Buy A Ultra Wide IPS Monitor 2560X1080 Or Wait For 4K/OLED?

Cassius101

Member
Aug 29, 2013
155
1
81
This has really been bothering me, I can't decide whether I should get a IPS ultra wide HD monitor now or if I should wait. I should not have any performance problems at that high resolution with most games, I do play Planetside 2 a lot and that is a demanding game, I get 30-40 fps usually in huge battle areas but I am running my settings on mostly Ultra settings because I edited the UserOptions.ini.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6096/evga-geforce-gtx-680-classified-review/6

I have a GTX 680 classified and it seems to do well at 2560X1080.

I am already going to buy a 24 inch IPS monitor and I currently have a BENQ Gaming Monitor which is fine but I am going to sell it.

http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=82240 Should I buy this to? I wanted to do a dual monitor set up.

I am going to upgrade my graphics card next christmas so I can handle Ultra settings on many games at 100-120fps and possibly get a 120hz OLED or 4k Television to use as a monitor.

Would you suggest that I wait for that or should I buy this monitor for Christmas? Its a big dilemma for me and I can't seem to decide! Would really appreciate any suggestions.
 

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
Isn't that particular monitor 60hz? If so, anything more than 60 fps is literally undetectable.

Edit: I'm a bit confused by your question. Are you asking if you should buy one of those monitors, or two? or if you should change monitors at all? Sounds like you want the widescreen display... so go for it. Buying two might cause problems though if you plan on playing games multimonitor. You can't offset games so they're primairly on one monitor, meaning the centre of your display now will appear overtop of the bezel between the two monitors. You'd need three to do multimonitor gaming effectively. And then you're pushing 7680 x 1080 = 8,294,400 pixels (the same as 4K, if I'm not mistaken). A single 680 won't perform well under those conditions I think.
 
Last edited:

Skott

Diamond Member
Oct 4, 2005
5,730
1
76
Problem with the 21:9 monitors is that many games don't support that res yet. Also the 21:9 need more maturity. I personally dont think they are ready yet. I like their concept but they need more refinement. I'd pass on them just based on how they are now.

Question is can you wait for 4k and if so can you afford one? They are going to be expensive. You'll need a beefy rig to play on one and even then you won't reach it's full potential. AMD and nvidia are going to have to make better GPUs to take full advantage of 4k. That will take another year or two. The 290x is a nice start but youwill need more than 2 looking at the benchmarks with 4k. That's to get highest game play on 4k though.

I'd probably stick with 1080p or get one of the 1440 monitors while waiting for 4k to come down in price. I just dont think the 21:9 are good enough yet. That is just my opinion though.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
yes 21:9 is not ready. please ignore any person saying all their games run fine at the res because they are wrong. many games will not run properly at all. some will not even attempt to go 21:9 while others will simply cut off the top and bottom or just plain stretch the image. get a 27 inch 2560x1440 monitor and run the games that properly support 21:9 on it. 2560x1080 will have fairly small black bars on a 27 inch 2560x1440 screen and you will have a much better overall monitor for desktop use too.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,359
8,456
126
have you seen one in person? it's very underwhelming. it's a 29" monitor that's the same height as a 23" monitor. a 27" 16x9 screen has more physical screen area as well as all that added vertical resolution.
 

Cassius101

Member
Aug 29, 2013
155
1
81
Isn't that particular monitor 60hz? If so, anything more than 60 fps is literally undetectable.

Edit: I'm a bit confused by your question. Are you asking if you should buy one of those monitors, or two? or if you should change monitors at all? Sounds like you want the widescreen display... so go for it. Buying two might cause problems though if you plan on playing games multimonitor. You can't offset games so they're primairly on one monitor, meaning the centre of your display now will appear overtop of the bezel between the two monitors. You'd need three to do multimonitor gaming effectively. And then you're pushing 7680 x 1080 = 8,294,400 pixels (the same as 4K, if I'm not mistaken). A single 680 won't perform well under those conditions I think.



http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...57.6.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.Q6G-nrS-HZI

Even a game you would not expect to support this resolution close to this, the TERA MMO.

Only most old games released before 2009 probably don't support this resolution. I play Medieval 2 Total War mods and even this old game should support it.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?402754-2560-x-1600

I'm thinking I should get this Monitor at christmas, still I am going to upgrade my graphics card next year. 4k/OLED tv's would be a lot cheaper next year, also taking into account Christmas sales. Some 4k Televisions are already on sale for 4000-4500$. By Christmas 2015, the price would be down to 2500-3000$ on sale. The OLED televisions would be more expensive, probably at 3000-5000 on sale.

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/prod...spx?path=2cc5d2b8bad6de33ad07256026036512en02


I really don't know what to do! I am going to get a new IPS monitor for sure, the WideScreen LG one might be the way to go but would it really be worth it? I am going to upgrade Christmas 2015 using a 4k or OLEG tv as my monitor. Still, that is an entire year missing gaming on a huge wide screen.
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
"Only most old games released before 2009 probably don't support this resolution."

so "old" is 3-4 years old now? about half the games I tested had some type of issue many of which are within the last 1 or 2 years. some could be fixed with that wide screen fixer program but it was pain in the ass for so many games to fool with it.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
I used eyefinity for quite a while and I can tell you a lot of games have problems when not played at 16:9/16:10 these days. Its little things like the HUD being messed up that are quite normal but its also not uncommon to loose vertical visibility which is really annoying.

With us on the verge of 4k monitors and gsync monitors I personally think now is a bad time to buy because literally in 2 months time vsync based monitors will be very poor quality compared to the gsync equivalents.
 

cbrunny

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2007
6,791
406
126
With us on the verge of 4k monitors and gsync monitors I personally think now is a bad time to buy because literally in 2 months time vsync based monitors will be very poor quality compared to the gsync equivalents.

Not sure I agree with this. 4k monitors at under $1k @ 60hz are still a ways away. Minimum a year, probably longer. There are so few of them available now at any price.

And gsync... well, we don't really know the cost implications on the monitors themsleves, but I'd bet there will be a premium for gsync enabled monitors. Not to mention this is a proprietary system held by nvidia. AMD gpus presumably won't be able to take advantage, which still leaves a considerable market share to use non-gsync monitors. Even so, if you're looking to get a 4k gsync monitor under $1k, you're going to be waiting a while. Years, I'm sure. If the gsync tech takes off.

So "very poor quality" - relative to gsync monitors exclusively, I'm still highly skeptical considering dollars at stake. I'd be comfortable saying "For a larger price tag, you could get a gsync monitor in two months time that will be at least a little bit better than what is currently available but only if you already have a Nvidia gpu, with a performance increase that will vary depending on your current set up and gaming needs/wants."

Of course, if money is no object, just get whatever you want.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
yes 21:9 is not ready. please ignore any person saying all their games run fine at the res because they are wrong. many games will not run properly at all. some will not even attempt to go 21:9 while others will simply cut off the top and bottom or just plain stretch the image. get a 27 inch 2560x1440 monitor and run the games that properly support 21:9 on it. 2560x1080 will have fairly small black bars on a 27 inch 2560x1440 screen and you will have a much better overall monitor for desktop use too.


I'd take this to the bank.
 

Mgz

Member
Sep 21, 2004
70
0
0
27 inch 2560x1440 is only 300$ now, just get it imo... 4k monitor is still 2-3 years to be more affordable
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
Lots of good advice here. I would recommend to OP to really iron out what exactly you want to do with your setup. You mentioned you wanted to run a dual monitor setup and already are looking at a 24" IPS, what exactly are you looking to do with the setup? For example, I run a dual monitor setup with a 30" IPS and a 23" IPS. My 30" is my main monitor where I play games, do photoshop, do desktop work, watch movies, etc. and the 23" monitor is my secondary where I have up wikis/references/videos when I'm playing a game or tutorials when I'm in photoshop, sometimes I'll throw up some football on it when I'm playing a game or doing work on the 30", I can also use it as a pre-render window, etc. etc. So think about what you'd like to do and get a setup that supports your work/play.

As mentioned by others, I don't think 21:9 is a good idea right now (and maybe never will be), games don't support it well and it doesn't have enough vertical real estate to be particularly useful in most desktop scenarios IMO. I also think you should consider your options further and widen your field, as the difference between a "gaming" monitor and a 24" IPS is big, and the difference between these and a 4K TV are simply massive, considering not only size and price, but also viewing experience and usage. I think a 27 in. 2560x1440 is simply a great monitor atm for those that want an excellent monitor but aren't committed to a particular setup. It will offer you a quality screen (IPS) with good gaming/desktop/content creation ability that isn't a huge investment and from there you can further define where you want to take your computing experience.
 

Cassius101

Member
Aug 29, 2013
155
1
81
Thank you for the advice everyone. Yes a 1440p monitor seems to be the better choice.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1352169/2560x1440-or-2560x1080-for-gaming

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/56319-27-2560x1440-vs-29-2560x1080/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grdLxxLPhNU Still, your field of view seems to increase a lot using the 29 inch LG monitor as you can see from the comments.



Christmas of next year might be the best time to buy a OLED or 4k tv because of the sales. You could probably get a 4k during Christmas sales for 2000-3500$, as for OLED it would probably be at around 4000-5000 on sale.


If you don't get one next Christmas, you would have to wait an entire year to buy them at a good price again.

I am worried that getting a 27 inch Monitor might be a waste because I would only end up using it for a year anyway. Does anyone agree that it would be a waste? Since I would only use it for a year.

I plan on upgrading my graphics card next Christmas to something that comes out in 2014 that is more powerful and has better performance on 4k resolutions.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
9,298
3,440
136
www.teamjuchems.com
I've really been enjoying my 21:9 Dell. I don't have time to go back and play *old* games to really test it though...

When I fired up all of the games that I currently had installed via Steam (like TF2, DoD:S, CS:GO, Saints Row 3, Max Payne 3, etc.) only CS:GO was unplayable at native res because of how they laid the menus out. The field of view is freaking awesome. I've been playing Saints Row 3 a lot lately (humble bundle!) and you can see that a lot of their filters don't effect about two inches on the sides of the screen, but it has been imminently playable. Playing some console games on the TV, I find myself wishing for the extra view on the sides.

Not only is it very wide - some 4" inches wider than a 27" 2560x1440 display, you only have to drive the pixels you really need. 21:9 is much closer to how our eyes actually work and you can get by with higher quality levels on the same video card.

I bought my monitor to play games one, work with photos two, and use the web three. The fact that it was factory calibrated, supports DP daisy chaining, has an awesome stand and the USB3 hub built in helped me make my decision. The 27" is likely nicer if you are going to be "productive" but the 29" monitors ability to snap two 1280 pixel wide windows side by side is very useful on the web these days. I struggle with this on my Dell 24" ultrasharps at work.

I run an ancient 17" Dell Ultrasharp (1280*1024!) as a third monitor for a lot of the stuff MrK6 mentioned. The fact that it is 1/2 the pixel width and nearly the same height makes it the perfect compliment to the wider monitor.

FWIW, I've had more issues with Crossfire than getting this to work. If you are one to maybe consider two video cards, I don't think the challenges posed by some games that don't work perfectly out of the box with 21:9 will be that daunting.
 
Last edited:

Skott

Diamond Member
Oct 4, 2005
5,730
1
76
Just as an aside I bought a new LG 39"LN5300 tv today. If it works out it will replace my 28" I-INC gaming monitor. If its really good I'll buy two more and go triple screen gaming.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Just as an aside I bought a new LG 39"LN5300 tv today. If it works out it will replace my 28" I-INC gaming monitor. If its really good I'll buy two more and go triple screen gaming.
what does that have to do with this topic though?
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Not to be off topic, but please elaborate. The monitor has 60hz, so it can't display more than 60fps regardless of what the video card can pump out. How is that not true?

What happens with v-sync off, and having more FPS than your refresh rate, is that you start to see a lot of partial images. These images come in mid refresh, and they do add to the responsiveness of the game, but as partial images with tearing between partial images.
 

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
39
86
All about spending more money for less monitor (for those peddling the worthless 2560x1080 monitors).

Just buy a Qnix off ebay for 300 USD and pretend the bar on the top and bottom of your screen doesn't exist.
 

Cassius101

Member
Aug 29, 2013
155
1
81
I've really been enjoying my 21:9 Dell. I don't have time to go back and play *old* games to really test it though...

When I fired up all of the games that I currently had installed via Steam (like TF2, DoD:S, CS:GO, Saints Row 3, Max Payne 3, etc.) only CS:GO was unplayable at native res because of how they laid the menus out. The field of view is freaking awesome. I've been playing Saints Row 3 a lot lately (humble bundle!) and you can see that a lot of their filters don't effect about two inches on the sides of the screen, but it has been imminently playable. Playing some console games on the TV, I find myself wishing for the extra view on the sides.

Not only is it very wide - some 4" inches wider than a 27" 2560x1440 display, you only have to drive the pixels you really need. 21:9 is much closer to how our eyes actually work and you can get by with higher quality levels on the same video card.

I bought my monitor to play games one, work with photos two, and use the web three. The fact that it was factory calibrated, supports DP daisy chaining, has an awesome stand and the USB3 hub built in helped me make my decision. The 27" is likely nicer if you are going to be "productive" but the 29" monitors ability to snap two 1280 pixel wide windows side by side is very useful on the web these days. I struggle with this on my Dell 24" ultrasharps at work.

I run an ancient 17" Dell Ultrasharp (1280*1024!) as a third monitor for a lot of the stuff MrK6 mentioned. The fact that it is 1/2 the pixel width and nearly the same height makes it the perfect compliment to the wider monitor.

FWIW, I've had more issues with Crossfire than getting this to work. If you are one to maybe consider two video cards, I don't think the challenges posed by some games that don't work perfectly out of the box with 21:9 will be that daunting.

This post has tempted me to buy the 21:9 LG IPS Monitor, the fact that the field of view increases significantly is a great benefit. Still, from the links I posted before, every single person on those other forums I linked said they prefer 27 inches 2560x1440, even the people who tried both.

I really don't know what to buy dammit, I'm sure all the newer games I play will work at 21:9 anyway so no problems there, still with so many people who said bad things about 21:9, I am really not sure now. One fact remains certain, the field of view increases significantly but 2560x1440 looks better though I doubt it looks significantly better than 21:9 2560x1080.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
what is so complicated here? I just told you that you can run 2560x1080 on a 2560x1440 screen. again very few games properly support 21:9 so why would you buy that as opposed to 2560x1440. again if it has not sunk in, 2560x1440 will let you run those games at 21:9 that support it while giving you much more screen for other games that dont and better desk top real estate. and please dont say that black bars will bother you. you will be having black bars on the sides of many games on the 21:9 screen plus its physical height and is no better. in other words you will get the same 21:9 1080 experience on a 27 inch 16:9 1440 screen anyway for the games that support it. is it clear yet? lol
 

Cassius101

Member
Aug 29, 2013
155
1
81
Okay, I think I have finally decided. Everyone who has been critisizing 21:9 at 2560x1080 is simply WRONG. I don't know why some people prefer 16:9 2560x1440 over 2560x1080, I guess they think it looks better and they don't care about an increased field of view at all.

16:9 is a much more immersive experience because the wide screen almost fills up your peripheral vision and you get a significantly increased field of view. I would also be able to run games on higher settings, like Planetside 2 because of the lower resolution than 2560x1440.

See for yourself, it is obvious that 21:9 is superior.

http://pcmonitors.info/articles/the-219-2560-x-1080-experience

Scroll down to see comparisons, even though it is being compared to a 1080p image on various games, the aspect ratio for a 2560x1440 would be the same since they are both 16:9.

The major increase in field of view is amazing and you would see more of what is happening on screen and would beable to kill more enemies you other wise would not see playing on 16:9.

http://pcmonitors.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Battlefield-3-2560x1080.jpg 21:9

http://pcmonitors.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Battlefield-3-1920x1080.jpg 16:9

I guess so many people prefer 16:9 at 2560x1440 because they think it looks better, even the people who tried both must think this. They are simply delusional, I doubt a resolution increase of 360 would really make a significant difference. You can notice that the 21:9 looks better than the 1920x1080 in that image but that is still a difference of 640 which is a lot, anything more than 400 would be a lot and you would notice a visual difference. Even so, the difference in quality is not that significant, the 21:9 image looks sharper and has better brightness/contrast.