• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

petran79
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:42 PM)
petran79's Avatar
Decided to upgrade the computer monitor and I was into the dilemma:
Get a 16:9 4k monitor that would make most 3d games look significantly better.
Or make the bold step and get a UWHD monitor.

I think I made the right choice by picking the second option (Gsync included) . This monitor did not only change how games look but also the game's visual direction. Suddenly even older games became something unique.

Played Sega's Virtua Tennis 3 and 4 in 3440x1440 with a panoramic view of the court. Same for Outrun. Tried Bayonetta and Cosmic Star Heroine. Crusader Kings 2 felt like controlling the whole map. Sonic Generations and All Star Racing Transformed felt more absorbing. Ori and the Blind Forest looks amazing. Bioshock Infinite and even Turok 2 looked like new games. Life for Speed racing sim felt more immersive.

Whereas a 4k monitor would barely make a difference in the above games.

It also matters that even current gen consoles refuse to adopt this standard, probably because they are still tied to TV formats.

Even in the 80s computer monitors were in a different world regarding resolution, image quality, bandwidth and later dot pitch and refresh rate.

What aspect ratio and resolutions do you prefer for newer games?
Kymbo
Junior Member
(04-21-2017, 01:50 PM)
Kymbo's Avatar
Made the move to 21.9 a few months ago, my reasoning was much the same as yours op.
I can't see myself going back now, the extra real estate just offers a much more immersive experience.
What screen did you go for?
I picked up the acer predator x34a, its my first g-sync monitor as well which just adds to whole experience.
ThatsMytrunks
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:56 PM)
ThatsMytrunks's Avatar
My gaming machine is also my work machine, so I've been really considering grabbing a 16:9 monitor since it would offer a lot more real estate, but I've worried about cost and compatibility. Not just with games, but also while capturing games for streaming using a capture card.

But they make 16:9 monitors with Gsync? That price tag sounds scary.
simatron3000
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:57 PM)
simatron3000's Avatar
I have a 1440p and 4k monitor both 16:9 27 inch. The picture quality difference isn't that signficant at this size IMO so I would be inclined to 3440x1440 ultrawide. It's also easier to drive than 4k all while having 30% more peripheral vision.

That said I do like my dual 16:9 monitor set up but if going with one, defintely 21x9
YesManKablam
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:04 PM)
YesManKablam's Avatar
I upgraded to a 21:9 monitor just under a year ago, a Predator X34. It also has G-Sync and has a 100hz refresh rate.

I can never go back. It's the perfect combo for games, productivity wise it's amazing with the extra real estate and 2.39:1 content (movies and whatnot) is amazing on it since that's what it was designed for.
kitsuneyo
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:06 PM)
kitsuneyo's Avatar

Originally Posted by ThatsMytrunks

My gaming machine is also my work machine, so I've been really considering grabbing a 16:9 monitor since it would offer a lot more real estate, but I've worried about cost and compatibility. Not just with games, but also while capturing games for streaming using a capture card.

But they make 16:9 monitors with Gsync? That price tag sounds scary.

16:9 is standard wide, 2.39:1 is ultra-wide.
sirap
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:09 PM)
sirap's Avatar
Had both and I much prefer 4K for productivity. If all I did was game and watch movies I'd probably stick with my ultrawide, unfortunately 4K and the standard 16:9 aspect ratio is much more versatile.
FunkyDealer
Banned
(04-21-2017, 02:10 PM)
I'm still rockin' 1080p with a 16:9, 27" Freesync monitor.

The reasoning is that I sometimes connect my Xbone-sized PC to the TV, and then I can use the same graphical setups and whatnot across both displays.

The only problem is, I've started using 72fps/36fps instead of 60fps/30fps for some games, so those are incompatible with my TV anyway...
compo
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:12 PM)
compo's Avatar
Both options sound fantastic to me, but I'm waiting until I can run either at 144Hz for a reasonable price. Of course, by the time that happens, you guys will be talking about 360 degree monitors or some shit.

Ignoring price, I would go with UWHD, though.
deriks
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:14 PM)
deriks's Avatar
4k for sure, if the FOV works fine too.
inner-G
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:17 PM)
inner-G's Avatar
4K.

I have no interest in an UW display when videos ad most games are 16:9

Right now I use 1440p/144hz though for my PC
shark sandwich
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:22 PM)
shark sandwich's Avatar
I went with 4K. Reason is that pretty much all games benefit from it. Whereas some games have shitty ultra wide support (Overwatch) or none at all.
Ogawa-san
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:23 PM)
Ogawa-san's Avatar
You can have both.

I use a 40' 4k TV instead of a monitor, with custom resolutions to play some games at 21:9 or even 3840x1080. Bonus points if it's a game that plays nice with borderless window so I can have Netflix and a browser window on the unused area.
bomblord1
Banned
(04-21-2017, 02:25 PM)
3440x1440 is a resolution close enough (proportionally) to 4K that I can't see a major difference.

But anything it theoretically loses from the slightly lower resolution it gains from the wider viewing angle. It's also becoming much more widely supported.
Sebastian Suola
Junior Member
(04-21-2017, 02:26 PM)
How do you make those old games run with that ultra wide resolution? I doubt they natively support it. Or what's going on? I don't play games on PC so I don't have a clue.
laxu
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:30 PM)
laxu's Avatar
I don't like ultrawide for gaming. I think all it adds is peripheral vision and that doesn't really translate to a much better experience plus you have to deal with games that don't properly support the aspect ratio. The monitors on the market are only 100 Hz refresh rate at best and have no ULMB support AFAIK. I love the ultrawide monitors for work though and that's what I have at the office.

I'm still waiting for 120+ Hz 4K displays to hit the market before I will move to those from 1440p. For now I just have a 4K TV.
Arkanius
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:31 PM)
Arkanius's Avatar
21:9 1440p -> 16:9 4K
Oachkatzlschwoaf
Junior Member
(04-21-2017, 02:37 PM)
Oachkatzlschwoaf's Avatar
I have a 1440p screen with 25", and i consider it an absolute sweet spot.
Lister
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:39 PM)
Lister's Avatar
I went Ultra wide with mylatest panel upgrade too OP, and yeah, I could never go back to 16:9. It's made such a difference accross all the games I play, from strategy titles like Stellaris, to RPG's like Pillars of Eternity, and also the odd FPS I play here and there.

It's great for productivity too. Programming/development on that panel is the best.

It's a great compromise between the size of the screen, the pixel density and the desktop real-estate, IMHO. In order to get the same horizontal space with a 4K monitor, I'd have to get a gigantic one. Like a TV on my desk. I'm not really interested. My 1080 cna usually ultra most games at 60 FPS where it probably couldn't at full 4K, and that extra FOV is just so dman immersive in action games, and it offers so much more information for strategy titles.

Originally Posted by inner-G

4K.

I have no interest in an UW display when videos ad most games are 16:9

Right now I use 1440p/144hz though for my PC

Actually MOST games support it pretty well. And it's great for watchign blu-rays or any cinematic content since it's mostly veyr near that same aspect ratio. But yeah, TV content and most youtube videos aren't 21:9. But that's ok, the end result is the same as watching the videos on my old 27 inch 16:9 1440p monitor.

Originally Posted by Sebastian Suola

How do you make those old games run with that ultra wide resolution? I doubt they natively support it. Or what's going on? I don't play games on PC so I don't have a clue.

PC games aren't like console games where they are locked to some hardware specs. They tend to be very scalable, and often support arbitrary resolutions and aspect ratios. A lot of them work right out of the box at 21:9. However, many don't fully support 21:9, but even then there are usually community fixes for that.

OP: Check out flawless widescreen for even betetr ultra wide support in many titles that lack it.
Tecnniqe
Banned
(04-21-2017, 02:44 PM)
My next step is 21:9 G-Sync to go with my TI but I'm stuck between the OMEN X 35 and the AOC 35 AGON :3

My eyes only see price difference. Why is it so hard :(
Sciz
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:49 PM)
Sciz's Avatar
Games are too gorgeous in ultrawide to go back. I can live with lower DPI until 5040x2160 screens eventually happen.
Shifty Capone1
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:13 PM)
Shifty Capone1's Avatar
I have an x34 and a 4k monitor. I barely touch my 4k monitor for gaming. I've you go ultrawide 3440x1440 you won't go back. I've rarely run into a game that doesn't natively support it. The extra peripheral is absolutely great.

I am a sucker for new tech and will buy that new 4k 144hz G-Sync panel, but I have a feeling I will still gravitate towards the UW for most games.
Crayon
(04-21-2017, 03:16 PM)
Crayon's Avatar
I've never played on am ultra wide monitor. It looks so cool.
digitalrelic
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:26 PM)
digitalrelic's Avatar
I own an Acer Predator X34 Ultrawide 1440p display, as well as a Samsung 55" KS8000 4K HDR display.

Honestly, the question doesn't have an easy answer. 4K obviously offers superior clarity & PQ, particularly the HDR, but 21:9 1440p is no slouch either. It's within spitting distance. The FOV provided by Ultrawide, however, is astounding.

If I had to choose, I would pick 21:9 1440p for gaming, no question. 4K HDR for movies & television. The benefits of Ultrawide in gaming are too staggering to ignore.
digitalrelic
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:28 PM)
digitalrelic's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tecnniqe

My next step is 21:9 G-Sync to go with my TI but I'm stuck between the OMEN X 35 and the AOC 35 AGON :3

My eyes only see price difference. Why is it so hard :(

The Omen X 35 has actually been getting pretty lukewarm reviews.
brawly
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:32 PM)
brawly's Avatar
If the Pro/Scorpio supported UWHD monitors I'd get one in a heartbeat.

I'm not upgrading to a 4K monitor any time soon.
Paragon
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:34 PM)
Paragon's Avatar
I would previously have said a big 4K screen until getting to spend some time with a 21:9 UW display.
I didn't realise it until I had used one, but they really struck the perfect balance with the 34" monitors in my opinion.

They're high enough resolution (110 PPI) that you can sit really close to them and still have good image quality.
Not "retina quality" but not bad resolution either, like an oversized 1080p monitor. (<85 PPI)
And sitting close means that they can fill a huge amount of your view.

If you have a big 16:9 display, or sit close to a smaller one, I find that the vertical height of the screen gets uncomfortable before the width does.
So height is the limiting factor for what feels comfortable to me when sitting up close to a display, and for any given height the 21:9 display fills a lot more of your vision.
So I have to admit that I was wrong, and the image that I get with a 34" UW ended up being larger than the 46" 16:9 screen it replaced because I sit closer to it.
Having the screen extend out to your peripheral vision is so much more immersive for gaming.

There's also a case to be made for 1440p being the perfect resolution for a gaming display today.
  • 3440x1440 is 2.4x as many pixels as 1920x1080. It's a big upgrade from 1080p, but not nearly as demanding to run as the 4x requirement of a 4K display.
  • 3440x1440 at 100 FPS is pushing almost exactly the same number of pixels/second as 3840x2160 at 60 FPS - but that higher framerate is a much bigger deal for gaming than the extra resolution in my opinion.
With G-Sync, you don't have to hit a constant 100 FPS for motion to appear smooth though; you can run games at anything up to 100 FPS.
My GTX 1070 is often running newer games in the 75-95 FPS range, not a constant 100 FPS.
That means a 4K native screen would constantly be running at sub-60 FPS; only 45-57 FPS.

And 3440x1440 at 60 FPS is still a legitimate option with this display for demanding games.
On a 4K screen, that would require dropping the resolution to a non-native 1670p to achieve the same 60 FPS, or rendering native 4K at only 36 FPS.
I just feel like the power required for native 4K isn't worth it, and I don't like using sub-native resolutions on flat panels.


It's not perfect though.
Not all games support 21:9 natively, and while you can get it working with many games it does mean having to mod them.
Even with mods, often the 3D portion of the game renders correctly but the HUD is stretched or has other issues.
Many 2D games are locked to 16:9 only. That said, the ones which do support 21:9 look amazing.

As a 21:9 display owner, PC Gaming Wiki and Widescreen Gaming Forum are your best friends.
For me, as a long-time PC gamer, it's not been a major issue so far.
I'm already used to checking sites like PCGW for fixes as I play a lot of older games - even ones which needed modding to play in 16:9. So it's really not any more work than what I'm used to.
But it can be disappointing when a game is locked to 16:9 - just like high refresh rate monitor owners hate it when a game is locked to 60 FPS.

If you want to buy new games, boot them up and be guaranteed that they will just work, don't buy a 21:9 display.
The extra effort is very worthwhile though, in my opinion.
My only regret so far is that I held off buying one for a year, instead of getting one right away.
NH Apache
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:43 PM)
NH Apache's Avatar
I'm hopping on the ultrawide train here soon.

There's a Korean monitor that's 34" 21:9 that I'm currently salivating over. It uses a Sammy panel:

Microboard M340CLZ 34 Inch Curved 3440x1440 100HZ AMD Sync Gaming Monitor https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M5DVR94..._laH-ybZFMMGWF

But I'd like to look at 21:9 4k.
Renekton
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:45 PM)
Renekton's Avatar
I tunnel vision too much so the ultra-wide benefit will be wasted on me.
Heysoos
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:46 PM)
Heysoos's Avatar
Honestly, I liked my Ultrawide monitor when it came to gaming and especially multitasking. But it REALLY bugged me, far more than it should have perhaps, to see the black bars on the sides of the monitor in games that didn't support the res. Happy with my 1440p now.
killertofu
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:54 PM)
killertofu's Avatar
Non-gaming related but when are ultrawide-high res monitors coming out?

I have a 5k iMac and love the pixel density but man I would love something wide
Baleoce
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:56 PM)
Baleoce's Avatar
UWHD is more of a priority than 4k for me for a PC monitor thinking about it. You get extra FoV in supported games, you get to watch blurays etc in their native aspect ratio so no black borders, and you get extra workspace real estate for audio and video editing etc.
Tecnniqe
Banned
(04-21-2017, 04:11 PM)

Originally Posted by digitalrelic

The Omen X 35 has actually been getting pretty lukewarm reviews.

Oh really :/ I've been struggling to find good comparison reviews on google.
GRIMREEFZ
Member
(04-21-2017, 04:15 PM)
GRIMREEFZ's Avatar
Is WQHD and UWHD the same?
Oachkatzlschwoaf
Junior Member
(04-21-2017, 04:25 PM)
Oachkatzlschwoaf's Avatar

Originally Posted by GRIMREEFZ

Is WQHD and UWHD the same?

No. WQHD (2560x1440) is a standard, while UWHD seems to be a marketing term usually used for 21:9 displays of any kind.
petran79
Member
(04-21-2017, 05:09 PM)
petran79's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kymbo

What screen did you go for?
I picked up the acer predator x34a, its my first g-sync monitor as well which just adds to whole experience.

Asus' flagship, the PG348Q. Coupled with an MSI GTX 1080 or else that GPU would be wasted.


Originally Posted by Ogawa-san

You can have both.

I use a 40' 4k TV instead of a monitor, with custom resolutions to play some games at 21:9 or even 3840x1080. Bonus points if it's a game that plays nice with borderless window so I can have Netflix and a browser window on the unused area.

I still have the old monitor hooked (LG W2361V), for compatibility's sake. Also use an external TV tuner USB drive (Avermedia Volar) and watch HD TV on the second monitor.

Originally Posted by Lister

OP: Check out flawless widescreen for even betetr ultra wide support in many titles that lack it.

thanks. I installed that app in order for Sonic Allstars Racing Transformed to work.


Originally Posted by Paragon

I would previously have said a big 4K screen until getting to spend some time with a 21:9 UW display.
I didn't realise it until I had used one, but they really struck the perfect balance with the 34" monitors in my opinion.

They're high enough resolution (110 PPI) that you can sit really close to them and still have good image quality.
Not "retina quality" but not bad resolution either, like an oversized 1080p monitor. (<85 PPI)
And sitting close means that they can fill a huge amount of your view.

If you have a big 16:9 display, or sit close to a smaller one, I find that the vertical height of the screen gets uncomfortable before the width does.
So height is the limiting factor for what feels comfortable to me when sitting up close to a display, and for any given height the 21:9 display fills a lot more of your vision.
So I have to admit that I was wrong, and the image that I get with a 34" UW ended up being larger than the 46" 16:9 screen it replaced because I sit closer to it.
Having the screen extend out to your peripheral vision is so much more immersive for gaming.

There's also a case to be made for 1440p being the perfect resolution for a gaming display today.

  • 3440x1440 is 2.4x as many pixels as 1920x1080. It's a big upgrade from 1080p, but not nearly as demanding to run as the 4x requirement of a 4K display.
  • 3440x1440 at 100 FPS is pushing almost exactly the same number of pixels/second as 3840x2160 at 60 FPS - but that higher framerate is a much bigger deal for gaming than the extra resolution in my opinion.
With G-Sync, you don't have to hit a constant 100 FPS for motion to appear smooth though; you can run games at anything up to 100 FPS.
My GTX 1070 is often running newer games in the 75-95 FPS range, not a constant 100 FPS.
That means a 4K native screen would constantly be running at sub-60 FPS; only 45-57 FPS.

And 3440x1440 at 60 FPS is still a legitimate option with this display for demanding games.
On a 4K screen, that would require dropping the resolution to a non-native 1670p to achieve the same 60 FPS, or rendering native 4K at only 36 FPS.
I just feel like the power required for native 4K isn't worth it, and I don't like using sub-native resolutions on flat panels.


It's not perfect though.
Not all games support 21:9 natively, and while you can get it working with many games it does mean having to mod them.
Even with mods, often the 3D portion of the game renders correctly but the HUD is stretched or has other issues.
Many 2D games are locked to 16:9 only. That said, the ones which do support 21:9 look amazing.

As a 21:9 display owner, PC Gaming Wiki and Widescreen Gaming Forum are your best friends.
For me, as a long-time PC gamer, it's not been a major issue so far.
I'm already used to checking sites like PCGW for fixes as I play a lot of older games - even ones which needed modding to play in 16:9. So it's really not any more work than what I'm used to.
But it can be disappointing when a game is locked to 16:9 - just like high refresh rate monitor owners hate it when a game is locked to 60 FPS.

If you want to buy new games, boot them up and be guaranteed that they will just work, don't buy a 21:9 display.
The extra effort is very worthwhile though, in my opinion.
My only regret so far is that I held off buying one for a year, instead of getting one right away.

Thanks for the sites. More or less this info sums it up about UW gaming.
Gsync and Freesync also make the experience even better.

But the more exciting thing is 2D games supporting wide screen. Kudos to Cosmic Star Heroine developers for adding that option. Feels like playing an old SNES or PS1 game on widescreen. Hope more 2D games add that option too.
Apexhell
Member
(04-21-2017, 05:13 PM)
Apexhell's Avatar

Originally Posted by Baleoce

UWHD is more of a priority than 4k for me for a PC monitor thinking about it. You get extra FoV in supported games, you get to watch blurays etc in their native aspect ratio so no black borders, and you get extra workspace real estate for audio and video editing etc.

Same reasoning and same points for me.
Cert.in.Death
Member
(04-21-2017, 05:13 PM)
Cert.in.Death's Avatar
For actual gaming, 21:9

For desktop and productivity use, 4K
inner-G
Member
(04-21-2017, 05:18 PM)
inner-G's Avatar

Originally Posted by Paragon

There's also a case to be made for 1440p being the perfect resolution for a gaming display today.

  • 3440x1440 is 2.4x as many pixels as 1920x1080. It's a big upgrade from 1080p, but not nearly as demanding to run as the 4x requirement of a 4K display.
  • 3440x1440 at 100 FPS is pushing almost exactly the same number of pixels/second as 3840x2160 at 60 FPS - but that higher framerate is a much bigger deal for gaming than the extra resolution in my opinion.
With G-Sync, you don't have to hit a constant 100 FPS for motion to appear smooth though; you can run games at anything up to 100 FPS.
My GTX 1070 is often running newer games in the 75-95 FPS range, not a constant 100 FPS.
That means a 4K native screen would constantly be running at sub-60 FPS; only 45-57 FPS.

I'm not an ultra wide fan, but I'm in agreement on 1440p being the best resolution for gaming right now, especially with G-sync.

I have a 27" 1440p/g-sync monitor, and also a 4K TV so I can play in both on a GTX 1080.

The 1440p monitor is so much smoother. Idk if it's the refresh rate or the g-sync or the 1ms response time, but it feels like butter compared to playing on the TV. 4K/60 is nice for some stuff, but many games will go over 100z at 1440p for me so they just feel far smoother on there. If I had a g-sync 4K display it may be another story.
Coolade
Member
(04-21-2017, 05:19 PM)
Coolade's Avatar
There seems to be a misconception that older games don't support ultrawide. I would say the majority of my games do and the ones that don't you can fix yourself to make them support ultradwide. I will always prefer it over 16:9, seeing more of your game adds such a sense of immersion. Here is an album I have http://imgur.com/a/9SDi8 for some examples and some videos if you want a comparison.
General Lee
Member
(04-21-2017, 06:05 PM)
General Lee's Avatar
I've tried everything from eyefinity to 21:9, but settled eventually for 40" 4K. Least amount of hassle, great immersion, great contrast (5000:1) and relatively low price (700 in 2015). The new 21:9 G-Sync/FreeSync panels are pretty good, but too expensive and I don't like the compatibility hassles and black bars during cut scenes. I did that with Eyefinity, and while it could be awesome, I'm happier with one big screen. I think I'm actually moving on to an OLED TV eventually since I play most games with a controller anyways. Just waiting for HDMI 2.1 VRR and manageable prices, which could take several years still. Luckily I'll still get to test most of the new stuff in the meanwhile.
Tecnniqe
Banned
(04-21-2017, 07:18 PM)
Whoops posted wrong place
digitalrelic
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:11 PM)
digitalrelic's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tecnniqe

Oh really :/ I've been struggling to find good comparison reviews on google.

Yep. The build quality is great but there's lots of issues with flickering, color banding, smearing, ghosting, poor viewing angles, lack of vibrancy, etc..

Seems the Acer Predator X34a is the way to go for Ultrawide.
Aklamarth
Member
(04-21-2017, 09:18 PM)
UWHD is the aspect ratio of the gods.
Tecnniqe
Banned
(04-21-2017, 09:57 PM)

Originally Posted by digitalrelic

Yep. The build quality is great but there's lots of issues with flickering, color banding, smearing, ghosting, poor viewing angles, lack of vibrancy, etc..

Seems the Acer Predator X34a is the way to go for Ultrawide.

Anything on the AOC?

Thread Tools