-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Next monitor: 4K or ultrawide?
- Thread starter Skel1ingt0n
- Start date
I already have a 4K and to get me to move on it would probably take a somewhat affordable ultrawide with a resolution greater than 4K, so it was basically like for to 4K what ultrawide is to a 16:9 1440p monitor.
If it was purely for gaming and I had to choose again I would probably choose ultrawide, but productivity was in the mix when I chose and use multiple monitors for that.
If it was purely for gaming and I had to choose again I would probably choose ultrawide, but productivity was in the mix when I chose and use multiple monitors for that.
I want 21:9 TV:s. 😭 But it sounds like getting games working correctly is kind of a mess from the comments here.
I already have an ultrawide monitor, a LG 34-inch 1440p monitor. I will upgrade to a HDR ultrawide in the future. I haven't decided to upgrade yet because time and time again, I'm seeing anecdotes where the HDR implementation across Windows is sporadic and inconsistent. Very unlike in the TV realm, where the HDR implementation is rather consistent and great. In other words, if a TV supports HDR, the content on it looks great in HDR, whereas in monitors and Windows 10, you don't know what you will get with HDR.
I wish everyone would just get their acts together and fix this one aspect of HDR, then I can just go headfirst into HDR and play games and watch content as they were shot.
I wish everyone would just get their acts together and fix this one aspect of HDR, then I can just go headfirst into HDR and play games and watch content as they were shot.
I see lots of comments about that too and I have to wonder what games people are playing that have ultrawide issues with.
Personally in the last two years I've only had very few games that there is no real support for or that have in game cinematics render in 16:9 but there's usually a fix very soon after release, I'd say I've only found like 6 or 7 games like this and I play a lot of games or at least try them out.
Now games with perfect support for ultrawide that's different, and by perfect support I'm talking about FoV with the correct 21:9 coefficient and allowing you to move UI elements to the edge or center of the screen, etc, those are really hard to come by but I'd say most games releases nowadays work just fine natively on 21:9 except games from Japanese devs but those generally suck on pc regardless of ultrawide or not.
Destiny 2 on ultrawide is great since it goes the extra mile and disables artificial black bars on the CG cinematics. Warzone is another game that has great support for ultrawide but one of my most memorable game experiences when it comes to ultrawide is definitely Gears of War 5 damn that games looks AWESOME in ultrawide the only draw back is that full screen cinematics zoom into the scene so I had to leave them on 16:9 but still it's not that much of a problem compared to how great the game feels and looks on ultrawide.
I voted 4K because every game scales up with 4K and looks better, whereas 21:9 is nice in certain situations/genres, but unnecessary or nonfunctional with others, and most games aren't expressly designed with this aspect ratio in mind.
Resident Evil 3 remake (was the most recent), Fallout 4, Ace Combat: Skies Unknown, Far Cry 5, Sniper Ghost Warrior 3, just to name a few. I've had issues with a lot more. But my memory isn't too great.
A few there's fan made patches for. But the UI is usually messed up.
I have an Ultrawide but it's 60GHZ and 1080. So I recently purchased this: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-ult...onitor-with-hdr-black/6401809.p?skuId=6401809
LG Ultra Gear 27 (27GN850-B ). It's pretty good so far and everything's so damn smooth. I am using my Ultrawide in portrait mode for now which is perfect for programming or comparing things. So... I'd go with a 1440p set. I can hit 100+ FPS in Doom Eternal with all Ultra Nightmare settings on a 2070 Super.
LG Ultra Gear 27 (27GN850-B ). It's pretty good so far and everything's so damn smooth. I am using my Ultrawide in portrait mode for now which is perfect for programming or comparing things. So... I'd go with a 1440p set. I can hit 100+ FPS in Doom Eternal with all Ultra Nightmare settings on a 2070 Super.
1440p with high refresh rate and some form of variable refresh rate support is what I'd go with personally, if I were still into PC gaming. 240Hz and 300Hz are very impressive refresh rates but I think at their current implementation, it's not quite worth the picture quality trade-offs I'm hearing about and rather impractical to expect very many games to actually achieve that high of a framerate, so 120Hz or 144Hz is probably where I'd settle. I had a 240Hz panel on the last gaming laptop that I owned for a brief time, and it was interesting to use but felt a bit excessive for that machine's particular hardware configuration (mobile i7 8th gen and 2070 Max-Q).
Between achieving high native resolution (i.e. 4K) and higher refresh rates, I'd choose the latter when the flexibility of the PC platform is considered. I say this as someone who presently does not have a gaming PC and plays exclusively on consoles with a 4K TV, though.
If you happen to be a console gamer at a desk, 4K/60Hz will be fine. I'm speculating 120Hz will not be utilized frequently on the next-gen consoles (and damn would I LOVE to be wrong) and isn't something I'm necessarily planning for.
Between achieving high native resolution (i.e. 4K) and higher refresh rates, I'd choose the latter when the flexibility of the PC platform is considered. I say this as someone who presently does not have a gaming PC and plays exclusively on consoles with a 4K TV, though.
If you happen to be a console gamer at a desk, 4K/60Hz will be fine. I'm speculating 120Hz will not be utilized frequently on the next-gen consoles (and damn would I LOVE to be wrong) and isn't something I'm necessarily planning for.
I know Ace Combat did have major issues with ultrawide, I think there was a patch by the community but not sure if they were able to fix the UI. What is your issue with RE3R? I played a little bit of it and everything was working fine, actually cinematics now play at full screen and not at 16:9 like RE2R.
Other games I can't say, have not played them.
Waaaaaaait a second.....that's no
But I'm getting neck cramps just thinking about using a monitor that big on a desk.
My dream monitor: LG's 38" 3840x1600 144hz gsync monster.
But once I went ultrawide, I never wanted to go back to anything less.
But once I went ultrawide, I never wanted to go back to anything less.
I wish games let you choose the aspect ratio for pillar boxing and letterboxing. I often play on a 3:2 ratio laptop which is fantastic for development but rather tall for gaming. I'll end up switching to 1080p or 1440p just to force the borders.
Do any of you opt for borders to get a wider view on non wide display?
Do any of you opt for borders to get a wider view on non wide display?
Ultrawide but notice it requires much more tinkering via various methods separately for each game (hex edits, flawless wide-screen, ini edits, cheat engine etc) and in many cases you have to keep an outdated patched exe file and disable game updates.
For 4k you can connect any external TV really.
For 4k you can connect any external TV really.
Bought an ultra wide and it is fantastic, Gsync at 120hz. 3440x1440 is a nice sweet spot if you still play some games in 4:3 like I do, but I must admit some of the models that are wider than 21:9 are still very appealing to me. Some games don't support ultrawide, but most of the time you just end up with pillar boxes, which is fine. Worst case scenario seems to be that the top and bottom of your picture is cut off and you have to mess with things to play in 16:9.
32:9 has been the best thing to happen to my video games in a while. Basically means I'm rendering like 95% of a native 4k image so I'm not saving much performance at all, but my immersion and my general spatial awareness in the games I've played have skyrocketed so much since I've got one of these things. It's a nuisance to stay on top of patches and cheat engine tables to make it all work, but it's worth it.
At launch Resident Evil 3 cropped the top and bottom of a 16:9 image for my 32:9 display that makes for a claustrophobic and nauseating experience. I don't think Capcom's ever fixed it, but a Cheat Engine table dropped a day after my first playthrough that lets me get a native 32:9 picture.
Last edited:
I have that monitor (34GK950F-B). I've also had the G-Sync version, which has absolutely no reason to exist.
Wow. What are these games?3440x1440 120Hz gsync has been pretty great on this aging 1080TI. Usually able to manage the fixes at PCGW to get games running properly.
.
Ive had my PG279Q for a couple years, I love it and don't even want to upgrade. No GPU can drive 4K 144hz in most AAA stuff. I use a 2080ti for 1440p/144hz.
Ultrawide isn't appealing to me - too much stuff doesn't support it, lots of black bars on the sides of videos, etc.
I'm waiting on 5k2k ultrawides to be more prolific.
The same IQ/pixel density as 4k, but ultrawide. And with DLSS tech (or simply the option to lower resolution for gaming) it's the future proof monitor that will finally replace my 16:9 1080p monitor. 1440p is just a stopgap imo, especially if you buy one at a larger size than your current 1080p and lose most of that pixel density gain as a result.
The same IQ/pixel density as 4k, but ultrawide. And with DLSS tech (or simply the option to lower resolution for gaming) it's the future proof monitor that will finally replace my 16:9 1080p monitor. 1440p is just a stopgap imo, especially if you buy one at a larger size than your current 1080p and lose most of that pixel density gain as a result.
Nothing exciting. Acer CB281HK. PC is also connected to a Samsung 43" RU7100, but KB+M games I would use the monitor.
Since there are a lot of people with ultra-wide experience in this thread, I've been wondering about something.
I hate pincushion distortion, which is commonly described as the fish-eye effect from high FOVs. Unless I'm mistaken, an ultra-wide display is only going to make this distortion worse, because you can see more horizontally. This makes anything on the edges get stretched and warped. You could lower the FOV, but then you're essentially matching 16:9 FOV horizontal space, while losing vertical space. And I haven't seen enough research into whether curved displays make this worse, or help.
I hate pincushion distortion, which is commonly described as the fish-eye effect from high FOVs. Unless I'm mistaken, an ultra-wide display is only going to make this distortion worse, because you can see more horizontally. This makes anything on the edges get stretched and warped. You could lower the FOV, but then you're essentially matching 16:9 FOV horizontal space, while losing vertical space. And I haven't seen enough research into whether curved displays make this worse, or help.
1440p Ultrawide, with 144+Hz, VRR and good 1000+ nits HDR, with a lot of local dimming or another tech that allows to turn of or dim fine areas.
So in short something like the Asus PG35VQ, but at a more affordable price than 2500€.
Explicitly not 4k! GPUs are not there yet and even with a 50% upboost in performance won't be there. I rather take the middleground 2560/3440x1440 that allows for high frame rates.
So in short something like the Asus PG35VQ, but at a more affordable price than 2500€.
Explicitly not 4k! GPUs are not there yet and even with a 50% upboost in performance won't be there. I rather take the middleground 2560/3440x1440 that allows for high frame rates.
1440p 144hz
4k isn't worth it and ultra wide is only good for the few games that properly support it. Most games will have poor implementation or black bars.
1080p is too low and 4K is still quite demanding and honestly doesn't provide a huge improvement. Would only really recommend it if you have a 32" monitor on your desk or play on your TV while sitting far away...
If you have the power to play some games at 4k you can just downsample. Sure it's not native but it will give a cleaner image.
60hz is the bare minimum. 144hz is perfect and anything over is likely to be a waste unless you're seriously competitive in esports.
4k isn't worth it and ultra wide is only good for the few games that properly support it. Most games will have poor implementation or black bars.
1080p is too low and 4K is still quite demanding and honestly doesn't provide a huge improvement. Would only really recommend it if you have a 32" monitor on your desk or play on your TV while sitting far away...
If you have the power to play some games at 4k you can just downsample. Sure it's not native but it will give a cleaner image.
60hz is the bare minimum. 144hz is perfect and anything over is likely to be a waste unless you're seriously competitive in esports.
Last edited:
32:9 has been the best thing to happen to my video games in a while. Basically means I'm rendering like 95% of a native 4k image so I'm not saving much performance at all, but my immersion and my general spatial awareness in the games I've played have skyrocketed so much since I've got one of these things. It's a nuisance to stay on top of patches and cheat engine tables to make it all work, but it's worth it.
Ohoooo. Well now, that Bayo shot, man that's really something. Looks like an entirely different scene. I couldn't tell what I was looking at initially. Incredible! I think the Mania result there might be a bit much for me, lol, but SC6... wow. Just look at that! Seems like fighting games can really shine with the proper tweaking. I'm imagining Injustice 2 and MK 11 in this ratio now. Thanks for sharing.
Games aren't designed for ultra wide. 16:9/10 is perfect ratio. In game scaling/fov could be improved to provide the same experience if not far better.
I "downgraded" from a 4k 32 inch VA to a 144hz 1440p freesync 27" IPS with HDR.
It's not a downgrade, it's a huge upgrade.
Instead of a single ultrawide I prefer the above monitor plus a second 27" IPS.
I guess if I had the space maybe I'd do a UW plus a second smaller monitor but that just seems kind of excessive.
If 4k 144hz vrr monitors ever come down to the $300-400 price point maybe I'll upgrade.
It's not a downgrade, it's a huge upgrade.
Instead of a single ultrawide I prefer the above monitor plus a second 27" IPS.
I guess if I had the space maybe I'd do a UW plus a second smaller monitor but that just seems kind of excessive.
If 4k 144hz vrr monitors ever come down to the $300-400 price point maybe I'll upgrade.
If I was going to upgrade either aspect ratio or resolution I guess I'd go with resolution, but I think 1440P is perfectly fine for the size and distance my monitor is at combined with the performance hit that comes with rendering games in 4K. I have a 144hz display and I would not be coming close to that in most games at 4K.
Resident Evil 3 has native ultra-wide support, but requires mods for super ultra-wide support.
Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 has native ultra-wide support according to PC Gaming Wiki?
There are mods for the others.
But you can always play unsupported games at 2560x1440 rather than 3440x1440, as that's the same size as a 27" monitor.
And let's not ignore that many games don't scale their UI properly to 4K either. For those games you need the display to be at least 46" in size (96 PPI is what Windows was built for).
Even Windows has problems with 4K monitors if they are not 23″ (200% scaling) or 46″ (100% scaling).
At 27″ you need to use 175/150% scaling and 150/125% at 32″ - at least if you want things to be at roughly the intended size on the display.
Those non-integer scales (1.75×/1.50×/1.25×) mean that any application not built to support DPI scaling will be blurry on the monitor.
It's either that, or you use the display at the wrong scale and things are much larger (200%) or smaller (100%) than they should be.
I have certainly been tempted by this - though I am a bit concerned about the height on my desk now. It wouldn't be the first time I've had a display that size as a monitor, but I've picked up some neck issues in the intervening years.
The problem with that comparison is that many games don't let you adjust the 16:9 FOV enough to match a 21:9 display's FOV - particularly third-person games.
Whether ultrawide or large 16:9, the restrictions developers place on things like FOV in their games is so frustrating. Many games don't allow for the 122° horizontal (74° vertical) that I prefer on my monitor, maxing out at 110° or less.
That's a super ultra-wide display (32:9 rather than 21:9) but I'm curious as to why that is.
Personally though, I do think that 21:9 is the sweet spot for aspect ratios. It matches most films, so they fill almost the entire display, and I find that it's quite evenly matched to my vision.
- With a 16:9 display I am limited in how close I can sit comfortably by the display height. When I sit as close as I comfortably can, there's a lot of empty space on either side of my vision.
- With a 32:9 display I am limited in how close I can sit comfortably by the display width. When I sit as close as I comfortably can, there's a lot of empty space on the top and bottom of my vision and the display is perceptually smaller than 16:9.
- With 21:9 the comfortable range for how close I can sit is quite evenly-matched along both axes and it fills a good portion of my vision. It ends up the same height as 16:9 but fills out the sides.
Oh shit, someone figured out a way to get ultra-wide resolutions working in Sonic Mania? I might have to play through it again.
I wonder if anyone has figured out how to do that for Sonic CD now too (and remove the bilinear filter).
My dream display is a 58" 5160x2160 120Hz OLED TV (well technically a dream display would be 10240x4320, but I'll take 5K2K).
I wish that LG would start producing ultra-wide TVs.
This distortion is generally caused by using too-high an FOV for your current display size/viewing distance.
But a lot of that distortion is right in the corners of a 16:9 display, which you don't see on the 21:9 equivalent.
The claims for curved displays are exaggerated on both sides.
- It doesn't really do much to help against this kind of distortion.
- But it also doesn't prevent you from doing image editing or things like using Excel (I recently saw someone claim that on this site).
I have seen some people using smaller 21:9 monitors on their side for very tall vertical monitors, and I don't think you'd want to do that if it was curved. That's probably the main downside.
Can you not just create a custom resolution which is your display's width but the height matches 16:9? For example: 3000x1688 on a 3000x2000 display.
It's not what you asked, but I did find that I prefer to play some games in 16:9 or even 4:3 on my 21:9 monitor because it pushed the UI out too far toward the edges of the display.
It's generally fine for first/third-person games, but many strategy games like Civilization V have UIs which are built to appear on either side of the display, and it was too much going back-and-forth from either side of the screen. It would be a nightmare to play that in super ultra-wide.
