21:9 Ultrawide VS 4K

[moonbogg]

Ultrawide is more appealing to me. Actually, pretty soon I think I'm going to pull the trigger on the Asus ROG Swift pg348q. That big ass 34" 100hz bad boy. Same res and size I got now, just more width added. I think 21:9 will become the new standard. 16:9 looks square to me after all these years.
4K adds resolution and I have seen them, but I was still looking at the same real estate, just sharper. The more I look at 3440x1440 displays, the more I must have one. I'm selling my monitor and buying one of those.
The only thing is Acer is releasing a new one later this year. Basically the same thing with more curve and 100hz out of the box rather than having to "overclock" using the monitor settings. I think I'm going to lose control and snatch up an ROG Swift pretty soon here. Its "only" 100hz, but I can live with that. Pushing more than that will be tough on two 980ti's with new games anyway at that res. In the future I'll ditch both GPU's for a single 1080ti or something. I'd like to entertain a freesync version with a Vega GPU, but there is no Vega GPU that exists and the Freesync monitors like this top out at 75hz which just isn't fast enough. I could wait another year for them to catch up, but screw that. The Asus is ready right now and I got the GPU's installed right now.
I'll do a bit more research and screwing around, but I can't see myself holding out very long. I WANT that damn thing!

 

[guskline]

moonbogg, congrats on snatching that Asus ultrawide. Though only a 60hz, my Dell U3415W serves me well and really makes a difference (I got it for @$640!).

You clearly have the GPU horsepower to run the Asus ROG Swift pg348q.

As it pertains to your monitor "only" being "100hz" I can tell from having a very inexpensive new Viewsonic 24" freesync monitor capable of up to 75Hz that the increase is even noticeable from 60 to 75hz. You must be in Heaven with a 100hz G-sync ultrawide.

Enjoy it!

 

[moonbogg]

Thanks man. Its an interesting aspect ratio for sure. I can't imagine going back now. I'm so glad I didn't get any dead pixels. Repackaging this monitor would have been a very serious pain in my rear loafs.

 

[Piroko]

I hope by same size you compared the height and not the diagonal, because 34" in 21:9 is actually much lower display area than 34" in 16:9.

Aside from that, ultrawide is also more appealing to me than 4k. But I want to wait for the next generation of models before picking one.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Yup, ultrawide over 4K all day.

I was going to pick up an X34 or PG348Q but my local microcenter had a U3415W open box for $540. Too good to pass up, but I'm sure that 100Hz sure is sweet.

 

[mnewsham]

Yup, ultrawide over 4K all day.

I guess I can see this sentiment at the moment being the case.


But the minute 4k panels are down at the same price with G-sync and freesync I can't see any reason to stick with ultrawide res.

3440x1440 isn't BAD...but 3840x2160 is simply better. If you want a 21:9 aspect ratio nothing is stopping you from creating a 3840x1640 21:9 custom resolution.

3840x1640 is larger than 3440x1440.


So once quality 4k panels drop in price, I see ultrawide panels dying unless they also increase their resolution to a 6k ultrawide or similar

 

[moonbogg]

I wouldn't want black bars on the top and bottom of a 4K screen in an effort to replicate a 21:9 aspect ratio. I think ultrawide is better than standard widescreen. That said, I think once display refresh rates increase, I can easily see someone making a 4K screen and simple stretching it by adding more pixels on the sides. That would be the 4K version of a 21:9 done right. You don't reduce resolution of the original format. You increase it.
2560x1440 resolution is the original resolution. More is added to the sides making it 3440x1440. The same would be done with a 4K screen. With ultrawide, you should only gain and never lose anything. So a 21:9 4K type screen would be even harder to push than a regular 4K screen, something that GPU tech won't be ready to do for a good while still without spending 5k on GPU's and tweaking them all day just to work right.

 

[mnewsham]

See that's insane to me, F that noise.

3840x2160p 40" (110PPI)all day everyday over 3440x1440p 34"(109PPI) assuming they have identical features, color accuracy, viewing angles, backlight bleed, price, etc.
Assuming they're literally identical in every way besides the resolution, aspect ratio, and size; I'd take the larger resolution. I can deal with black bars if I ever want to do 21:9.

For desktop use the 16:9 aspect ratio and the extra space offered by 3840x2160 would be too advantageous for me to ignore. 21:9 is fine, but if I can get larger than that why not?

 

[4K_shmoorK]

To me, 40" is just too large for desktop use. I had a 32" display prior to the U3415 and I found myself having to move my head in order to see all the elements on screen. 32" 16:9 or curved 34" would be my personal max when it comes displays.

I tried to drop back down to a 27" (S2716DG) but size does matter. All about finding that perfect compromise that fits your preferences the best.

 

[moonbogg]

I see what you are saying about more resolution being better, and generally speaking, it is of course. I am concerned mostly with gaming and the pros and cons of each with regard to that. Desktop use for me is a secondary thing as my needs are basic there and anything will do really. 40" is too big for a PC monitor for me. That's more along the lines of a TV for me.

Most games tie the field of view to the aspect ratio, not the resolution. If I had a 2560x1080 monitor, I would see more on screen than you would with your 40" 4K screen in most games, especially FPS games. As a result, I would have an advantage over you. I'd see the same thing you see, but I would have extra content being shown on the sides. That's good for peripheral vision early warning of someone trying to knife you or something. It also adds to immersion. With regard to simply having more resolution, all resolution does is sharpen the image. It doesn't let you see more.
I went from a 27" 1080p screen to a 27" 1440p screen, both 120+hz. The 1440p screen was much nicer and looked amazing in comparison, but the content on screen was the same in game, just sharper. 21:9 feels more like a legit upgrade.
So, if I wanted the resolution of a 4K monitor but also wanted more horizontal aspect ratio, then I'd have to wait for a monitor that doesn't exist yet. It would have to be an IPS 21:9 4K variant, giving you the same resolution vertically as a 4K screen, with additional resolution on the width. I would need it to be 100+hz and I'd need the GPU power to make it happen. None of that is possible or practical at the moment.

 

[mnewsham]

2560x1080 monitor, I would see more on screen than you would with your 40" 4K screen in most games, especially FPS games.

uhhhh....what?

I could just as easily run 3840x1640 21:9 like I said earlier, or scale down to 3440x1440 if the game didn't support custom resolutions.

Like I said earlier, I don't mind the black bars if I ever decided to do 21:9, but the majority of my time spent on my computer is NOT gaming, it's just standard desktop use.


Also, just to add, because 40" 4k and 34" 3440x1440 have basically identical pixel density, a 40"4k panel scaling to 3440x1440p would basically be identical in size to a 34" 3440x1440 panel, the only difference being the black bars instead of a bezel.

 

[moonbogg]

uhhhh....what?

I could just as easily run 3840x1640 21:9 like I said earlier, or scale down to 3440x1440 if the game didn't support custom resolutions.

Like I said earlier, I don't mind the black bars if I ever decided to do 21:9, but the majority of my time spent on my computer is NOT gaming, it's just standard desktop use.


Also, just to add, because 40" 4k and 34" 3440x1440 have basically identical pixel density, a 40"4k panel scaling to 3440x1440p would basically be identical in size to a 34" 3440x1440 panel, the only difference being the black bars instead of a bezel.

Then a 40" 4K screen is a good option for you. For me it would suck. Actually, it would suck for most people using a desktop PC. Too big and can't run anything on it. Need 4 Titans.

 

[mnewsham]

Too big and can't run anything on it. Need 4 Titans.

It's about 2 inches wider than a 34" 21:9, the rest of the size is height, it would easily fit on my desk, i'm probably going to get one to go above my two 1440p displays next year if I find a decent sale.

Also, if you're talking about the highest quality settings, then sure you'd need multiple GPUs, but if you're fine lowering the quality you can play pretty much any game at 2160p with a GTX 1070. You'll just be cranking the graphics down to keep steady framerate.

Again, my primary computer usage isn't gaming, i'm not too concerned about playing the latest games at the highest settings, I play counter strike, CIV 5, and i occasionally dabble in the star citizen alpha.

 

[moonbogg]

It's about 2 inches wider than a 34" 21:9, the rest of the size is height, it would easily fit on my desk, i'm probably going to get one to go above my two 1440p displays next year if I find a decent sale.

Also, if you're talking about the highest quality settings, then sure you'd need multiple GPUs, but if you're fine lowering the quality you can play pretty much any game at 2160p with a GTX 1070. You'll just be cranking the graphics down to keep steady framerate.

Again, my primary computer usage isn't gaming, i'm not too concerned about playing the latest games at the highest settings, I play counter strike, CIV 5, and i occasionally dabble in the star citizen alpha.

One area that a huge 4K screen can't be beat is strategy games. I'm not certain, but I think that the higher the res, the more you see on screen, kind of like the desktop. A huge 4K screen would be an awesome battle station for a strategy gamer. Lowering settings, yeah that's fine I suppose. Most of the settings don't do crap other than make people buy new hardware anyway.

 

[Bacon1]

Other downsides to a 40" 4k would be refresh rate and input lag.

You can get gaming 1440p ultrawides and 34" Ultrawide are very nice mix of features + space.

 

[mnewsham]

Other downsides to a 40" 4k would be refresh rate and input lag.

That's only a concern with 4k TVs, a 4k monitor doesn't have those issues.

(that's the whole point in having a difference between TVs and monitors)

 

[Bacon1]

That's only a concern with 4k TVs, a 4k monitor doesn't have those issues.

(that's the whole point in having a difference between TVs and monitors)

That can help with input lag yes, but you won't be going over 60hz. Also the cheaper option is to go the TV route which everyone might not realize its worse.

 

[mnewsham]

but you won't be going over 60hz.

It's only a matter of time, this time next year we will likely have 75-100hz+ 4k IPS panels.

 

[Thinker_145]

The more I think about it the more I am intrigued with 21:9. I will consider them once I am done with my backlog of old games many of which I am sure don't support 21:9.

But I am never buying a "high end" IPS screen. There are enough quality VA monitors now in the high end. In fact most of the 32"+ monitors are not IPS.

I like the fact that we are also now seeing quality 1080p ultrawides for those who like more performance.

I am eyeing the Acer Z1 series 30" 2560x1080 200Hz curved VA panel with G-Sync. Sounds so freaking awesome.

Even the basic 27" curved 1080p(16:9) 144Hz VA screen with G-Sync sounds a monumental upgrade over my 1080p60hz 24" IPS.

I have been waiting for high quality 1080p monitors and it's finally happening.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[John Carmack]

The more I think about it the more I am intrigued with 21:9. I will consider them once I am done with my backlog of old games many of which I am sure don't support 21:9.

But I am never buying a "high end" IPS screen. There are enough quality VA monitors now in the high end. In fact most of the 32"+ monitors are not IPS.

Citation needed. I got the sense the LG and Dell 34 inch ultrawides are the most popular 32"+ monitors on the market. It's definitely over 32 inches and an IPS panel and now they have a 38 on the way.

 

[Thinker_145]

Citation needed. I got the sense the LG and Dell 34 inch ultrawides are the most popular 32"+ monitors on the market. It's definitely over 32 inches and an IPS panel and now they have a 38 on the way.

Well don't quote me on this but if you go to Newegg and select 32"+ monitors you will see VA as the most popular panel option. I am on my phone so too lazy to check that right now.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[John Carmack]

Did a power search checking all sold by Newegg, 32+ up, and new in box which returned 45. A rough count is about 13 explicitly either say VA or can be inferred to be VA by the contrast ratio spec. About 5-6 screens were marketed as for digital signage with no detailed specs. The rest were IPS panels.

 

[Thinker_145]

Anyways I maintain its stupid to buy an IPS for high end monitors. It's about time PC gamers put some flak into the actual image quality instead of running after every ms of speed. The modern high refresh rate VA panels are enough for all but professional gamers.

Sent from my HTC One M9