![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Can't decide between 21:9 (ultrawide) or 16:9
- Thread starter mmarsh
- Start date
Spun Ducky
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 733
That is a solid plan if you don't need the tech right now. I would keep in mind the first gen of anything tends to have issues though. I remember the early 21:9 monitors had issues with backlight bleed among other issues that were worse than 16:9 monitors at the time. The other downside is the price tends to be very high on specialty first gen items.
Yes I've been stung by the "leaped too soon" first adopter problems. Good thing to caution me 
because it's so easy to forget. Problem is, of course that the 38" monitor will be useful for work immediately (when working from home). So probably I'll have to leap as it is ready and just be prepared to test carefully in case it's no good. Ideally I'd wait till Dell (or AW since it is a high refresh panel) came out with their version, but the 6 month lag time on that wouldn't be helpful.
I am reading that a lot of folks are finding the 5120x2160 34" panel very nice to use. And I'm not the only person to think that resolution would be sweet in a 38" model. But I can add that to the collection down the road when it comes. For now I'll look for this high refresh 37.5 as the "next" addition.
I hope that LG won't gimp the panel by using the older gsync. Read a review on TFTCentral, http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_34gk950g.htm and I'm highly disappointed that it drops to 8 bit vs the same panel with freesync gets 10 bit, http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_34gk950f.htm. Some may find that perfectly acceptable but HDR actually brings 10bit to life and even though the backlight isn't super, having HDR fully working with 10 bit is much nicer than the gsync version.
Anyway in summary after long comparison and years of use in 16:9, 16:10 in single and multiple setups, I am pretty happy moving to a single widescreen to cover bases that used to take multiple setups. No more worries about color variances between the same panels or bezels to break things up. So one more $.02 thought to add to the OP.
because it's so easy to forget. Problem is, of course that the 38" monitor will be useful for work immediately (when working from home). So probably I'll have to leap as it is ready and just be prepared to test carefully in case it's no good. Ideally I'd wait till Dell (or AW since it is a high refresh panel) came out with their version, but the 6 month lag time on that wouldn't be helpful.I am reading that a lot of folks are finding the 5120x2160 34" panel very nice to use. And I'm not the only person to think that resolution would be sweet in a 38" model. But I can add that to the collection down the road when it comes. For now I'll look for this high refresh 37.5 as the "next" addition.
I hope that LG won't gimp the panel by using the older gsync. Read a review on TFTCentral, http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_34gk950g.htm and I'm highly disappointed that it drops to 8 bit vs the same panel with freesync gets 10 bit, http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_34gk950f.htm. Some may find that perfectly acceptable but HDR actually brings 10bit to life and even though the backlight isn't super, having HDR fully working with 10 bit is much nicer than the gsync version.
Anyway in summary after long comparison and years of use in 16:9, 16:10 in single and multiple setups, I am pretty happy moving to a single widescreen to cover bases that used to take multiple setups. No more worries about color variances between the same panels or bezels to break things up. So one more $.02 thought to add to the OP.
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
Yeah, I'm loving this 34" ultrawide coming from triple 27". The lack of bezels actually improves the experience, and I couldn't really see the periphery anyhow so not a huge loss.
While 3440x1440 would probably be the sweet spot for productivity, I went with 2560x1080 for the added refresh and for making performance better to reach the high framerates in games.
Wish I would have looked at ultrawide before, it's been a huge improvement for me (at least in games).
While 3440x1440 would probably be the sweet spot for productivity, I went with 2560x1080 for the added refresh and for making performance better to reach the high framerates in games.
Wish I would have looked at ultrawide before, it's been a huge improvement for me (at least in games).
griffinhart
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,294
I love my Ultrawide as well. I use three systems pretty regularly. Two at work and my home gaming PC. At work, I have three 24" 1080p displays and I use all three screens heavily. I also have a 27" Dell 4K panel on an other PC, and while the resolution is nice, I simply can't be as productive on the single 4K display.
At home, I used to run 3 Dell 27" IPS (1440) displays. In reality, I only really used two screens at any given time. One for whatever game I was playing (usually some MMO) and a second for browsers and utilities while playing. Two years ago, I picked up the Acer x34 Predator and I haven't looked back. I reduced my monitors to two. The ultrawide is the same height as the 27", so they mesh well and do not feel awkward when using going between them. I love the extra real-estate when gaming, and for productivity, it's the equivalent of using two and a half monitors. The ultrawide screen is great for video editing as well. A wider view for the timeline is helpful.
Frankly, I find that with 4K, I have to increase the font size and zoom levels or everything is too small. So, I'm not gaining any workable space in the end. I honestly can't notice any image quality difference between 4K and 1440. I'm sure some people can but I'm not one of those people. I find that once I hit 1440 resolutions I got more benefit by increasing aspect ratios over resolution. So, I'm very happy with my choice after two years. Good resolution, great aspect ratio, 100Hz and G-Sync.