Time to buy a new Monitor - UHD or Ultra wide?

LeleSocho said:

UHD, ultrawide is a fad and widely unsupported

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

http://www.wsgf.org/mgl/uws

Also, there's no real reason to go 4k for gaming at its current state:

* A Nvidia Titan X or 1080 Ti won't be able to run current state of the art games maxed and at 120+ fps; with some of them can even struggle to reach 100 fps in 1440p. 4K is entirely outside of their reach (except if you want to run games with so-so graphics, which isn't bad, but why 4K then?).

* HDR support in PC gaming is weak and the results are poor. You can get better visual quality in consoles, but the best looking games in those are meant to run at 1080p x 60 fps, so again 4k has no sense.

UW is viable with current hardware and top notch games; provides more inmersion and a different gameplay experience and is wildy popular between new games released.

neon_dream said:

I use a second monitor in portrait mode for web browsing and document work. IMO, it's a very nice setup.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I do this, as well. It's certainly not perfect for everything, but I prefer it when working with documents. That said, I wish snapping in Windows was implemented better, as I think portrait mode could be superior for multi-tasking in some situations. So much stuff is designed with widescreen monitors in mind nowadays that it only makes sense to display multiple stacked apps at a time on-screen by using portrait mode on a monitor with a really high resolution.

kubev said:

I do this, as well. It's certainly not perfect for everything, but I prefer it when working with documents. That said, I wish snapping in Windows was implemented better, as I think portrait mode could be superior for multi-tasking in some situations. So much stuff is designed with widescreen monitors in mind nowadays that it only makes sense to display multiple stacked apps at a time on-screen by using portrait mode on a monitor with a really high resolution.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Hrm, stacked windows. That does sound like a good idea.

Ultrawide is so worth it, even with some games not paying nice with it

Besides the part where I have no idea if you're gonna be able to do 4k. Ultrawide is an irreversible step in usability and overall game experience. That resolution is pretty perfect too for what you can push onto a monitor. I'm never going back, personally. I don't think I've run into more than one or two incompatible games. Actually, I think it's only been Overwatch. It's like looking into a new window.

And then, it's done Marvel's for me and my workflow. Being able to run three Adobe apps at the same time is a dream. My productivity actually skyrocketed after going ultrawide.

Neither. Ultrawide is nice, but compatibility issues are not rare. Overwatch doesn't even support proper 21:9. 4K is just damned hard to push at anything over 60fps even with top tier hardware.

This is my current pick:

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32GK850G-B-gaming-monitor

$750 USD

31.5"
1440p
144 Hz
G-Sync
PVA panel

This gives you more overall screen real estate and is easier to drive. Higher framerates are more achievable, and there are no compatibility issues. Colors/contrast are also fantastic, and the usual VA panel problems are nearly non existent. Seems like a fantastic panel going by the reviews.

Buran said:

* HDR support in PC gaming is weak and the results are poor. You can get better visual quality in consoles, but the best looking games in those are meant to run at 1080p x 60 fps, so again 4k has no sense.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

How can you get better visual quality on consoles? Or are you talking about console games where the PC versions lack HDR?

Also, a 1080 ti can still do 4k 60 fps and for the games where it struggles, it's possible if you are willing to drop some settings here and there

georaldc said:

How can you get better visual quality on consoles? Or are you talking about console games where the PC versions lack HDR?

Also, a 1080 ti can still do 4k 60 fps and for the games where it struggles, it's possible if you are willing to drop some settings here and there

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If you have a 1080 Ti you can, but with say my 1070, I get much better image quality and consistent results on my PS4 Pro than I do my PC.

PC gaming lacks decent scaling options currently, which makes any non-integer based scaling look rather poor. So my only option on my 1080p monitor is to run at either 1080p or 4K. The former suffers from poor IQ in many titles without decent temporal anti-aliasing, and the latter does not perform nearly well enough. It would be really nice to have the option to run at 1440p or 1800p checkerboard with good temporal AA and a decent scaling method.

That being said PC is still my first choice since 30fps is painful to play when you're used to 90-144 fps.

Philips Momentum 436M6VBPAB is currently at the top of my hit list, but ill probably wait for a sale.

4k, best HDR implementation in a monitor yet, 1000 nits of brightness, local dimming, 4000:1 contrast ratio (even higher according to reviews), best response times of any MVA panel on the market, super low input latency etc etc. $999.

At 43" its pretty big, but eliminates the need for windows scaling and all the real estate is great for productivity.

Here is a pretty in depth review

Edit: also not sure why you would want an IPS panel unless you are serious into photo editing. The black levels and contrast are pretty poor. MVA seems like the way to go imo.

I'd much rather have 1440p and 144 Hz than 4k.

UHD has much more universal support than Ultra-Wide.

Akronis said:

I'll have to keep that one in mind for a potential next purchase. Not looking forward to the hit to framerates going to 1440p though :(

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Don't you have like a 1080Ti though

hdr>uhd>ultrawide

if you cant maintain groot framerates

gsync/freesync>hdr>uhd>ultrawide

galv said:

Don't you have like a 1080Ti though

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yea but I much prefer keeping framerates above 90 at all times, especially for first person shooters. If I moved to 21:9 or 1440p proper, I might consider SLI.

Main question you have to ask yourself is how much you like to play older games. I had an ultra wide for a couple of years, it quickly became a secondary for me, I just play too many older titles that aren't supported.

However, if you're only interested in bleeding edge latest releases, you should be fine. It's actually pretty damn cool when you the software supports it.

It is not a fad. It should be the future.

Sean Noonan said:

Main question you have to ask yourself is how much you like to play older games. I had an ultra wide for a couple of years, it quickly became a secondary for me, I just play too many older titles that aren't supported.

However, if you're only interested in bleeding edge latest releases, you should be fine. It's actually pretty damn cool when you the software supports it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The main question is if black bars on the sides bother you or not. Just because a game doesnt support 21:9, doesn't mean that it's unplayable on a ultra wide screen.

I'd rather have black bars now and then, than never being able to play games in 21:9.

andymoogle said:

The main question is if black bars on the sides bother you or not. Just because a game doesnt support 21:9, doesn't mean that it's unplayable on a ultra wide screen.

I'd rather have black bars now and then, than never being able to play games in 21:9.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If you have a big enough 4k screen, you could also play in 3440x1440 with black bars at the top and bottom (or do it without scaling for a sharper picture). It's how I currently play in 21:9 when I want to, but it adminittedly can be a pain managing custom 21:9 resolutions and HDR/proper color format, if you have an HDR monitor

I'm seeing all these responses against ultrawide, yet it seems that people forget that you can still game 2560x1440p / 16:9. You can also just change the ratio on the monitor. On a UW with GSync and overclocked at 120Ghz, I can't go back. Sure when UW is supported it's nice but there are workarounds.

Just wanted to point that out.

andymoogle said:

The main question is if black bars on the sides bother you or not. Just because a game doesnt support 21:9, doesn't mean that it's unplayable on a ultra wide screen.

I'd rather have black bars now and then, than never being able to play games in 21:9.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Whats so special about 21:9?

I mean if you just bought a larger 4k 16:9 it should have roughly the same width and pixel density as a 1440p 21:9 but you would get extra screen at the top and bottom. Or is there something im not considering? I have never really understood the benefit of buying a ultra widescreen monitor vs just buying a bigger 16:9 monitor.

With ultrawide you can watch porn and hentai manga at the same time. AT THE SAME TIME.

Nerd Strangler said:

Whats so special about 21:9?

I mean if you just bought a larger 4k 16:9 it should have roughly the same width and pixel density as a 1440p 21:9 but you would get extra screen at the top and bottom. Or is there something im not considering? I have never really understood the benefit of buying a ultra widescreen monitor vs just buying a bigger 16:9 monitor.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

A wider field of view, for the games that support it. In Counter-Strike, for example, you see more on the sides of the image with a 21:9 monitor. Going to a 16:9 monitor gives you a smaller field of view.

Ultrawides are also fantastic for multitasking since left/right window snapping gives you a ton of horizontal screen real estate compared to 16:9.

shadowhaxor said:

I'm seeing all these responses against ultrawide, yet it seems that people forget that you can still game 2560x1440p / 16:9. You can also just change the ratio on the monitor. On a UW with GSync and overclocked at 120Ghz, I can't go back. Sure when UW is supported it's nice but there are workarounds.

Just wanted to point that out.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm still going back and forth. I want an ultrawide, but also never want to have to deal with pillarboxing, especially with an IPS screen since the backlight bleed is going to be really obvious. Leaning towards 1440p 16:9 since there are really nice PVA panels out there, along with 144Hz support.

I'm hoping we see some better ultrawides come out soon. The Acer X35 and Asus ROG are still not perfect implementations.

For work I have the choice between Ultrawide and 4K, and I'm definitely going ultrawide. Way better for work. 4K is just a hassle...I really don't want to deal with PC's poor support for retina displays.

I had to make this choice a few months ago and went Ultrawide and don't regret it at all. Only had one issue with game support and it was an indie sidescroller, and it wasn't even a big deal to play in 16:9 because the screen is so big that 16:9 on it is still quite large.

UW1440p is way easier to drive than 4k and looks amazing. Games like The Witcher 3 are like a whole new level of immersion. I really think 4K for desktop PCs is never going to take off because of the fact that it's really hard to drive plus all the scalability problems in windows. It's just not worth it unless you are doing graphics work that requires it. For gaming 21:9 is the way to go.

Another vote for ultrawide, love my ultrawide monitor. It's amazing for gaming, but I love it for multitasking as well, it saves so much more room compared to a dual monitor setup.

For the games that don't support it, I don't even notice the black bars on the side.

georaldc said:

I'm currently moving from a 4k HDR TV to a 3440x1440 gsync monitor (keeping the TV for consoles + media consumption). 4k and HDR is nice but my 1080 ti can struggle here and there with the resolution. I noticed that the GPU works well with 3440x1440 whenever I did custom resolutions on my TV

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Same. Had 27" 560x1440 60hz IPS, moved to a Freesync model with a Vega64, was super underwhelming, so I went to 4k, which felt worse by a lot, then went 1080ti Strix with 34" 3440x1440@100 Gsync. It is ridiculously superior to any 60hz display in feel and smoothness.

You guys are convincing me to go with an ultrawide monitor for my next setup!

exodus said:

Neither. Ultrawide is nice, but compatibility issues are not rare. Overwatch doesn't even support proper 21:9. 4K is just damned hard to push at anything over 60fps even with top tier hardware.

This is my current pick:

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-32GK850G-B-gaming-monitor

$750 USD

31.5"
1440p
144 Hz
G-Sync
PVA panel

This gives you more overall screen real estate and is easier to drive. Higher framerates are more achievable, and there are no compatibility issues. Colors/contrast are also fantastic, and the usual VA panel problems are nearly non existent. Seems like a fantastic panel going by the reviews.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Last VA panel I had had awful ghosting or awful overdrive artifacts. Any mention of those in the reviews or can the overdrive be more finely tuned?

Ultrawide, no contest.

People talk about lack of support, which is overblown btw, but what about all the games you'll have to drop settings or resolution in UHD? There's a reason that most people who have used both go from UHD to Ultrawide and not the other way around. UHD is too hard to push with little benefit, while Ultrawide has most of the fidelity, much better performance and fills your entire fov.

I prefer the typical 16:9 setup and I have a 1080ti so there's no issue with performance in games.

I think it really depends on preference. I have not really been interested in the Gsync or greater than 60 fps modes just yet. I play a lot of modern, older, and classic games so 60 fps limit is fine for me.

It's really a strong preference decision. I think if you play mostly modern games on a mid-range system and typically games that can benefit from widescreen like FPS games or adventure games that are 3d of course, I can definitely see the benefit of ultrawide. I'm personally just not a fan of it though.

If anything I would continue with 16:9 and just opt for high refresh rates when gpus catch up to achieve it easily at 4k.

1080/1440p @144Hz

I don't think UW works very well in some genres.

neon_dream said:

Everything works on a 16:9 monitor. That is the universal aspect ratio for games, applications, movies now and for years to come. Ultrawide is a neat format but I don't think it's ever going to be the major aspect ratio any time soon, if ever.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Not really . Most of the movies this decade are somewhat in ultrawide AKA cinematic format .

Escaflow said:

Not really . Most of the movies this decade are somewhat in ultrawide AKA cinematic format .

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

True, you have that right.

Escaflow said:

Not really . Most of the movies this decade are somewhat in ultrawide AKA cinematic format .

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I love when the wide movie aspect ratio fits perfectly on my brothers monitor.

For gamming i'd go 1440p 144hz Gsync.

I had a 27-inch 4K and ended up selling it for a 32-inch ultrawide. 4K native is too small pixel density to be workable (for me) and I found most games were struggling to pump out all those pixels beyond 50-60 fps with an overclocked 1080. Ultrawide is just unreal when it comes to immersion - I've only stumbled across two games that didn't support it out of the box (BattleTech and Sword Coast Legends). I play mostly RPG's (Beamdog classics) and simulation games (Civ VI, Frostpunk) and MMO's give you a lot of decent real estate to really take it all in (World of Warcraft and Elder Scrolls Online). The real estate on these ultrawide just pushes immersion far beyond anything with greater pixel density can. It's impressive stuff.

Ultra wide at a size higher than 32 inches is the way to go.

I have both. UW X34 and some AOC 32inch 4K. The UW 100hz is far more immersive for games than 4K. The vast majority of modern games support UW resolutions.

I'm never going back from ultrawide. The end game is 21:9 4k, but until that exists at a reasonable price, the wider aspect ratio is a bigger gamechanger.

exodus said:

A wider field of view, for the games that support it. In Counter-Strike, for example, you see more on the sides of the image with a 21:9 monitor. Going to a 16:9 monitor gives you a smaller field of view.

Ultrawides are also fantastic for multitasking since left/right window snapping gives you a ton of horizontal screen real estate compared to 16:9.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But the thing is if you bought a 35 inch 3440x1440 ultrawide vs a 43 inch 3840 x 2160 16:9 monitor. You get roughly the same horizontal field of view, actually slightly less on the ultrawide, but you get way less vertical field of view. Theoretically you could just run a 3440x1440 letterbox inside the 43" 4k monitor. So as far as I can tell you aren't really gaining any real estate or field of view over 4k 16:9 display, you are just losing it.

Nerd Strangler said:

But the thing is if you bought a 35 inch 3440x1440 ultrawide vs a 43 inch 3840 x 2160 16:9 monitor. You get roughly the same horizontal field of view, actually slightly less on the ultrawide, but you get way less vertical field of view. Theoretically you could just run a 3440x1440 letterbox inside the 43" 4k monitor. So as far as I can tell you aren't really gaining any real estate or field of view over 4k 16:9 display, you are just losing it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm talking about virtual field of view, which is dictated by the game and not the physical size of your display.

Uhd. You dont need ultra wide, your eyes's vision field is limited unless you are a cheetah

Ultrawide is awesome in games that support it, but if you ever do any kind in-home streaming, it always seems to have issues with the 21:9 resolution, and if you plan on hooking up a console to it ever, you might as well go with a nice 4K monitor.

1440p 144hz.

I prefer HDR + Local Dimming or OLED blacks > Ultrawide > 4k

4k is nice when you can handle it since aliasing is much better at that resolution but I always felt 16:9 was a waste compared to similar size 4:3 and 5:4 displays; at least Ultrawide offers something unique It's always surprising playing older games and seeing all the dark areas and bright lights when you're used to playing on TN or IPS panels for so long. MicroLED or MiniLED panels are going to be great on Ultrawides if OLED panels aren't out by then.

exodus said:

I'm talking about virtual field of view, which is dictated by the game and not the physical size of your display.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

So cant you just increase the field of view in game?

If not a 1440p monitor, go with the 4K because you can still make yourself a custom resolution, and still get the ultrawide experience. You'd be losing out on pixels by getting an ultrawide.

Once you go ultrawide, you won't be able to go back to 16:9.

Even as impressive as 4K can be, there is something magical about that 21:9 ratio that feels so good and natural.

With that said, you will undoubtedly run into compatibility issues down the line. It is inevitable. And you will get mad when the latest games don't natively support it. Whether in actual gameplay or with cutscenes that breaks immersion (But that's probably a more me thing than anything else).

However, I personally was able to deal with all the 21:9 issues a lot better than the garbage scaling issues that Windows plays around with when it comes to doing anything non-gaming.

I wish they would make 36 in 4K GSYNC 144hz monitor. But if I had to choose today, with that budget, the best ultrawides will be revelatory!

I would go ultrawide, I prefer 16:9 form factor for TV's.

Nerd Strangler said:

But the thing is if you bought a 35 inch 3440x1440 ultrawide vs a 43 inch 3840 x 2160 16:9 monitor. You get roughly the same horizontal field of view, actually slightly less on the ultrawide, but you get way less vertical field of view. Theoretically you could just run a 3440x1440 letterbox inside the 43" 4k monitor. So as far as I can tell you aren't really gaining any real estate or field of view over 4k 16:9 display, you are just losing it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Games don't chop off the top and bottom of picture to get a 21x9 image they add to it on the left and right. Your 21x9 image on an ultrawide is not the same as a 21x9 slice of an image on a 4k 16x9 screen.

Assume the top is a 4K image

This is what happens with the same image on a 3440x1440


This is not what happens

Another comparison

This is the same regardless of if you are comparing a 100" 4k screen to a 21" ultrawide or 2 of the same size. Resolution and screen size are irrelevant only the aspect ratio matters. You could theoretically letterbox a 3440x1440 image on a 4K screen but that's just nasty and then you run into a host of potential display scaling issues.

Nerd Strangler said:

But the thing is if you bought a 35 inch 3440x1440 ultrawide vs a 43 inch 3840 x 2160 16:9 monitor. You get roughly the same horizontal field of view, actually slightly less on the ultrawide, but you get way less vertical field of view. Theoretically you could just run a 3440x1440 letterbox inside the 43" 4k monitor. So as far as I can tell you aren't really gaining any real estate or field of view over 4k 16:9 display, you are just losing it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Vertical FOV should be the same between 21:9 and 16:9, but you gain a significantly wider FOV obviously when a game supports 21:9. I do get your point about using 3440x1440 on a 4k display and that does work great but dealing with custom resolutions can be a pain especially when you have an HDR set and you want things to just "work" when switching between SDR, HDR and ultrawide. In my experience, while 3440x1440 looks awesome on my TV, it also isn't as immersive because I sit a few feet away so I end up looking at a smaller screen, if that makes sense.