LG 34UM95 Monitor Reviewby Chris Heinonen on June 18, 2014 7:00 AM EST
The On-Screen Display of the LG 34UM95 is controlled using a push-button joystick on the bottom of the display. The OSD itself takes up the full right-third of the display and cannot be moved. This likely isn’t an issue for most people, but if you prefer it to be on a different side or to be semi-transparent you cannot adjust it.
WIth the larger size of the 34UM95 you can better take advantage of the Split-Screen feature. The 1720x1440 resolution will hold 90% of a 1080p image on half of the display (with black borders on the top and bottom). For those who want to watch TV or a movie or play video games on half the display while using the rest for work (or other information), it is very possible to do so. However, in practice this isn’t as flexible as it could be. Video cards do not detect a proper 1720x1440 mode to use for split screen use. Even if you select something close to a 6:5 ratio, like the 4:3 1600x1200 resolution, it only uses up a small section of the screen. So while the feature works, it likely works best using both HDMI inputs, not with an HDMI input and the DisplayPort input.
The included stand with the 34UM95 is clean and sleek but lacks adjustments. You have tilt adjustments available but no height, pivot, or swivel. There are integrated mounting screws for a 100mm VESA mount if you need more flexibility. This is an improvement over the smaller LG 21:9 monitor that lacked mounting holes for a more flexible stand.
As I mentioned in the Thunderbolt discussion there are USB ports on the rear of the 34UM95. There are two USB 2.0 ports and a single USB 3.0 port with a USB 3.0 Type B connector. Why they are not all USB 3.0 I am unsure, but most people don’t have a current need for multiple USB 3.0 connections. That is certain to change in the future so only having one might be a drawback. There is a headphone jack on the rear as well.
During multiple weeks of use, the 34UM95 and it’s wider aspect ratio grew on me. While I have liked the 21:9 monitors in the past for gaming, I usually felt a single 27” display wound up being better for a general purpose display. The extra vertical resolution is far more important than the extra bit of width that those displays offer. With the 34UM95 it now offers that same vertical resolution, but with far more horizontal space for running two applications side-by-side.
As someone that is used to dual display configurations, I find myself working just fine with the single 34UM95. Keeping a web browser up on one side while I work on the other side of the display works well. On a 27” display you often run into the issue where running an application full screen is too wide to be useful, and half the screen can be too narrow. The 34UM95 does a good job of splitting the difference. Running on half the screen with a web browser, word processor, or other application is a very good size. Very few things feel crowded when shrunk down to fit. And if you need to use the full screen, say with a very large spreadsheet, then you easily can.
Having a single monitor that can function as a dual display replacement is useful. If desk space is low, or you have a laptop with a single video output, running dual 27” monitors may not be an option. In this case the LG 34UM95 proves to be very useful. I have been using as a single display and have not felt the need to hook another one up. The largest downside has been games that don’t support 21:9 aspect ratios and have pillarboxing on the sides.
Of course, it also would be good if the display can out-perform a pair of 27” monitors on the bench test. The smaller 21:9 displays have done well so far, but things might change once the vertical size is the same as a 27” display.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
nathanddrews - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - linkMy solution is simply not to scale anything. Every 4K monitor I've tested out so far (including the UP2414Q) has been great at 1:1. From my experience so far, either people are overhyping the scaling issue or they need glasses. I'm not saying that to be a d!ck - I've got glasses and can see everything clearly with them on.
twistedgamez - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - linkthis 100%, i can understand some people increasing the page zoom setting bit a little on chrome for example, but there is no reason the UI elements, url bar and any other stuff needs to be zoomed - i love my 2880x1800 at native
cheinonen - Thursday, June 19, 2014 - linkI have the 24" NEC EA244UHD here right now, and without scaling enabled it's unusable to me. Text elements are just too small to read from my regular seated distance so I have to use scaling with it. The 32" 4K monitors have been semi-usable without scaling but the 24" ones just are not IMO.
fokka - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link5k is just awkward. 4k content will be upscaled and future 8k will be very much downscaled.
same with this model, just with 1080p and 4k.
if you need such an awkward screen for your workflow, go ahead, but for movies it doesn't seem to be ideal.
acejj26 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - linkI'm pretty sure 1720:1440 is more of a 7:6 ratio, not 6:5.
Death666Angel - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link1720/1440 = 1.19444
7/6 = 1.16667
6/5 = 1.2
Pretty sure 1.19 is closer to 1.2 than to 1.17. :)
acejj26 - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link1. Too early for me to post my post...no caffeine yet
2. Then this isn't a 21:9 monitor, since if it were, each half of the monitor would be 21:18 (7:6)
3. This is nitpicking to the extreme
JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - linkI wonder if there's a typo on the specs and it's not really 3440 pixels wide? Technically, 21:9 with a 1440 height should be 3360 pixels wide. It's not like 1440 isn't easily divisible by 9 (it's 160), and 3440 doesn't really have any particular importance. I guess you just get a "free" 80 extra pixels in width (again, assuming it's not an error on the spec sheets).
Of course, the 2560x1080 displays aren't 21:9 either. The correct resolution for 21:9 would be 2520x1080, so there customers are "gaining" 40 pixels of width. 2560 as a width at least makes sense, though, as there have been lots of 2560x1600/2560x1440 displays. There ought to be some logical reason for the choice of resolution, so perhaps there's a technical aspect to the displays that makes the slightly odd AR easier/cheaper to manufacture. However, I can't think of what that reason would be, at least not for a 3440 width.
DanNeely - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - linkI don't know why they fudged the width/aspect ratio slightly either; but Google reports a number of companies launching 3440x1440 monitors but nothing at 3360x1440. Possibly the extra width lets them reuse existing production lines, just cutting at different points, with less wastage.
japtor - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - linkI figure they're sticking with the "21:9" terminology for marketing reasons, like it's easy to compare it to the usual 16:9 screens in that sense.