• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question 3440 x 1440 wide screen vs 3840 x 2160

P

pcslookout

Lifer
If you had to decide between the 2 coming from a normal flat 27 inch monitor which would you pick in resolution? I would get at least 34 inch or bigger depending on which one i would get.


Worried 3440 x 1440 wide screen is not a big enough upgrade over 2560 x 1440
 
So, unless your work requires more pixels, the Ultra-wide HD monitor would likely be best. Less demanding on games, for example. Also, side by side documents or apps work really well with ultra wides.

I'd pick an ultra wide, my brother and BIL have then (curved), they are awesome. 4Ks seem to make everything to small for my tastes (though I’m older and even with glasses my vision isn’t quite as sharp anymore).
 
IMO...

24" 4K = NO... not unless your a youngin with excellent eye sight or you like to set windows scaling at 200%
27" 4K = Err maybe.... but your still going to want scaling at 150%.
32" 4K = Bare Min size for decient 4K without scaling.
43" 4K = Absolutely Perfect, unless your sitting less then 6 inches away from monitor.


Gaming:
Ultra wides... best for FPS, or third person RPG. Absolute Nightmare on games like DOTA/LoL/Diablo/RTS as the top cuts off and you have way more FoV sideways then up and down.

Productivity:
Also very painful to work with on excel unless you have wide spreadsheets.
Chrome and internet browsing also is Meh, as again, you have way too much side real estate.
Ultrawides have a movie advantage tho.
 
aigomorla said:
IMO...

24" 4K = NO... not unless your a youngin with excellent eye sight or you like to set windows scaling at 200%
27" 4K = Err maybe.... but your still going to want scaling at 150%.
32" 4K = Bare Min size for decient 4K without scaling.
43" 4K = Absolutely Perfect, unless your sitting less then 6 inches away from monitor.


Gaming:
Ultra wides... best for FPS, or third person RPG. Absolute Nightmare on games like DOTA/LoL/Diablo/RTS as the top cuts off and you have way more FoV sideways then up and down.

Productivity:
Also very painful to work with on excel unless you have wide spreadsheets.
Chrome and internet browsing also is Meh, as again, you have way too much side real estate.
Ultrawides have a movie advantage tho.
Click to expand...

​


ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG42UQ would work then for 4k but it is not curved I know I have to go even bigger and higher than normal 4k resolution to get it curved.

A little more though plus Asus known for huge quality panel issues too kinda.


Can't decide if I should do Ultra wide screen (a little or a lot less than 4k resoluton but more than 1440p) or normal screen 4k 🙁

I did compare monitors. Wish you could compare more than two.

www.rtings.com

Dell Alienware AW3423DW vs ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG42UQ Side-by-Side Monitor Comparison

The Dell Alienware AW3423DW and the ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG42UQ are different types of OLED monitors. The Dell is an ultrawide display with a 3440x1440 resolution, while the ASUS is bigger with a 4k resolution and a standard 16:9 aspect ratio. The Dell uses a QD-OLED panel that makes colors look...
www.rtings.com www.rtings.com
 
I do not like the autodimming on OLEDS.
I had one, and the autodimming really ticked me off.
I had a LG and it would also go into screen cleaning mode a LOT.
This would cause all my windows on that screen to move over to my non OLED's.

I guess its not an issue if you have a single monitor, but i run a tri monitor setup, and the OLED just kept ticking me off.
Eventually i replaced it to a VA with high nits and super HDR, and i do not regret it.
It sits in portrait mod and its a 43 inch, so it makes to me the perfect monitor for productivity.

Alienware has a 38inch ultra wide, which i currently use that is essentially half a 4K.
It has 3840x1600p I guess its more like 75% of a 4K.
Its not a OLED, but its a NanoIPS with 4 FALD zones.
That is my primary gaming monitor.

As i stated eariler ultrawides do have its weakness in games that are top down, because you have a much larger FoV sideways then vertical. But they are great in FPS, and also movies.
 
aigomorla said:
I do not like the autodimming on OLEDS.
I had one, and the autodimming really ticked me off.
I had a LG and it would also go into screen cleaning mode a LOT.
This would cause all my windows on that screen to move over to my non OLED's.

I guess its not an issue if you have a single monitor, but i run a tri monitor setup, and the OLED just kept ticking me off.
Eventually i replaced it to a VA with high nits and super HDR, and i do not regret it.
It sits in portrait mod and its a 43 inch, so it makes to me the perfect monitor for productivity.

Alienware has a 38inch ultra wide, which i currently use that is essentially half a 4K.
It has 3840x1600p I guess its more like 75% of a 4K.
Its not a OLED, but its a NanoIPS with 4 FALD zones.
That is my primary gaming monitor.

As i stated eariler ultrawides do have its weakness in games that are top down, because you have a much larger FoV sideways then vertical. But they are great in FPS, and also movies.
Click to expand...

Examples of games top down please?
 
pcslookout said:
Examples of games top down please?
Click to expand...

Diablo / League of Legends / Lost Ark / DOTA / Rimworld

Diablo for example.. my sorc could teleport further then my FoV when going top and bottom, so i essentially would waste it if used for traveling unless i was going sideways.

Same with DOTA, your skills may have greater range then what you can display on the top and bottom.
 
pcslookout said:
Thanks what does top down exactly mean ? Sorry.
Click to expand...

The top and bottom of the monitor.
Because its WIDE... you have more X Axis Field of View over Y Axis.
Hence your Field of View is limited on the top and bottom of the screen.
 
aigomorla said:
The top and bottom of the monitor.
Because its WIDE... you have more X Axis Field of View over Y Axis.
Hence your Field of View is limited on the top and bottom of the screen.
Click to expand...

Ok makes sense.

I don't really play any of those games but I could one day though I won't base my decision on could.


Know it is impossible to make a 4k resolution monitor curved. You have to go up to 6k for that I think. If I am wrong please correct me.

Is going from my 27" Asus monitor to a 32 inch curved a huge difference ?
 
pcslookout said:
Is going from my 27" Asus monitor to a 32 inch curved a huge difference ?
Click to expand...

if your desk allows it, i honestly prefer 32inch over 27, especially if your an older gamer with eye sight that has gone a bit bad.
I always hear people saying i should of went larger on 27.
But on a 32, i have not heard of anyone regretting it, unless it was too big fit on desk.
 
aigomorla said:
if your desk allows it, i honestly prefer 32inch over 27, especially if your an older gamer with eye sight that has gone a bit bad.
I always hear people saying i should of went larger on 27.
But on a 32, i have not heard of anyone regretting it, unless it was too big fit on desk.
Click to expand...
Ok but normal 4k or ultra wide in your opinion ?
 
As for productivity. on 3440x1440 34 inch I can put 2 windows side by side (internet browsers, or excel, or programming tools), and it's super natural - I mean it acts virtually like two 1080p screens.

Is it possible to use 3840x2160 43 inch screen with 4 windows side by side, or not really, and it's more like 3 screens, or actually only 2 but with muuuuch more vertical area?
 
pcslookout said:
Ok but normal 4k or ultra wide in your opinion ?
Click to expand...

There is no 4k ultrawide... unless your talking about this beast.
tftcentral.co.uk

Samsung Odyssey Neo G95NC with 57" Super-Ultrawide, 7680 x 2160 Res, 240Hz Refresh, Mini LED and DP 2.1 - TFTCentral

Share this contentSamsung have announced today ahead of the CES 2023 event that starts on Thursday their new Odyssey Neo G9 series monitor, the G95NC. This is the World’s first....[click link for more]
tftcentral.co.uk tftcentral.co.uk

And its called Super Wide..

Oh but if your asking me what i would chose... I can't decide... its like picking between your right and left hand.
Hence i ended up being greedy, so i have both. :X
screens.JPG

2 x 4K and 38inch Ultrawide

20221128_163414.jpg
 
Last edited:
kondziowy said:
As for productivity. on 3440x1440 34 inch I can put 2 windows side by side (internet browsers, or excel, or programming tools), and it's super natural - I mean it acts virtually like two 1080p screens.

Is it possible to use 3840x2160 43 inch screen with 4 windows side by side, or not really, and it's more like 3 screens, or actually only 2 but with muuuuch more vertical area?
Click to expand...
Depends on the size of the screen, how close you sit, and how much effort you want to put into arranging your windows on same screen rather than multi-monitor where you drag to a different screen.

On a system with a 43" 4K, I seldom have more than two windows up at a time, (at least not trying to fill the whole screen opposed to more often 3rd/4th little toolbars or monitoring apps), and the extra vertical pixels are wonderful. I'd have a hard time going back to 1440p on a single monitor setup.

Keep in mind that certain video drivers, will let you output a lesser resolution like 3440x1440 on a 4K screen, without scaling it and at the normal, higher refresh rate the GPU and monitor support at that resolution, so it is still 1:1 pixel accuracy. You just have black bars around it where you'd otherwise see the wall behind the monitor instead.

I just tried that mode on my 4K monitor and yeah... no, I want more vertical pixels for productivity outside of gaming.
 
mindless1 said:
I want more vertical pixels for productivity outside of gaming.
Click to expand...

This is such a godsend when it comes to productivity, which is why i can not even think about building a station without a monitor in portrait, unless its purely for gaming.
And having a 43 on portrait to me is a very big game changer. Ignoring the pun...
 
mindless1 said:
Keep in mind that certain video drivers, will let you output a lesser resolution like 3440x1440 on a 4K screen, without scaling it and at the normal, higher refresh rate the GPU and monitor support at that resolution, so it is still 1:1 pixel accuracy. You just have black bars around it where you'd otherwise see the wall behind the monitor instead.

I just tried that mode on my 4K monitor and yeah... no, I want more vertical pixels for productivity outside of gaming.
Click to expand...
Huh, I didn't think about it this way.

Visual TV Size Comparison : 34 inch 21x9 display vs 43 inch 16x9 display

Visual size comparison of a 34 inch 21x9 display vs 43 inch 16x9 display
www.displaywars.com www.displaywars.com
It's like you can display 34 inch ultrawide inside 43 inch 4K.

I'm terrified by the GPU requirements for gaming on 4K though. That resolution means I would need 6800XT as bare minimum or 7900XT/RTX 4080 and update it at least every 2 years. And who knows where the prices will go for such gpus. But you can use more aggressive FSR or DLSS settings at the resolition to compensate and it still will look good. Very interesting. The lack of vertical space for productivity is an achilles heel of 34 inch ultrawide.
 
I would greatly dislike 1440 after getting used to a 4k screen. I felt the same way with the difference between 720p and 1080p laptop screens when 1080p first arrived. The thought of a portrait screen is beginning to intrigue me. Thanks a lot @aigomorla.
 
kondziowy said:
Huh, I didn't think about it this way.

Visual TV Size Comparison : 34 inch 21x9 display vs 43 inch 16x9 display

Visual size comparison of a 34 inch 21x9 display vs 43 inch 16x9 display
www.displaywars.com www.displaywars.com
It's like you can display 34 inch ultrawide inside 43 inch 4K.

I'm terrified by the GPU requirements for gaming on 4K though. That resolution means I would need 6800XT as bare minimum or 7900XT/RTX 4080 and update it at least every 2 years. And who knows where the prices will go for such gpus. But you can use more aggressive FSR or DLSS settings at the resolition to compensate and it still will look good. Very interesting. The lack of vertical space for productivity is an achilles heel of 34 inch ultrawide.
Click to expand...
yes 34" within 43" or really, just whichever size monitors, since it's not so much size as pixels. 4K have enough pixels to do it within that and unlike your picture (and I don't know if this is a rule or what...) when I do it, it is centered on the display, not down and to the left like on that link you posted.

Yes it takes that much more GPU to game on 4K, but whichever GPU fits the budget, you could do the same, set a lower resolution and not scale it if you don't want it blurrier from using more than 1:1 pixel representation. It's awkward to work like that on a desktop (productivity apps, etc) but not so much when gaming where the game defines the borders.

Edit: Even then it depends, I wrote that it's awkward but it depends on something I didn't mention . One thing about a display as large as 43", is that to reduce eyestrain, I usually have my wallpaper as just a black background, and if it's black and not displaying at the full 4K so there are borders, then you don't see the borders of the desktop like you would with any other wallpaper. Even a few % lighter shade of very dark gray which is what I'd do if it came to that. Heh, at this point it's probable that only I know what I'm referring to but it is something to consider, that a larger display at same brightness, is more light shining in your eyes.

I can't advise about FSR or DLSS, though I am partial to nVidia, like their antiquated old-school driver configuration and custom resolution setup, I use the NVENC features very often for video editing, and had too many AMD driver bugs bite me in the past. I'm sure other people had the opposite experience.
 
Last edited:
mindless1 said:
no, I want more vertical pixels for productivity outside of gaming.
Click to expand...
Depends on workload. For my Studio One daily work, the 34" 3440x1440 is perfect, cause I need the width to not scroll as much when editing, also can have space on side for track editor and effects. For me, even though I have good eysight, more than 1440 would make things too small to be confortably seen at this size and res, would need probably to go 40"+ but no more desk space.
 
^ Yeah you definitely need to plan for the space, especially when running more than one, >32" display.

The upside of the larger sizes is, I can sit further away, have it scooted further back on my desk, and regain some desk space to use for other things.

Years ago when I had a 24" 1080p, there would be that issue, very few inches, then a keyboard in front, and no desk space except off to the sides. I had an under-desk keyboard tray on one station, but not all desks work well with those.
 
misuspita said:
Depends on workload. For my Studio One daily work, the 34" 3440x1440 is perfect, cause I need the width to not scroll as much when editing, also can have space on side for track editor and effects. For me, even though I have good eysight, more than 1440 would make things too small to be confortably seen at this size and res, would need probably to go 40"+ but no more desk space.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that Video and musical composers much rather prefer the wider screen because of how they are written.
I have also heard some programmers also prefer that wider screen.

Some people also use third party programs like DisplayFusion, to cut the screen virtually.
But i think the window looks too cluttered and my OCD will probably irritate me to no tomorrow if i had that many windows tiled up.

As for Size... i went up as far as 48inch, and 48 is definitely too much screen.
43 is also a bit excessive, but it works out nicely.
I think the perfect idea size is a 38, but they do not make that, and 32 inch for me is a bit small after getting comfortable with the 43.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top