32 inch 16:9 or 34 inch 21:9 for gaming?

gdourado

n00b
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
57
Hello, how are you?

I am looking for a monitor.
The usage will be almost exclusively gaming.
At first, I was set on a 32 inch 1440p 165hz monitor like the LG or Acer ones.

But then I went reading and a lot of people online claim that ultrawide gaming is such a great experience and that it truly changes the gaming experience and that it is much more enjoyable and all that.

Now, I never gamed at ultrawide displays, so I don't really know, that is why I am asking for your opinions.
What is more emersive and enjoyable for gaming?
I know the 32 is probably bigger, as a 34 ultrawide is like a 27 inch screen stretched to the sides.
But still, what are your thoughts and experiences?

Thank you.
Cheers
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
8,179
Lack of support would be the only problem with 21:9 monitors. I'm sure the latest games will support it but a lot of older ones still don't.

I tried a 21:9 screen once at Fry's and honestly didn't care for it. It was a little weird to get used to cause you can't see everything without having to move your head. Personally I think 32" @ 1440 is about the ideal size and resolution for a gaming monitor.
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
20,390
Lack of support would be the only problem with 21:9 monitors. I'm sure the latest games will support it but a lot of older ones still don't.

I tried a 21:9 screen once at Fry's and honestly didn't care for it. It was a little weird to get used to cause you can't see everything without having to move your head. Personally I think 32" @ 1440 is about the ideal size and resolution for a gaming monitor.

how close were you to the screen? I've got a 34" here about arms length away and just use my eyes to look left and right.
I have a messed up neck and can't turn my head, and I am fine with the 34" 21:9 screen.

The games I have been playing work with 21:9, a few need tweaks like Fallout 4, but overall, most games I have been playing work with 21:9.

IMG_1660.JPG
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
8,179
how close were you to the screen? I've got a 34" here about arms length away and just use my eyes to look left and right.
I have a messed up neck and can't turn my head, and I am fine with the 34" 21:9 screen.

The games I have been playing work with 21:9, a few need tweaks like Fallout 4, but overall, most games I have been playing work with 21:9.

View attachment 57958

It was a couple years ago on one of the first LG's and I was standing up so probably wasn't the best angle but I was about arms length away. It wasn't unbearable or anything but I just noticed I was having to look more with my head. Guess you could easily solve that by pushing the monitor back a little.

The compatibility thing was an issue for me because I do play a lot of older games from Crysis to Bioshock, all the old Batman, Dead Space and Mass Effect games. Those aren't going to be as format friendly I'm afraid.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,577
Also consider if you prioritize framerate or resolution. With the ultrawides, you're pushing more pixels and are limited to 100Hz in most cases. The experience won't be as smooth but you benefit from increased resolution. I consider motion clarity to be just as important to the overall gaming experience as resolution. Personally I love cranking out 165FPS on my new 31.5" LG, it's essentially the perfect monitor for my single 1080Ti setup. I can't recommend it enough!
 
Last edited:

DanNeely

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,344
If you play games that use corner HUDs for anything consider that a 34" ultrawide will put them almost 3.5" farther into your peripheral vision than a 32" 16:9, and almost 8" farther out than a 27" 16:9. I have a 32" 4k, and hud info being far enough out that its affecting how readily I'm aware of it is an annoyance. Not enough to back to a smaller 24" screen; but I doubt I'd find going even wider acceptable without increasing the distance from my eyes to the screen enough that what I've effectively done is to keep the width the same and just make my screen shorter.
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
20,390
If you play games that use corner HUDs for anything consider that a 34" ultrawide will put them almost 3.5" farther into your peripheral vision than a 32" 16:9, and almost 8" farther out than a 27" 16:9. I have a 32" 4k, and hud info being far enough out that its affecting how readily I'm aware of it is an annoyance. Not enough to back to a smaller 24" screen; but I doubt I'd find going even wider acceptable without increasing the distance from my eyes to the screen enough that what I've effectively done is to keep the width the same and just make my screen shorter.
The 34" is only 1.68" wider on each side, the HUD would only be 1.68" further on each side.
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
20,390
It was a couple years ago on one of the first LG's and I was standing up so probably wasn't the best angle but I was about arms length away. It wasn't unbearable or anything but I just noticed I was having to look more with my head. Guess you could easily solve that by pushing the monitor back a little.

The compatibility thing was an issue for me because I do play a lot of older games from Crysis to Bioshock, all the old Batman, Dead Space and Mass Effect games. Those aren't going to be as format friendly I'm afraid.

I have all those games as well. I just haven't played them much, and haven't even fired up the Dead Space or Mass Effect games yet, had them for years now.

here you can see where my hands are when I game on it.
IMG_1663.JPG
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
11,694
I had a 32” (16x9) 1440p. (Actually three of them). Probably it’s a better monitor for a deep desk. The ppi is bigger on the 32” 16x9. The screen feels bigger too at the same distance. I replaced it with a 34” Alienware 3440x1440 widescreen. To get the same feel I had to move the 34” widescreen closer to my chair. (Of course any screen feels bigger if you move it closer.) I don’t really have a strong preference between the two in everyday use. For newer title gaming sometimes the ultra wide is a bit bette, for productivity or older title gaming I’d prefer the 16x9. I do sometimes have trouble reading font on the 34” ‘s smaller PPI. It’s like a 27” 16x9, 1440p which frankly is subjectively too small PPI for my eyes and big desk. I find myself hunching over forward to read something’s.

I will be switching to a 38” ultrawidescreen with gsync when they release. I probably wish I would have gone that way this last round with that 38” Acer, but it didn’t have g-sync. Where a 34” ultrawide is the equivalent center view as a 27” 16x9, a 38” ultrawide is the equivalent of the center view of a 30” 16x9. As a prior owner of a Dell 3014, that’s the sweet spot PPI and size for me. The extra width on the 38” ultra wide will subjectively be worth the swap.
 
Last edited:

sunchaser

n00b
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
42
Also consider if you prioritize framerate or resolution. With the ultrawides, you're pushing more pixels and are limited to 100Hz in most cases. The experience won't be as smooth but you benefit from increased resolution. I consider motion clarity to be just as important to the overall gaming experience as resolution. Personally I love cranking out 165FPS on my new 31.5" LG, it's essentially the perfect monitor for my single 1080Ti setup. I can't recommend it enough!

Hi, is the monitor you recommend the LG 32GK850G?

Thanks!
 

Tweak155

Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
687
I personally prefer the 21:9 ratio for games that support it, but keep in mind you don't have to buy a 21:9 monitor to get that effect either.

I think with 32" 16:9, that monitor would be large enough to create the custom resolution of 2560x1080 and play with black bars on the top on bottom. I used to do this on my 4k monitor (only with higher custom resolutions) and the effect was the same.

I would personally pick a 32" 4K and do this, but none are fast enough refresh... yet. I still want 120hz+. Soon...
 

euskalzabe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
1,478
Personally I use a 40” 4K tv 3 feet away from my face as a monitor, and when games support 21:9 I just enable a custom res 2560x1080. If you get a VA panel the black bars are so dark they’re not an issue (they disappear to my eyes) and you retain the option of 16:9 for games that don’t support ultrawide = win-win.
 

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
lg 850 everyone says its a great game monitor but the 2560 at that size leaves a lot to be desired for desktop.
Everything just looks, I guess fuzzy is a good word.
Not enough pixels for crisp text, I have a 27 and love the desktop, the 32 not the same.
the desktop on a 35 uw at 3440x1440 is I keep wondering why you can't get this on a 32.
The full blown 3840x2160 32 have slow refresh and take a bear of a video card to drive.
 

Greyson

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
78
the desktop on a 35 uw at 3440x1440 is I keep wondering why you can't get this on a 32.

Not sure what you're saying here. 3440x1440 is a 21:9 aspect ratio, the extra horizontal resolution is proportional to the increased width of the display. It's the same as 2560x1440 @ 16:9. Are you saying you want a 32" ultrawide?
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,375
Lack of support would be the only problem with 21:9 monitors. I'm sure the latest games will support it but a lot of older ones still don't.

I tried a 21:9 screen once at Fry's and honestly didn't care for it. It was a little weird to get used to cause you can't see everything without having to move your head. Personally I think 32" @ 1440 is about the ideal size and resolution for a gaming monitor.

I am not sure what your doing, but I can see my entire 49" 16:9 Samsung KS8500 without moving my head to take it all in. I sit about arms length away from the screen and my eyes aren't exactly fantastic.
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
8,179
I am not sure what your doing, but I can see my entire 49" 16:9 Samsung KS8500 without moving my head to take it all in. I sit about arms length away from the screen and my eyes aren't exactly fantastic.

Great, glad it works for you. It doesn't for me.
 

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
sorry greyson I see your point. What I am saying is they need something higher than 2560 for 32 in screens. But a full 4k resolution at 144hz is a monster to drive even with something like a 1080ti .
 

KingGlade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
173
Hello, how are you?

I am looking for a monitor.
The usage will be almost exclusively gaming.
At first, I was set on a 32 inch 1440p 165hz monitor like the LG or Acer ones.

But then I went reading and a lot of people online claim that ultrawide gaming is such a great experience and that it truly changes the gaming experience and that it is much more enjoyable and all that.

Now, I never gamed at ultrawide displays, so I don't really know, that is why I am asking for your opinions.
What is more emersive and enjoyable for gaming?
I know the 32 is probably bigger, as a 34 ultrawide is like a 27 inch screen stretched to the sides.
But still, what are your thoughts and experiences?

Thank you.
Cheers

Without a doubt for shooters that properly support 21:9, it can be just amazing. I have also been playing a lot of civilization and I love that extra screen real estate there. I have a 4k monitor too but at this point, I much prefer gaming on my Acer X34P. It overclocks to 120hz so while not quite at 144hz it gets pretty close I think.
 
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
48
The compatibility thing was an issue for me because I do play a lot of older games from Crysis to Bioshock, all the old Batman, Dead Space and Mass Effect games. Those aren't going to be as format friendly I'm afraid.

I haven't played Dead Space, but the rest of the games you mention work well in my experience. There are simple instructions on wsgf.org. Sometimes you need to use a tool like Flawless Widescreen.

On the plus side for ultra-wide, most games give a wider in-game field of view by default. While on 16:9 you would need to increase it manually, if a FOV setting is available at all.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,375
I haven't played Dead Space, but the rest of the games you mention work well in my experience. There are simple instructions on wsgf.org. Sometimes you need to use a tool like Flawless Widescreen.

On the plus side for ultra-wide, most games give a wider in-game field of view by default. While on 16:9 you would need to increase it manually, if a FOV setting is available at all.

Dead Space handles it fine. Many of those games were either simply well coded in this area or came out when Eyefinity and NVSurround were a thing.
 

KingGlade

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
173
asus, aoc, acer....which is best if you have a problem?

Out of those three from what I hear from the forum, it would be ASUS. I have had nothing but ACER monitors and have had no issues with swapping displays but having to pay for shipping sucks! Dell/Alienware has the best warranty practices and you should look there if the cost is right.
 

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
I guess right now I should wait till computex to see if anything new is coming shortly.
 
Top