LG UltraGear 39GS95QE-B gaming monitor hands-on review: I'm not going back
LG's UltraGear monitors looked so promising from afar that I ended up investing in one on a bit of a whim. Needing to replace an aging 34-inch Ultrawide, I wasn't entirely sure how the company would pull off the combination of display size, OLED and gaming chops.
To my amazement, it ticks all three boxes, making the LG 39GS95QE-B a fantastic monitor for work and play. It has a near-infinite contrast ratio that ensures absolutely everything looks crisp — even from the logo that appears when starting up — and the massive canvas feels immersive thanks to the display's curvature (800R) without taking up as much desk space as you'd think.
It also has plenty of neat tricks up its sleeve, like being able to run an image cleaning cycle when you're done for the day to help reduce burn-in, as well as an impressively featured frame counter for anyone looking to push their gaming hardware to its limits.
All of that will cost you, but it's so rare to find a display this fully loaded that it's hard to argue with the value — especially when some monitors like the Sony Inzone M10S ramp up the refresh rate but offer a much smaller display for a similar price.
It easily has a shot at making it on our list of best gaming monitors, and feels transformative for both work and play on a daily basis.
Resolution
3440x1440 pixels
Refresh Rate
240Hz
Display Technology
OLED
Size
39 inches diagonal
Stand
Height adjustable with Portrait Pivot
Ports
HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 1.4, USB 3.0
Dimensions (with stand)
34.9 x 24 x 12.2 inches
There really aren't a great deal of downsides to this particular LG model, giving us plenty to cover here.
When does a 39-inch monitor not feel like a 39-inch monitor? When it's curved like this.
That's nothing new, and ultrawide monitors are curved more often than now, but coming from a 34-inch screen with less 'bend' made me appreciate how much the wrap-around design of the LG 39GS95QE-B packs in plenty of screen in a smaller space.
In fact, it feels barely any bigger than my last monitor, but still has just a little bit more room.
It's not just the display, either. The stand is pretty subtle, but flexible enough for height and tilt adjustment.
My desire to run a dual computer setup has caused issues in the past because my gaming PC needs high refresh rates and DisplayPort connectivity, while my MacBook dock uses HDMI connected to a series of ports.
Imagine my surprise when the LG 39GS95QE-B played nicely with both, almost right out of the box, while also offering a handy picture-in-picture mode for dual use.
My only issue really was that the color profile was off for Mac usage, but using BetterDisplay (a macOS utility that helps customize a display) to correct that was easily done.
Sure, I've buried the lede somewhat here. With G-Sync and FreeSync, plus a max refresh rate of 240Hz, the LG 39GS95QE-B is ready to game. But in all honesty, that's one of the least exciting things about it.
Late-night Overwatch sessions and clicking heads on Valorant simply have never looked so good. The resolution here is Ultra-WQHD (3440 x 1440), but the real draw is the 1200000:1 contrast ratio, which means colors truly pop.
As you can see in the image snapped, the colors found in a vibrant game like Overwatch 2 are staggering, from the bright orange of Tracer's outfit to the green projectiles Lucio fires.
It's what you'd expect for an OLED, but given the huge canvas here, it's not just games but watching movies and even just YouTube videos that feel drastically better than my older monitor.
I sat down to watch some of the Star Wars movies and was blown away by inky blacks on offer in space dogfight scenes.
Besides the spec sheet, there's plenty going on here that'll be like red meat to gamers.
The joystick on the back can navigate the built-in settings, and offers reduced input lag, a black stabilizer, and a fixed crosshair. There's also an FPS counter for gamers that want to ensure they're hitting the right levels.
I'm also pleased LG has tried to take some of the hassle out of caring for an OLED panel. To avoid burn-in, the screen can offer dimming intervals, moving screen elements and perhaps best of all, an OLED Image Cleaning process that starts once you power off your computer.
As much as I've enjoyed the LG UltraGear's gamer-ready features and capabilities, I still have some minor complaints.
There's simply no way you'd describe the 39GS95QE-B as being budget-friendly, but we have at least seen it discounted down to around $1,000/£800, which is positive.
We'd argue it's easier to stomach than some rivals with smaller panels, though, since you could theoretically say it's an investment for work, too. After all, a 39-inch screen is plenty for multitasking or working on creative projects.
Maybe we're being churlish to ask for even more out of an OLED panel, but as we covered with the Sony Inzone M10S, it's possible to reach a frankly obnoxious 480Hz now.
It's not necessarily the kind of thing you'd want, especially if you're not into high-level competitive gaming, but it's worth noting — especially since both monitors are this expensive.
It doesn't come cheap, but the sheer brilliance of the LG UltraGear 39GS95QE-B's OLED panel can't be overstated, particularly when it's a whopping 39 inches in size.
The curvature and contrast combine to make it a much more immersive gaming experience without feeling comically large, and the refresh rate, while not the highest, is plenty for even competitive gamers.
Stay tuned for my full review.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Pentagon Wants To Shift Funds From Navy F/A-XX To USAF F-47: Report
The U.S. Navy's F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter program looks to have hit another snag, with the Pentagon reportedly prioritizing the Air Force's F-47 stealth fighter, amid concerns about how to run the two efforts simultaneously. Already, the F/A-XX was in limbo, with a U.S. official telling TWZ last month that the future of the program was still being reviewed. This came after reports that a contract award for the Navy's new combat jet could be delayed by as much as three years. Navy officials, meanwhile, continue to stress the importance of the F/A-XX to their plans. 'There's certainly a strong requirement for a sixth-gen fighter still,' Dr. Brett A. Seidle, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition (RD&A), said yesterday. 'I know there's a lot of discussion about [F/A-XX] right now, but the Navy position on that is there's a requirement that's necessary.' Seidle was speaking at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Seapower and Projection Forces. His comments came in response to questions from U.S. Rep. Joseph David Courtney, the Democrat representative for Connecticut's 2nd congressional district. You can see that exchange in the video below, starting at the 35.25 mark: The hearing followed a Pentagon request last month to the House and Senate defense policy committees, which was seen by Bloomberg News, warning that 'Simultaneously pursuing two sixth-generation fighters risks under-delivery on both.' 'Given the schedule delays and cost growth across numerous airframes, DoD recommends a focus on the F-47, giving the Navy's F/A-XX program time for technical maturity and development,' the Pentagon request added. 'Phasing the F/A-XX after the Air Force's initial F-47 development will alleviate capacity concerns in the industrial base.' Exactly why there should be concerns about industrial capacity is somewhat unclear, although that could be a factor were Boeing to win the F/A-XX contract on top of the F-47. On the other hand, with Northrop Grumman busy with the B-21 stealth bomber, which still needs to get through flight testing, adding a few years to the F/A-XX timeline could mitigate risk there, were this contractor to walk away with F/A-XX. Reportedly, the U.S. Department of Defense requested that Congress shift $500 million from F/A-XX to the F-47, the contract for which was awarded to Boeing in March. Previously, these funds were allocated for the 'accelerated development' of the Navy fighter. There is now something of a battle between the Pentagon Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). On the one hand, the F-47 is considered by the Pentagon to have 'full presidential support,' making it a priority for the $500 million that the House Armed Services Committee had added to the F/A-XX program under President Donald Trump's sweeping $3.9-trillion tax breaks package. While we previously reported on Pentagon recommendations to withhold $500 million from the F/A-XX program, it wasn't previously understood that it wanted to redirect this to the Air Force's equivalent effort, the F-47. The House Armed Services Committee is now seeking to block the funds from being redirected to the F-47, arguing that the Pentagon hasn't provided an adequate reason for this. Heather Vaughan, a committee spokesperson, told Bloomberg News that the Pentagon 'has yet to brief the committee on any changes for its plans to develop and procure' the Navy's new stealth jet. 'Absent any new information from the Navy concerning revision to defined capability gaps and shortfalls, mission requirements, cost, or acquisition strategy for F/A-XX, the committee continues to support the development of this critical platform,' Vaughan added. Earlier this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee released its defense section of the tax breaks package, which includes $750 million to 'accelerate the F/A-XX aircraft.' Originally, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman were all in the running to develop the F/A-XX. However, Lockheed Martin was reportedly eliminated from the competition in March because its proposal 'did not satisfy the service's criteria,' according to Breaking Defense, whose story cited an unnamed source with knowledge of the program. Any holdups to the F/A-XX program will be a worry for the Navy. The service considers a sixth-generation combat aircraft as a prerequisite for the future carrier air wing, especially in terms of a potential confrontation with China in the Indo-Pacific theater. 'The sixth-gen fighter has some capabilities that we need to counter the PRC,' Navy Adm. James W. Kilby, acting Chief of Naval Operations, said of the F/A-XX last month. 'Those are signatures, those are range, those are different engines. Those are all the things that will make it survivable. The Air Force and Navy have different missions, but we're going against the same threat.' Last month, a U.S. official, speaking to TWZ on condition of anonymity, denied reports that the F/A-XX program contract award could be delayed by as much as three years. 'Nothing is being delayed,' the official stated. 'A decision hasn't been made yet. That decision is still being determined by [the Pentagon] and service leaders, with conversations among Congress as well. It's a big program. Obviously, these things don't get settled on by one individual. Leaders are making a decision on whether to invest. It's all part of the process.' The Navy had planned for the F/A-XX aircraft to enter service in the 2030s and thereafter to replace F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets. According to a 2025 Naval Aviation Playbook, the F/A-XX 'is expected to feature superior range, speed, and sensor capabilities, with an emphasis on integrating manned and unmanned systems. This includes collaboration with autonomous drones serving as force multipliers and electronic warfare assets.' In regards to the range, it emerged earlier this year that the F/A-XX may offer just a 25 percent increase in this respect over the existing tactical combat jets in its carrier air wings. That disclosure is surprising, given that the service consistently makes it clear that extending the reach of its carrier strike groups and thus enhancing their survivability is a critical priority, as the range of expected threats also continues to grow. Regardless, the continued funding dispute may well still derail the current timeline for F/A-XX. In a report last month, Reuters wrote that the Pentagon's main issue about the F/A-XX program was 'concerns about engineering and production capacity,' but didn't elaborate further. If the F/A-XX does end up being delayed, the Navy might well have to look again at its tactical fighter fleet to avoid shortfalls. One immediate result would be the service relying longer than expected on its aging fleets of Super Hornets and Growlers. At one stage, the Super Hornet production line was expected to be shut down this year. However, in March of last year, the Navy issued Boeing a $1.3-billion contract for 17 new Super Hornets with a final delivery planned for spring 2027 at the latest. Buying more Super Hornets could be an option, but such a move would have to be made before the line is closed. An alternative would be to push more resources toward the F-35C stealth fighter, which the Navy has introduced to replace the last of its 'legacy' Hornets. As well as the baseline F-35C, Lockheed Martin is increasingly looking at the potential of further advanced developments of the Joint Strike Fighter, something the company has previously described as a 'Ferrari' or 'NASCAR upgrade' to the F-35's core 'chassis.' This could include a substantial fuselage redesign. With a future Pacific fight very much on its mind, neither of these options would be ideal for the Navy, and the current uncertainty around the F/A-XX program is very much bad news for the service. It's also worth considering the Navy's approach for the fleets of carrier-capable drone wingmen that it wants to accompany crewed combat aircraft in the future. As it now stands, the service wants its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) designs to cost no more than $15 million to buy and have zero long-term sustainment costs. At the same time, there are signs the Navy may not be moving as quickly on CCAs as the Air Force, as you can read about here. Meanwhile, if the Pentagon gets its way and is able to inject another $500 million into the F-47, that will only help realize its goal to have the next-generation Air Force combat jet flying before the end of the current Trump administration. Contact the author: thomas@
Tom's Guide
a day ago
- Tom's Guide
Confirmed: Nintendo Switch 2 USB-C port does NOT support AR glasses
I told you that if Nintendo Switch 2 doesn't support AR glasses, I 'might actually lose it.' Now after testing it ourselves, we can confirm this is true – there is no video out in those USB-C ports, so it's time for a crash out. In the year of our Lord, 2025, is it really that hard to put in the right USB-C port? No, it's not, and my 35-year-old neck can't take it anymore. By this point, I think it's fair for most folks to expect some form of video signal from this essential socket, right as the best AR glasses you can buy are set to explode in popularity. Which is why it becomes all the more annoying when it's just not there. Some phone companies are notorious for this (looking at you, Nothing) but to not have it on the Switch 2 is just diabolical. So technically, it could do video, but Nintendo's supporting the wrong kind that nobody uses. This comes down to protocols – 99% of the market use DisplayPort Alt Mode for real versatility and a nice high bandwidth, whereas the big N seems to be using the same Mobility DisplayPort (MyDP) standard it used with the original Switch. Bear in mind this is a standard that was typically used with a micro-USB port, so it's rather old and is used for cost effectiveness. But what it's done instead is cause a whole load of headaches and neck pain. You see, my favorite way of playing on the best handhelds like my Steam Deck (especially with Nvidia GeForce Now) is to pop in my pair of Xreal Ones and have a 1080p picture right in front of my eyes. Whether it's on my beanbag in the living room or on a long haul flight, being able to look straight ahead rather than crane your neck to look down or cause hand strain by trying to hold up the handheld for a long period of time has been a Godsend. But that's just a little too convenient now isn't it! Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. Instead, we're right back to square one – having to use whatever weird workaround from the likes of Xreal or Viture to trick the Switch into thinking it's running in docked mode, run that HDMI signal through an encoder then to the glasses. Not only is this a pain to set up, but it causes serious latency issues on gameplay and leads to drastically reduced battery life with the increased power draw of the Switch thinking it's in a dock. Nintendo is using an entirely different video out standard to literally every other device on the planet, and I just can't wrap my head around it. Will many people care? I've seen the launch day queues going for blocks, so I'm inclined to say 'not really.' But that's not the point, and neither is the possibility of Nintendo making it proprietary so that the company could make its own glasses. The point is that USB-C was brought in to be a universal standard, and be all things to all people – I mean universal is literally in its name! And yet, companies are just doing weird things with it, to the point that it's actively making your experience with gadgets worse. And what's even weirder is that Nintendo has confirmed that the Switch 2 does support USB mice. The company seems open to third party accessories, so why on Earth did we not get AR glasses thrown into the mix? On behalf of all 30-somethings who are plagued by the neck pains of a poor posture past like me, it's time you called a chiropractor.
Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
Samsung Vs. LG: Which TV Brand Is Best?
While there are plenty of panels on the market, there are two brands that stand out for their flagship smart features and incredible picture quality: LG and Samsung. Both companies feature stellar OLED panels; LG offers the LG G5, and Samsung recently launched the Samsung S95F. And if you're trying to decide between Samsung versus LG, it can feel like a tough choice—but there are a few differences in these panels that can help you decide. Trying to decide between Samsung versus LG? Here's what you need to know. After testing countless LG and Samsung panels over the course of my career, and as the TV-obsessed consumer tech and electronics editor who can spend hours talking about TV displays, the differences come down to unique features, price and more. And, as AI becomes a larger factor in all TVs, you need to decide if those software extras are a must-have for you; both Samsung and LG have different approaches. Here's how to decide between Samsung versus LG. Best Buy Type: OLED | Resolution: 4K | Refresh rate: 120Hz | Operating system: Tizen | HDR: OLED HDR Pro Pros: Cons: Amazon Size: 65-inch | Type: OLED | Resolution: 4K | Refresh rate: 120Hz | Operating system: LG WebOS | HDR: HDR10, Dolby Vision, HLG Pros: Cons: For fans of Samsung, the tech giant offers a slew of different options, including OLED, QLED and Mini LED panels. Samsung's S95F features an upgraded N4Q AI Gen 3 processor, which can help it accomplish numerous AI-based tasks. The TV, along with the rest of Samsung's 2025 lineup—including the Samsung QN90F and the Samsung QN990F 8K TV—has Live Translate, a Samsung Vision AI software that can translate your content into your preferred language in real time. You can also use AI to re-create meal recipes you see on-screen, thanks to Samsung Food, or you can find and shop for a sweater or dress you saw on an actor in a TV show or movie. While LG doesn't officially offer a Live Translate feature, it still packs a ton of software into its TVs. LG's G5 TV has a new Alpha 11 AI Processor Gen2, the latest chip that also has some pretty powerful AI-powered features, AI Picture Pro and AI Super Upscaling. They're exactly what they sound like: AI Picture Pro reads and optimizes your content's picture in the moment, while AI Super Upscaling takes older content and 'upscales' it to 4K resolution. It's worth noting that while Samsung has been expanding its AI features, LG has solely been focused on its performance as it relates to AI. If you're seeking the best picture quality above all else, the good news is that both brands showcase a gorgeous image on each display—but which one you choose as your next TV brand depends on what your priorities are. LG TV offers two main OLED TVs, the LG G5 and LG C5. While the C5 doesn't get as bright as the G5 (which, really, is one of the few differences between the two), both panels offer Brightness Booster technology, which can help keep your picture clear and bright in sun-drenched rooms. While both OLED panels also have an anti-glare matte display to reduce screen reflections, you don't need to get an OLED; you can also opt for a QLED panel. Amazon But first, some context on what exactly these acronyms mean: In short, the QLED panel Samsung uses is essentially an LED TV that layers quantum dots over the LED panel—thus the 'Q' in QLED. It gives more vivid colors in a wider range for a lovely picture, and it's traditionally brighter than OLED. An OLED panel consists of millions of self-lit pixels on a panel that help minimize blooming that's typically seen in QLED and Mini LED displays. LG opted for what they call QNED technology, which is similar to QLED in that it uses a Mini LED panel and quantum dot layers, but there's also what LG calls nano cell technology that, according to the company, helps absorb excess and unwanted light. By implementing this technology, a QNED TV can hit near-OLED levels of contrast and picture quality. When I tested the best 65-inch TVs, I spoke with Avi Greengart, CEO of Techsponential, who told me, 'OLED has meaningfully better contrast…because each pixel is self-lit: When it's off, it's true black, and there is no backlighting bleeding over from adjacent areas.' While OLED is renowned for its contrast and deep, inky blacks, QLED and QNED are known for bright whites and vivid colors on a super-bright panel. Amazon Samsung also offers an anti-glare display called Glare-Free, and it's lovely, based on my testing. I can keep my mini-blinds tossed open in my living room, and while it's a love-it-or-hate-it feature, according to Samsung TV fans and reviews, I personally am fully in camp Glare-Free. Samsung offers two OLED panels, the Samsung S95F and its more-affordable sibling, the Samsung S90F. There are small differences between the two: The S95F has more built-in speakers and a couple more USB-A ports, and it weighs a little less. Otherwise, brightness is about the same, and the picture quality is lovely on both panels. For those who prefer a QLED panel, it's worth noting that our top pick for the best TV for bright rooms is the Samsung QN90F, as it can nail sky-high brightness for sun-drenched living rooms. If you are fully in camp LG, you can opt for the LG QNED 90T TV. All of the TVs mentioned offer a lovely 4K picture, with some kind of upscaling for older content so you can enjoy details on-screen. However, sometimes more detail is best, and if you're seeking to future-proof your TV, Samsung offers an 8K panel, the Samsung QN990F. It's an 8K panel that can give more detail and depth to the picture. It's pricier, at around $5,500, but it comes with all of the smart features Samsung's 2025 lineup offers with Samsung Galaxy Vision AI, and you'll get a better picture. It's also worth noting that LG has a similar 8K offering as well as an 8K OLED option called the LG Z3—but expect to pay significantly more for the latter. Best Buy For gamers, trying to decide between each panel can feel overwhelming. Both offer console gaming hubs—Samsung calls it the Samsung Gaming Hub, while LG's is called the LG Gaming Portal—and both brands can hit a 120Hz refresh rate in their TVs. It's also important to note that while both brands offer a refresh rate up to 165Hz, that higher rate is reserved for PC gamers. Really, you can't go wrong with either one—it comes down to picture quality and brightness here. If you want a better contrast, opt for the Samsung S95F; those who prioritize a bright display should go LG. While both Samsung and LG offer flagship panels, their prices are pretty darn similar. For a 65-inch Samsung S95F TV, you can expect to pay around $3,300 before a sale. The same goes for a 65-inch LG G5 TV—it costs around $3,300. QLED panels are typically more affordable; while the 65-inch Samsung QN90F costs around $2,700, the 65-inch LG QNED 90T TV is much more affordable at $1,900. If you get a smaller TV, like a 55-inch or 43-inch panel, that can reduce the cost. Just make sure that you measure your space to determine which size is best for you. Samsung and LG both produce stellar TVs with impressive picture quality—you can't go wrong with either. It really comes down to personal preferences: If you want a lovely contrast, you should opt for a TV like the Samsung S95F TV; those who need a combination of brightness and contrast should consider the LG G5 series for its enhanced Brightness Booster. Personally, I've found that Samsung's TVs have some of the best quality I've tested to date. If you're a gamer, plan to pick up an LG OLED; otherwise, Samsung suits most needs just fine, no matter which panel you opt for. But it also comes down to which AI features you plan to use, too. Samsung is going all-in on its Vision AI, and that's a boon to the viewing experience, especially if you see a recipe you want to try or want to watch a soccer match that's broadcast in another language. That's in addition to its AI upscaling. LG's AI is good, but at the moment, it's solely focused on AI as it pertains to picture quality and upscaling—don't expect all the extras that Samsung offers. The Forbes Vetted team has published hundreds of tech and electronics guides that leverage our hands-on testing and research, including TV stories for all of your video needs, like outdoor TVs, gaming TVs and more.
