Decided To Ditch Surround and Go Ultra-Wide

cybereality

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,789
I've had a triple 1440p setup for like 4 years now, and driving 7680x1440 was always a struggle. Been thinking about ultra-wide for a while, but the setup was working so I left it. Recently one of the side monitors developed a blurring issue (evidently common on these Asus panels) and I'm out of warranty. So I decided to try ultra-wide.

Just bought an LG 34UC89G-B: 2560x1080 144Hz (166Hz OC) IPS G-Sync. Price was $700, though I should be able to sell my 2 working Rog Swifts and cover most of that. I know people would recommend 3440x1440, but my main focus is getting the smoothest gameplay and I think the performance will be a lot better at 1080p. Did some tests with a 21:9 custom res, and it looks like I can get in the 100fps and above range for new games on Ultra, or even 200fps+ in older or less demanding games. This will be perfect for me.

Though, of course, the screen will be smaller horizontally than 3 monitors, but I can barely see the periphery anyhow and I won't have to deal with the bezels or with Surround software problems in Windows. Monitor should arrive in 2 days, I'll be sure to take some pics and share if it was a good choice.
 
I currently use 2560x1080 34" UW, took a while to get used to the resolution when not in a game, but in a game I really don't see a lot of sacrifice unless I'm just staring for it. 160hz OC on my panel.

I've had it for 4 or 5 mos now, don't regret it. I will consider the new LG screens that are 144hz 3440x1440, but they are only now becoming available.
 
Thanks for sharing. I'm still on the fence if I can live with 1080p after running 1440p for so long, but I'm hoping the added refresh will make up for it.

I'm coming from 144Hz and the LG can do 166Hz OC. Otherwise I would have went with the Alienware 1440p, but it's limited to 120Hz OC (100Hz native).

But Amazon is really good about returns, so I'll try it first and worst case I'll send it back and get something else.
 
You're going from 3x 1440p screens to literally less pixels than a SINGLE one of those screens. ONE of those screens is 1440x2560 and you're going to 1080x2560.

It's going to be REALLY pixelated. You're looking at around 25% of the detail you had before. At least consider 1440p Ultrawide. You'll get a decent 30% performance boost over your current setup and you won't sacrifice detail.
 
cybereality

I tried a 2560x1080 Acer 75hz panel (35") with freesync.

I wasn't in love.

I had three HP Omen 32" in an Eyefinity setup with freesync and liked it quite a bit, but it had it's pitfalls, (too wide(actually had to turn my head to see left and right, FOV issues with games at 7680x1440, FPS was a nightmare with so much peripheral filled - it really only excelled for driving games and flying games)

I then moved to a single 34" Ultrawide.

I like the higher resolution of the 3440x1440 Alienware AW3418DW I have now over the Acer 35" 2560x1080, but frankly I wish it was in a 38" instead of a 34" I think a 38" panel with gsync would be just about perfect. You'll get the feel for it though, and figure out what you like with that 2560x1080 display. I'll be interested to hear what you think.
 
Last edited:
I like the middle ground of 35" 3440x1440 120hz for price to performance ratio. I think realistically 35-38" ultrawide is about the sweet spot for size and just need higher resolutions overall.
 
Thanks y'all. I appreciate the advice.

My main goal was getting smoother framerates, as it's been a huge struggle (even with SLI) to get above 90fps in new games. In older games, I really love getting the full 144Hz, it's so much better.

But 3440x1440 would be good too, I definitely considered it, but I was trying to optimize for framerates and refresh.

Looking at it now, I probably should have gone for 1440p, but the unit already shipped so I'll at least try it. I'd be interested to see even if I do end up returning it.
 
RaptormanUSMC said:
I am ditching a 43" 4k tv for ultra wide. Ordered a Samsung CHG90 49" 3840x1089 monitor that arrives tomorrow. We'll see how it compares to the tv I was using.
Click to expand...
Nice. I really wanted that display but it's FreeSync and I'm running Nvidia on this machine. Looks like it has just about everything though, I hope you enjoy.
 
cybereality said:
Nice. I really wanted that display but it's FreeSync and I'm running Nvidia on this machine. Looks like it has just about everything though, I hope you enjoy.
Click to expand...

Me too. I ditched nvidia to go freesync as well. I was running a GeForce 1080Ti Founders. To be honest, in the games I play the performsnce difference doesn't appear to be a lot (Especially with undervolting and overclocking a Red Devil Vega 64). I know the CHG90 isn't purest HDR but it should provide quite the improvement in image anyway.
 
Yeah. It should look great. I have a Samsung QLED TV and the quality is top notch.
 
I have surround, but I run most AAA games on one screen and I'm very happy with it.

A single 2560x1440 TN panel with G-Sync is ideal for FPS games like BLOPS4

Three screens is too useful for productivity and multi tasking and too nice for driving games and MMOs.
 
I got the LG monitor today. I think I like it.

Default picture settings were bad, but after tweaking the options I think the colors definitely look better than my old TN.

166Hz overclock worked with no problem. It's not a huge jump, but I do notice a small improvement in game smoothness from 144Hz.

Game are running great. Getting 164fps (frame limited) in many games though I am CPU limited at this point.

In SotTR I can get just around 164 fps, but dipping into the 140 range in complex scenes. Dying Light has full 164 fps as do older games like L4D, HL2, FEAR3. Far Cry 5 seems heavily CPU limited, I'm "only" getting around 100 - 120 fps.

Despite being 1080p, it still looks good. Obviously there was a drop in detail from 1440p, but it still looks acceptable. More just like a softer picture or heavy AA look. I wouldn't say it's pixelated, at least not in game.

Size of the screen is good. I could have gone larger if that was an option, but 34" seems fine. I definitely like the no bezels, and the FOV is good to have everything in view (though it is less immersive than the 3 screen of course).

Windows desktop use may not be ideal at this resolution, but it works and I think it's acceptable.

My main goal was getting to Ultra settings locked at 164Hz and that seems possible in most of the games I tried. Will have to spend more time with it, but so far I'm happy.
 
Played around with it more today. I'm definitely happy with the choice.

LG_Ultrawide_01.jpg
LG_Ultrawide_02.jpg
LG_Ultrawide_03.jpg
LG_Ultrawide_04.jpg
LG_Ultrawide_05.jpg


Windows desktop works better as before I needed DisplayFusion with multi-monitor and there were many bugs that haven't been fixed for years (alt-tab menu on side monitor, disappearing Windows icon, etc.). Single monitor is better here.

Some games that weren't playable with Surround now work perfect in Ultrawide (Mirror's Edge in particular). Nice win.

I played around with color settings more, and I got it to a point where it looks noticeably better in terms of the color and look than my old panel. Definitely feels more accurate, and I like the IPS properties (no off-angle tint like TN).

I thought 1080p might be blurry, but it's actually still clear in games. Granted, it's lower resolution for sure, but not such a huge difference that the games look bad. It will take some getting used to, but so far it's exceeded expectations.

The text sizing in Windows and browser is better for me at native size. My eyes must be going bad, because on 1440p and above I can't read anything without getting right up on the monitor. So this is an improvement, even with less fidelity.

166Hz is nice in games and I don't think I could reach those framerates at 3440x1440. Maybe in some games, but I want to play the new BF and Metro and other ray-traced titles on Ultra and I think 1080p is a safer bet here from what we know.

Some things I don't like: Windows feels a little cramped coming from triple 1440p. It's manageable, but I will have to get used to this. There is more motion blur than my old 144Hz TN panel. It's not too bad though, and I guess this is expected going from 1ms to 5ms. The curve on the monitor is very slight, I would have liked a more aggressive curve. It almost feels like a flat screen but I still think it's better than being totally flat. Size is not as immersive as 3 screens (to be expected). I'll need to get a monitor arm so I can bring the panel closer in. Currently I have the stand right against my keyboard but I'd like it a little closer.

Overall, though, I think I made a good pick here.
 
Last edited:
make sure your windows scaling is at 100% and not 125% or 150% from your old monitor settings.
 
Archaea said:
make sure your windows scaling is at 100% and not 125% or 150% from your old monitor settings.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's 100%. I had changed all the settings before with a 2560x1080 custom resolution so I was good to go as soon as I plugged it in.
 
One thing I noticed, some games actually look better with the LG. Strange, but let me explain.

In Watch Dogs 2, I was getting around 90 fps before at 7680x1440. It was nice, but I had to drop settings to slightly below High to get there.

With this monitor, at 2560x1080, I was able to get to custom Ultra settings (had to tweak AA and a few other things, but almost maxed out) and I'm still getting 90 fps (this may be partially a CPU limit).

In any case, Ultra settings at 1080p does look better to me than 1440p High. Granted, I lost some resolution, so the visual fidelity is less, but the overall package I think improved.
 
cybereality said:
I've had a triple 1440p setup for like 4 years now, and driving 7680x1440 was always a struggle. Been thinking about ultra-wide for a while, but the setup was working so I left it. Recently one of the side monitors developed a blurring issue (evidently common on these Asus panels) and I'm out of warranty. So I decided to try ultra-wide.

Just bought an LG 34UC89G-B: 2560x1080 144Hz (166Hz OC) IPS G-Sync. Price was $700, though I should be able to sell my 2 working Rog Swifts and cover most of that. I know people would recommend 3440x1440, but my main focus is getting the smoothest gameplay and I think the performance will be a lot better at 1080p. Did some tests with a 21:9 custom res, and it looks like I can get in the 100fps and above range for new games on Ultra, or even 200fps+ in older or less demanding games. This will be perfect for me.

Though, of course, the screen will be smaller horizontally than 3 monitors, but I can barely see the periphery anyhow and I won't have to deal with the bezels or with Surround software problems in Windows. Monitor should arrive in 2 days, I'll be sure to take some pics and share if it was a good choice.
Click to expand...


Sitting on 6480 x 3840 here. And I agree. Surround has... problems.

Still, I don't see another viable option for me, as VERTICAL space is actually more important to me than horizontal screen real estate.

I sit about 28" from my screen setup, and I still have problems not going "walleyed" or losing my mouse sometimes.
It PROBABLY wouldn't have been quite so bad had I gone 1440p on my 3 27" monitors.
Thinking I should have just got the giant business-class monitor that can subdivide into 4 views...Price was about the same.

Oh well.
 
Chas said:
Still, I don't see another viable option for me, as VERTICAL space is actually more important to me than horizontal screen real estate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the vertical space loss is the biggest issue for me here, but I can live with it.

For web browsing, I'm using full screen, which removes enough stuff to make it usable.

Still not ideal for desktop use, work, etc. but I think I can get used to it.
 
cybereality said:
Yeah, the vertical space loss is the biggest issue for me here, but I can live with it.

For web browsing, I'm using full screen, which removes enough stuff to make it usable.

Still not ideal for desktop use, work, etc. but I think I can get used to it.
Click to expand...

I browse like this, but I do have a bit more horizontal pixels,
cubicle-desk-hard-apple.jpg
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Kind of a niche display- seems more focused on content creation of various types than gaming.

I'd be interested if they put out a higher-refresh version, maybe, but it's a hard argument when you're already at >US$1000, and you can have multiple larger 4k screens for that price.
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in multiple 4K screens. I think anything over 43" diminishes the sharpness of 4K, at least for PC use.
 
Commander Shepard said:
I'm not interested in multiple 4K screens. I think anything over 43" diminishes the sharpness of 4K, at least for PC use.
Click to expand...

The challenge is exactly what one is interested in, isn't it?

I run four monitors- one is 4k, but I game on a 1440p monitor. I could run more, just running out of space to put them ;).
 
The 5120x2160 format gives you 4K at the center (when forced to 16:9) and then extends the horizontal by 33%. While it consumes a huge amount of bandwidth and GPU power to drive it (DP 1.4 required, HDMI 2.0 doesn't work), it will likely represent the way forward as it blends the desires of 4K and widescreen pretty harmoniously. I'll be happy when they can up the refresh on it, but that's going to take a higher DP than 1.4 and possibly a gsync version 3. But still a few years down the road I suspect you'll see it in a lot of panel sizes.
 
After 2 weeks, I still like the LG a bunch.

I tried doing 5K2K DSR, and it enhances the image quality a lot. While not quite as sharp as real 4K, it does certainly look higher res and surprisingly close to a native render.

It's pretty intensive for new games, but for some old titles like Left4Dead, Half-Life 2, and F.3.A.R. it looks great and I can get the full refresh. I even tried Dirt Rally, a fairly new game, and I can still get 164 fps performance.

This actually gives me more flexibility than a real 5K2K monitor, as I can run 1080p for newer games and then use DSR 5K2K for older titles *and* still get 166Hz (something that probably won't be possible native for a while).

It really is the best of both worlds, even if it's not quite as nice visually (though, to be honest, with good AA the loss in sharpness is not so bad).

I'll have to do more productivity on the LG, I can already tell it's not optimal at the lower res, but I'd like to see if I can make it work. Otherwise, I might have to swap it for a 3440x1440 panel, but we'll see.
 
cybereality


I find your posts about this monitor interesting. I currently have a 28" 4k AOC monitor that purchased from about 2 years ago for ~$250. I used to use Eyefinity and understand the 21:9 (7:3) aspect ratio for playing FPS. I like what this monitor brings to the table, Gsync, high refresh rate & a resolution that won't choke your video card. I'm currently running a 1070 SC after running a Nitro Fury card that died after a year.

One thing I'm used to with the 4k monitor, though is how sharp the screen is. I have not seen a jagged edge in a since I started using this monitor. I let the games set themselves up automatically. The BF series all look great. Even at lower resolutions, 23x14, 1920x1080, no jagged edges. The pixel density is very high on the 4k.

I have been playing with 2560x1080 custom resolution for games. The 28" monitor basically becomes a 25"/27" widescreen monitor. I have always liked the sense of horizon for for fps games at this resolution. BFV, BF1, Doom, Wolfenstein all run very smoothly at Ultra settings.

How have you found the pixel density and sharpness of the LG 34UC89G-B?

Any jagged edges in games?

I'm kind of on the fence about simply staying 4k & eventually get a larger 32" 4k monitor with a higher refresh rate or simply get a monitor like a LG 34UC89G-B. There is a 2 year old thread that discusses just this in the H forums.
 
Sailindawg It's basically a trade-off these days on monitors. There are lots of good options, but so far there is not one monitor with everything.

The pixel density is obviously lower (I was coming from 1440p) but it looks good enough in my opinion and still feels HD.

It can depend on how the game renders anti-aliasing. I noticed in DOOM, everything looks perfect and I don't see any pixelation. Older games with 8X MSAA also still look fine (HL2 or L4D).

However, in some newer titles, like Far Cry 5 as an example, you can notice pixelation mostly on electrical wires or cages or other thin objects. I wouldn't say it ruins the game, but it's definitely there.

I started playing BFV, and it looks good as well. There were a few scenes where I would have liked a sharper image, but overall it was acceptable quality to me.

So it's really about what you want to optimize for. In my case, I was running triple 1440p for years and the struggle to even reach 90 fps was insane, and I'm happy now that I can get 166 fps w/ no problem on 2080 Ti SLI. Especially on DOOM, the high refresh rate is so smooth and honestly a whole new experience. That part is worth it to me. If I went higher res, I'd probably be looking at the Alienware 120Hz, which I'm sure is nice but would have been a downgrade coming from 144Hz. But the resolution of the LG was a downgrade. So it's a compromise.

I think 4K is great as well, I also have an AMD rig with a 4K TV. The clarity is amazing. The only problem is that it's 60Hz and to get 60 fps can be a struggle for 4K. Definitely happy with the picture quality on 4K, though, and virtual ultrawide is an option on the TV (should work with Nvidia, AMD doesn't work well with custom resolutions for some reason). I think if you are used to 4K, there will be a noticeable loss in sharpness on 1080p. While I'd say 1080p is still acceptable quality, there is a pretty big difference.

It's hard so say if that would be worth it to you. For me, it was worth it to get to 166Hz. Something magical happens at that refresh rate and the smoothness is really impressive. I also like that performance is much better, Ultra settings are not a problem. But the resolution could be better, especially in Windows or in the web browser, it can feel a bit cramped up in terms of screen real estate. In games, this is less of an issue, but you still have jagged edges unless the game has good anti-aliasing. But this depends on the game.

Probably next year we are going to see some developments in terms of high res high refresh monitors, but it'll still be a trade-off in terms of image quality and performance. So I'm happy with the LG for now and I'll see what comes out next year.
 
Also, when playing older games I'm using Nvidia DSR at 5K2K resolution and it looks really nice.

Not true 4K, but maybe somewhere like perceived 1440p or in that range.

While it doesn't necessary increase the sharpness, it helps a lot with removing the jagged edges and getting a nicer image.
 
Sailindawg said:
I'm kind of on the fence about simply staying 4k & eventually get a larger 32" 4k monitor with a higher refresh rate or simply get a monitor like a LG 34UC89G-B. There is a 2 year old thread that discusses just this in the H forums.
Click to expand...

If you want ultrawide and are happy to game at 1080p, but are worried about pixel density, I'd go with a 29" ultrawide. I have one and I'm loving it. I do wish they made a high refresh option though - they make it at 34", why not at 29? Probably so they have an excuse to overcharge you. If 2019 brings an IPS 1080p 144hz 29" ultrawide panel, I'll buy it on day one and just have a dual 29" ultrawide setup, use the 144hz one for gaming. I don't see that happening, sadly. But it should. There's definitely a market for it. We don't all want the same FOV just bigger - I do not want 34" ultrawide, it gets me the same worldview as 29" just bigger elements, which I don't want - coming from a 40" 4K TV used as monitor, being able to see the whole 29" screen without having to turn my head is wonderful.

As cybereality said, it's basically a trade-off these days and it's really annoying. Manufacturers could make the perfect or nearly perfect display, yet they don't. It's like they're trying to keep us buying the same incomplete products. Personally, I'm done buying monitors until there's a 29" model that supports either DCI-P3 colorspace (and can REPRODUCE it, not just understand it) or 144hz.
 
Thanks. I've looked at the 29" UW's as well! I was thinking Freesync until the Fury died. I bought the 1070 used & I think it out performs the Fury. The 32" LG is interesting because of the high refresh rate. Also, the 1070 can probably run it no issue. BUT, it does only the 2560x1080 resolution and that would probably be it.

AOC basically makes disposable monitors. They use the same panel or very similar to an ASUS or LG, but no software, no drivers, absolutely no support. I don't have a driver disk. I bough the monitor that was the last one as a display model. Got a great price. I calibrate it with a Spider and the color is fine. I was quite surprised how much a TN panel has changed, IPS panels as well. I understand the trade off's opinion and agree. With my current monitor I have more options with resolutions than an ultrawide. It's just refresh rate and the size of the monitor. To stay with a 4k, I'm starting to think a a 32" could be the way to go.

Regarding monitors overall, it does seem to be a bit of monopoly regarding how slow change comes to new monitors.
 
I have an x34 at 3440x1440 100hz gTaxed

It's nice but nothing beats my 1080p 240hz Acer predator. Love this monitor.
 
Sweet. I've never seen 240Hz, but I imagine it looks pretty nice, especially on esports or old titles where you can get that fps.

Even so, 166Hz feels butter smooth to me. I wasn't sure there would be a difference from 144Hz but there definitely is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top