Glad you're enjoying it! I love my UW monitor!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
34" Ultrawide isn't THAT amazing...
- Thread starter CompletelyBrokn
- Start date
XBarbarian
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,370
this pic of my new PG348Q received and setup only yesterday, hardly does it justice. hard to capture the level of immersion. in fact, when I first launched the game and started moving around, I had a slight tinge of VR-like nausea! it's fricking amazing! I'm really happy here. the G-Sync, the 100hz, everything jacked to high, make this so amazing! highly recommend!
WoW UW by Donald Turner, on Flickr
WoW UW by Donald Turner, on Flickrsilent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
AOC's quality control tends to be... iffy at best. I'd avoid it until there are a good many reviews available.
UW 34 curved monitors are great for games indeed. But those are just ok for productivity due to:
- limited vertical space for coding for example
- in 2 windows scenario one on the left , other on the right you need to turn your head to look at the left or right window.
For productivity 2 or 3 monitors with one monitor n the center is much better.
- limited vertical space for coding for example
- in 2 windows scenario one on the left , other on the right you need to turn your head to look at the left or right window.
For productivity 2 or 3 monitors with one monitor n the center is much better.
The lack of vertical space is why I never considered them a viable option. G-Sync is the only feature that would really make me consider one.
AltTabbins
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 20,387
I don't get the vertical space argument. It's a lot more than 1080. The next resolution up is 2560x1440 which has the exact same vertical resolution as 3440x1440. After that it's 4K and if you are trying to code anything in 4K may god have mercy on your eyes because text is microscopic.
Sure, if you're comparing it against vertical displays, but 1440p is not exactly lacking when 1080p is still the most common monitor resolution.
The only thing bigger would be a 40" 4K screen, since no-one makes 1600p displays any more - apart from that LG 3840x1600 ultrawide.
And you can't sit nearly as close to a 4K screen due to that vertical height.
Many people have similar complaints about the LG 38" UW actually - that they have to push it further back, so it ends up about the same size as a 34" in your vision.
However pushing the display further back means that the text is going to be smaller, since the DPI is the same, and using display scaling would result in less workspace than a 3440x1440 monitor.
Well it's not like windows must be split 50/50 on any display.
You can use tools like DisplayFusion to set up a center/left/right position for windows instead of having to snap 50/50 to the left/right of the screen. It really depends on what you're trying to view.
And you obviously have to turn your head with a multi-monitor setup too.
GamingAori
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 12
Does not exist mods for increasing FOV manually for big 16:9 screens? I do not know much, about it so far, so maybe it's a stupid question :/
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
Sure, but actually having the display area is always going to be much more effective than just turning up the fish-eye. Not comparable at all.
Last edited:
I am on linux mint coding in Java and there is no tool like DisplayFusion for it. There are some window managers that are terrible. Native Cinamon manager is goiod but it does not let me center the window. Only left and right.
Not really when the main monitor is in the center and secondary are on the sides. For the main monitor you do not need to turn your head.
Higher FoV values only look distorted when the game FoV is too high relative to how much of your actual vision the display fills.
If you have a much larger display, and are still sitting close to it, proportionally higher FoV values should not look distorted.
This GIF shows how higher FoV does not distort the image, so long as display size increases with it.
The issue is that you may be limited by how high you can set the FoV, while ultrawides can often go beyond a game's limits if they are vertical FoV controls.
The question is how comfortably can you sit to a big 16:9 display?
I thought I was pretty close, being about 3ft from a 46" TV, but I'm now about 1ft from this 34" ultrawide, which is still comfortable to me.
I don't think I would be comfortable sitting that close to a 36" or larger 16:9 display. I'd probably want to push it back.
34" ultrawide seems to be the sweet-spot for monitor sizes.
Any bigger and you have to sit further; which means that the screen doesn't fill any more of your vision.
Maybe if they did screens that were curved in both dimensions it would work, but it seems like they're stopping producing curved TVs.
Well if you're only talking about the center monitor in a multi-monitor setup, you don't have to turn your head if you are looking at a centered window on an ultrawide either.
I don't see what the difference is, other than not having bezels on the ultrawide.
I had always heard that window managers were a lot better on Linux actually, so that's surprising to hear.
XBarbarian
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,370
i have to agree with Zone74, this 34" UW 3440x1440 seems to really be a sweet spot!! i honestly couldn't imagine any additional height being useful
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
Text and ppi scaling solves that easily. You still have tons more space and better looking text with 4k, plus the gaming detail is unmatched.
AltTabbins
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 20,387
Right.. but scaling a 4k display down to 1440p or 1080p is still the same vertical space that a 1920x1080, 2560x1440, or 3440x1440 offers.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
AltTabbins
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 20,387
Not talking about resolution. I'm talking about windows options.
Right, but when you are using Windows scaling, you are effectively just changing resolution while using a few windows tricks to smooth out the pixel mapping.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
You can also just increase the font size a bit and read text fine, which is what I do. I still have much more room than my older 2560 setups did. I've used 4k displays since 2014 of various sizes from 24" to 32", and finally settled on a 28 to tide me over until something awesome comes along like the 144hz Asus or similar. I would love 32 inches for those kinds of specs, but it's only going to be 27.
On the 28 inch I have no problems with text that simply increasing font size a notch doesn't solve. The small text is razor sharp still and legible. On a low ppi, small text doesn't have enough pixels to be comfortable to read. That isn't the case even on a "small" 4k like mine.
AltTabbins
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 20,387
I still feel you on the vertical space though. I recently changed us over from 1920x1080 to 1920x1200 and everyone who's gotten them so far raved about the extra space for productivity. I'll be happier when 21:10 is more mainstream but im ok for now (all personal preference I guess).
With scaling, a 32" 4K display gives you a 3072x1728 workspace. That's only 7% more than a 3440x1440 ultrawide.
Which aspect ratio is preferable really depends on how you're using it.
The higher DPI text and 1536x1728 window size if you do a 50/50 split is probably really nice if you're working with text/code all day, compared to 1720x1440.
This does assume that you can keep the 32" screen at the same distance as the ultrawide though. If you push it further back to accommodate that height, you need to increase the scaling.
And it depends on what you're using it for. I'd prefer the wider screen for photo and video editing where you have a lot of panels open and want to keep what you're working on at the full height of the display. 16:9 isn't wide enough for that.
A 27" 4K screen only gives you a 2560x1440 workspace though.
You do get sharper text and images, but also have to deal with the downsides of non-integer scaling, and that extra resolution is quite demanding for games.
That's not a bad thing - I'll always advocate for higher DPI displays - but you aren't gaining any workspace.
If that ASUS 4K144 G-Sync HDR monitor was 32" I might have considered waiting, but not at 27".
I just bought a U3415W that will be here tomorrow. I know its a tad older, but you can get them for under $700 and the quality is still supposed to be fantastic.
I am upgrading from 2x Dell U2311H 1080p IPS displays I bought many years ago.
There is one thing I am going to miss though - Having a video of some sort on one screen while gaming on the other. For instance right now I am watching mlb.tv on one screen, while playing a game (snake pass - fun little game!) on another. I wont be able to do that with only one screen. That will take some time to adjust to, since I love doing that.
Im hoping the screen itself will make me feel I made the correct decision however
I am upgrading from 2x Dell U2311H 1080p IPS displays I bought many years ago.
There is one thing I am going to miss though - Having a video of some sort on one screen while gaming on the other. For instance right now I am watching mlb.tv on one screen, while playing a game (snake pass - fun little game!) on another. I wont be able to do that with only one screen. That will take some time to adjust to, since I love doing that.
Im hoping the screen itself will make me feel I made the correct decision however
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,626
You all can discuss THE TOPIC. If you are not, you will be banned.
DooKey
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,554
All I have to say is I love my 3440x1440 ultrawide. Games look great and are much more immersive than my 27" Swift displayed.
Pretty much. I've played on 27" 144hz, and the immersiveness doesn't compare. One thing I do miss is being able to run OW to utilize my full screen. I was pretty close to masters using my VG248QE.
RJ1892
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 1,347
I think Ultrawide is great on some games poor on others. It looks incredible on games like Witcher 3, but on games like Overwatch it is just not that great. I will be going back to 2 16:9 displays though this year mainly because the multi tasking on ultrawide doesn't compare to having 2 displays even with software that divides the screen. I will probably end up getting a PG27VQ (27"/165hz/1440/Quantum Dot/G-Sync) as my next primary display, then use a smaller display to manage media while gaming. I'll probably put the X34 on my workstation since it is actually decent for what I use the system for.
Yeah, great for games but average for multitasking if compared with multidisplay setup.
Last edited:
Higher FoV values only look distorted when the game FoV is too high relative to how much of your actual vision the display fills.
If you have a much larger display, and are still sitting close to it, proportionally higher FoV values should not look distorted.
This GIF shows how higher FoV does not distort the image, so long as display size increases with it.
The issue is that you may be limited by how high you can set the FoV, while ultrawides can often go beyond a game's limits if they are vertical FoV controls.
The question is how comfortably can you sit to a big 16:9 display?
I thought I was pretty close, being about 3ft from a 46" TV, but I'm now about 1ft from this 34" ultrawide, which is still comfortable to me.
I don't think I would be comfortable sitting that close to a 36" or larger 16:9 display. I'd probably want to push it back.
34" ultrawide seems to be the sweet-spot for monitor sizes.
Any bigger and you have to sit further; which means that the screen doesn't fill any more of your vision.
Maybe if they did screens that were curved in both dimensions it would work, but it seems like they're stopping producing curved TVs.
Well if you're only talking about the center monitor in a multi-monitor setup, you don't have to turn your head if you are looking at a centered window on an ultrawide either.
I don't see what the difference is, other than not having bezels on the ultrawide.
I had always heard that window managers were a lot better on Linux actually, so that's surprising to hear.
I ran a 7680x1600 (3x2560x1600) display setup for years. I was well beyond a game's FOV adjustment most of the time. Fish eye was a common problem. That's why I tried 3x27", 2560x1440 displays in portrait mode. I loved that the aspect ratio didn't cause me any issues and the size of it. That's what led me to my current display, although I can't stand the borders of that setup. It didn't bother me on my 3x30" Dell's in landscape mode but it was a huge problem on the 3xROG Swifts.
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
Ultrawide would be amazing at 4k resolutions, 120+ refresh rates & a 38" form factor
I have the CF791 and its great, but lacks gsync (freesync does my titanxp no good) and 3440x1440 is getting long in the tooth.
I have the CF791 and its great, but lacks gsync (freesync does my titanxp no good) and 3440x1440 is getting long in the tooth.
ziocomposite
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 192
Wait till OLED finally runs 4k 120+, then you can make a custom Ultrawide
I use my C6P in "Ultrawide" format for games that support it. 3840x1600 isn't a "true" variant but man is it gorgeous still
38" would still be too small for me.
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
I have a pair of these at work and one at home. I use a program called https://maxto.net/ to make window management much easier.
DoubleTap
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,990
My biggest issue with UW gaming is that in a lot of games, important HUD info ends up in your peripheral vision instead of your center vision.
That's what made me stick with 3 screens this upgrade instead of going to an UW.
That's what made me stick with 3 screens this upgrade instead of going to an UW.
3x monitors actually makes that issue far worse than a single ultra-wide monitor does. At 7680x1600, I had to disable NVSurround / Eyefinity on more than one occasion because some damn game's interface was totally unusable on that setup.
DoubleTap
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,990
I'm not someone who tries lots of new games - 90% of the time it's Battlefield, Guild Wars 2 or Titan Fall 2 or a driving game. The only one of those that has issues is Titan Fall 2 and there are workarounds, I just have not bothered to try them yet.
I was worried that a single 1080Ti would not run games well in surround, but I've been pleasantly surprised and G-Sync makes a huge, huge difference.
What finally made me stick with surround was the fact that I work from home and I like being able to run my work computer on 2 of the 3 screens and still have access to my own music/browser/etc without having to switch constantly. If that wasn't a factor, I probably would have gone with a G-Sync UW out of concern for performance but I'm very happy I didn't do that.
There is a big difference between running games at 7680x1440 and running at 2560x1440 on a single monitor with three other monitors just doing desktop applications like web browsing. I'm assuming your talking about the latter more than the former. 2560x1440 isn't a slouch like running at 1920x1080, but it's not remotely the same thing. I'd have doubts about a 1080Ti handling some newer games at 7680x1440 using max settings. I ran that setup for years and can tell you that I always needed more than one graphics card to keep up with modern games. Even then, I usually didn't get the performance I wanted in those games until a new generation of cards came out and leap frogged what was available on or shortly after those games launched.
DoubleTap
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,990
I run everything in surround but I never said max settings. I would say 70% high, 30% medium on average. I could run anything on ultra max on a single screen but prefer surround with 80-100fps+ over maxing all the graphics.
I have the room and power supply to add a second card when my wallet recovers from basically a full system upgrade + 3 monitors but I'm thinking of cutting down to a small ITX system because I'm so happy with it.
I couldn't do it. I was glad to drop down to 4K and not deal with fisheye and the other bullshit that goes with surround gaming. I'd rather have 60FPS with max eye candy than 100+ FPS with medium settings.
I feel like the black bars on some games would bug me too much. At this point I am just waiting for 4k with 144hz.
I was really tempted to get the ASUS ultrawide but I would be losing some refresh rate and performance - not sure if its worth it right now. 144hz on UW would make it a lot more tempting.
I was really tempted to get the ASUS ultrawide but I would be losing some refresh rate and performance - not sure if its worth it right now. 144hz on UW would make it a lot more tempting.