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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
That would be a opinion, not a fact. It is going to depend on the users situation. Physical screen size, actual games to be played, preference for high pixel density, etc. all should be considered.

BF4 in 21:9 looks pretty slick.

One of the 10 games I have installed had/has issues with the native res.

Saying things over and over doesn't make them true.
lol whatever. BS that you just happen to find only one game that does not work right when its a damn fact that many popular games dont. I have actually tested quite a bit of games and my findings are pretty much backed up. and the widescreenforums are the ones saying its less supported than eyefinity and surround so YES it is FACT. if you know better than them then please go there and inform them.
 
Last edited:

Cassius101

Member
Aug 29, 2013
155
1
81
So it is a fact that 21:9 on a 29 inch Ultra Widescreen has a larger FOV than 21:9 on a 27 inch 1440p screen. Toyota seems a bit bias, it does not have the same FOV if you run 21:9 on that 27 inch screen, it may have a larger FOV width wise than before but not as large as 21:9 on the Ultra wide screens.

I have already linked many gameplay videos showing many games that work on 21:9. Many games support this resolution, specifically games made in 2012 and onwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf7FcIgkgDY&feature=*********&hd=1

This guy tests 10 different games and only 1, the Witcher 2 had problems with 21:9.

It would be better for me to buy the 21:9 Ultra Wide Monitor since I am looking for a monitor that will give me the greatest FOV in the games I play and only a 21:9 Ultra Wide one can do this.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
lol no matter how many times its explained you still do not understand the tern fov. AGAIN 21:9 on ANY monitor will have the SAME fov.

I dont give a crap how many games support it because there is almost just as many that do not. how freaking hard is that to get through your head? try it for yourself right now by using a 21:9 aspect ratio. better yet just get the damn monitor and find out for yourself since all you want to do is argue when you have never tried it. but again most people are oblivious or flat out full of crap because they will claim some games work properly when they dont. thats why they have tools out there to try and fix many games because its not as simple to just select 2560x1080 and it work in most cases. and even after you jack around with those fixes for a while then sometimes it still does not look right. and for about the tenth time, lots of games, including many popular and current games, cannot even be modded to work in that aspect ratio.
 
Last edited:

Cassius101

Member
Aug 29, 2013
155
1
81
I know it means field of view, it might look better on a 21:9 29 inch screen which was design for that aspect ratio but I don't know which I should get because I have not seen any comparison videos.

I might only buy the 24 inch IPS monitor, depends on the sales at Christmas.
 
Last edited:

Cassius101

Member
Aug 29, 2013
155
1
81
Keep having emotional outbursts on Internet forums. Please learn and type properly next time you make a post.
 

nevrozel

Junior Member
Jan 11, 2014
1
0
0
Hi,

I just purchased the LG 29EA93-P. Great piece of technology!
I am trying to play Rome 2 Total War on it at it sometimes crashes on launch or sometimes when trying to load an older campaign. Sometime it just works in native 2560*1080 resolution which is a great experience. Much better field of view IMHO.

Can you please tell me if you've edited some config files for it to always run in native 2560*1080? And if yes, how did you exactly do it?

Thanks a lot!

FWIW I can get every game I play to display correctly on the 21:9 monitor, even if it doesn't support it natively and I have to edit configs (except SC2 which was a design choice by the devs as its considered a cheat).

The games I currently play are:

Total War Shogun2 and Rome2
BF3 & 4
BC2
Crysis 3
ArmA2 & 3
Red Orchestra2 & Rising Storm
Metro LL
CS:GO (all source engine games work np)
Skyrim
Bioshock Inf
Stalker series
Hitman ab
FC3
ME series

As I said the only game I currently play that doesnt work is SC2, which is by design (it just displays 16:9 with black bars on the sides).

Love the display (dell U2913WM) :) 21:9 is imo the best aspect ratio for gaming so far and much prefer it over previous 1440p displays I have owned. It also clocks to 75hz and has a low input latency "gaming mode". My only complaint is I wish the display was 1200p instead of 1080p.
 

apoe

Member
Feb 3, 2014
28
0
0
Sorry, necro but there's so much misinformation here I cannot help myself.

FOV is 100% dependent on pixel count.

FOV is 0% dependent on physical screen size.

21:9 = 2560(wide) x 1080(tall)
16:9 @ 1080p = 1920(wide) x 1080(tall)
16:9 @ 1440p = 2560(wide) x 1440(tall)

Therefore, a 21:9 1080p has a lesser FOV. It has the exact same width FOV as 16:9 1440p. The 1440p will have greater FOV in height, making it a larger FOV.

To repeat, 1440p has greater FOV than 21:9 @ 1080p.

Completely wrong unless talking about games made in the 90s that used unscaled sprites. Aspect ratio controls FoV (obviously, on top of FoV sliders, hor+, vert-, etc.). 720p and 1080p are both 16:9 and have the same FoV in any given game made in the last decade.

So it is a fact that 21:9 on a 29 inch Ultra Widescreen has a larger FOV than 21:9 on a 27 inch 1440p screen. Toyota seems a bit bias, it does not have the same FOV if you run 21:9 on that 27 inch screen, it may have a larger FOV width wise than before but not as large as 21:9 on the Ultra wide screens.

Nope, see above.

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.

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.

Really? Do you know math? Basic multiplication here, saying "resolution increase of 360" or "difference of 640" makes absolutely no sense. Hint: multiplication comes before subtraction.

1 x 10 = 10
20 x 10 = 200

Would you say that is a "difference of 19"? No, no one would say that.

Saying "I doubt a resolution increase of 360 would really make a significant difference" and then immediately afterwards, "anything more than 400 would be a lot and you would notice a visual difference"... says who? Backed up by what facts, your arbitrary numbers (which don't even make sense)?

Also, "the difference in quality is not that significant, the 21:9 image looks sharper and has better brightness/contrast." Those are completely independent of each other.

You should not insult people when you have no understanding of what you're talking about.
 

cyclohexane

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2005
2,837
19
81
Dunno why people want to get less pixels for the same amount of money. 2560x1600 is the way to go.
 

omeds

Senior member
Dec 14, 2011
646
13
81
Hi,

I just purchased the LG 29EA93-P. Great piece of technology!
I am trying to play Rome 2 Total War on it at it sometimes crashes on launch or sometimes when trying to load an older campaign. Sometime it just works in native 2560*1080 resolution which is a great experience. Much better field of view IMHO.

Can you please tell me if you've edited some config files for it to always run in native 2560*1080? And if yes, how did you exactly do it?

Thanks a lot!

It runs at 2560x1080 natively for me without issue, sorry I cant be of any help.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,359
8,456
126
We might have a better compromise this year, the LG UM95/UM65 & Dell U3415W. 34" 3440x1440 at 21:9, but this time around the vertical dimension is approximately the same as a 27" 1440p screen. Should make things less claustrophobic.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1801170

Might be the first one of these actually worth buying. The 29" one has barely any vertical space. Barely bigger than a 22" screen.