34" 21:9 UltraWide Displays (3440x1440) - LG UM95/UM65 & Dell U3415W

Tyrindor

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
159
Any setting do inside of the monitors OSD interface to "calibrate" it will stay in affect.

So this means tweaks to get the white point aligned and the light output set will still be vaild, but the the issue will be that the ICC color profile that will be used by color aware programs would be removed during a reformat.

How much it affects you monitor's color depends on how close your monitor was in hardware and if you are using ICC in a workflow with say a scanner /camera and printer.

Thanks, where is this ICC color profile located? Can I back it up and restore it for future reformat?

EDIT: Nevermind figured it out.
 
Last edited:

Cyclonic

n00b
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
16
Does anyone got the .inf file of the 34UM95? Mine is set to Generic PnP monitor in windows, i need it because some games are not using the rez and just stretch everything out because of it.
 

BababooeyHTJ

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
6,951
I can't wait for the korean displays using this panel. Price is a little much for me at the moment. Would also like something with the possibility to overclock.
 

Nardeus

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
89
Le philips se montre encore un peu plus :

philips_bdm3490uc_fl-2-1500x1000.jpg

philips_bdm3490uc_back-1500x1000.jpg


=> http://www.digitaltrends.com/comput...awide-lcd-is-set-to-dazzle-at-this-years-ces/
 

AFD

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
2,154
Picture-by-Picture resolutions..

Had the brilliant idea to connect two cables from my video card to two separate inputs on my UM95 for extended desktop picture-by-picture, to see if I could mock a standard dual monitor setup on a single ultrawide. Well, to my surprise, it actually worked and nothing exploded. But..

Why is it not possible to have each output set to run at a custom 1720x1440 resolution to achieve the expected size and aspect ratio?

With both outputs set to 3440x1440 and PBP set to wide, I get the entire display filled, but squashed.. and when set to original, the aspect ratio stays correct, leaving 2x tiny 21:9 side-by-side (black bars on top and bottom). When I move down to 1720x1440 at wide, the aspect ratio still isn't correct with black bars on all sides of each desktop, and same deal with original.. it just doesn't fit to half the width. 1680x1050 x2 at wide seems to be about the closest to what I would expect 1720x1440 x2 to be.

I know this is probably an incredibly stupid idea, but just thought it might be an interesting alternative to the various screen splitting utilities (that don't allow for independent full-screen). Any ideas?
 

AFD

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
2,154
Samsung's new curved S34E790C is now in-stock at Amazon (sold by Amazon) for $1299..



According to Samsung's press release, MSRP was supposed to be $1199..
The SE790C curved monitor will be available beginning January 6, 2015 for an MSRP of $1,199.99.


US product page is now live..




Looks nice, but priced too high imo.
 
Last edited:

kruki

n00b
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
20
Dell U3415W curved is ca. 750 eur in Germany!

I am very temped to try it, but I cannot find any good review... Will wait a little but that is 350 eur cheaper than LG curved model!
 

elelunicy

n00b
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
14
Why does no one make a ultrawide monitor at higher resolutions? 1440p is way too low IMO. A 5160x2160 monitor would be perfect.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2014
Messages
30
Why does no one make a ultrawide monitor at higher resolutions? 1440p is way too low IMO. A 5160x2160 monitor would be perfect.

I believe it's pretty much the same PPI as 4k at 40", which is what everyone claims is the "sweet spot for 4k"...so I'm not sure how this would be "way too low"?
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,826
I believe it's pretty much the same PPI as 4k at 40", which is what everyone claims is the "sweet spot for 4k"...so I'm not sure how this would be "way too low"?

No doubt. 5160x2160 on a display this size would be tiny as heck, and considering that 4K is taxing enough for modern GPUs, that resolution would be pretty difficult to run at this point.

Now in a year or two, 5160x2160 might be nice, but not on a display of this size. 40-42" ultrawide, anyone? :)
 

raidflex

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
258
I believe it's pretty much the same PPI as 4k at 40", which is what everyone claims is the "sweet spot for 4k"...so I'm not sure how this would be "way too low"?

I would not want to worry about GPU power with anything at 4k or higher. Current generation GPU's are not ready for 4k, SLI is basically a requirement. Scaling on more then two GPU's is not great in 90% of games. When the top end GPU can average 60 FPS in most games with high settings at 4k, that's when I would consider moving over.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2014
Messages
30
I would not want to worry about GPU power with anything at 4k or higher. Current generation GPU's are not ready for 4k, SLI is basically a requirement. Scaling on more then two GPU's is not great in 90% of games. When the top end GPU can average 60 FPS in most games with high settings at 4k, that's when I would consider moving over.

Yup, I've got SLI 970s and I think they should be just about perfect for 3440x1440. 4k might put me in a pinch in some instances with more demanding games, or down the road a year or so.
 

kruki

n00b
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
20
I am considering to order Dell curved 34". The price of 750 euro is amazing!!! I checked few retailers and they said they will get it on stock in 7 to 8 days.

The only thing keeping me from ordering is that there are no reviews of this monitor. But again, it costs 350 eur less than LG curved model.

I will inform you if I order it and when it comes.

I have gtx 970 but I am thinking of ordering a second one for sli. I am not sure one will be enough for 344 res.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,826
I have gtx 970 but I am thinking of ordering a second one for sli. I am not sure one will be enough for 344 res.

I'd try it first. I have a 970 and all of the games I've tried have been very playable. I typically run the highest graphics settings with either no or low AA, so if you insist on running high levels of AA then a second one might become desirable.

Now for very demanding or upcoming games, yeah you'll probably want a second one eventually but I'm trying to wait until the next gen of cards comes out and the prices of 970s drop even more. It would be sweet to pick one up for $250 or so. :)
 

elelunicy

n00b
Joined
Sep 14, 2014
Messages
14
I believe it's pretty much the same PPI as 4k at 40", which is what everyone claims is the "sweet spot for 4k"...so I'm not sure how this would be "way too low"?

4k at 40'' is only a sweet spot for people who are greedy for desktop real estate and don't give a damn about display clarity. I'd rather have a 4k monitor at 24'' than 40''.

A PPI of 110 is way too low in 2015. Hell, even my years old 1366x768 laptop had a similar PPI.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,826
4k at 40'' is only a sweet spot for people who are greedy for desktop real estate and don't give a damn about display clarity. I'd rather have a 4k monitor at 24'' than 40''.

It's called a difference in opinion. You'd rather have a higher PPI while others would rather have a bigger, more immersing display. Nothing wrong with either one but it's kind of funny to say that people who choose a 40" 4K display don't give a damn about display clarity.

It would appear that you're in the vast minority with that last sentence as there were many people that tried the early 28" 4K monitors and found the text way too small to be comfortable. I can't imagine a 24"...but if that's what you like, more power to ya. That's why they make different sizes...you know, so that people have different options and we're not all stuck buying the same thing that might not be right for everyone.
 

jphughan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
161
Why does no one make a ultrawide monitor at higher resolutions? 1440p is way too low IMO. A 5160x2160 monitor would be perfect.

Because until DisplayPort 1.3 arrives, there isn't an interconnect that can push the bandwidth required for the kind of resolutions you're talking about (a 21:9 version of a UHD display would be 4K display would be 5040x2160, not 5160 fyi). That's why the iMac Retina 5K had to resort to custom circuitry and also why unlike the regular iMacs, it can't be used in Target Display mode. Dell's 27" 5K display of the same resolution requires two independent DisplayPort 1.2 connections (a single MST connection won't cut it) and then it's up to the GPU to have the support for the latest version of DisplayID to figure out that it's driving a single display.

As you can tell, this is all a bit of a kludge at the moment, rather like the first-gen 4K displays relying on MST and presenting themselves to the system as two 1920x2160 displays because when they were developed, there wasn't any video processing circuitry that could handle a single 3840x2160 @ 60 Hz stream. So those displays have a second video processor that's only engaged when "DisplayPort 1.2 / MST mode" is enabled, but the catch there is that when said mode is engaged, the ONLY resolution you can push is 3840x2160 @ 60 Hz, so gamers whose systems can't play games at that resolution would have to switch back and forth.

So my guess is that nobody has released the display you want because it would have to be implemented in some sort of hack fashion, which doesn't make sense in early 2015 with DisplayPort 1.3 right around the corner that will make this possible in a normal fashion. There's also the market reality that 4K displays are still very new and very uncommon, and 21:9 displays are also somewhat new and still very uncommon, so a 21:9 4K display would be a highly niche product. But then again, niche products have a way of coming to market (just look at the Philips 40" 4K display) and the technical limitation is about to disappear, so hang in there I guess!
 
Last edited:

jphughan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
161
Does anyone know if I can use this monitor in DP 1.2 MST with a 2560x1600 in the middle of the chain? Everything I've seen indicates that the DP 1.2 bandwidth limits allow 1x 4k display or 2x 2560x1600 displays. How much headroom is there? This monitor has about 20% more pixels (and thus 20% more DP bandwidth needed) than a 2560x1600. Would I need a second video card, since no consumer cards but the 295x2 have multiple DP connectors on a single card?

Obviously I could run the 30" over HDMI, but I'd rather avoid that since I use the HDMI port to occasionally feed my TV.

Yes you can. You can actually run two 3400x1440 displays @ 60 Hz over DisplayPort 1.2.
 

jphughan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
161
Ok I've read countless pages of this thread and googled the @$!% out of this question but I can't figure it out - what is the advantage of using DP 1.2?? I have 290s in XF and only really play BF and will play GTA V (when released). I use a 15ft DP cable and luckily have had zero issues (including resizing on wake) with the monitor so far.

Anyone care to enlighten me on advantage of DP1.2?

DP 1.2 enables the DisplayPort output so you can daisy-chain another display to the U3415W -- you can even daisy-chain a second U3415W with DP 1.2 bandwidth. From what I can glean from the owner's manual and having done my own research on DP 1.2, I suspect the reason this is a toggle option rather than just always enabled is because:

- Even though DP 1.2 displays are all supposed to be backward compatible with older GPUs (albeit potentially limited to lower resolutions/refresh rates depending on the display's native capabilities), apparently some older DisplayPort GPUs don't play nice with DP 1.2 displays, and since DP 1.2 bandwidth isn't required for this display, turning it off would resolve that problem.

- Even newer GPUs seem to be having issues with DP 1.2. That seems to apply mostly to MST setups and seems to be caused by a combination of immature display hardware/firmware and GPU drivers that don't handle these new features properly just yet, but having this option again is a way to maximize compatibility if you don't care about losing the ability to daisy chain.
 

Worminater

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
1,015
Having a um94; I've been having issues getting a dasiy-chain working. (as described here

mid 2013 i7 MBA (dp 1.2) ->UM94(DP 1.2 enabled) -->monitor via cheap HDMI->Mini DP adapter.

I'm wondering if I need a better Mini DP adapter, but want independant confirmation from someone that it works before purchasing...
 

raidflex

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
258
I'd try it first. I have a 970 and all of the games I've tried have been very playable. I typically run the highest graphics settings with either no or low AA, so if you insist on running high levels of AA then a second one might become desirable.

Now for very demanding or upcoming games, yeah you'll probably want a second one eventually but I'm trying to wait until the next gen of cards comes out and the prices of 970s drop even more. It would be sweet to pick one up for $250 or so. :)

I originally purchased one GTX 780 Ti and found performance to be pretty good actually, I just wanted that extra headroom to always maintain 60 FPS at highest possible settings. I would say you should be fine with a GTX 970, it also really depends on the games you want to play. What I found was in some games like BF4, I would see spikes down to 40 FPS when in battles, where with SLI it was always above 60 FPS. Also I play Mechwarrior online which the second GPU can help a lot, even with the game's terrible optimization.
 

jphughan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
161
Having a um94; I've been having issues getting a dasiy-chain working. (as described here

mid 2013 i7 MBA (dp 1.2) ->UM94(DP 1.2 enabled) -->monitor via cheap HDMI->Mini DP adapter.

I'm wondering if I need a better Mini DP adapter, but want independant confirmation from someone that it works before purchasing...

The Apple article you quoted indicates that you have the original Thunderbolt connector, which only supported DisplayPort 1.1. Thunderbolt 2 added DisplayPort 1.2, but the MBA isn't listed as among the systems that have those ports.

And additionally, to use daisy-chaining, all displays must use native DisplayPort connections, no adapters except full-size DP <> miniDP. The last display in the chain can support only DP 1.1 rather than 1.2 (all others require 1.2), but they all must use DisplayPort signalling.

I believe that if you buy an MST hub, you can use DVI and HDMI adapters on some of the outputs because all DP traffic is terminated on the hub itself, but I'm not certain on that. I imagine some MST product description pages or owner's manuals would tell you one way or the other. But in any case you'd first have to verify that your system supports MST at all.
 
Last edited:

MrMike

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 4, 2000
Messages
6,511
2013 MBA is not DP 1.2 / Thunderbolt 2. I have one and it won't do 4k @ 60Hz.
 

Worminater

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
1,015
The Apple article you quoted indicates that you have the original Thunderbolt connector, which only supported DisplayPort 1.1. Thunderbolt 2 added DisplayPort 1.2, but the MBA isn't listed as among the systems that have those ports.

And additionally, to use daisy-chaining, all displays must use native DisplayPort connections, no adapters except full-size DP <> miniDP. The last display in the chain can support only DP 1.1 rather than 1.2 (all others require 1.2), but they all must use DisplayPort signalling.

I believe that if you buy an MST hub, you can use DVI and HDMI adapters on some of the outputs because all DP traffic is terminated on the hub itself, but I'm not certain on that. I imagine some MST product description pages or owner's manuals would tell you one way or the other. But in any case you'd first have to verify that your system supports MST at all.


Ouch; yea; on digging through the spec closer you are right. I could get something like this but it's massive and buggy; costs more than the monitor I want to chain to. Thanks for the dig; I had assumed the DP 1.2 monitor functioned as a hub as it does for USB over TB1; but it doesn't.
 

raidflex

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
258
Ouch; yea; on digging through the spec closer you are right. I could get something like this but it's massive and buggy; costs more than the monitor I want to chain to. Thanks for the dig; I had assumed the DP 1.2 monitor functioned as a hub as it does for USB over TB1; but it doesn't.

I actually set one of these up for someone with an Macbook Pro, it works pretty well but its very pricey. I also felt that the video performance was not that smooth. I believe it was a early 2013 MBP.
 

jphughan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
161
I actually set one of these up for someone with an Macbook Pro, it works pretty well but its very pricey. I also felt that the video performance was not that smooth. I believe it was a early 2013 MBP.

Wow, that thing doesn't even include the Thunderbolt cable to connect it to the host? When printers stopped including USB cables, I thought that was bad even though they're relatively common and therefore the customer might have one lying around. Thunderbolt, on the other hand...I've worked in various IT capacities for years and have only ever come across one Thunderbolt cable in my life that I was given to get faster Target Disk Mode performance on Thunderbolt-equipped Macs during troubleshooting or migrations, so this strikes me as a lame way to artificially lower the cost of this product. So the true cost of this dock is $250 now. Eesh.
 

enyownz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
1,854
finally the dell U3415W is releasing tomorrow in the US! get your cc ready

Really torn between the Dell and the Samsung since they are the same price. I want the better blacks on the Samsung but then again its a monitor and the better color on the IPS panel would be useful. At $1199 I could also get the LG one which I really like. Hmmm decisions decisions.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,826
Really torn between the Dell and the Samsung since they are the same price. I want the better blacks on the Samsung but then again its a monitor and the better color on the IPS panel would be useful. At $1199 I could also get the LG one which I really like. Hmmm decisions decisions.

I wouldn't rule out the Samsung based on a guess that the Dell IPS would have better color...the deeper blacks and superior contrast ratio of VA really makes colors pop.

As far as the LG I'll say this...I have the 34UM94 and I know nothing about how the Dell but I would rather deal with Dell support if there was a problem than LG. I haven't had to deal with LG but I've read enough to know that I really don't want to, as getting them to agree to do an exchange for anything but a completely dead screen seems to be much harder than it would be with Dell.
 
Top