Dimitri... everytime I watch one of your videos I can't stop smiling at how damn good the video quality is. From the audio to colour correction to shot perspectives its just utterly enjoyable. Keep up the great work my man!
@@campelodemagalhaes 4k is a lot more enjoyable for the eyes but it's really hard to run in games and scaling is not as easy for windows as it should be to use it quite fluid. Even a RTX 2080 Super is not able to run games from 2018 on more than 60 fps.
i bought both. lived with only 4k 27" ips for 4 years, its really great. one minus - 60 hz. just for new impressions im getting xiaomi 34 3500\1440 VA. its super cheap, 400 usd, cheaper than my 4k (550 usd or so).
I have the 29" LG ultrawide and it's amazing for multitasking. As for black bars, if media doesn't support the 21:9 aspect I'll just keep it windowed and the rest of the real estate might as well be a second monitor since the video is definitely large enough for me and there's plenty of space left
21:9 for sure. love it so much. I found 4k resolution a bit useless as lots of applications don't have a nice way to scale the UI for it so things were too small
After comparing 21:9 and 4K monitors, I went with the 21:9 34" Asus PG348Q for several reasons: First, the PG348Q offers 100 Hz refresh rates and G-Sync for gaming. Second, 3440x1440 is a lot less pixels for the graphics card to push, so you get a higher refresh rate. Third, even the GTX 1080 can't get maintain a minimum of 60 FPS in most newer games at 4K, however the GTX 1080 and other GPUs can can manage over 60 FPS in most newer games at 3440x1440. Fourth, the 34" curved monitor is an amazing gaming experience. You get better immersion in the games. Fifth, the current 4K monitors can't do over 60 Hz even if you include the adaptive refresh rate monitors(unless you count thee Dell OLED monitor that cost several thousand dollars). When faster GPUs come out, I'll be limited to 60 Hz at 4K if I were to buy a 4K monitor now. Sixth, most newer movies are 21:9 and look amazing on the 21:9 monitor. You don't get the black bars at the top and bottom. Seventh, at 30-34", the distance the screen is away form my eyes on my desk, both the 4K and 3440x1440 monitor have a pixel pitch that's smaller than what I, and most other people, can see at that distance. So, going with 4K really doesn't offer a huge improvement in detail for me at that distance.
No, a watercooled 1080Ti is not enough to drive games in ultra at high framerates in 4k. I own a 1080Ti with a 3440x1440@100Hz Monitor. This Graphics card is not powerful enough for that res either.
ultrawide 3440x1440p isn't that far away from 4k. even tho these 25% less pixels do make gaming playable and anyway a lot more enjoyable @21:9 you'd need something like 4500 x 1850 to get the same pixel count as 4k but that is not going to happen the next step would be 5120 x 2160p uw
Actually, even your physical prerequisites show that width is better than height. If you move your head all day up and down you'll get health problems. It is much more comfortable spinning your head to the left or right. Furthermore you can't say that it is better for productivity in general. Actually it's just good for programming and some IT guys that don't write scripts even prefer a wider setting. Btw: IT guys buy 16:19 or 21:9 monitors and turn them 90°. No one uses 3:2 that's just bs. And you clearly haven't edited anything yet. It's not like people buy 21:9 monitors ONLY for editing...no...that never happens... you dig?
You're totally wrong were. first of all, The range within which your eye can truly focus is perfectly circular, IE, your eye focuses at a 1:1 aspect. It is also better at a adapting up and down without moving your head than left and right, it's a total nonissue, your head won't move at all, just your eyes. And your eyes will also strain less moving up and down than side to side. There's a reason every pure text format, like books, are always taller than wide. It's not going to make people nod excessively. The surface studio is 3:2. The macbooks are also taller, the chromebook, etc. Generally the premium devices marketed at designers are taller. Widescreen for video editing is bad, you want to display the video at its actual aspect ratio (wide is truly good for videos, because it's advantageous for the eye not to perceive EVERYTHING on the screen perfectly, this is more immersive) while still having space for your tools. Widescreen for drawing is terrible, you want as much real estate as possible, without traveling too much, taller is more ergonomic. curved ultrawide is obviously as bad as it gets unless you're producing niche products Turning a widescreen on its side is just another extreme too far in one direction. It would be good for a very limited selection of things, like dedicating it for programming, but this is absolutely a compromise brought on by the current market. Thankfully taller screens are making a return
I ended up switching from an ASUS 1440p 34" ultra wide to an LG 2160p 32 inch and haven't looked back. My use case is mostly work (no video editing, I mostly monitor a very large network) and very mild gaming. Some of my more intense games I run at 1440p and the loss is nominal. It usually is used for content consumption which it does without breaking a sweat.
What I really like about Ultrawides is that it's fit for a guy who does productivity. Like me. Plz I don't want to mind the black lines when I play as standard resolutions like 2560x1440 or 4K. Plus, I'd prefer an LG Ultrawide, but they are so expensive if you want 3440x1440, although 2560x1080 is a sweet spot for me since it's cheaper, I want less screen tearing and stuff like that. Conveniently, I won't list my other reasons because I have a LOT.
I honestly want one very badly but unfortuantely for a good one it is about $600- 700 at least 34 inches, way out of my budget but the games i play could so benefit from an ultrawide.
I'd go with 21:9, I wouldn't have to use 2 seperate monitors so I won't have a bezel in the way. 4k is cool and all but I'd much rather have a curved 21:9 screen.
Exactly, that's the biggest advantage of having ultrawide. Anyone who says "ultrawide is too big. I prefer 2 monitors" literally makes no sense because your eyes are moving the same distance, only you don't have the annoying 2x bezel in the way and your content is all on one screen.
I bought my Acer X34 gsync monitor a few months ago, and I absolutely fell in love with it before I even powered it on. Just pulling it out of the box was a breath taking experience, I knew I was in for a treat. Skyrim, World of Warcraft, DOOM, and GTA 5 are just so immersive! I recommend it to anyone who's a gamer. TH-cam black bars still bug me, but not too much. I hope more media comes out in native 21:9, as finding movies is a little more bothersome than id like. Unless im looking in the wrong place, any suggestions? :D
As for curved lines. i havent had any issues with such a thing, and im a professional 3d artist and I use this curved ultrawide monitor as my work and gaming monitor. The curve is barely even noticeable.
I've heard some people say the exact opposite which brings me to a conclusion, it really depends on personal preference. The trouble is, I like both but watching 16:9 on ultrawide is pretty annoying, not gonna lie. Watching 21:9 on 16:9 however, is not so bad because everyone's used to seeing the horizontal black bars.
affordable 144hz panels are a joke because you're paying for a TN panel. A quality 144hz panel with a proper IPS display costs as much as one of these options. Educate yourself on the products you praise before you say anything.
a better choice would be two monitors a 1080p 144 hz for games that need that high refresh rate and a 4K 60 Hz for other games because both monitors maybe cheaper than a 4K 100 hz if it happens to exist anytime soon
I've had my 34" LG 34UM67 Ultrawide 2560x1080 monitor for a year now. Never going back to 16:9 monitors. Racing and open world games look amazing and FPS titles are more immersive. 2560x1080 is NOT much more demanding than standard 1080p so most graphics cards can play high settings at full res. You won't be dissapointed if you go 21:9 ultrawide.
The screens in 21/9 and 34 inches have a height of 25 "and a large width but curved it is immersive there are screens this year in 3440x1440 I am not worried about 29 "21/9 desktop or gaming to date pixel as he says by ignorant.
I have had a 29-inch 1080p ultrawide and I must tell you that maybe in gaming you don't notice the difference, but to read it does show, you need more clarity, especially for someone like me who watches IDE's and encodes most of the day.
+James D I have 2 1080s now and even a single 1080 runs my Benq 1440, 144hz pretty good. I get over 100 frames in many games. If Nvidia can get 25% more power out of the Titan or the Ti, then I think ultra wide will be viable.
CogniVision Wut? Because it's my real name, and I did so when Google made you link Google+ and such... never bothered changing it back (if even possible)
Honestly just waiting for the tech to mature before I go 4k monitor, definitively want/wait for the high refresh rates for gaming at 4k or 5k res. Watching movies is pretty insane experience which is always a bonus.
If you're a console gamer using PS4 Pro or XBox One X your most practical pick for a monitor these days is the LG 27UD88. Consoles typically get capped at 30 or 60 FPS (Depends on the game and what the devs choose). No reason to waste money on a 144Hz. Not to mention, you can utilize the 4k features of your console on the 27UD88 unlike the 21:9 Ultrawide which more suited and sensible to use by PC gamers due to the PCs highly customizable features being able to change to more powerful and faster graphic cards that can accomodate higher refresh rates such as 144hz and/or 240hz respectively.
Why not both? The LG 38" - 21/9 curved delivers a 4k resolution, hdr, free sync, 75hz, also USB 3.0 all with the height of a 27" monitor. Yes, there is al little highlight in the corners in very dark scenes, but nothing really disturbing.
not available now, the mainstream 21:9 UltraWide is 3440*1440px, it acctually is a 1440P(2K) monitor, I hope LG can realease real UltraWide 4K Monitor asap, though my GPU can't play game on 4K fluently lol
I tried both. I went with the 4k for a few reasons. 1 - It was what I was used to having come from a 4k monitor, and trying to get used to the reduced desktop space wasn't happening for me. 2 - I like the larger height of the 32" 4k. Things like word documents, web pages, even Steam were a "chore" to scroll through on the ultrawide. 3 - 4k is just awesome in terms of picture quality.
In a triple monitor setup with two portrait monitors flanking my central 32" monitor, I'd have to go standard 16:9 otherwise the portrait monitors would be too far away to be usable.
I miss the old portrait-landscape-portrait with the 30" 2560x1600 monitor flanked by two smaller screens. Both the physical height and the pixels per inch were perfectly matched between the two. If you got the same brand of monitor (Dell, for example) and calibrated them together, the colors would be identical too. It really was fantastic.
I've been reading since a long time and I don’t recall any website talking about this and apparently 99% of people don’t know the fact that the actual size of the display changes with the aspect ratio, so for example 34 inch 21:9 ultra wide display equals 31.5 16:9, we are using the diagonal length as the size of the display which is accurate in the old days when there was only one aspect ratio which was 4:3 or when you're comparing displays of the same aspect ratio, I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible so I decided to explain this by taking rectangles all of them have the same actual size so when you multiply the length and the width you're gonna get 8, and each one have different aspect ratio (dimensions), and you're gonna notice the wider the rectangle the longer the diameter of the rectangle gets. Aspect ratio 1:1 Length:2.82 Width:2.82 Diameter:4 AR 5:4 L:3.16 W:2.53 D:4.048 AR 4:3 L:3.266 W2.45 D:4.0825 AR 16:10 L:3.577 W:2.236 D:4.219 AR 16:9 L:3.26 W2.121 D:4.326 AR 18:9 L:4 W:2 D:4.5 AR 21:9 L:4.3205 W1.85 D:4.7 AR 32:9 L:5.333 W:1.5 D:5.54 Like I said all these rectangles got the same exact size if you multiply length and width you're gonna get 8, which is the accurate way to measure the size of rectangles(displays), but as you could notice the diameter which is used to indicate the size of the display changes with aspect ratio. So a 4:3 display with 4.1 inch size display equals 4.7 inch 21:9, I'll mention few more realistic examples, 5:4 19" display with resolution 1280X1024 equals 20.3 16:9 display, 29" old CRT TV equals 30.73 16:9 TV, and 27" 16:9 equals 29.3 21:9, 31.5 display 16:9 equals 34.2, 21:9, 35" 16:9 equals 38" 21:9, 6.2 inch phone 18.5:9 equals 5.95 inch 16:9, 6" 18:9 equals 16:9 5.8 so these phones looks smaller not just because they are bezel less but because the actual size of the display is smaller as well, and finally double full HD 49" 32:9 equals 38" 16:9 displays. I also want to mention since the size of the display is measured by the diameter of the display that when you double the size of the display the actual size double 4 times for example 8" display is actually 4 times bigger than 4" display, the same goes for the way we measures pixel density which measured by pixel per inch AKA PPI so 200 PPI display has 4 times more pixels than 100 PPI display, How do we calculate PPI? We use Pythagorean equation of triangles which is length^2+width^2=diameter^2 So for example if you want to measure the pixel density of display FHD 27" 1920^2+1080^2=4852800 then you get the root of that number to get the diameter pixels 4852800^0.5=2202.9 then divide that number to the diameter of the display which is in this case is 27 so 2202.9/27=81.5 PPI, a 4k 27" which got 4 times more pixels has 163 PPI. Displays is the only thing in our life if measured by the diameter size, everything else is measured my multiplying length by width.
It seems here most people only think of a high end machine and a monitor either for gaming or for video editing... This is so ridiculous, there are more uses for a PC. I am a translator and work on editing and proofreading documents-- Ultrawide 21:9 is the best one for these kinds of tasks. But people apparently forgot there are other uses to a PC than just gaming, photo editing or video editing.
WAAAAAAAAH FUCK PEOPLE FOR BEING WELL-OFF ENOUGH THAT THEY STRUGGLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN GOODS AND NOT BASIC NECESSITIES WAAAAAAAAH BACK IN MY DAY WE HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BUGS FOR DINNER AND WHICH STREET CAT TO BOIL INTO SOUP, NOT "HURR WHICH MONITOR IS BETTER" That's what you sound like Think about it Whiney kid
Unfortunately there is no QHD IPS ultrawide monitor available in Brazil at this time. You have to choose 16:9 / 16:10, 4k / QHD... or 21:9 Full HD (and 1080 resolution sucks sometimes... quite low PPI). As I'm looking for a work/productivity oriented tool, I'll have to sacrifice one to be able to get the other feature. So i guess I'll have to buy the Dell UP2716D and maybe in the future add another one like it side by side if find it necessary.
QHD is closer to retina display? therefore less strain on the eyes ... so I'd choose QHD. Thanks for the video. Helped me make up my mind. I am about to buy Samsung u28d590d. Just a little bit confused that it might be LCD and not LED!?
For the real estate... naturally, if the Ultrawide is 34" while the 4K is 27", the gap seems much bigger despite the resolution advantage going to the 4K. If we look at display size, an equivalent to the 34" 21:9 would be a 31" 16:9. Any retake in more recent videos?
That's a good point when it comes to straight lines. I'm in love with these 21:9 monitors and really want one, but I'm a gamer who spends more time in Premiere and After Effects than any game out there. I wonder if that curve will also bother me. That being said, I've watched a few monitor reviews from tech channels, and you're the only one who raised that issue. Other channels tend to give glowing reviews when it comes to editing. Especially with the huge timeline space (a major selling point for me).
I was faced with this choice, then I thought to myself, why should we choose? After all, North America is the top 1% of the world. Just get them both! I bought a dell curved 34 inch 3440x1440 for my current gaming rig (i7-4790k + GTX 970), and then bought a Vizio D55 inch 4K TV and built a new $2000 computer (i7-6700k and GTX 1080) for this display. I now have BOTH UHD ultrawide and 4k gaming on two separate systems that can run 60 fps like butter. People might argue, "you can get both because you are rich!" No I'm not rich. I was earning minimum wage just a few years ago, and I am currently fully supporting my girlfriend financially and paying off her massive student loan. And no, I didn't have to go into debt to buy this. You have to find a full time job, any job, and learn to save. Anybody with a full time job and minimum wage in Canada or USA can afford to get both. Just have to cut back on other stuff, like food, transport, housing, and recreations. Move to an old 1 1/2 bachelor's apartment. Walk when you can. Bring your own lunch. Don't eat out. Shop around for parts and buy them at bargain. You'll have enough money for both. Trust me. I did that. And most of all, you might not be able to have kids if you are earning minimum wage, supporting a spouse, and want both 4K and 3440x1440 gaming at 60 fps. You have to compromise on these choices. But don't believe that you can't afford to have both. Save up. Shop smart. Get gaming.
Unfortunately, I don't have a 4k monitor, only a TV. Gaming on a TV and gaming on a monitor are very different experiences. I have to set my desk about 3 feet away from my TV in order for my eyes to capture the full image at a glance. Gaming-wise, I prefer ultrawide monitors over 4K TVs. You capture more of the image because you are closer to the display, and because ultrawide ratio fits better with your natural vision. Ultrawides allow you to use up every bit of your vision without having to turn your head. It's hard to describe, but I feel more immersed and more emotion when I see the panoramic landscape. Also, ultrawides are less hard on the graphics card, because they have fewer pixels. I personally only use the 4k computer, because it is more powerful and I can stream on it easily without cutting the aspect ratio. 4k offers a lot of advantages in showing texture detail, but the ultrawide doesn't lack details either. Ultrawide wins, but both are good. It's a HUGE step above 1080p. I tried a game at 1080p and I couldn't believe the difference. Oh yeah, I also use the 4k gaming PC because my girlfriend hijacked the ultrawide for herself. She prefers the ultrawide too. All my streams on my channel are played in 4k, but scaled down to 1080p. Too bad you can't see the detail, because I don't have enough bandwidth to stream 4k.
" like food, transport, housing, and recreations." housing? hmm i think housing is the most important out of all of them, including pc and monitors lol.
FPS competitive games such as Blizzard's Overwatch do no support 21:9 and you will actually be banned if you try any 3rd party software to force a wider field of view. Just FYI
The game works fine on any definition, it just won't stretch to 21:9 ratio leaving you with some thick black bars, at least that's what happens on a 3440x1440 resolution.
Brando Crispim Vieira I think they updated. so it just crops the 16:9 to 21:9. Basically cutting the top and bottom and zooming it in. I swear Blizzard is Fucking retarded.
Great video Demitri, I've only recently bought the BenQ GW2765HT and created a full review, however I am starting to consider getting a 21:9 and selling the BenQ. Hmm decisions. I edit a lot for my videos so 21:9 would be good. Not sure I'd get as annoyed about the lines. But I understand exactly what you mean.
www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UM58-P-ultrawide-monitor I got the 29" model on Friday, and I'm loving it. Just to clear up one thing. The 75hz refresh rate is recommended on lower settings. But i got mine on Native through Nvidia Controls.
Coming from a Asus Strix PG279 to an LG 34UC89G I have to say backight bleeding is still an issue if you need >professional< colors. However the 34 inch 21:9 is large enough to compensate some drawbacks of playing 1080p (16:9) content. then you also can attach the monitor with 2 cables so you have real 2 monitors in Windows. the 34 inch compensate the dividing a lot too.
OS and applications could adapt to UHD/4k resolution a lot better than they do currently.. at 4k, desktop icons and drop down menus and window framing is all uncomfortably small. This isn't necessary and is not what people are after in a higher resolution display. There needs to be more OS and application capability for scaling icons and UI's to just be bigger to compensate for higher resolutions.
i've been using 21:9 for a couple of years, plus a long secondary display.. also am a creative user and gamer: playing games, using photoshop/maya/unity3d/etc here is my conclusion on the matter: for media consumption: 21:9 have more better experience overall against 16:9 for productivity: 21:9 is a bit more comfortable to work with compared to 16:9, you can expand more tools and make use for the extra space.. but it also depends on kind of apps you working with.. sometimes the extra space doesn't have big difference. what i previously stated is all good if you decided to use only "One" Monitor and using "One" App at a full screen at a time!! things totally different when you want to work and display two apps at the same time.. if you feel the need to use two apps side by side, i find it hard to work on creative applications opening two apps on the 21:9 monitor.. because apps gets to get squeezed to the point it becomes inferior to 16:9.. for creative work, i think it's much better to use two 16:9 displays side by side compared to 21:9 if you are planning to split 21:9 monitor for 2 apps.. i don't think it is worth it to have two 21:9.. you will have too much horizontal space that you will end up moving your head left and right too often which is tiresome.. maybe better if they are stacked on top of each other? i dunno.. am wondering if samsung new 32:9 monitor model can compensate for both media consumption and creative work, because it's literally the size of two 16:9..
how do photoshop and other software feel like on 21:9? I am planning to buy a 21:9 monitor I will be using it for drawing on ps or any other similar drawing app and Maya and more creative software. what do you think I should go for?
Meh 4K is wasted on a 27" screen. I honestly think anything under 40" for 4K is a waste. Real estate > smoothness. Pixels are more usable if they are bigger.
I wonder if a "budget" 4K TV (for strictly non-gaming if refresh rates aren't up to par) would actually make more sense and be a better value for a wall mount setup or something weird/awesome
I don’t I have to read a lot of text on my monitor and I had a 1080P screen text is awful to look at 1080P even at 23 inches. For video 4K on a 27 inch won’t be that big of a difference but text is a different story.
For anyone worried about the black bars on the ultra wide... You get used to it, in fact, I don't even see it most of the time when I'm watching something, but when you hop into a game that supports it.. Which is most of what I play... It is beautiful. I fell in love with ultra wide and now I can't go back.
whenever I watch these "which one is for you" videos I wind up more confused than before
Tell me about it.
Go with the ultra wide
why not both
@@rayweller3704 Yeeeeeh!
😂
Your video is so white I paused it and used it to clean out the dusty spots on my monitor
😂😂
Andrew Tin tell me abt it. I'm watching this at 3 am, my roommate just woke up to tell me turn off the lights.
Lmao
thats so funny but still dont understand what you guys are talking about
ohhh
so i can say that my monitor is ok
thank you
Dimitri... everytime I watch one of your videos I can't stop smiling at how damn good the video quality is. From the audio to colour correction to shot perspectives its just utterly enjoyable. Keep up the great work my man!
+Kyle Hartzenberg happy to hear :)
I agree. More youtubers need to consider cinematography.
My head says go 4k, my heart says go 21:9.
My wallet says go fuck yourself :'(
Go for 21:9.
Your eyes will enjoy it more.
@@craftedinddd BRO! 😂
@@campelodemagalhaes 4k is a lot more enjoyable for the eyes but it's really hard to run in games and scaling is not as easy for windows as it should be to use it quite fluid. Even a RTX 2080 Super is not able to run games from 2018 on more than 60 fps.
i bought both. lived with only 4k 27" ips for 4 years, its really great. one minus - 60 hz. just for new impressions im getting xiaomi 34 3500\1440 VA. its super cheap, 400 usd, cheaper than my 4k (550 usd or so).
For actual every day use, ultra wide. Even for video or photo editing. For porn, 4k.
If your fetish is the root of the hair, for example.
nenadcvele Or the hair on the girls foot.
for actual everyday use: 3:2 or 4:3(around 5k resolution, of course).
for videogames: ultrawide
What if my every day use is porn? Hmmm
vr
I still like my 17" CRT monitor... plus it keeps my room warm as it puts out so much heat. lol
I have the 29" LG ultrawide and it's amazing for multitasking. As for black bars, if media doesn't support the 21:9 aspect I'll just keep it windowed and the rest of the real estate might as well be a second monitor since the video is definitely large enough for me and there's plenty of space left
Yeah that's what i started doing as well! Productivity boost while watching movies :OOO
As a video editor my 34" LG is an essential component to that. I could not live without now.
jup going for an ultrawide monitor was the best tech decision i made in a while. simply loving it :D
me to and I personally love it
i just went for 3 24 inch monitors...
An UltraWide man am I.
4k lad Is I
good man only the best gaming platforms support 16:9 :)
is I am for the 2
I've got a 50 inch 4k, 29 inch ultrawide, and CRT all hooked up at once
Ultrawide is pog
You don't need a flat monitor to do 3D.. your not supposed to draw lines in a perspective view ( only top, or side)
Good luck with ghat
🤣🤣🤣what!?
What about shift?
21:9 for sure. love it so much. I found 4k resolution a bit useless as lots of applications don't have a nice way to scale the UI for it so things were too small
After comparing 21:9 and 4K monitors, I went with the 21:9 34" Asus PG348Q for several reasons:
First, the PG348Q offers 100 Hz refresh rates and G-Sync for gaming.
Second, 3440x1440 is a lot less pixels for the graphics card to push, so you get a higher refresh rate.
Third, even the GTX 1080 can't get maintain a minimum of 60 FPS in most newer games at 4K, however the GTX 1080 and other GPUs can can manage over 60 FPS in most newer games at 3440x1440.
Fourth, the 34" curved monitor is an amazing gaming experience. You get better immersion in the games.
Fifth, the current 4K monitors can't do over 60 Hz even if you include the adaptive refresh rate monitors(unless you count thee Dell OLED monitor that cost several thousand dollars). When faster GPUs come out, I'll be limited to 60 Hz at 4K if I were to buy a 4K monitor now.
Sixth, most newer movies are 21:9 and look amazing on the 21:9 monitor. You don't get the black bars at the top and bottom.
Seventh, at 30-34", the distance the screen is away form my eyes on my desk, both the 4K and 3440x1440 monitor have a pixel pitch that's smaller than what I, and most other people, can see at that distance. So, going with 4K really doesn't offer a huge improvement in detail for me at that distance.
SOLD!
A watercooled 1080Ti is fine for 4K. :)
yah and in SLI even better
No, a watercooled 1080Ti is not enough to drive games in ultra at high framerates in 4k. I own a 1080Ti with a 3440x1440@100Hz Monitor. This Graphics card is not powerful enough for that res either.
im not sure about garenteed performance out of the box this may be just a case in overclocking but, maybe you lost the silicone lottery?
21:9 in 4k at 144hz. Zero compromises
ikr
21:9 would need ~8k to have the same pixel density as a normal 4k screen
No.
You're incorrect.
ultrawide 3440x1440p isn't that far away from 4k. even tho these 25% less pixels do make gaming playable and anyway a lot more enjoyable @21:9
you'd need something like 4500 x 1850 to get the same pixel count as 4k but that is not going to happen
the next step would be 5120 x 2160p uw
our technology cant run 4k on over 60hz
I love my Ultrawide monitor.
What don't you like about it?
I love my oled 4k display.
What type do you have?
what display is it?
I love my 360p HD CRT.
21:9 is the future!
3:2 is the future. wider is the wrong way to go, taller is much better for productive tasks
lusteraliaszero Yuck.. who wants to be productive in this world... Just to earn money. Gaming/ Movies/ Editing... better in 21:9
Not everyone can just sit and play video games all day.
also, more productive = better games getting produced
And no, editing isn't better in 21:9
Actually, even your physical prerequisites show that width is better than height. If you move your head all day up and down you'll get health problems. It is much more comfortable spinning your head to the left or right.
Furthermore you can't say that it is better for productivity in general. Actually it's just good for programming and some IT guys that don't write scripts even prefer a wider setting. Btw: IT guys buy 16:19 or 21:9 monitors and turn them 90°. No one uses 3:2 that's just bs.
And you clearly haven't edited anything yet. It's not like people buy 21:9 monitors ONLY for editing...no...that never happens... you dig?
You're totally wrong were. first of all, The range within which your eye can truly focus is perfectly circular, IE, your eye focuses at a 1:1 aspect. It is also better at a adapting up and down without moving your head than left and right, it's a total nonissue, your head won't move at all, just your eyes. And your eyes will also strain less moving up and down than side to side.
There's a reason every pure text format, like books, are always taller than wide. It's not going to make people nod excessively.
The surface studio is 3:2. The macbooks are also taller, the chromebook, etc. Generally the premium devices marketed at designers are taller.
Widescreen for video editing is bad, you want to display the video at its actual aspect ratio (wide is truly good for videos, because it's advantageous for the eye not to perceive EVERYTHING on the screen perfectly, this is more immersive) while still having space for your tools.
Widescreen for drawing is terrible, you want as much real estate as possible, without traveling too much, taller is more ergonomic. curved ultrawide is obviously as bad as it gets unless you're producing niche products
Turning a widescreen on its side is just another extreme too far in one direction. It would be good for a very limited selection of things, like dedicating it for programming, but this is absolutely a compromise brought on by the current market. Thankfully taller screens are making a return
I ended up switching from an ASUS 1440p 34" ultra wide to an LG 2160p 32 inch and haven't looked back. My use case is mostly work (no video editing, I mostly monitor a very large network) and very mild gaming. Some of my more intense games I run at 1440p and the loss is nominal. It usually is used for content consumption which it does without breaking a sweat.
I love ultrawides
Same here
What I really like about Ultrawides is that it's fit for a guy who does productivity. Like me. Plz I don't want to mind the black lines when I play as standard resolutions like 2560x1440 or 4K. Plus, I'd prefer an LG Ultrawide, but they are so expensive if you want 3440x1440, although 2560x1080 is a sweet spot for me since it's cheaper, I want less screen tearing and stuff like that. Conveniently, I won't list my other reasons because I have a LOT.
I honestly want one very badly but unfortuantely for a good one it is about $600- 700 at least 34 inches, way out of my budget but the games i play could so benefit from an ultrawide.
Yeah my girlfriend prefers ultrawides to ultralongs.
same with my girl, i picked her up in a shoe store when she heard me ask for 4 E width sneakers.
Why not a 4k ultrawide monitor?
doesn't really exist
Yet...
Dell's UltraSharp U3415W is consumer 4K, ultrawide and curved. Amazing monitor, albeit quite expensive.
1440p isn't 4k though
True, true. Bummer. :/
please start making your videos in 21:9 as a 21:9 UHD monitor owner
Definitely. I love coming across 21:9 content. looks amazing on my ultrawide
the audience is not large enough to make it worth
Tell that to the movie industry
get a 4k as wide as the 21 by 9
TH-cam doesn't support 21/9 unfortunately, you'll have the black bars on all 4 side of the screen :/
I'd go with 21:9, I wouldn't have to use 2 seperate monitors so I won't have a bezel in the way. 4k is cool and all but I'd much rather have a curved 21:9 screen.
Exactly, that's the biggest advantage of having ultrawide. Anyone who says "ultrawide is too big. I prefer 2 monitors" literally makes no sense because your eyes are moving the same distance, only you don't have the annoying 2x bezel in the way and your content is all on one screen.
hey its chris patts evil twin brother
LOL
Hey you aren't funny
Johnny karate is not pleased
I thought it was just me thinking that lol
Wayward Son you are not alone buddy
Well... squad? Hope you enjoy the video :D Full review on sexy UltraWide goodness here: th-cam.com/video/00PBeWTJbb0/w-d-xo.html
Hmmmm? Hmmmmm....
why should we choose? we will all buy 4k 21/9
I bought my Acer X34 gsync monitor a few months ago, and I absolutely fell in love with it before I even powered it on. Just pulling it out of the box was a breath taking experience, I knew I was in for a treat. Skyrim, World of Warcraft, DOOM, and GTA 5 are just so immersive! I recommend it to anyone who's a gamer. TH-cam black bars still bug me, but not too much. I hope more media comes out in native 21:9, as finding movies is a little more bothersome than id like. Unless im looking in the wrong place, any suggestions? :D
I went on a rant, sorry. Great video HWC! keep up the great work :)
+Jonathan Sporrong meh not worth the double price compared to the dell overclockable 85Mhz alternative
love my 34inch curved LG ultrawide. woudnt wanna go back to 16:9
As for curved lines. i havent had any issues with such a thing, and im a professional 3d artist and I use this curved ultrawide monitor as my work and gaming monitor. The curve is barely even noticeable.
I've heard some people say the exact opposite which brings me to a conclusion, it really depends on personal preference. The trouble is, I like both but watching 16:9 on ultrawide is pretty annoying, not gonna lie. Watching 21:9 on 16:9 however, is not so bad because everyone's used to seeing the horizontal black bars.
I went with the 34" LG 21:9 ultra wide screen, and on some game you can expand your field of view giving you an advantage. Love this thing!
The real question is "where can i find a high-salary job so i can buy either one of them?" (I like the 21:9)
invest in Bitcoin
Learn to code lmao
Do an honest day work
21:9 all day. i have both i dont even look at the 4k screen
I like your comment ...all respect
Acer Predator X34 IS 21:9 3440x1440 and it has a 100mhz refresh rate.
Yeah but only with G-Sync can you get those hertz
i just got a predator x 34 for my 13th b day !!!!
Is a TN panel for the acer one an IPS panel for this LG one . IPS currently topped out at 2k @ 165hz with G-sync on
Acer Predator x34p Is about to release
+The Person the acer predator x34 is ips
Easy choice! 1080p 16:9 144Hz !
Yes
thats what im rocking
affordable 144hz panels are a joke because you're paying for a TN panel. A quality 144hz panel with a proper IPS display costs as much as one of these options. Educate yourself on the products you praise before you say anything.
a better choice would be two monitors a 1080p 144 hz for games that need that high refresh rate and a 4K 60 Hz for other games because both monitors maybe cheaper than a 4K 100 hz if it happens to exist anytime soon
+Ian Benedict Thank you...
I've had my 34" LG 34UM67 Ultrawide 2560x1080 monitor for a year now. Never going back to 16:9 monitors. Racing and open world games look amazing and FPS titles are more immersive. 2560x1080 is NOT much more demanding than standard 1080p so most graphics cards can play high settings at full res. You won't be dissapointed if you go 21:9 ultrawide.
Isn't 34" tooooo damn big for a 1080p res?
no, games looks great at this resolution. I can understand 1440p looks better, but for the money 21:9 1080p monitors are very good.
Ruben Theunis a 21:9 34 inch isnt the same as a 16:9 34” inch so no not really
The screens in 21/9 and 34 inches have a height of 25 "and a large width but curved it is immersive there are screens this year in 3440x1440
I am not worried about 29 "21/9
desktop or gaming to date pixel as he says by ignorant.
I have had a 29-inch 1080p ultrawide and I must tell you that maybe in gaming you don't notice the difference, but to read it does show, you need more clarity, especially for someone like me who watches IDE's and encodes most of the day.
I would like to see a 21:9 display with 2160p with 75Hz. That would be great for me.
You found it?
Now in '23 HDR 10 is must have, no compromise
Until LG offers a 120hz + 21:9, Ill save my money.
save your money for a gpu that can run new games 120 fps.minimum on 3440x1440 max settings so ....wait for 5 years good luck.
+Mpamphs Kangourosaurous The new Titan is supposed to be 50% more powerful than the 1080. If so, that should do.
And the 1080ti will launch a couple months after that, so just hold on to your panties.
+Mpamphs Kangourosaurous 1080ti SLI
+James D I have 2 1080s now and even a single 1080 runs my Benq 1440, 144hz pretty good. I get over 100 frames in many games. If Nvidia can get 25% more power out of the Titan or the Ti, then I think ultra wide will be viable.
Haha i cant afford neither
Lol same here..
"can't neither" is a double negtive, thus you're saying you can....
What you mean is you can't afford either, and I feel you brother.
+Remco Smit why did you change your name to Remco Smit, Mr. Buzz Killington?
CogniVision Wut? Because it's my real name, and I did so when Google made you link Google+ and such... never bothered changing it back (if even possible)
Remco Smit Wow, I hate you even more now.
What was again the name of the "Hack & slash" game you tested? i couldn't understand :( pls reply Dmitri
Victor Vran
thank you
Honestly just waiting for the tech to mature before I go 4k monitor, definitively want/wait for the high refresh rates for gaming at 4k or 5k res. Watching movies is pretty insane experience which is always a bonus.
Thank you. :)
If you're a console gamer using PS4 Pro or XBox One X your most practical pick for a monitor these days is the LG 27UD88.
Consoles typically get capped at 30 or 60 FPS (Depends on the game and what the devs choose). No reason to waste money on a 144Hz.
Not to mention, you can utilize the 4k features of your console on the 27UD88 unlike the 21:9 Ultrawide which more suited and sensible to use by PC gamers due to the PCs highly customizable features being able to change to more powerful and faster graphic cards that can accomodate higher refresh rates such as 144hz and/or 240hz respectively.
Ps5 wants to know your location
Why not both?
The LG 38" - 21/9 curved delivers a 4k resolution, hdr, free sync, 75hz, also USB 3.0 all with the height of a 27" monitor.
Yes, there is al little highlight in the corners in very dark scenes, but nothing really disturbing.
What about an UltraWide 4K Monitor?
not available now, the mainstream 21:9 UltraWide is 3440*1440px, it acctually is a 1440P(2K) monitor, I hope LG can realease real UltraWide 4K Monitor asap, though my GPU can't play game on 4K fluently lol
王良睿 lol what? LG has a 5k 2k monitor that’s 21:9
Ultrawide for sure. 4k vs. 1440p is hard to discern a difference from reasonable viewing differences, plus the UW gives you so much more real estate
7:14 can someone please tell me where to download this wallpaper?!
It seems like no one will
Dimitri, could you revisit this in 2022?
Thanks
I tried both. I went with the 4k for a few reasons.
1 - It was what I was used to having come from a 4k monitor, and trying to get used to the reduced desktop space wasn't happening for me.
2 - I like the larger height of the 32" 4k. Things like word documents, web pages, even Steam were a "chore" to scroll through on the ultrawide.
3 - 4k is just awesome in terms of picture quality.
In a triple monitor setup with two portrait monitors flanking my central 32" monitor, I'd have to go standard 16:9 otherwise the portrait monitors would be too far away to be usable.
I miss the old portrait-landscape-portrait with the 30" 2560x1600 monitor flanked by two smaller screens. Both the physical height and the pixels per inch were perfectly matched between the two. If you got the same brand of monitor (Dell, for example) and calibrated them together, the colors would be identical too. It really was fantastic.
I always thought black bars on top and bottom just makes videos look more cinematic
+HardwareCanucks where did u get those wallpapers
7:22 I can see at least 5 dead pixels on the left side of the monitor. How did you miss that?
I feel like I want BOTH, Ultrawide for gaming and movies and the option of the 4K when you want greater colour and image accuracy.
world first rich people problem
Uhm, you mean "first world problems"?
hahahah
Uhm, you mean "first world rich people problems"?
Or any world employed people problems.
Edin Jahic If they'll want this kind of stuff.
there is really no "choice". I bought an ultra-wide for work, then I tried to play on it and everything became clear - 16/9 is not needed
I pick the 21:9 i don't know why but it attracts me xD xD xD
because it's not mainstream, at least for me. i've never met someone with a monitor like that IRL.
i love my ultra wide
it's immersive
What's the movie you were watching on the screens. The one that starts at 4:32. Thanks
I've been reading since a long time and I don’t recall any website talking about this and apparently 99% of people don’t know the fact that the actual size of the display changes with the aspect ratio, so for example 34 inch 21:9 ultra wide display equals 31.5 16:9, we are using the diagonal length as the size of the display which is accurate in the old days when there was only one aspect ratio which was 4:3 or when you're comparing displays of the same aspect ratio, I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible so I decided to explain this by taking rectangles all of them have the same actual size so when you multiply the length and the width you're gonna get 8, and each one have different aspect ratio (dimensions), and you're gonna notice the wider the rectangle the longer the diameter of the rectangle gets.
Aspect ratio 1:1 Length:2.82 Width:2.82 Diameter:4
AR 5:4 L:3.16 W:2.53 D:4.048
AR 4:3 L:3.266 W2.45 D:4.0825
AR 16:10 L:3.577 W:2.236 D:4.219
AR 16:9 L:3.26 W2.121 D:4.326
AR 18:9 L:4 W:2 D:4.5
AR 21:9 L:4.3205 W1.85 D:4.7
AR 32:9 L:5.333 W:1.5 D:5.54
Like I said all these rectangles got the same exact size if you multiply length and width you're gonna get 8, which is the accurate way to measure the size of rectangles(displays), but as you could notice the diameter which is used to indicate the size of the display changes with aspect ratio. So a 4:3 display with 4.1 inch size display equals 4.7 inch 21:9, I'll mention few more realistic examples, 5:4 19" display with resolution 1280X1024 equals 20.3 16:9 display, 29" old CRT TV equals 30.73 16:9 TV, and 27" 16:9 equals 29.3 21:9, 31.5 display 16:9 equals 34.2, 21:9, 35" 16:9 equals 38" 21:9, 6.2 inch phone 18.5:9 equals 5.95 inch 16:9, 6" 18:9 equals 16:9 5.8 so these phones looks smaller not just because they are bezel less but because the actual size of the display is smaller as well, and finally double full HD 49" 32:9 equals 38" 16:9 displays.
I also want to mention since the size of the display is measured by the diameter of the display that when you double the size of the display the actual size double 4 times for example 8" display is actually 4 times bigger than 4" display, the same goes for the way we measures pixel density which measured by pixel per inch AKA PPI so 200 PPI display has 4 times more pixels than 100 PPI display, How do we calculate PPI? We use Pythagorean equation of triangles which is length^2+width^2=diameter^2
So for example if you want to measure the pixel density of display FHD 27" 1920^2+1080^2=4852800 then you get the root of that number to get the diameter pixels 4852800^0.5=2202.9 then divide that number to the diameter of the display which is in this case is 27 so 2202.9/27=81.5 PPI, a 4k 27" which got 4 times more pixels has 163 PPI.
Displays is the only thing in our life if measured by the diameter size, everything else is measured my multiplying length by width.
why no aib gtx 1070 review ?
But I like having both my kidneys... I'm gonna have to wait for AMD to bring GPU prices down before either one of these is viable.
What about ultrawide 4k?
Es muy difícil usar el 4k en un monitor tan grande.
I went to 3440x1440 Curved from a 27in 4k. Love it, much easier on my eyes and better for gaming.
HEllo! Please tell me what do you use to get this red backlight on the wall behind the display?? 8:21
It seems here most people only think of a high end machine and a monitor either for gaming or for video editing... This is so ridiculous, there are more uses for a PC. I am a translator and work on editing and proofreading documents-- Ultrawide 21:9 is the best one for these kinds of tasks. But people apparently forgot there are other uses to a PC than just gaming, photo editing or video editing.
@@vener7 ^
21:9 or 4K...? it certainly a first world problem.
indeed, I miss crts
WAAAAAAAAH FUCK PEOPLE FOR BEING WELL-OFF ENOUGH THAT THEY STRUGGLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN GOODS AND NOT BASIC NECESSITIES WAAAAAAAAH
BACK IN MY DAY WE HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BUGS FOR DINNER AND WHICH STREET CAT TO BOIL INTO SOUP, NOT "HURR WHICH MONITOR IS BETTER"
That's what you sound like
Think about it
Whiney kid
The first world solution is to have both 👍
@@abubakrakram6208 You misunderstood him too, he meant the original commenter, not the reply above him
@@BichaelStevens I know this is 2 years later and no one gives a shit but thank you, this shit is so annoying
I still prefer my 480p 20hz TV screen. Kappa
Lmfao
Kappa was necessary, I thought you were being serious for a minute.
I'm still rocking with my ultranarrow 19'' 1280x1024 75hz gaming monitor. I have my studio tour and gaming setup video on my channel.
İ got 7 years old tv i just bougth it for 500 dolar and its 49 inch 100 hz 4+ms lol good for tv
@@basshead. same
0:45 ??? what exactly are u trying to tell us with that plant in the background ?
Unfortunately there is no QHD IPS ultrawide monitor available in Brazil at this time. You have to choose 16:9 / 16:10, 4k / QHD... or 21:9 Full HD (and 1080 resolution sucks sometimes... quite low PPI).
As I'm looking for a work/productivity oriented tool, I'll have to sacrifice one to be able to get the other feature.
So i guess I'll have to buy the Dell UP2716D and maybe in the future add another one like it side by side if find it necessary.
that beginning suave feeling was ruined by the ad.
and I'm sitting here waiting for a 4K 21:9 monitor with thunderbolt 2...
Are you still waiting?
@@autumno LG make one now, but you can't buy it anywhere.
An ultrawide monitor with the DPI of a 4k monitor would certainly require an extremely strong graphics card
chris pratt
QHD is closer to retina display? therefore less strain on the eyes ... so I'd choose QHD.
Thanks for the video. Helped me make up my mind. I am about to buy Samsung u28d590d. Just a little bit confused that it might be LCD and not LED!?
For the real estate... naturally, if the Ultrawide is 34" while the 4K is 27", the gap seems much bigger despite the resolution advantage going to the 4K. If we look at display size, an equivalent to the 34" 21:9 would be a 31" 16:9.
Any retake in more recent videos?
1080p 144hz is still best until ultrawide 144hz 1440p comes out
1440p 144hz has been a thing for quite a long time.
+The Cheshire Cat not ultrawide tho
Captain Asteroid Ah I missed that, whoops. Closest is 100hz IIRC
[Redacted]
LinusMLGTips That monitor is $1000 I can buy a 4k tv with that price
I think both are currently a compromise. Standard 2560x1440p still makes the most sense to me.
The answer is get both.
Why not get both???
That's a good point when it comes to straight lines. I'm in love with these 21:9 monitors and really want one, but I'm a gamer who spends more time in Premiere and After Effects than any game out there. I wonder if that curve will also bother me. That being said, I've watched a few monitor reviews from tech channels, and you're the only one who raised that issue. Other channels tend to give glowing reviews when it comes to editing. Especially with the huge timeline space (a major selling point for me).
I think the issue with the straight lines is more a deal in graphic design than in video editing.
21:9 for sure...
The Secret: Go for both at the same time. You will feel relief.
Lol true
-D.
You look like starlord
Correction: Polish budget version
Who?
Has your opinion changed in 2021?
What's the PC tower featured in your video at 07:15? It's very nice looking!
*Which one would you choose?*
Me: I would choose to have mercy on my wallet
I was faced with this choice, then I thought to myself, why should we choose? After all, North America is the top 1% of the world. Just get them both!
I bought a dell curved 34 inch 3440x1440 for my current gaming rig (i7-4790k + GTX 970), and then bought a Vizio D55 inch 4K TV and built a new $2000 computer (i7-6700k and GTX 1080) for this display. I now have BOTH UHD ultrawide and 4k gaming on two separate systems that can run 60 fps like butter.
People might argue, "you can get both because you are rich!" No I'm not rich. I was earning minimum wage just a few years ago, and I am currently fully supporting my girlfriend financially and paying off her massive student loan. And no, I didn't have to go into debt to buy this. You have to find a full time job, any job, and learn to save.
Anybody with a full time job and minimum wage in Canada or USA can afford to get both. Just have to cut back on other stuff, like food, transport, housing, and recreations. Move to an old 1 1/2 bachelor's apartment. Walk when you can. Bring your own lunch. Don't eat out. Shop around for parts and buy them at bargain. You'll have enough money for both. Trust me. I did that.
And most of all, you might not be able to have kids if you are earning minimum wage, supporting a spouse, and want both 4K and 3440x1440 gaming at 60 fps. You have to compromise on these choices.
But don't believe that you can't afford to have both. Save up. Shop smart. Get gaming.
You didn't answer the most important question. Since you have both, which do you prefer more, overall?
Unfortunately, I don't have a 4k monitor, only a TV. Gaming on a TV and gaming on a monitor are very different experiences. I have to set my desk about 3 feet away from my TV in order for my eyes to capture the full image at a glance.
Gaming-wise, I prefer ultrawide monitors over 4K TVs. You capture more of the image because you are closer to the display, and because ultrawide ratio fits better with your natural vision. Ultrawides allow you to use up every bit of your vision without having to turn your head. It's hard to describe, but I feel more immersed and more emotion when I see the panoramic landscape. Also, ultrawides are less hard on the graphics card, because they have fewer pixels.
I personally only use the 4k computer, because it is more powerful and I can stream on it easily without cutting the aspect ratio. 4k offers a lot of advantages in showing texture detail, but the ultrawide doesn't lack details either.
Ultrawide wins, but both are good. It's a HUGE step above 1080p. I tried a game at 1080p and I couldn't believe the difference.
Oh yeah, I also use the 4k gaming PC because my girlfriend hijacked the ultrawide for herself. She prefers the ultrawide too.
All my streams on my channel are played in 4k, but scaled down to 1080p. Too bad you can't see the detail, because I don't have enough bandwidth to stream 4k.
TrulyStupidGaming I hope ur gf isn't using u, paying all her stuff, hijacked ur ultrawide...
if you dont have a drug or drinking problem they are really not that hard to afford, especially if you can pick up a good deal on a refurbished model
" like food, transport, housing, and recreations." housing? hmm i think housing is the most important out of all of them, including pc and monitors lol.
21:9 any day
the problem with 21:9 is content is still not ready for that format
What is that app at 4:56 that everyone seems to use to test graphics cards and monitors?
16/9 ratio screens looks primitive like 80"s tv set
FPS competitive games such as Blizzard's Overwatch do no support 21:9 and you will actually be banned if you try any 3rd party software to force a wider field of view. Just FYI
Brando Crispim Vieira wow that sucks. Thanks for mentioning that
The game works fine on any definition, it just won't stretch to 21:9 ratio leaving you with some thick black bars, at least that's what happens on a 3440x1440 resolution.
Brando Crispim Vieira I think they updated. so it just crops the 16:9 to 21:9. Basically cutting the top and bottom and zooming it in. I swear Blizzard is Fucking retarded.
It's literally just Overwatch. Blizzard is retarded.
Great video Demitri, I've only recently bought the BenQ GW2765HT and created a full review, however I am starting to consider getting a 21:9 and selling the BenQ. Hmm decisions. I edit a lot for my videos so 21:9 would be good. Not sure I'd get as annoyed about the lines. But I understand exactly what you mean.
+Jack's Gadgets after a while you get used to the curve, but if you can get a flat UltraWide I would.
+HardwareCanucks thanks for the reply, see I would but I've not found any flat 21:9's in the 34" range :(
www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UM58-P-ultrawide-monitor
I got the 29" model on Friday, and I'm loving it. Just to clear up one thing. The 75hz refresh rate is recommended on lower settings. But i got mine on Native through Nvidia Controls.
Thanks for the link, although I'd probably want higher res at 29" or more. Especially as I'd be coming from a 2560x1440
Jack's Gadgets Yea, those will be hard to find not curved.
Coming from a Asus Strix PG279 to an LG 34UC89G I have to say backight bleeding is still an issue if you need >professional< colors. However the 34 inch 21:9 is large enough to compensate some drawbacks of playing 1080p (16:9) content. then you also can attach the monitor with 2 cables so you have real 2 monitors in Windows. the 34 inch compensate the dividing a lot too.
OS and applications could adapt to UHD/4k resolution a lot better than they do currently.. at 4k, desktop icons and drop down menus and window framing is all uncomfortably small. This isn't necessary and is not what people are after in a higher resolution display. There needs to be more OS and application capability for scaling icons and UI's to just be bigger to compensate for higher resolutions.
21:9 all the way
4:3 the best evolution
21:9 8k 240hz micro-LED. Then I'll rest happy.
You can get both . Dell has one that is both 21:9 and 4K . And it’s on sale for 1k off
honestly this is my new favorite youtube channel
UltraWide Master Race!
asking "UltraWide 21:9 vs UHD 4K" makes as much sense as asking "Intel vs hot-tub"
bruh
165hz 1440p trumps all...
What game was it at 7:10 . I can't tell what game you were playing. I know the rest not this one
i've been using 21:9 for a couple of years, plus a long secondary display.. also am a creative user and gamer: playing games, using photoshop/maya/unity3d/etc
here is my conclusion on the matter:
for media consumption: 21:9 have more better experience overall against 16:9
for productivity: 21:9 is a bit more comfortable to work with compared to 16:9, you can expand more tools and make use for the extra space.. but it also depends on kind of apps you working with.. sometimes the extra space doesn't have big difference.
what i previously stated is all good if you decided to use only "One" Monitor and using "One" App at a full screen at a time!!
things totally different when you want to work and display two apps at the same time..
if you feel the need to use two apps side by side, i find it hard to work on creative applications opening two apps on the 21:9 monitor.. because apps gets to get squeezed to the point it becomes inferior to 16:9.. for creative work, i think it's much better to use two 16:9 displays side by side compared to 21:9 if you are planning to split 21:9 monitor for 2 apps..
i don't think it is worth it to have two 21:9.. you will have too much horizontal space that you will end up moving your head left and right too often which is tiresome.. maybe better if they are stacked on top of each other? i dunno.. am wondering if samsung new 32:9 monitor model can compensate for both media consumption and creative work, because it's literally the size of two 16:9..
how do photoshop and other software feel like on 21:9? I am planning to buy a 21:9 monitor I will be using it for drawing on ps or any other similar drawing app and Maya and more creative software. what do you think I should go for?
Why not get both? .3.
BC IM POORRRR!!!
Meh 4K is wasted on a 27" screen. I honestly think anything under 40" for 4K is a waste. Real estate > smoothness. Pixels are more usable if they are bigger.
I wonder if a "budget" 4K TV (for strictly non-gaming if refresh rates aren't up to par) would actually make more sense and be a better value for a wall mount setup or something weird/awesome
I don’t I have to read a lot of text on my monitor and I had a 1080P screen text is awful to look at 1080P even at 23 inches. For video 4K on a 27 inch won’t be that big of a difference but text is a different story.
4K is dead! I'll never get rid of my 21:9 ultra-wide, it's the best way to play games end of discussion!
How is 4k dead regardless at some point there will be 21:9 monitors with 2160p vertical resolution then you will get the best of both worlds
Just getting an 21:9 flat panel soon with 34 inch. I am so excited
For anyone worried about the black bars on the ultra wide... You get used to it, in fact, I don't even see it most of the time when I'm watching something, but when you hop into a game that supports it.. Which is most of what I play... It is beautiful. I fell in love with ultra wide and now I can't go back.