Check out new LG 34". Checks all these marks, but it is around $900-1000.
-
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.
Are Ultra-wide monitors worth it for PC gaming?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
Had my x34 for a couple of years ago and I still love it. Sucks that some games dont support it natively but there are usual fixes available online.
Been playing some rdr2 again the last week and it's breathtaking. The only thing is you need an external fix for having cinematics in ultrawide too, but it works flawlessly.
Been playing some rdr2 again the last week and it's breathtaking. The only thing is you need an external fix for having cinematics in ultrawide too, but it works flawlessly.
They are 10yr old Dell 1200x1920 monitors. I used to have a 3x24" setup prior to the ultrawide which I had for over a decade. The current setup is a big step up in terms of usability, function, and user satisfaction. I'm sure you could get the equivalent of those monitors for pennies on the dollar now a days that are better and have thinner bezels. Portrait mode was a game changer for me. Web surfing, comic reading, and music/media consumption just works great on the sides while I do other things on my ultrawide (usually video games).
I love my ultrawide, and I'm planning on upgrading to 3440x1440 in a year or so. In my experience ultrawide support is somewhat genre dependent. Most shooters or third person games will support it for example or just require a small hex edit, where as fighters and platformers generally don't for gameplay reasons.
I once bought and subsequently returned an ultra-wide monitor.
Black bars on the side for a lot of games that I played, plus difficulty finding neat wallpapers. That was like 4-5 years ago, so things have improved a lot.
Nowadays they are sleek as hell though, and I'd love to try a high resolution curved ultra-wide.
Black bars on the side for a lot of games that I played, plus difficulty finding neat wallpapers. That was like 4-5 years ago, so things have improved a lot.
Nowadays they are sleek as hell though, and I'd love to try a high resolution curved ultra-wide.
It's absolutely worth it, but is not without issues.
If you are not prepared to mod games - or you use services like Game Pass where they cannot always be modded - you may be stuck with a 16:9 image in many of them.
But if you're prepared to check PC Gaming Wiki for a fix, and maybe not expect support on launch day, the majority of games can be played in ultra-wide now.
I do recommend 21:9 ultra-wide monitors rather than 32:9 super ultra-wide for gaming though. 32:9 feels better suited to replacing a dual-monitor setup for productivity.
I find the 21:9 aspect ratio to be close to ideal for maximizing image size.
Those 49" super ultra-wides also take up a lot of desk space - which may be an issue with a typical desk that is either 120cm (47") or 160cm (63").
With a typical Ikea 160cm (63") desk I was only just able to fit 5" studio monitor speakers (JBL 305p Mk.II) comfortably on either side of a 34" ultra-wide - and I've since switched those to smaller 3" speakers to free up more space (the JBLs were very imposing - even in white).
Of course taking up most/all of the width of a desk may not be a concern, as many people don't seem to mind either not having a good speaker setup at their computer, or are not concerned about proper placement - I've seen quite a few setups with the CRG9 that has small speakers placed behind the monitor.
The footprint for their monitor stands is pretty big too.
I highly recommend a monitor arm if you have a solid wood desk (a hollow Ikea desk will not take the weight).
But it's the most immersive gaming experience I've found, outside of VR. I don't have any regrets about switching from 16:9 to 21:9.
I find third-person games in particular to feel very claustrophobic when played in 16:9 now.
Since the image height remains the same, it doesn't make the image feel "small" the way that letterboxing does on a regular 16:9 display.
This is why I wish televisions would move to 21:9. I hate that every time I watch a movie I have to either move closer, or deal with a smaller image.
If you are not prepared to mod games - or you use services like Game Pass where they cannot always be modded - you may be stuck with a 16:9 image in many of them.
But if you're prepared to check PC Gaming Wiki for a fix, and maybe not expect support on launch day, the majority of games can be played in ultra-wide now.
I do recommend 21:9 ultra-wide monitors rather than 32:9 super ultra-wide for gaming though. 32:9 feels better suited to replacing a dual-monitor setup for productivity.
I find the 21:9 aspect ratio to be close to ideal for maximizing image size.
- With a 16:9 monitor, its height is the limiting factor for how close I can comfortably sit. This results in a 45° horizontal viewing angle and a 25° vertical angle.
- Upgrading to (curved) 21:9 did not affect display comfort for me - so I can sit just as close. This results in a 60° horizontal angle and a 25° vertical angle.
- 32:9 super ultra-wides force me to sit further back because I find they are too wide for comfort. This keeps that same 60° horizontal angle but drops vertical to only 17°. I see more in the game, but find it less immersive.
Those 49" super ultra-wides also take up a lot of desk space - which may be an issue with a typical desk that is either 120cm (47") or 160cm (63").
With a typical Ikea 160cm (63") desk I was only just able to fit 5" studio monitor speakers (JBL 305p Mk.II) comfortably on either side of a 34" ultra-wide - and I've since switched those to smaller 3" speakers to free up more space (the JBLs were very imposing - even in white).
Of course taking up most/all of the width of a desk may not be a concern, as many people don't seem to mind either not having a good speaker setup at their computer, or are not concerned about proper placement - I've seen quite a few setups with the CRG9 that has small speakers placed behind the monitor.
The footprint for their monitor stands is pretty big too.
I highly recommend a monitor arm if you have a solid wood desk (a hollow Ikea desk will not take the weight).
But it's the most immersive gaming experience I've found, outside of VR. I don't have any regrets about switching from 16:9 to 21:9.
I find third-person games in particular to feel very claustrophobic when played in 16:9 now.
Not at all. You get pillarboxing on the sides of the image rather than letterboxing at the top and bottom.
Since the image height remains the same, it doesn't make the image feel "small" the way that letterboxing does on a regular 16:9 display.
This is why I wish televisions would move to 21:9. I hate that every time I watch a movie I have to either move closer, or deal with a smaller image.
I'm convinced that Ultrawide (21:9 / 1440p / 144hz+) should be something that everyone considers. I've been using a 32:9 for the last month, and I'm not sure I can go back to normal. I get that it might be a little too much for most, but 21:9 seems like the sweet spot. Extra room for productivity, and games look really nice with the extra space.
Support is still lacking, but yes. It's hard to go back once you're used to 21:9.
It's wonderful for movies too.
It's wonderful for movies too.
It is absolutely worth it and a real game changer. Witcher 3 in ultrawide is glorious. It feels like you aren't boxed in anymore.
A lot of games do not support it, but it's getting better. Many developers don't understand the power of ultrawide and they choose not to officially support it in their games. It's very frustrating.
Ultrawide monitors are the future, whether people like it or not. It's not a gimmick. It's the way it was intended to be. Also, the black bars in games that don't support it don't bother me. I don't like it, that's for sure, but your brain tunes it out like it does watching a 4:3 show on a 16:9 tv.
it'd be nice if every game supported it.
16:9 ain't going anywhere so any ultrawide resolutions are not gonna be standard so you better hope that games you wanna play support it. only way i'd buy an ultra wide monitor is if i wasn't playing games on my PC. black bars (at the sides) or mods for me is completely unacceptable. i'd rather play with black bars top/bottom on a 16:9 monitor than play a 16:9 game on an ultrawide with black bars at the sides.
16:9 ain't going anywhere so any ultrawide resolutions are not gonna be standard so you better hope that games you wanna play support it. only way i'd buy an ultra wide monitor is if i wasn't playing games on my PC. black bars (at the sides) or mods for me is completely unacceptable. i'd rather play with black bars top/bottom on a 16:9 monitor than play a 16:9 game on an ultrawide with black bars at the sides.
Getting the Alienware AW3420DW is such a gamechanger for me that I would almost call it necessary, for both work productivity and gaming. Though that's probably due to more than just the resolution, like G-Sync.
Name a game. 90% chance it supports ultra-wide, fam.
The only games I've seen in the last 4 years that legitimately do not support UW are fighting games that have to have invisible walls on the sides. And even some of those have adapted by still having the invisible walls present, but filling the rest of the screen with the stage.
And older games can almost always be made to support it though fixes.
Review here for older games:
WSGF | "Wider is Better"
At the time I was looking, Overwatch was outspoken about not supporting it for competitive reasons. Not sure if that's still the case though.
Name a game. 90% chance it supports ultra-wide, fam.
The only games I've seen in the last 4 years that legitimately do not support UW are fighting games that have to have invisible walls on the sides. And even some of those have adapted by still having the invisible walls present, but filling the rest of the screen with the stage.
And older games can almost always be made to support it though fixes.
Review here for older games:
WSGF | "Wider is Better"
www.wsgf.org
Hades doesn't. Fall Guys didn't start after the newest update after I applied the Hexedit.
Still, my ultrawide is one of the best purchases of the last few years. Especially for racing games.
No for me, I prefer higher FPS and refresh rate. I noticed in most games the extra peripheral viewing really doesn't make a huge difference and I quickly forget it's there. It's not worth the performance hit either and I prefer having a higher FPS since that impacts the part of the screen I am focused on.
I also don't really like the Ultra wide in general. If I had to choose between two monitors vs 1 ultra wide it would be two monitors. I like the easy compartimzation of multiple monitors. Both Mac and Windows have tools to help do that on ultra wides but it's not the same. I currently am using a Dell U3415W and a 27in Viewsonic VX2578
I do tend to play something like the Witcher 3 on the Dell monitor where Ic are less about a frame rate of more than 60fps. First person shooters and most other games are all on my Viewsonic.
I also don't really like the Ultra wide in general. If I had to choose between two monitors vs 1 ultra wide it would be two monitors. I like the easy compartimzation of multiple monitors. Both Mac and Windows have tools to help do that on ultra wides but it's not the same. I currently am using a Dell U3415W and a 27in Viewsonic VX2578
I do tend to play something like the Witcher 3 on the Dell monitor where Ic are less about a frame rate of more than 60fps. First person shooters and most other games are all on my Viewsonic.
Get a high resolution 16:9 monitor if its for gaming.
Gsync, 144hz, IPS.
I also think ultrawide is like watching a movie in the wrong format. It's not how the artists envision you playing the game and nothing will ever be designed with ultrawide front and centre in mind.
Gsync, 144hz, IPS.
I also think ultrawide is like watching a movie in the wrong format. It's not how the artists envision you playing the game and nothing will ever be designed with ultrawide front and centre in mind.
ah yes, I remember those times.
grabbed that for you just now. Times change. They quickly reversed that position.
90% leaves room for 10% that doesn't. 😛
Hades doesn't by nature of its design. And Fall Guys is working for you, correct? So it counts. lol. If you're still having trouble, this seems to be the solution:
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
Because it's not common to own a monitor that supports 21:9, and make additional tweaks to support this resolution/aspect ratio for a minority of their intended audiences.
Huh....? If it's a 3d game it just works. Witcher 3, any FPS game, any 3d action game. The only thing that has to be "designed" for ultrawide is the hud and that's not even necessarily true. A centered hud is fine but sometimes developers allow you to push the hud to the outside of the screen which is a nice option.
Put your fingers together and put your hands on the outside of your eyes so your pinky's are facing forward. Now take them off. Do you like seeing more or less? This is ultrawide. You simply see more of the game. Visually, there are zero downsides for ultrawide if the game supports it. It will always be better to see more.
You don't need a hexedit for fall guys. Just put it in windowed mode and use borderless gaming (or a similar prog).
ah yes, I remember those times.
grabbed that for you just now. Times change. They quickly reversed that position.
90% leaves room for 10% that doesn't. 😛
Hades doesn't by nature of its design. And Fall Guys is working for you, correct? So it counts. lol. If you're still having trouble, this seems to be the solution:
Reddit - Dive into anything
Nice!! Yeah Overwatch not supporting it was a huge factor for me since I knew I'd be playing a ton on PC.
Ya I've been playing it in ultrawide for...at least a couple of years now, I believe? I don't remember when exactly they updated the game to support UW but I want to say '18 or so. It's not perfect; it's a little more zoomed in to compensate for the extra width, but it works just fine.
It completely changes the framing of the image and what you see...It's not zero downsides and it's definitely not always better to see more lol. It can literally change how you experience engagements and the atmosphere of an environment. Tight frantic moments will feel less frantic etc.
More is not always better. And no this is not the same as someone arguing 30fps is more cinematic.
I think it's very reasonable to want to enjoy the game how the creators designed it in mind.
It's just zoomed in and stretched 16:9, that is super poor mans UW "support".
It supported it properly for little while and Blizzard ruined it "to remove unfair competitive advantage".
imo OW looks awful when played in its "native" UW support, it gets so stretched.
This is a stupid excuse and I'm not playing for money here, who cares. I stopped playing Overwatch because of this. Are they going to ban 4k monitors because the additional detail gives an unfair advantage? It's a joke.
I see no point customized uhd is always superior when allowed. its always been a compromise and it eats more frames.
thats not how it works for some online shooters. Some have fov and aspect ratio caps to keep it fair.
4k benefit is lost by the amount of fps you stand to lose which is way more of an advantage shooter than details. Most players like the fidlelity they are at.
Last edited:
I've been on UW for years. It's almost as big a leap as going from 4:3 to 16:9.
Can't go back to 16:9 displays.
Amazing for gaming. Even better for productivity.
Can't go back to 16:9 displays.
Amazing for gaming. Even better for productivity.
No problems with it here. You get used to it and I'd generally rather have my screen filled. I agree it is a weak excuse.
If game natively supports e.g. 3440 x 1440 properly then creators of the game clearly have thought about how such aspect ratio affects experience throughout their game.
Which aspect ratio you prefer (16:9 or 21:9) is subjective and having a choice is only good, but I don't think we should assume that native 21:9 support is somehow ruining intended design and devs didn't consider those things.
It may be less common these days, but for a long time a LOT of games were "Vert-" (minus), meaning that the FOV was fixed on the horizontal axis. It was (maybe still is) the default in Unreal Engine. If you used a wider aspect ratio your horizontal FOV would remain the same, but you would lose vertical axis FOV. The game would still fill the whole screen, but it would be zoomed in instead of actually showing you more. To see more you would actually have to use a NARROWER aspect ratio like 4:3.
Hor+ is the opposite, where FOV is defined on the vertical axis, and going to a wider aspect ratio actually widens your view.
Many games will "support" any arbitrary resolution and aspect ratio you give to them. It's not uncommon for the list of resolutions in a game to be populated automatically from your list of Windows desktop resolutions. You could define some silly custom desktop resolution like 3000x150 and it would show up in the video options for many games.
I slightly prefer 2+ monitors for productivity, but only just barely.
For gaming UW is transformational. Agreed, can't go back.
Yes - FOV change is fine within reason but it can also be ridiculous sometimes imo.
Sorry I'm not saying that it shouldn't be supported or that other people can't prefer it. I'm just listing one reason why I personally prefer to stick to 16:9. It's not the only reason.
I just find it quite crass. It's the classic gamer mentality of "more must be better". Like thinking VR will make everything better or 3d gaming when that was a thing. I don't mind people enjoying it - I'm just saying I've tried it and I don't think it's an essential upgrade or a step up. I think it's a different experience that not everyone would prefer.
God I want a G9.
How is it for media viewing though, Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, etc? What happens when you go fullscreen in a browser window?
I have played a ton of games ultrawide on my C9 OLED, just sit close to that bad boy, it's perfect with the perfect black borders.
Should be fine, I use custom ultrawide resolutions on most games.
Should be fine, I use custom ultrawide resolutions on most games.
People are making a way bigger deal out of game support than it really is. The only recent game I can think of that didn't have native support is Mortal Shell (which supports UW just in -vert mode). Even Hades was cited here which is a 2d game drawn for a 16:9 aspect ratio and still puts cool art on the sides for 21:9 mode.
The only other game I can think of in the past couple years to not have any UW support was DMC5, which was a quick fix from pc gaming wiki. Literally every other game I've played has supported it.
The only other game I can think of in the past couple years to not have any UW support was DMC5, which was a quick fix from pc gaming wiki. Literally every other game I've played has supported it.
Could you give me the exact model name for this monitor? I've been searching but there are so many models and stuff, it's rather confusing.
To each his own but for me this "framing" argument goes in the same pile as "30 FPS is more cinematic". Whatever truth there is to it, there isnt a single game I'd rather play @30fps and, likewise, there isn't one I'd rather play at 16:9.
Yeah, been eyeing it myself but kind of want to have HDMI 2.1 in case i want to hook up my PS5 to the monitor vs TV... which is also extremely unlikely :P.
I started playing Monster Hunter World in 21:9 on my Samsung 49" KS8000...black bars on top and bottom but MAN does it feel better. Since the game doesn't have a FOV slider it really lets the scene breathe and doesn't feel so cramped. Now I've gone down this rabbit hole of "what monitor do I want" and eyeballing the ROG Swift PG35VQ.
HDR 1000
1800R Curve
GSync
90% DCI-P3
120% sRGB
200hz.
I mean damn. Talk about checking ALL the boxes. But also...
$2,300 at MicroCenter. $3k on Amazon 😭😭😭 I know I want high-refresh preferably 144hz, full GSync and not GSync Compatible, HDR would be nice, but none of that 400 bullshit where everything is dim. I'd stick with SDR instead. Wouldn't be just for gaming either, thought about dual monitors but MHW might just have converted me even if it is faked right now.
HDR 1000
1800R Curve
GSync
90% DCI-P3
120% sRGB
200hz.
I mean damn. Talk about checking ALL the boxes. But also...
$2,300 at MicroCenter. $3k on Amazon 😭😭😭 I know I want high-refresh preferably 144hz, full GSync and not GSync Compatible, HDR would be nice, but none of that 400 bullshit where everything is dim. I'd stick with SDR instead. Wouldn't be just for gaming either, thought about dual monitors but MHW might just have converted me even if it is faked right now.
I wish that LG would produce 21:9 OLED monitors, as that would be the ideal for me. Well, until OLED is replaced with µLED or better.
The thing with the PG35VQ is that it absolutely destroys the image quality of SDR ultra-wides - like the Acer X34, or the PG348Q I have (same panel).
SDR vs SDR (though RE2 has an elevated black level so it's not the best comparison):
And even more notably, SDR vs HDR:
But OLED does the same thing to it, as soon as you're displaying anything less than a very bright image.
PG35VQ vs 48CX OLED:
And the OLED costs less.
It's just not ideal for use as a monitor, and not in the aspect ratio or size I prefer. But I don't think I could consider the PG35VQ after seeing the two, unless the cost was not a factor at all (it definitely is for me).
I find third-person games especially difficult to go back to in 16:9 as well. It's so claustrophobic in comparison.
I really want to go ultra wide, right now I use 2 27" 4k screens, and I think an ultrawide would be wonderful... but damn I'm giving up a ton of resultion with the current available screens. Going from 2 4k screens to basically 1 less than 4k, but super wide screen... not such a good trade :(