16:9 vs 21:9 ?

[xrock8]

I am from india and i need a new monitor for gaming(just offline gaming) and watching movies.I previously considered buying Asus VS247H which everyone recommended in this price range. It costs about 200$ here in India. But now i did a little research and found the LG 25UM65 for only 248$.
Is is worth 50$ ? It looks great in videos and the reviews are pretty nice too but is 21:9 really enjoyable ? And is my rig sufficient enough to play at a playable framerate ?
Rest of the specs
Fx 8320
Asus m5a99fx
R9 280x
8gb ram.
Note: will upgrade when skylake comes out.

 

[Lonyo]

The 24" will get you a lot more actual screen space due to the less "efficient" aspect ratio of a 21:9.

A 25" 21:9 would be like a 19" monitor for 16:9 content. Larger 21:9 monitors make more sense than the small ones for things like movies and gaming, since if you have non-supported content it ends up being very small.
Out of the two options the 24" is the better idea. If you were looking at larger screens, I would pick a 21:9 (and did).

A 24" 16:9 monitor has a screen area of 246 square inches, vs 226 sq inches for a 25" 21:9 display.

 

[amenx]

21:9 is only appealing if @ 34" or above imo.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

16:9 will have better support for games, and I'll take letterboxing on 21:9 videos on a 16:9 screen over pillarboxing on 16:9 videos on a 21:9 screen any day.

for me the biggest advantages of 21:9 would be in games that allow you to tweak the FOV, or if you do a lot of side by side document work, but at the end of the day 25" 21:9 might be too small

The 24" will get you a lot more actual screen space due to the less "efficient" aspect ratio of a 21:9.

A 25" 21:9 would be like a 19" monitor for 16:9 content. Larger 21:9 monitors make more sense than the small ones for things like movies and gaming, since if you have non-supported content it ends up being very small.
Out of the two options the 24" is the better idea. If you were looking at larger screens, I would pick a 21:9 (and did).

A 24" 16:9 monitor has a screen area of 246 square inches, vs 226 sq inches for a 25" 21:9 display.

just a quick example, note its also just a 23" compared to a 25" 21:9, but it still shows just how small a 25" 21:9 screen really is.

 

[Gryz]

Recently I realized that if I switch from a 27" 16:9 to a 34" 21:9, I only gain view-space at the sides. 34" sounds a lot bigger than 27". But the height of these two screens will be almost exactly the same.

There are advantages to an ultra-wide screen. But I think it's more important to have more cm^2 in general. As amenx says, 21:9 only becomes appealing above 34". I agree. I have a slight preference for 16:10 even. But my next screen will certainly be 16:9 again.

 

[lavaheadache]

I wonder how many posts in this thread are going to be from people with actual seat time in front of a 21:9 screen.

Imo, they are the way of the future.

 

[Owls]

I wonder how many posts in this thread are going to be from people with actual seat time in front of a 21:9 screen.

Imo, they are the way of the future.

Agreed. I use 2x Dell 3415Ws

 

[Elfear]

I wonder how many posts in this thread are going to be from people with actual seat time in front of a 21:9 screen.

Imo, they are the way of the future.

+1

After using a 21:9 for a month or so I had a really hard time going back to a 16:9 and 16:10 screen. Ultrawide Freesync/G-Sync monitors can't come soon enough.

 

[Deders]

I love my 29" 21:9, it would be nicer to have a 34" but then I'd want more than a single 780 to power it.

I guess it depends on what you are used to, if you are used to a 2560x1440p monitor or above then a 29" will feel smaller and more constrained.

 

[lavaheadache]

I love my 29" 21:9, it would be nicer to have a 34" but then I'd want more than a single 780 to power it.

I guess it depends on what you are used to, if you are used to a 2560x1440p monitor or above then a 29" will feel smaller and more constrained.

I went from a 30" 16:10 to a 34" 21:9 and don't miss the vertical size difference

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I wonder how many posts in this thread are going to be from people with actual seat time in front of a 21:9 screen.

Imo, they are the way of the future.

and I wonder how many posters are going to read the OPs situation and consider the two models without distilling his question down to simply 21:9 vs. 16:9.

21:9 might be desirable and "the way of the future" but still might not necessarily be the best option for the OP

 

[lavaheadache]

and I wonder how many posters are going to read the OPs situation and consider the two models without distilling his question down to simply 21:9 vs. 16:9.

21:9 might be desirable and "the way of the future" but still might not necessarily be the best option for the OP

If something is the way of the future then inherently it is most likely the best solution for anyone who is looking for said related
product.

 

[Morbus]

If something is the way of the future then inherently it is most likely the best solution for anyone who is looking for said related
product.

That's why none of us are religious, none of us have water filtration systems in our homes, and we all frequently eat insects, right?

Because those are also the way of the future...

 

[lavaheadache]

That's why none of us are religious, none of us have water filtration systems in our homes, and we all frequently eat insects, right?

Because those are also the way of the future...

lol.... there are always extremists.

 

[Lonyo]

lol.... there are always extremists.

Most of the content isn't here yet, and you get less for your money with 21:9, if you're on a budget that should have a significant weight.

Electric cars are the way of the future, and they exist now. If someone's asking for car advice, you don't tell them to buy an electric car when it's more expensive and not significantly better for them now or over the next few years.

In the long run, it might be, but for the life of the product 21:9 isn't required and offers significantly less value for money in current and most short to medium term use cases.

You need to read the OP and think if your view is necessarily appropriate given his request.

 

[Stormflux]

To those with 21:9 monitors who previously had a Dual Monitor set up. Do you continue to have multiple monitors or do you find the spread of one ultrawide enough? Not only for gaming but, productivity as well.

 

[jackstar7]

I picked up a 34um95 knowing I wanted to have it side-by-side with my 27" 1440p and I am finding that I now rarely need to place anything on the 27" and can keep a lot going on the 34" without feeling limited productivity-wise.

But I've been multi-monitor for years now and having the possibility of 6000 horizontal pixels keeps my crazy down.

 

[know of fence]

I went from a 30" 16:10 to a 34" 21:9 and don't miss the vertical size difference

16:10 was much more closer to the aspect ratio of the future, present and past (16:11.3), which is of course the "magical" aspect ratio of paper also known as SQRT(2):1 or 1.4142:1.

 

[xthetenth]

To those with 21:9 monitors who previously had a Dual Monitor set up. Do you continue to have multiple monitors or do you find the spread of one ultrawide enough? Not only for gaming but, productivity as well.

I have a 3440x1440 at work and two 2560x1440s at home. Working from home hurts. I am much more productive at work and my workflow never feels right at home. I would no joke eat a $50 loss on each of the home screens that I bought in October if there were freesync 3440x1440 screens on the market that I could recoup that money into (I'd consider one without the toys but I'm not buying another stopgap solution, so I don't think I'd do it now). A 34 is a much better solution than two 27s, and I urge everyone looking at laying that much money down to seriously consider waiting for a good sale on a 34 because it's a better form factor and putting that much money into one screen means cool benefits like a factory calibrated screen.

16:10 was much more closer to the aspect ratio of the future, present and past (16:11.3), which is of course the "magical" aspect ratio of paper also known as SQRT(2):1 or 1.4142:1.

Workflow determines proper aspect ratio. 21:9 is the best fit for any of the configurations I run, and it would take much more vertical space to make me feel like added height really adds anything. I'd personally say that 1440 and higher is plenty for a single window tall setup. 1080 is definitely constrained, and 1200 is probably near the inflection point.

I wonder how many posts in this thread are going to be from people with actual seat time in front of a 21:9 screen.

Imo, they are the way of the future.

I think that in his case it's a pretty big chunk of money on a tight build.

OP, how often do you find yourself wishing you could have another window up? That's the real best thing in my experience. I can run a pretty much full sized window with a thin window for reference next to it with no problems. However, gaming could use that $50 more, and movies depends on whether he can get media in the right aspect ratio.

 

[Anubis]

I went from dual 27 1440p monitors to the 34" 21:9

for most things running it alone is fine, however for certain things I do I miss the 2nd one. mostly gaming when I place a video or chat on the 2nd monitor. so I tossed one of my 27s in vert mode next to it, the 27 is silly like that but I will prob change it to a 22 or 24 just to keep some stuff on it

 

[lavaheadache]

I have a 3440x1440 at work and two 2560x1440s at home. Working from home hurts. I am much more productive at work and my workflow never feels right at home. I would no joke eat a $50 loss on each of the home screens that I bought in October if there were freesync 3440x1440 screens on the market that I could recoup that money into (I'd consider one without the toys but I'm not buying another stopgap solution, so I don't think I'd do it now). A 34 is a much better solution than two 27s, and I urge everyone looking at laying that much money down to seriously consider waiting for a good sale on a 34 because it's a better form factor and putting that much money into one screen means cool benefits like a factory calibrated screen.



Workflow determines proper aspect ratio. 21:9 is the best fit for any of the configurations I run, and it would take much more vertical space to make me feel like added height really adds anything. I'd personally say that 1440 and higher is plenty for a single window tall setup. 1080 is definitely constrained, and 1200 is probably near the inflection point.



I think that in his case it's a pretty big chunk of money on a tight build.

OP, how often do you find yourself wishing you could have another window up? That's the real best thing in my experience. I can run a pretty much full sized window with a thin window for reference next to it with no problems. However, gaming could use that $50 more, and movies depends on whether he can get media in the right aspect ratio.

Where did the OP say he was on a tight budget ?

 

[funboy6942]

I use this monitor for everything and I absolutely just love it...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-WASABI-...472?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20e27fa098

I power it with a AMD FX9590 and a GTX970 and have no issues at all with anything I do or play on it. I also have plans on buying another one soon and running them side by side for some serious game play. My games never looked better IMO, and I have all that extra real-estate when surfing the internet, or really anything at all, I dont miss my 16:9 monitor at all. Its slightly smaller, tall wise, but what Ive gained in all other things makes up for it and then some, again IMO.

 

[know of fence]

Workflow determines proper aspect ratio. 21:9 is the best fit for any of the configurations I run, and it would take much more vertical space to make me feel like added height really adds anything. I'd personally say that 1440 and higher is plenty for a single window tall setup. 1080 is definitely constrained, and 1200 is probably near the inflection point.

Ah yes, just like workflow determined the aspect ratio to be 4:3, then 5:4 and 16:10 finally though not permanently settling on 16 by 9. [/irony]

Honestly at this point the best aspect ratio for my taste would be one that doesn't change. Could it be that, people who feel discomfort going from one screen to the other somehow blame any of the two displays, instead of the actual culprit - change though forced sideways "innovation"?

 

[xthetenth]

Where did the OP say he was on a tight budget ?

Actually that is a point, I was looking at the list of what he's got now, and thought to myself that it's a build that looks budget constrained.

I'm still a bit torn because I tend to feel the height sweet spot is a bit north of 1080 pixels, and a 2560x1080 feels to me like a 2560x1440 with the top shaved off. If a 2560x1440 were available in the same price range I'd be wanting to look at that, but I do feel the wider screen is noticeably more useful if it's only 2560x1080 vs 1920x1080.

Ah yes, just like workflow determined the aspect ratio to be 4:3, then 5:4 and 16:10 finally though not permanently settling on 16 by 9. [/irony]

Honestly at this point the best aspect ratio for my taste would be one that doesn't change. Could it be that, people who feel discomfort going from one screen to the other somehow blame any of the two displays, instead of the actual culprit - change though forced sideways "innovation"?

Funnily I'm speaking from my personal experience, and my workflow means that 21:9 is a vastly superior option to 16:10 or 16:9 at the resolution I'm discussing. Honestly the optimum for width and height is determined by different criteria. For height, it's an information criterion. Anything short of 900 or so pixels feels constricted and short. ~1000 is about the point where I'd rather be able to stack two things side by side rather than go taller because there's a comfortable amount of information vertically. Generally though I want to be able to have one major task that's wide (fullscreen browser, game, IDE with side menus and two pieces of code, etc.), and one secondary thing that's usually pretty narrow side by side or three narrow tasks, so up through here I pretty much demand two monitors. But by the time I get past probably 1200 pixels (not sure, my experience is with 2x1920x1080, 2x2560x1440 and 3440x1440), there's enough vertical space that I'm well into the land of diminishing returns, and wouldn't gain much actual real usability gains (and see some downsides from the distance between top and bottom of the screen) until probably 1800 tall screens and more likely 2k tall screens (and this at a pixel pitch of around current 27" 1440p screens, past that contributes sharpness but not information because I have to start making things bigger). That's a pretty serious height and I'm not sure it's really 100% something I'd be able to manage without a bit of work and a nice software suite (and potentially a 2 dimensional curved screen).

And interestingly I don't feel discomfort going to new screens. I feel great. What I do feel discomfort with is going back because the old configuration downright sucks in comparison. Two 27" 1440s is ungainly and awkward, while one 34" 1440 with software to break the screen up into arbitrarily sized chunks for programs is wide enough to do a much better job of doing nearly as much, and that nearly as much is enough that 95% of the time, it's doing everything I need brilliantly rather than 97% of the time doing what I need decently.

 

[dacostafilipe]

My next monitor will be 21:9 ... I'm just waiting for the right model 😛 (and price)