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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
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!
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 .
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I guess right now I should wait till computex to see if anything new is coming shortly.
 
Back
Top