasks other than gaming or movie-watching.
Today we get our first look at LG’s second-generation ultra-wide display, the 34UM95, which purports to address at least one of those two shortcomings.
| MSRP | $1000 |
|---|---|
| Panel Type | AH-IPS |
| Backlight | W-LED, edge array |
| Screen Size | 34-inch |
| Max Resolution | 3440x1440 |
| Max Refresh Rate | 60 Hz |
| Aspect Ratio | 21:9 |
| Native Color Depth | 10-bit (8-bit w/FRC) |
| Native Gamut | sRGB |
| Response Time (GTG) | 14 ms |
| Brightness | 320 cd/m2 |
| Speakers | - |
| VGA | - |
| DVI | - |
| DisplayPort v1.2 | 1 |
| HDMI v1.4 | 2 |
| Thunderbolt | 2 |
| Audio In | - |
| Headphone | 1 |
| USB | v3.0 - 1 up, 3 down |
| Media Card Reader | - |
| Panel Dimensions W x H x D w/base | 32.7 x 18.5 x 6.8 in 824 x 466 x 171 mm |
| Panel Thickness | 1.9 in / 48 mm |
| Bezel Width | .4-.8 in / 11-20 mm |
| Weight | 17 lbs / 7.7 kg |
| Warranty | One year |
First (and most obviously), LG takes a major step in the right direction with increased size and resolution. Now you get the same screen height as a 27-inch QHD display and the very same 109 PPI density. It wields all of the same advantages, plus a bonus 7.75 inches of screen width. If you were considering a dual-screen setup before, a display like this one warrants a serious look.
Whether you have a high-performance gaming rig begging for a multi-monitor configuration or you just want some extra screen real estate for productivity-oriented workloads, the biggest bummer about using two or three monitors is the bezel interruption between panels. Even displays with no bezel still have a frame around the picture. Current LCD technology seems to have no solution, so we’ve accepted the compromise for now.
Really, then, the decision between two 27-inch QHD screens versus one 34-inch ultra-wide comes down to total screen area and how badly you want to get rid of the bezel. Two 27-inch 16:9 displays yield 623 square inches, while the 34-inch ultra-wide totals 419. Now that the 34UM95 offers the same pixel density, it becomes a more fair comparison.
Aside from the ultra-wide aspect ratio, this is a fairly typical IPS-based monitor. The color gamut is sRGB with a White-LED backlight. To facilitate better utilization of the extra width, an application is included to help manage window sizing in up to four zones on the screen. The HDMI inputs are MHL-compatible, so you can easily window the output from a phone or tablet along with your computer desktop.
Along with our usual performance benchmarks, we’ll test the usability of the 34UM95. It promises to be a unique experience. Let’s take a closer look.
- LG 34UM95 34-Inch Ultra-Wide QHD Monitor Review
- Packaging, Physical Layout, And Accessories
- OSD Setup And Calibration Of The LG 34UM95
- Measurement And Calibration Methodology: How We Test
- Results: Brightness And Contrast
- Results: Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response
- Results: Color Gamut And Performance
- Results: Viewing Angles And Uniformity
- Results: Pixel Response, Input Lag, And Usability
- LG 34UM95: Solid Performance And Real Usability
Playing on "full" hd (LD? Low definition) feels like a joke once you get to know uhd/4k
With regards to this monitor...I LOVE the looks...very elegant. I think the price tag is fitting as well - it has great resolution and there are still plenty of people who are gaming on 60hz displays that may have just enough GPU power to actually game at this thing's native resolution, albeit with slightly lower settings. GG LG!
Next
It would have been nice to include what revision this is, because LG is aware of uniformity issues, which is why the product was largely on backorder and a Rev.2 is in place (but Rev. 2 didn't fix the problem either). My first one had a glaring Uniformity problem, but LG is cool and offered an advanced exchange. The new one has some uniformity problem, but it is very 'livable' and discrete.
Overall, I am pleased with this product. I have a single 780 to push this and it works nicely. If I got a 4k monitor, I'd have performance issues as the GPU as a whole sector is behind.
seriously though, pc monitors have been lacking for some years now, falling behind in innovation and technology in general(phones have been jacking up their screen quality year after year, we've been stuck since like 2005). i bet 21:9 screens will have the biggest penetration on PCs.
This is simply a horrible aspect ratio for most people.
The problem is that if you can see the entire monitor without moving your head then 16:9 is the proper ratio to maximize viewing area such as 3840x2160.
Ultrawide really only makes sense if it's WIDER than what you can see without moving your head. For that, I'd rather have more than one monitor.
Ultrawide for gaming makes little sense. Screens need to be curved, or have multiple angled monitors with minimal gap but a single super-wide screen just doesn't work.
*If you really think about it, it's hard to justify the 21:9 ratio.
This is simply a horrible aspect ratio for most people.
The problem is that if you can see the entire monitor without moving your head then 16:9 is the proper ratio to maximize viewing area such as 3840x2160.
Ultrawide really only makes sense if it's WIDER than what you can see without moving your head. For that, I'd rather have more than one monitor.
Ultrawide for gaming makes little sense. Screens need to be curved, or have multiple angled monitors with minimal gap but a single super-wide screen just doesn't work.
*If you really think about it, it's hard to justify the 21:9 ratio.
Don't knock it, if you haven't tried it. Seen the demos of this screen with 21:9, it's quite impressive looking, compared to the other ratios out there. At the very least, it's more compelling than given credit for.
Impressive LOOKING and impressive FUNCTIONALITY are two different things
That's what I'm thinking. It seems like the wider the screen resolution the more perceivable tearing is. G-sync would help this situation. Acer is supposed to be releasing a 4K G-sync monitor in the next 6 months or so:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-g-sync-monitors-unveiled-shipping-soon-worldwide
Granted the 34" will have its uses and applications, but from the UWHD I don't think it will be the most sold. the 27" might be too small, but 29" is perfect for 2650x1080. BTW, I do game in this monitor too, and I work on it TOO