Ultrawide monitors?

[jwslam]

Considering getting one. Or maybe 4k is a better option?

Who has experience with either, I'd like some input please

-Do you still have 2 monitors or just the one now?
-What size is yours?
-Is there benefit to getting a curved?
-What $$$ did you pay?

[CompletelyNumb]

[non-gamer]

The ultrawides are great in some cases. I'd go at least 2560x1440 though, and 29"+. I've never used a curved monitor but I've read that they had no negative effects for most people. I saw the LG 34UM68 on display in memex and it looked pretty darn good.

I upgraded to a 4k and love it, although it took some tinkering to get the dpi scaling proper. Text was quite distorted out of the box, but that may have been human error. I got the Samsung U28E590D.

I came from a dual 1080p setup and the 4k destroys it for my needs.

[b_t]

I went ultrawide, 2560x1080 29" LG. really cheap entry level option

Great for gaming and productivity. Never like having two monitors, so having two full sized windows side-by-side is great. Games are more immersive with the 25% extra width. It's especially great for driving games like Forza and shooters. It's still just 1080p so it's easy to drive and I can always cap FPS even in new titles... you can't cap FPS at 4K without greatly reducing details or playing old games.

If my comp was all productivity though I'd rather have a 2560x1440 34" at least. If it was all gaming I'd stick with 2560x1080 but get one of the high refresh rate panels even though they are $$$

[Mitsu3000gt]

I find 27" and 1440P is the sweet spot but obviously that is subjective. For me that's the highest point where I only have to move my eyes and not my whole head to see everything - I've gamed on 30" before and I just didn't like it as much. I don't like the wide monitors for most things, but I might if I was playing a flight simulator or something.

The issue with 4K is that you need insane graphics power to run it if you like the new games on high settings. If you can afford that though then great.

[firebane]

Ultrawide @ 1440p resolutions is good at around 27" and is a good spot.

4k for day to day use is brutal due to dpi scaling and scaling in software that doesn't listen properly.

We deployed 3 5k monitor setups to clients who asked us to drop the resolution so we did to 4k... then down to 1080p cause the dpi scaling was so bad at anything higher.

Gaming is good @ 1440p UW on a 27" but not worth it at 4k

[Xtrema]

https://www.amazon.ca/UltraSharp-U34.../dp/B00PXYRMPE

This replaced my 2x 21" set up. Gaming is passable and not the best, especially because of the 21:9 ratio. But it goes on sale all the time around $720-$800 and great productivity monitor.

4k monitors has to be huge. Windows doesn't scale well with that pixel density.

[Ukyo8]

Got a question for the experts here.

Do you see much downside to this monitor that's on sale at bestbuy?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/...8ea089c700en02

Would be used for some very casual gaming, mostly used for trading.

[Crazyjoker77]

1440p is still where its at with current hardware (ultrawide or not). 4k is still not wildly adapted and requires a very beastly system to run.

Just to put it into perspective.

1080 ---- 2Mp
1080 UW-- 2.8Mp
1440 ---- 3.7Mp
1440 UW --5Mp
4k ------ 8.3Mp


I started with 3 27" 1080p monitors, then upgraded to 2 24" 1440p monitors, then I purchased a 34" 1440UW and moved the 2 monitors to another workstation. I really didn't Like going from two monitors to one (even though they had almost the same real estate. So my solution to this was to buy 2 29" 4k monitors and teamed the pair of 1440s with the ultrawide.

While I absolutely love my ultrawide and unless the sole use is gaming(without streaming) I find 2 independent monitors much more useful for general use.

I've found ultrawide support is very good now and rarely do I find myself fiddling with settings like I have to with the 4k monitors. Some smaller programs I use don't have settings for scaling and with 4k makes the programs frustrating to use at best. 4k really doesn't make sense till you get to 40"+ screens IMO.

Curved screens are the last thing I care about when looking for a monitor. All the really high end monitors seemed to be curved though so your kinda stuck with it.

I went all out and bought an Acer Predator 34" 3440x1440 IPS 100hz curved. Its been out for around 2 years now but is still on top to this day for high end monitors but at 1700$ its out of most peoples comfort area. They have the AMD Freesync version that goes for about 1250. There are asus offerings now that are comparable. Otherwise The LG 34U*** seem to be the best bang for your buck to get into high end UW monitors.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Ukyo8
Got a question for the experts here.

Do you see much downside to this monitor that's on sale at bestbuy?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/...8ea089c700en02

Would be used for some very casual gaming, mostly used for trading.

Stand seems to have limited adjustment options.

[Crazyjoker77]

Originally posted by Ukyo8
Got a question for the experts here.

Do you see much downside to this monitor that's on sale at bestbuy?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/...8ea089c700en02

Would be used for some very casual gaming, mostly used for trading.

Personally I Would rather have a 27" 1440p 16x9 over 29" 1080 21x9. Remember since screens are measured diagonally the aspect ration really skews comparing them by size. The 27" will seem bigger and actually have more pixels.

It also has conflicting information on their site. The header says 14ms but in the actual description it says 5ms. If you gaming anything over 5ms is a generally a poor choice. I would double check.

Last thing that I don't like about it is that it only uses HDMI. It has no DVI or Displayport inputs. Displayport is the best out atm.

Almost all of the new 10xx series graphics cards are favoring displayport over HDMI(3display ports 1hdmi 1dvi). I personally hate HDMI and after switching to displayport I have no intentions of going back.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Crazyjoker77



Personally I Would rather have a 27" 1440p 16x9 over 29" 1080 21x9. Remember since screens are measured diagonally the aspect ration really skews comparing them by size. The 27" will seem bigger and actually have more pixels.

It also has conflicting information on their site. The header says 14ms but in the actual description it says 5ms. If you gaming anything over 5ms is a generally a poor choice. I would double check.

Last thing that I don't like about it is that it only uses HDMI. It has no DVI or Displayport inputs. Displayport is the best out atm.

Almost all of the new 10xx series graphics cards are favoring displayport over HDMI(3display ports 1hdmi 1dvi). I personally hate HDMI and after switching to displayport I have no intentions of going back.

As much as I hate HDMI as well, it is 2.0 spec and as long as light gaming sticks to 30fps, it's not bad.

Trading wise, I have not idea if high pixel density matters but sounds like the trading community prefer 1440p panels.

[Gman.45]

Define how wide you consider "ultra wide".

It it's for gaming, IMO the best option is the 34" ROG Swift Asus. It's 100hz capable (anything from 100 to 165 is a huge improvement over 60hz for any game), Gsync, 1440p.

I have that one, as well as 2 of the 27" ROG Swift, one IPS one not, they'll run 144hz and 165hz, and are 1440p Gsync as well.

Asus has a new 27" coming out this spring, 4k, 144hz, Gsync, IPS panel. Best of all worlds. It'll take a 1080 at least IMO to run it well, I'm going to run my Titan XP with it, or maybe 1080ti SLI. I currently have a 1080 SLI and a Titan XP system, and either will drive the 34" and current 27" pretty well in 2k at max settings in nearly every game I have tried. I do agree that for now, 1440p is best for most games, especially if you're playing competitively/seriously online multiplayer stuff, as 4k is just too much of a resource hog, even with Titan XP/1080SLI driving my current stuff.

Acer makes a couple 35" too, one with similar specs to my Asus, and one that has a very high hz rate, but is only 1080p.

[captain134]

I use a Predator X34 34": 3440x1440P 21:9 curved and it really is amazing. Productivity is great. I have dual gtx980 and it seems to run the monitor well on the latest games.

[pheoxs]

For those with ultrawodr monitors do you run programs to run two virtual desktops/monitors? I feel like I'd still want two independent displays but with no bezel in between. Surfing the internet on a super wide browser seems silly

[cream]

The ultrawide monitors include software that can split the screen into 2s 4s 1/3rd and unlimited options. (I'm referring to the 34" LG ultrawide ones)

Definitely useful so you don't have to 'resize' screens, instead you can maximize it for the virtual screen you place it on.

Windows 10 is limited to 4 so it's pretty handy in my opinion.

Personally, I still prefer 2 as well with a small bezel.

[Crazyjoker77]

Originally posted by Xtrema


As much as I hate HDMI as well, it is 2.0 spec and as long as light gaming sticks to 30fps, it's not bad.

Trading wise, I have not idea if high pixel density matters but sounds like the trading community prefer 1440p panels.

My hate for HDMI comes not from a bandwidth perspective as even hdmi can support a fair amount. For me the big selling features include that you can daisy chain monitors (run one cable from the computer then another cable from monitor to monitor. The fact you can use a cheap passive cable to go to pretty much any other format completely automatically And most importantly for me the reason I like Displayport is because it uses locking connectors! I've always found HDMI to easy to lose connection especially when the port is vertical or especially when moving a laptop around. Between some moderate bass giggling it loose and a cat that insist on rubbing up against it. It always seems to choose the worst time to come loose.

And I dont know why you would be looking at 100hz expensive monitors if you only shooting for 30fps. Standard has been 60hz forever and what sets PC masterrace apart from console peasants. Even 60hz at this point is scoffed at with all the 100hz+ panels out.

Originally posted by Gman.45
Define how wide you consider "ultra wide".

It it's for gaming, IMO the best option is the 34" ROG Swift Asus. It's 100hz capable (anything from 100 to 165 is a huge improvement over 60hz for any game), Gsync, 1440p.

I have that one, as well as 2 of the 27" ROG Swift, one IPS one not, they'll run 144hz and 165hz, and are 1440p Gsync as well.

Asus has a new 27" coming out this spring, 4k, 144hz, Gsync, IPS panel. Best of all worlds. It'll take a 1080 at least IMO to run it well, I'm going to run my Titan XP with it, or maybe 1080ti SLI. I currently have a 1080 SLI and a Titan XP system, and either will drive the 34" and current 27" pretty well in 2k at max settings in nearly every game I have tried. I do agree that for now, 1440p is best for most games, especially if you're playing competitively/seriously online multiplayer stuff, as 4k is just too much of a resource hog, even with Titan XP/1080SLI driving my current stuff.

Acer makes a couple 35" too, one with similar specs to my Asus, and one that has a very high hz rate, but is only 1080p.

Ultrawide has nothing to do with size but the fact that it runs a 21x9 aspect ration. A 3" screen could be considered ultra-wide as long as it maintains the 21x9 aspect ration.

Asus released the swift quite in response to the Acer X34 in order to not be one upped. It has identical specs to the predator but is 200$ more expensive, lacks vesa mounting, and doesnt have the RGB lighting that is expected to be on PC gaming products in this price range.

I've used asus extensively in the past and they have left a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Ive had 3 of their highest end G7xx series laptops (4 if you wanna count the one that showed up DOA) and every single one has been plagued with problems. Their customer support leaves lots to be desired.

Its been my experience that asus is best left to making PCBs such as Mother boards and graphics cards but avoid their assembled products. This sentiment is pretty widely shared amongst the pc enthusiast community as well.

Originally posted by pheoxs
For those with ultrawodr monitors do you run programs to run two virtual desktops/monitors? I feel like I'd still want two independent displays but with no bezel in between. Surfing the internet on a super wide browser seems silly

Windows 10 has amazing support for multi monitors no 3rd party software required. Depending where you drag the window it will automatically divide it up. Dragging a window to the side will fill half the screen. Dragging to the top will give you 1/3 and dragging to a corner will split it up into quarters.

[b_t]

yeah no need for software to split your screen up virtually in Windows 10.. even Windows 7 had pretty good support for ultrawides

1440p ultrawide the monitors cost a fortune and I wouldn't even bother getting one if I didn't have a GTX 1080 or something similar. what's the point of a high refresh rate if you can't reach it, and it's not even double standard?

http://www.ncix.com/detail/lg-34uc79...-6c-137494.htm

2560x1080 144hz and a good price. if pixel density is an issue, sit further away from your monitor.. only a foot difference makes the pixels invisible again

[Crazyjoker77]

Originally posted by b_t
yeah no need for software to split your screen up virtually in Windows 10.. even Windows 7 had pretty good support for ultrawides

1440p ultrawide the monitors cost a fortune and I wouldn't even bother getting one if I didn't have a GTX 1080 or something similar. what's the point of a high refresh rate if you can't reach it, and it's not even double standard?

http://www.ncix.com/detail/lg-34uc79...-6c-137494.htm

2560x1080 144hz and a good price. if pixel density is an issue, sit further away from your monitor.. only a foot difference makes the pixels invisible again

I wouldn't necessarily say a 1080 is required for 1440UW. I ran my predator off a 970 and 980 for a few months waiting for stock of 1080s to actual appear. It ran the likes of GTA5 at still better than console fps but it did struggle to keep it above 60. However my laptop with a 880M struggled with anything more than web browsing.

I still personally would rather have a 1440 16x9 over a 1080 Ultrawide. Its only 100$ more to get the dell 34uc88 which is 1440UW (but at 60hz) Unless the panel is going to be used solely for gaming I would prefer the resolution bump over the refresh rate.

There is also diminishing gains with refresh rate. everyone can tell the difference between 60-100hz but few will be able to tell the difference between 100-144hz and next to no one would be able to differentiate between 144-175hz.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by pheoxs
For those with ultrawodr monitors do you run programs to run two virtual desktops/monitors? I feel like I'd still want two independent displays but with no bezel in between. Surfing the internet on a super wide browser seems silly

It is, so you either live with Windows's snaps which divide the screen into 2 halfs or use other software to split it.

LG has multi monitor software for UW.

Originally posted by Ukyo8
Got a question for the experts here.

Do you see much downside to this monitor that's on sale at bestbuy?

http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/...8ea089c700en02

Would be used for some very casual gaming, mostly used for trading.

I know this slowly turning into PC Masterace on monitors but both OP and Ukyo8 doesn't sounds like serious gamers.

So in that sense, that 29" monitor isn't that bad of a deal for amount of screen real estate.

I know some day traders like to go hardcore 4 x 1920x1200 screens or bigger to fit every they want in front of them. But specs are still much lesser than when you are hard core gamers.

[Super_Geo]

Damn... was just about to go to ME and get a 3x 27" monitor setup for a home workstation...

Wanted to build something like this (but with more workspace than that small desk):

» Click image for larger version


Maybe a a single 34" is the way to go though? Hm...