21:9 monitors have done a good job of filling a couple niche positions in the marketplace. For someone that wants a single display to watch movies and use with the PC, the aspect ratio can work well. With many games, the wider field-of-view enhances games with more information on screen at once and a more immersive experience. Where they have fallen short is with their vertical resolution of 1080 pixels. Running two applications side-by-side makes everything feel cramped. For regular office work a 27” display for the same price has provided a better user experience.

Now we have the first 21:9 aspect ratio monitor with 1440 pixels of vertical resolution, the LG 34UM95. That provides the same vertical area as a 27” display but 3440 horizontal pixels instead of 2560. The larger size makes running two programs side-by-side equivalent to dual 20” displays at 1720x1440, or a 6:5 aspect ratio. Furthermore, the additional real estate makes it much easier to use for non-gaming or movie use. From spreadsheets to word processing, image editors to web browsers, the additional vertical space makes a large difference.

The LG 34UM95 is also the first non-Apple display to include Thunderbolt support. With three integrated USB ports you can use a single cable to drive the 34UM95 display and connected devices from a Thunderbolt equipped computer. An additional Thunderbolt connection allows you to connect another device directly to the 34UM95 as well. Unlike the Apple display there isn’t an Ethernet port, but there is integrated audio.

For traditional video cards the display includes a DisplayPort input and two HDMI ports. The HDMI ports are still revision 1.4a so they cannot support 60Hz refresh rates at the monitor's native resolution, but DisplayPort will run at 3440x1440 at 60Hz without any issues, including audio support. The monitor includes a full color management system with a 1-point white balance. As with previous LG displays, I have found that the CMS doesn’t work well and should be avoided. It improves the 100% readings but makes everything below that worse.

The 34UM95 includes two “Reader Modes” designed to make reading documents on-screen easier. In use what they do is pump up the red in the white balance. Since most displays ship with an overly-blue image by default, and people are used to that, this will help those people. If you have the display calibrated correctly, you wind up with an image that is very red and large errors in gamma and grayscale. Since these are easy to enable and disable in the menu system, if you like them it is easy to utilize it.

LG 34UM95
Video Inputs 2x HDMI 1.4a, DisplayPort
Panel Type IPS
Pixel Pitch 0.2325mm
Colors 1.07 Billion
Brightness 320 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 1000:1
Response Time 5ms GtG
Viewable Size 34"
Resolution 3440x1440
Viewing Angle (H/V) 178 / 178
Backlight LED
Power Consumption (operation) 56W
Power Consumption (standby) 1.2W
Screen Treatment Anti-Glare
Height-Adjustable No
Tilt Yes, -5 to 15 degrees
Pivot No
Swivel No
VESA Wall Mounting Yes, 100mm VESA
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 32.7" x 18.5" x 6.8"
Weight 17 lbs.
Additional Features 3.5mm stereo out, 2x Thunderbolt, 2x USB 2.0, 1x USB 3.0, 2x7W speakers
Limited Warranty 1 year
Accessories DisplayPort Cable, HDMI Cable
Price $999


Additional Features and Usability
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    My 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 - link

    this 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 - link

    I 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 - link

    5k 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 - link

    I'm pretty sure 1720:1440 is more of a 7:6 ratio, not 6:5.
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, June 18, 2014 - link

    1720/1440 = 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 - link

    1. 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 - link

    I 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 - link

    I 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 - link

    I 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now