Disliking 34" ultrawide for gaming

[Andy T]

Yesterday I got LG 34UC98-W. The purpose of this new monitor is to replace a defective Dell refurbished one (another story). The main use is to play games.
However, after trying Witcher 3 and COD: Advanced Warfare, I will probably be replacing it with a 27/29" version.
Neither of those 2 games ran natively at 21:9 aspect. Also, despite having a GTX 1070, it wasn't powerful enough to drive the pc at 3440x1440 while maintaining decent frame rate.
I am curious about experience others may have with gaming on ultra wides.

Thanks!

 

[Bacon1]

I love my 34" XR341CK. Try turning down a few "ultra" settings and you'll get the frame rate to hit 60/75 in most games. Obviously games that don't run native don't look as good, but you still have the same playable area as on a 27" 1440p.

Witcher 3: http://www.wsgf.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=166140 that might help

 

[guskline]

Love my Dell U3415W

 

[Thinker_145]

1080p is the only viable ultra wide resolution and you can also get high refresh rate with it. I cannot imagine getting a 60hz high end monitor in 2016. I guess it's preference but when you are at a baseline of 1080p60hz in my opinion getting a refresh rate bump first is absolutely more important than resolution. Remember that a 30" 1080p ultra wide has the same PPI as a 24" 16:9 1080p. A 32" 1440p 16:9 has the same PPI as well so it's definitely nothing to scoff at.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Newbian]

If you are going for 1440p this is why you go for a gtx 1080.

The 1070 is a great card for 1080p 144hz but witcher is a beast on ultra and it's going to tax most cards.

 

[Thinker_145]

If you are going for 1440p this is why you go for a gtx 1080.

The 1070 is a great card for 1080p 144hz but witcher is a beast on ultra and it's going to tax most cards.

The 1080 won't exactly make a night and day difference. Ultra wide 1440p is just a stupid resolution for gaming and yes that's my opinion.

And having black bars is incredibly annoying in games. With OLED your point would stand since the corners would just turn off but with LCD you will be presented with gray bars with TN/IPS and still visibly different than the bezel black with VA.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Bacon1]

Ultra wide 1440p is just a stupid resolution for gaming and yes that's my opinion.

Have you actually used it? Because it's amazing. You can get 75+hz options as well. Mine is 75hz with freesync so no tearing and great gaming experience.

 

[Thinker_145]

Have you actually used it? Because it's amazing. You can get 75+hz options as well. Mine is 75hz with freesync so no tearing and great gaming experience.

Why does that matter? It's only higher PPI than 1080p ultra wide so I know what the difference would be lol. I am NOT calling 21:9 to be stupid for gaming in fact I am very much intrigued by it.

75hz is nice I did not know we could do that with 1440p 21:9. But still way too many pixels to drive as far as I am concerned and I'll still rather have even higher refresh rate with 1080p and far better performance.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Newbian]

The 1080 won't exactly make a night and day difference. Ultra wide 1440p is just a stupid resolution for gaming and yes that's my opinion.

And having black bars is incredibly annoying in games. With OLED your point would stand since the corners would just turn off but with LCD you will be presented with gray bars with TN/IPS and still visibly different than the bezel black with VA.

Sent from my HTC One M9

It's plenty as unless you are doing 144hz the 1080 will cap the game and even with 144hz if you disable hairworks on witcher 3 you should get 80+ fps easy.

I would agree for 4k as you would need the titan then but 1080 is great for 1440p even ultrawide.

 

[Thinker_145]

It's plenty as unless you are doing 144hz the 1080 will cap the game and even with 144hz if you disable hairworks on witcher 3 you should get 80+ fps easy.

I would agree for 4k as you would need the titan then but 1080 is great for 1440p even ultrawide.

The 1080 is 20% faster than 1070 so there is only so much you can improve with that performance headroom. Certainly not enough that one card is good for a certain resolution but the other isn't. I mean I am not saying 1080 shouldn't be bought for such resolutions but it isn't going to solve all the problems and certainly won't play most upcoming AAA games at max at standard 1440p let alone 21:9 1440p. It already cannot max out games like Deus Ex MD and Gears of War 4 at 1440p.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Bacon1]

It's only higher PPI than 1080p ultra wide

Well right, but thats the whole reason you'd game on 1440p / 4k over 1080 . Plus resolution is the best IQ upgrade out there. 34" 1440p ultrawide is basically same as 27" 1440p 16:9. Would you recommend someone use a 27" 1080p over 1440p?

 

[Thinker_145]

Well right, but thats the whole reason you'd game on 1440p / 4k over 1080 . Plus resolution is the best IQ upgrade out there. 34" 1440p ultrawide is basically same as 27" 1440p 16:9. Would you recommend someone use a 27" 1080p over 1440p?

No resolution is not the best IQ upgrade beyond a certain point. Do you think Witcher 2 in 4K looks better than Witcher 3 in 1080p? It does not of course!

The difference between 16:9 and 21:9 1440p is that of performance and refresh rate.

People who game at 4K are just stupid in their choice in my opinion. Even if I had unlimited money I'll still rather game at 1440p 144hz I consider that to be the most "premium" configuration currently available.

Someone who can't afford to buy a high end GPU every 2 years should definitely buy a 27" 1080p over 1440p. Oh and btw 4K DSR on a 1080p screen is pretty amazing. You need 4x for DSR to work best which makes it most easier to achieve on a 1080p screen.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Bacon1]

Oh and btw 4K DSR on a 1080p screen is pretty amazing

It still looks worse than 4k native, I mean all its doing is rendering @ 4k (thus 4k performance cost) but instead of natively rendering, its downscaling back to 1080p and outputting that. You called people gaming @ 4k stupid, then said that 4k DSR is amazing?

 

[Thinker_145]

It still looks worse than 4k native, I mean all its doing is rendering @ 4k (thus 4k performance cost) but instead of natively rendering, its downscaling back to 1080p and outputting that. You called people gaming @ 4k stupid, then said that 4k DSR is amazing?

Yes of course it's not as good. It's not stupid because you only have to do it if you have the performance to spare. If you don't just play in native resolution. An option you don't have with a native 4K screen as it looks significantly worse at 1080p than a native 1080p screen.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Thinker_145]

Actually if someone has the performance to pull off 100+FPS at 4K then it could be argued that 4K DSR on a high refresh rate 1080p screen is superior to native 4K. My 1070 ran Dishonoured at 4K maxed at 120FPS.

Sent from my HTC One M9

 

[Erenhardt]

Yesterday I got LG 34UC98-W. The purpose of this new monitor is to replace a defective Dell refurbished one (another story). The main use is to play games.
However, after trying Witcher 3 and COD: Advanced Warfare, I will probably be replacing it with a 27/29" version.
Neither of those 2 games ran natively at 21:9 aspect. Also, despite having a GTX 1070, it wasn't powerful enough to drive the pc at 3440x1440 while maintaining decent frame rate.
I am curious about experience others may have with gaming on ultra wides.

Thanks!

I had no probs running W3 on my Ultrawide. IT supported it nicely. No black bars in gameplay.

For FPS games ultrawide is not very good - at least for competitive play. Everything is so much off to the side, that you are distracted looking on the radar, or other UI elements.

Racing games on the other hand...

Other than that it is supper immersive.

 

[Ackmed]

Really like my Asus 34", no low frames issues with my 1070. I don't play Witcher however. Just BF4, Battlefront, and Overwatch. No black bars. Monitor is just spectacular to view in person, well built and no issues. Lots of extras. Very happy with it.

 

[Bacon1]

Actually if someone has the performance to pull off 100+FPS at 4K then it could be argued that 4K DSR on a high refresh rate 1080p screen is superior to native 4K. My 1070 ran Dishonoured at 4K maxed at 120FPS.

Sent from my HTC One M9

Right, but then you are spending the compute power to render @ 4k, yet only displaying @ 1080p so you are getting a worse image for the same performance hit.

So arguing that DSR is great, yet native 1440p/4k is bad is odd.

Anyway opinions are opinions

Edit: Also, the main reason for limited hz options for 1440p UW / 4k are bandwidth. Thats addressed with DP 1.4 which can do 4k @ 120 and 1440p @ 240+ or something crazy. Monitors are finally progressing fast again after so many years of nothing during the PS3/XB360 timeframe.

 

[jtvang125]

Loving my LG ultrawide and I'm only on a 390x. Yes I do have to turn down a few settings on some of the newer games but not to a level that ruin the visuals. And I don't have any issues with getting Witcher 3 to run at native. It's actually a very good game to showcase 3440x1440 21:9.

I think 34" is the sweet spot for an ultrawide. The 29" is just way too narrow vertically.

 

[Thinker_145]

Right, but then you are spending the compute power to render @ 4k, yet only displaying @ 1080p so you are getting a worse image for the same performance hit.

So arguing that DSR is great, yet native 1440p/4k is bad is odd.

Anyway opinions are opinions

Edit: Also, the main reason for limited hz options for 1440p UW / 4k are bandwidth. Thats addressed with DP 1.4 which can do 4k @ 120 and 1440p @ 240+ or something crazy. Monitors are finally progressing fast again after so many years of nothing during the PS3/XB360 timeframe.

And I am only doing DSR when my performance is well above my refresh rate anyways so there is no waste. Obviously I am not running any of the newer games in DSR.

When did I say that native 1440p is bad? Don't lump 1440 and 4K in the same line as if they are the same thing because they are not. I already said that 16:9 1440 provides the best balance of detail and performance for high end gamers and maintain that 1080p provides the best balance for gamers a tier below high end. The problem with 21:9 1440 is that it's just one more step in performance requirement to the already really demanding 16:9 1440 and it doesn't have the same refresh rates. Once we have such displays out then sure I guess it would be a good option for high end gamers.

As far as 4K is concerned in 2016 no amount of money can give you a terrific experience at it hence why I think it's stupid for now.

 

[guskline]

So much of the resolution depends on the gpu.

My GTX 1080 matches up very well with my 34" 3440 x 1440 Dell UW while my Rx 480 does the same thing to my 29" 2560 x 1080 LG.

 

[Andy T]

Yesterday I got Asus PG27AQ to play with. Running Wticher 3 at 4k and Ultra settings the GTX 1070 was averaging 30-40 FPS based on the monitors FPS display. It was too "slow" for me. While removing a few ultra settings (water set to high and grass to high) I was getting closer to 40. However, I ended up dropping the resolution down to 2560 x 1660. This got me high 50's/60 FPS and felt much better.
COD: AW was pegged at almost 60 with ultra settings.
I think I will give the 34" another try, as there was something cool in the widescreen, as well as the fact that for productivity it's much better. than 27"

 

[Puffnstuff]

I love gaming on my 34" ultra wide and I'm only using a gtx 780ti and DP output at 60hz.. Being able to see more of the map at any given time allows me to make different decisions than when I had a narrower field of vision. I also like movies on it since I can get them at 3440x1440 these days as well.

 

[Andy T]

After spending more time with the 34", I decide to make it my primary monitor over the 4K 27". I find that for general use, 34" at 1440 is head and shoulders better than 27" at 4K.
In gaming as well. The only reason to stick with 27" is the few games (COD: Advanced Warfare) where 21:9 doesn't work.

 

[aigomorla]

i have the simular LG as you do without the thunderbolt ports and well i love my monitor.

The curve i dont even really notice it anymore when im into the game.
I got my LG to overclock to 75hz without much difficulty, and no flickering at all on the DP port.
I am using 2 x 980ti's to drive that monitor tho, which so far i have had no issues on anything which is SLI enabled.