Skip to content

Huawei MateView SE vs LG UltraFine evo 32U990A-S

Side-by-side comparison of viewing distance, PPI, and specifications

Huawei MateView SE

23.8" · 1920×1080 · IPS
Optimal Viewing Distance 94cm
Open in calculator →

LG UltraFine evo 32U990A-S

31.5" · 6144×3456 · IPS
Optimal Viewing Distance 39cm
Open in calculator →
Specification Huawei MateView SE 2022 LG UltraFine evo 32U990A-S 2025
Screen Size 23.8" 31.5" (Better)
Resolution 1920×1080 6144×3456 (Better)
Pixel Density (PPI) 93 224 (Better)
Optimal Viewing Distance 94cm 39cm (Better)
Panel Type IPS IPS
Viewing Angle 178° 178°
Aspect Ratio 16:9 16:9
Refresh Rate 75 Hz (Better) 60 Hz
Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) FreeSync None
Response Time 5 ms GTG 5 ms GTG
HDR Certification None DisplayHDR 600
SDR Brightness 250 nits 450 nits (Better)
HDR Peak Brightness 600 nits 600 nits
Contrast Ratio 1:1,000 1:2,000 (Better)
Ports 1x HDMI · 1x DP 1x HDMI · 1x DP · USB-C · USB Hub
USB-C Power Delivery 96 W
Color Gamut sRGB 100% · DCI-P3 90% · Adobe RGB 80% sRGB 100% · DCI-P3 98% · Adobe RGB 99.5% (Better)
Year 2022 2025 (Better)

Summary

The LG UltraFine evo 32U990A-S has higher pixel density (224 PPI), making it sharper at close range.

The LG UltraFine evo 32U990A-S allows sitting closer (39cm) while maintaining retina quality.

The LG UltraFine evo 32U990A-S offers a larger 31.5" display for more immersive viewing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which has better PPI: Huawei MateView SE or LG UltraFine evo 32U990A-S?
The LG UltraFine evo 32U990A-S has 224 PPI compared to 93 PPI for the Huawei MateView SE.
Which has a closer optimal viewing distance?
The LG UltraFine evo 32U990A-S requires 39cm vs 94cm for the Huawei MateView SE to reach retina quality.

Methodology & Sources

Formula: Retina distance (cm) = 3438 / PPI. Displayed values are rounded for readability.

Sources: Official manufacturer spec sheets and product pages. Specs are normalized before comparisons.

Comparison winners are calculated metric by metric (higher is better for most specs; lower is better for distance/response time).

Last updated:

Related Comparisons