Large 4k monitor vs the Ultra wides

Z

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
11,301
Curious everyone's opinion on best type of monitor for gaming immersion, the type that will pull you into the game, make it feel more real?

Last month I bought a used on Craigslist, Acer Predator 34" gaming monitor 3440 x 1400res, and it looks great, the curved wider edges pull you into the game, the fast refresh rate and stuff, it's super cool looking.

But then my 40" 4k display, holy cow, plugging this baby back in, and it's a beast, you have way more top and bottom view, and the screen is so large you feel you can almost jump inside the game, it just grabs you. My 4k moniotr is older, now I want to get maybe that Acer Predator 43" 4k monitor.
 
I have a 35" 3440x1440 ultrawide and a 43" 4k. I ended up using the 43" 4k as my main as it has the right level of real estate. If I had to do it again I would go 43" 4k or 38" 3840x1600 ultra wide. The 3440x1440 is just barely not enough for me to have my 4 windows going at once. So realistically to me its more a choice between 38" ultra wide or 4k 43". Either one would be just fine for my work flow and the decision would come down to price and features.
 
There is a lot less hassle sticking with a 16:9 display. If you want more screen real-estate, get a bigger display. Everything will always work perfect with 16:9, whereas there are tons of quirks with some games when using ultrawide. Also, I personally prefer using multiple monitors, where I game on the center monitor but use the side monitors for secondary tasks at the same time. An ultrawide wouldn't leave room for any monitors on the sides, and it wouldn't be worth going back to alt-tabbing just to see discord or know what song is streaming, etc. Personally, I think ultrawide is a fad.
 
Don't get any of the 43" VA panels. None of them are great. If you want to go large, spend your money on the 48" LG CX OLED instead.

I own both the LG CX and the Samsung CRG9 super ultrawide. I agree that the 16:9 is more straightforward with no compatibility issues. The LG CX is large enough to work just fine with a 3840x1600 custom resolution as well. I do love the CRG9 on the desktop, it requires no scaling and has ample desktop space. With my LG CX I prefer still using 120% scaling as otherwise text is a little bit too small for my liking.

To me ultrawide is definitely not a fad but should be the defacto standard as it has a number of benefits:
  • Wider field of view in games so you see more to your sides and are more immersed in the game world.
  • More usable desktop space. It's easier to tile windows side by side in a usable way than in a grid IMO.
  • Better fit for wider aspect ratio movies/TV.
  • Form factor that is not too massive vertically. My LG CX is so tall that I use only a portion of its screen space most of the time and am installing a floor stand today so I can put it further away than my desk allows.
It's a shame 16:9 prevails because it's a compromise between typical movie and TV aspect ratios.

The 40" 5120x2160 models coming in 2022 should marry the best of both by working with 4K 16:9 just fine while having a large enough size both horizontally and vertically to be the perfect spot for desktop use with better text rendering than the 38" 3840x1600.
 
I personally prefer 16:9 at 40" or larger.

Had a 43" Momentum for 2 years and now moved on to a 55" LG CX. Imho the 48 CX would have been perfect, but the 55" was 400 EUR cheaper so I went with that and I won't look back for a long time with that baby.
 
Thanks for the replies, good stuff.

Yeah so between my older 40" 4k and my 34" ultrawide, I have to say for immersion and sucking you into the game world, it's the 40" 4k.

The knock on the 34" ultrawide for me, is the height, seems missing space at the bottom, with it only being 1440 tall vs. 2160. But, I suppose when gaming you really aren't looking top and bottom so much as you are straight on and then the curved sides help immersion.

Those 38" monitors with the funky res of 3840 x 1600 sound like a great in-between size, but those are rather pricey closer to $2k.

Next month I'm ready to spend like $1100 or so on a new monitor, do I get the Acer 43" 4k, or the upcoming new release Acer Predator X34GS, their brand new ultrawide coming in December with all the bells and whistles. ?
 
Zorachus said:
Thanks for the replies, good stuff.

Yeah so between my older 40" 4k and my 34" ultrawide, I have to say for immersion and sucking you into the game world, it's the 40" 4k.

The knock on the 34" ultrawide for me, is the height, seems missing space at the bottom, with it only being 1440 tall vs. 2160. But, I suppose when gaming you really aren't looking top and bottom so much as you are straight on and then the curved sides help immersion.

Those 38" monitors with the funky res of 3840 x 1600 sound like a great in-between size, but those are rather pricey closer to $2k.

Next month I'm ready to spend like $1100 or so on a new monitor, do I get the Acer 43" 4k, or the upcoming new release Acer Predator X34GS, their brand new ultrawide coming in December with all the bells and whistles. ?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't buy in on both the Acer and Asus 43"ers. Too expensive for what they do. If you go big and go 16:9 I'd simply go for an LG CX right now - or maybe another 4X" 4k TV with HDMI 2.1 VRR and HDR if there comes along any competition for LG. Both the Acer and Asus as well as the Alienware were outdated the moment they were released without HDMI 2.1. If you ever intend to get a console or other entertainment system in the next 10 years than you're fu..ed without HDMI 2.1..
 
steiNetti said:
If you ever intend to get a console or other entertainment system in the next 10 years than you're fu..ed without HDMI 2.1
Click to expand...
Depend what type of game you play obviously, but I feel like 1440p 60 fps, 4K 30 fps will rather be common and at 4K few game on console will go over 60 fps I would imagine, outside missing on 120 fps at 4k (jury still out if it useful) what else do you miss with 2.0 ?

I am asking because I would maybe consider a TLC series 6 if they go down black friday, but it is missing HDMI 2.1 (it has VRR and 120 hz at 1440p too)
 
Being back on my old Philips 40" 4k. it is amazing the screen real estate this monitor provides compared to the 34" ultrawide. So much more at the bottom, feels like I get 1/3rd more screen top and bottom space on the 40" vs the 34".

But, the con is 4k is more taxing on my video card and gaming performance, and this being an old 4k monitor, it's only 60hz, which is noticeable different, compared to the fast refresh rate on the Acer Predator X34. The colors and high refresh rate for sure make the Predator monitor look much sharper and better.
 
One observation between the 40" 4k and 34" Ultrawide, is how stuff looks in game, going back to my 4k last night, everything in game just seems large and blown up bigger for some reason? Where the 34" Ultrawide makes stuff in game look very small, almost minimized by default?

World of Warcraft is a good example, I loaded it up last night on the 4k, and everything looked huge, even my character took up a big chunk of the screen, had to zoom further back, and the maps and spell bar all looked extra big on the 4k, even going to the smallest UI scaling setting. Where on the 34" Ultrawide playing WoW, stuff in game looks very tiny, almost too small, and shrunk down, character looks mini and small on screen.

Why does that happen? Is it s 16:9 vs. 21:9 thing? I would have thought the higher res of 4k would make things look small, and the medium res of the Ultrawide I thought would make things look a bit larger than the 4k, due to lower res, but that's not the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top