euskalzabe
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,478
Genuine question here, not trying to start some war.
I was considering buying an ultrawide monitor a couple months ago, but lately I've been much more attracted to affordable 4K TVs like the Samsung KU6300 that goes for ~$450. Doing some measurements I realized that a 40" TV (or any 4K 40" monitor for that matter) would actually give me a bigger diagonal than any 34" monitor - 37" of ultrawide aspect ratio to be exact.
So, why get an actual ultrawide for not much less money (or actually more money if we compare ultrawides to 4K 40" monitors instead of 40" 4K TVs) when you can just set a custom resolution at 2560x1080, 3440x1440 or even 3840x1620 that is greater than what WQHD ultrawides offer and would still fit in a 4K 16:9 panel? You get the same or better resolution at a bigger size and less price (the most comparable size would be LG's new 38UC99 and that costs $1499!! you can buy 3 KU6300s for that amount).
Unless you want adaptive sync or the 20ms of lag terribly bother you (I hear your complaints, competitive gamers, but not everybody plays twitch-reflex games), the panels in TVs like the K6300 have excellent color and contrast (just check the rtings.com reviews). What's the point of an ultrawide, then? It seems it would hurt productivity by eliminating the vertical space option, whereas with a 40" 4K 16:9 display gives you the best of both worlds: ultrawide FOV for games and 4K+vertical space for productivity.
I'll give you a quick example: I was playing Arkham Knight yesterday on my 1080p 40" TV. 16:9 gets a bit too restrictive for my taste, so I made a custom resolution of 1920x810 and, while not losing any of the vertical space advantage for productivity, I still gained the ultrawide FOV for gaming that I prefer:
Am I crazy here? How is this not a win-win?
I was considering buying an ultrawide monitor a couple months ago, but lately I've been much more attracted to affordable 4K TVs like the Samsung KU6300 that goes for ~$450. Doing some measurements I realized that a 40" TV (or any 4K 40" monitor for that matter) would actually give me a bigger diagonal than any 34" monitor - 37" of ultrawide aspect ratio to be exact.
So, why get an actual ultrawide for not much less money (or actually more money if we compare ultrawides to 4K 40" monitors instead of 40" 4K TVs) when you can just set a custom resolution at 2560x1080, 3440x1440 or even 3840x1620 that is greater than what WQHD ultrawides offer and would still fit in a 4K 16:9 panel? You get the same or better resolution at a bigger size and less price (the most comparable size would be LG's new 38UC99 and that costs $1499!! you can buy 3 KU6300s for that amount).
Unless you want adaptive sync or the 20ms of lag terribly bother you (I hear your complaints, competitive gamers, but not everybody plays twitch-reflex games), the panels in TVs like the K6300 have excellent color and contrast (just check the rtings.com reviews). What's the point of an ultrawide, then? It seems it would hurt productivity by eliminating the vertical space option, whereas with a 40" 4K 16:9 display gives you the best of both worlds: ultrawide FOV for games and 4K+vertical space for productivity.
I'll give you a quick example: I was playing Arkham Knight yesterday on my 1080p 40" TV. 16:9 gets a bit too restrictive for my taste, so I made a custom resolution of 1920x810 and, while not losing any of the vertical space advantage for productivity, I still gained the ultrawide FOV for gaming that I prefer:
Am I crazy here? How is this not a win-win?
Last edited: