• Light/Dark

PS5/XSX 21:9 UltraWide Support Confirmed? Phillips 34” UltraWide Momentum Teases

Starviper

Starviper

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,431
Minneapolis
I'm not entirely sure how this is marketed towards non-PC gamers with it being 34"... If they want to capture the console audience we're gonna need larger ultrawides than that.

PS. I absolutely LOVE my ultrawide and wish more games supported it fully. I understand restricting the view for some competitive games but maaan it does bum me out having black bars on my screen sides playing Valorant.
 
caff!!!

caff!!!

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,069
I'm thinking it's wishful thinking for ultrawide support on consoles, or like the new Xbox has a few first party games support it while nobody else bothers
 
EvilBoris

EvilBoris

Prophet of Truth - HDTVtest
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
17,123
Irrotational said:
Sorry i'm probably being pedantic but isn't that only true if you assume the pixel height of both screens is the same?

If you assume the number of pixels wide is the same then the 21:9 has less height and less pixels in total than the 16:9 version?

I haven't looked at the monitors so maybe they're all marketed/sold as the same number of pixels high but "extra" pixels wide?...which is a good marketing tactic I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The other part of it is that a wider field of view places more objects and geometry on screen.

If you ran in 16:9 with an equivalent Horizontal field of view, then that would actually be more taxing as you'd have more vertical information within the viewport.
 
Irrotational

Irrotational

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,758
EvilBoris said:
The other part of it is that a wider field of view places more objects and geometry on screen.

If you ran in 16:9 with an equivalent Horizontal field of view, then that would actually be more taxing as you'd have more vertical information within the viewport.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
OK cool thanks, someone else mentioned the dmhorizontak detail versus vertical detail too, which was interesting to know!
 

Deleted member 18521

Oct 27, 2017
9,579
EvilBoris said:
The other part of it is that a wider field of view places more objects and geometry on screen.

If you ran in 16:9 with an equivalent Horizontal field of view, then that would actually be more taxing as you'd have more vertical information within the viewport.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I kind of find 3440*1440p is going to be the sweet spot for these I'm monitors for a good while. That's 60% of the pixel count of 4k.

People think of this as an additional items added. You could think of it as top and bottom lopped off. Your eyes are offset to left and right so a wider fov makes sense compared to top bottom.
 
EvilBoris

EvilBoris

Prophet of Truth - HDTVtest
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
17,123
Powerofthecloud said:
I kind of find 3440*1440p is going to be the sweet spot for these I'm monitors for a good while. That's 60% of the pixel count of 4k.

People think of this as an additional items added. You could think of it as top and bottom lopped off. Your eyes are offset to left and right so a wider fov makes sense compared to top bottom.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I guess the usage case is that you probably don't want that much vertical FOV when sitting so close.
 
KrAzEd

KrAzEd

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,018
Brooklyn, NY
PS9 said:
72071_02_philips-teases-new-ultrawide-monitors-ready-for-next-gen-consoles.jpg


The Phillips Momentum is not positioned towards PC gamers, instead it is targeting console gamers. Specs are 3440x1440 at 140hz 4ms response.

The juicy part from Phillips:



The monitor currently has no release date. With no consoles on the market currently supporting UltraWide or 144hz, this could be our first confirmation of next gen consoles supporting UltraWide.

I was already planning on picking up a Samsung G9 for PC gaming but this sweetens things up even more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I was looking at those new Samsung gaming monitors. They look incredible but I'm holding off to see if consoles will support all the features. I'm wondering when we will get that info as I would love to buy a monitor this summer so I'm not shelling out 1k all at once for a new console/monitor.
 

Zeenbor

Developer at Run Games
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
74
I would love to see 21:9 or 32:9 support for consoles but I don't see it happening. Too expensive to render all of those extra pixels unless you have a super minimalist game.
 

Gitaroo

Member
Nov 3, 2017
8,629
I wish there are ultra wide Mon with full 2160p vertical res. So like 5040x2160, that way I can use it for next gen consoles and won't compromise 4k resolution.
 
Fawz

Fawz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,783
Montreal
I don't think the new consoles will support Ultra Wide at launch from a System OS perspective, the monitors will likely still work but either stretch or crop, but I could see it down the line especially on Xbox. As for games offering the support I'm even more skeptical, but some of them have that featureset on their PC ports already so it could be possible. The Ultra Wide market is pretty small on PC, but I'd imagine that even with proper support it would be microscopic on Consoles for the first couple of years.
 
Dynamic3

Dynamic3

Member
Oct 31, 2017
559
Pargon said:
It places a lot more work on the CPU. The question is really whether you have enough spare, or the engine can spread that workload across more cores.
I did some testing with Crysis a while back, since it still hits the CPU hard. Custom resolutions were used to keep the pixel count equivalent to 1024×768 in all aspect ratios.
It went from the 0.1% frame rate being 53 FPS over a 60 second test in 4:3, to only 37 FPS in 21:9.

cry-43-yyk57.png
cry-169-lgkvr.png

cry-4318-ojkzy.png


Super ultra-wide (32:9) would be even worse.
I think it's been the cause of a lot of my complaints about performance in games with a Ryzen 1700X.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Perhaps Crysis is an anomaly, but conventional wisdom would point to increased GPU stress when moving to 21:9 with like for like height. You're rendering substantially more pixels, at an inherently lower FPS target.

Take a look at recent benchmarks of the 3300X - you see dramatic differences in FPS vs say the 9900K at 1080p, but when you jump to 4K the 3300X is within 1-2 fps of the 9900K (in fact all tested CPUs are within 1-2 fps of each other at 4K).

www.anandtech.com

The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

www.anandtech.com www.anandtech.com
 
Pargon

Pargon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,614
Dynamic3 said:
Perhaps Crysis is an anomaly, but conventional wisdom would point to increased GPU stress when moving to 21:9 with like for like height. You're rendering substantially more pixels, at an inherently lower FPS target.

Take a look at recent benchmarks of the 3300X - you see dramatic differences in FPS vs say the 9900K at 1080p, but when you jump to 4K the 3300X is within 1-2 fps of the 9900K (in fact all tested CPUs are within 1-2 fps of each other at 4K).

www.anandtech.com

The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100 CPU Review: A Budget Gaming Bonanza

www.anandtech.com www.anandtech.com
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, if you cause there to be a GPU bottleneck first, that reduces the impact the CPU can have.
My point is that it's not just rendering 1/3 more pixels. Having to draw a wider aspect ratio also places more load on the CPU because you can see more.
  • Increasing the resolution by 33% but keeping the aspect ratio the same only increases the GPU workload by ~33%.
  • But changing the aspect ratio to be 33% wider (21:9) increases both the GPU workload and the CPU workload by ~33% each.
  • Even if you increase the aspect ratio to be 33% wider (21:9) but drop the resolution by 25% so that the GPU workload remains the same as it was before, the CPU workload still increases by ~33%.
Of course these numbers are just approximations.
You aren't always going to be pushing 1/3 more draw calls etc from the wider aspect ratio, and not every game is going to be hitting a CPU bottleneck.
But there's little you can do in most games to reduce the CPU workload. Most options, other than things like draw distance, only have a meaningful effect on GPU workload.
I'm pretty sure it's a big factor in why I've been disappointed with how many games run on my Ryzen system, as I always seem to hit CPU bottlenecks before I'm able to get the performance that I want out of them.
 
Barrel Cannon

Barrel Cannon

It's Pronounced "Aerith"
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,022
I'm taking this press release with a grain of salt. While it would be awesome I don't believe in Sony and MS to both support the format at this time. Maybe in a future update down the line

Powerofthecloud said:
I think this is dumb.
Most people don't want this.

Just wait, no one will use this feature.
Only like .01% of people would use this.
Kind of like 3D TVs.
I don't know anyone who would use this.
None one wants this.
Going to says this isn't worth it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Whenever I read these dumb posts like yours J wonder what's going on in people's minds. Like how childish do you have to be. Yes there is a small percentage of gamers who want this. But why do people actively shit on it when there's a group of people who thoroughly enjoy it and want it is baffling.

There are TONS of multiplatform games on PC that have ultrawide support. Those games can't properly support it on console despite having the UI and game designed to work on ultrawide because there is no output option on consoles for ultrawide displays. Consoles adding support for it isn't going to hurt the majority at all but it's going to give an unrepresented group of gamers a chance to play it on their ultrawide monitors that they already own.
 

Deleted member 18521

Oct 27, 2017
9,579
Barrel Cannon said:
Whenever I read these dumb posts like yours J wonder what's going on in people's minds. Like how childish do you have to be. Yes there is a small percentage of gamers who want this. But why do people actively shit on it when there's a group of people who thoroughly enjoy it and want it is baffling.

There are TONS of multiplatform games on PC that have ultrawide support. Those games can't properly support it on console despite having the UI and game designed to work on ultrawide because there is no output option on consoles for ultrawide displays. Consoles adding support for it isn't going to hurt the majority at all but it's going to give an unrepresented group of gamers a chance to play it on their ultrawide monitors that they already own.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You should reread the first page. You may have missed something.
 
Last edited:
tipoo

tipoo

Member
Jul 16, 2020
18
So this of course didn't come to pass, but I'm still curious about this. This video is about the only test of ultrawide monitors for the PS5/9th gen I see. It's clearly in stretchy mode, but I'm curious if there's any other impressions on here or anywhere about using it. Would all ultrawides support black pillars rather than stretched images, I assume so? It's just..I have the option for a WFH 34" curved 4K equivalent ultrawide, and, it would kind of be a shame NOT to use it for a 9th gen console as well, but the lack of support is unfortunate.

 
Ocean

Ocean

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,729
They don't even support 1440p in 16:9. There's no way they're supporting 21:9.

I have a 3440x1440 ultra wide and I would *love* console support buT I know it's never happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.