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

elvn said:
120hz-vs-60hz-gaming.jpg
Click to expand...

A better graphic would be 60 images on top and then the images inbetween to simulate 120.
The user can better determine if the frames lost are significant enough to justify getting a 120.
That's like 3fps vs 5fps.

I'm playing more singleplayer games these days because modern MP is stale, 60fps is just fine.
 
elvn said:
Pre 120hz this monitor would be something for games, and for a desktop monitor still is.. That's why I have always used two monitors, one dedicated to gaming. Personally I can't see gaming in a 1st/3rd person game with a 60hz monitor, and without g-sync and backlight strobing options going forward.
Click to expand...

I honestly prefer a 60Hz IPS panel over a 120Hz TN. I've tried two monitors so far, the ASUS VG278HE and the VG248QE. While I did enjoy the smoothness of 144Hz the image quality with both monitors compared to my HP ZR30w was shockingly bad. In both cases, when I switched back to my 30 I was amazed at how rich and vibrant everything looked (Battlefield 4 is all I play). FYI, 144Hz did not make any difference in my K/D in Battlefield 4.

When the ROG SWIFT PG278Q is up on Amazon I'll give that monitor a shot, but with it being TN I'm not expecting much. I have a feeling the UM95 is going to be the monitor that replaces my ZR30w. I've always thought multi-monitor setups looked interesting but bezels are a huge turnoff (even Vega's super thin bezels) .

At the end of the day it's just preference.
 
Less height for more width?

I can't make that trade.

I rather wait to get an affordable 39"+ 60Hz 4K TV/monitor.
 
My concern with this monitor is trying to look at regular internet...or games..The games that take advantage of this look fantastic but what about games that dont? Thats my issue.
 
For me I'm more interested in blur reduction (and better yet elimination) + motion definition aesthetic and flow than K/D ratios.

Regarding the 5:3 frame comparison, just extrapolate that segment 20times to get 60/100 frames :b you get the idea, the motion tracking definition and animation definition that is lost.
As for fps numeric comparisons.. it's not just lost frames as numbers, it's lost frames as lost motion.. lower fps(and fps+hz ceilings like 60hz) making motion states into "freeze-frames" through two or more action&animation state updates rather than more defined motion tracking and animation "resolution"/definition (as compared to higher fps&hz ceilings). Moving a mouse cursor from my 120hz screen to my 60hz screen is an obvious motion tracking and smoothness loss.. a whole viewport full of motion tracking of players, creatures, FoV movement of the entire viewport itself, and all animations gets stuck in freeze-frames of double (60fps/hz 16.6ms) or more ms (lower than 60fps) than 10ms 100fps at 100+hz, 8.3ms each new action/movement/animation state at 120fps-hz in a game. Then you add the worst/baseline FoV movement blur of 60hz and at a 5ms ips response time.
30fps would have action slices "freeze-framed" 32.2ms each while the 120hz+ 120fps user would have seen 4 game world action state updates in the same period,
had 4 times smoother motion definition displayed ..

60fps would have action slices "freeze-framed" 16.6ms each while the 120hz user would have seen 2 game world action state updates in the same period,
had twice the smoothness of motion definition displayed..

misc FPS below 120 would have varying rate comparisons but still would be freeze-framing often compared to high fps at 120hz.
Click to expand...

Those 24" asus models are notably pale. That's why for now I've stuck with my 27" samsung A750 120hz (for gaming) which is notably vibrant/lush for a TN. I have a 27" 2560x1440 glossy ips next to it for desktop/apps/still-imagery. I am hoping that ROG SWIFT PG278Q 2560x1440 120hz-144hz 1ms g-sync 10bit "high quality" TN panel turns out to be a great gaming monitor.

I agree about bezels in regard to gaming. However in reply to the other person who said wider isn't better, I disagree and I like this ratio. Resolution of 1080 high is very limiting but as you get into higher resolutions it becomes more an aspect ratio thing than "lost height" imo, especially in regard to games, where the virtual lens lost no height in a HOR+ 1st/3rd person game, it just gained width. A giant wall of monitor at a desk is stupid (imo) unless you can set a virtual primary monitor space with all extents additional fov. Otherwise you just make all scene elements JUMBO and bend your eyes (and even micro neck bend) to the periphery rather than experiencing a more zoomed out immersive perspective via added periphery (i.e. more game world "real estate" to relate it to the desktop real-estate term). A wider aspect ratio monitor does this by nature of it's aspect ratio, at least in width which is the best you are going to get for now (outside of mutli-monitor LLL) without a highly customizable FoV/zoom game.

So it is an appealing monitor, I just can't go back to 60hz gaming personally, and lacking g-sync/ulmb~backlight strobing advancements rolling out (slowly) in gaming tech just make it even more of a tradeoff for modern gaming motion going forward.

Maybe in a few years a 4k 120hz(input) will come out, and a 21:9 similarly (on dp 1.3). However by then oculus rift and competitors should be out at 100hz or more with blur elimination tech (and hopefully rolling out higher than 1080p rez editions eventually).
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
For me I'm more interested in blur reduction (and better yet elimination) + motion definition aesthetic and flow than K/D ratios.

Regarding the 5:3 frame comparison, just extrapolate that segment 20times to get 60/100 frames :b you get the idea, the motion tracking definition and animation definition that is lost.
As for fps numeric comparisons.. it's not just lost frames as numbers, it's lost frames as lost motion.. lower fps(and fps+hz ceilings like 60hz) making motion states into "freeze-frames" through two or more action&animation state updates rather than more defined motion tracking and animation "resolution"/definition (as compared to higher fps&hz ceilings). Moving a mouse cursor from my 120hz screen to my 60hz screen is an obvious motion tracking and smoothness loss.. a whole viewport full of motion tracking of players, creatures, FoV movement of the entire viewport itself, and all animations gets stuck in freeze-frames of double (60fps/hz 16.6ms) or more ms (lower than 60fps) than 10ms 100fps at 100+hz, 8.3ms each new action/movement/animation state at 120fps-hz in a game. Then you add the worst/baseline FoV movement blur of 60hz and at a 5ms ips response time.
Click to expand...

None of this matters if your source is putting out less than 60fps, though. You only get blur reduction and "motion definition aesthetic" advantages when the source is putting out more than 60 new frames per second. If you feed your 120Hz monitor with with 60fps, it's just going to be showing the same frame for two updates in a row anyway.

You do get a mild reduction in display latency at 120Hz, though, because the display is updated twice as often and therefore can grab new frames a few milliseconds earlier than a 60Hz monitor on average. But a few milliseconds of additional latency isn't the dealbreaker that most people make it out to be.
 
Last edited:
Scottyl39 said:
My concern with this monitor is trying to look at regular internet...or games..The games that take advantage of this look fantastic but what about games that dont? Thats my issue.
Click to expand...

For regular usage, just stop maximizing all of your windows. Your web browser doesn't have to span the entire width of your screen. In fact, you can have two separate windows open side-by-side and still have them each be 1720 pixels wide. That's a huge benefit. That's how I end up working most of the time anyway, which is why I'm so excited for the 3440-width monitors.

As for games, I'm assuming the monitor will display 16:9 or 16:10 resolutions with black bars on either side. I personally have no problem with that. If you run a game at 2560x1440 on this monitor, it's not like you're losing out on anything relative to an actual 2560x1440 monitor. Unless you can't get over the fact that a game isn't using 100% of your monitor, in which case that's your own personal problem. ;)
 
Scottyl39 said:
My concern with this monitor is trying to look at regular internet
Click to expand...

Put it on a proper arm and rotate it. I've got two 1200p monitors and one is in landscape for games and the other is in portrait for browsing and text work.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Put it on a proper arm and rotate it. I've got two 1200p monitors and one is in landscape for games and the other is in portrait for browsing and text work.
Click to expand...

This screen is over 31 inches wide. That's over two and a half feet. If you mounted it vertically, you'd either have to sit fairly far back or you'd get a serious neck workout.

Assuming your 1200p monitor is 1920x1200 and 24", then it's probably only 20 inches wide (or tall in portrait mode). Now imagine making it over 50% taller.


Not to mention, your mount would have to have a lot of vertical movement built in. To support a 31-inch tall monitor your center mount point is going to have to be almost 20 inches high to leave enough room to rotate. That's going to be awful to work with when rotated to horizontal and your monitor is now floating far up your desk, unless your mount supports moving it down after rotation.

Really, you should probably forget using this monitor vertically.

A more realistic solution is to just treat it like two monitors. Use Windows' built-in half-width maximize function and it's trivial to put two windows side by side.
 
I'm considering seeing what I can get for my ACD + it's additional vesa mount on craigslist locally. I'm thinking I'll post for $450 - $500 but I'll take $400 +/-. Might spring for this LG34UM95 as desktop/app monitor with that + $600 out of pocket..and later try the asus 2560x1440 gsync 120hz next to it, sell my samsung a750D for around $300(if I can get it) if the asus PG278Q owner reviews come in glowing for the most part and I end up with one. The two monitor sales might cover a large part of one of the two new monitors anyway, $600 - $700 out of $800 asus or $600-700 out of $1k of this monitor.. depends on how you slice it. Total would probably be like $1100 - $1300 out of pocket in the end (esp. b/c not sure on tax/shipping). Otherwise I'd keep the samsung 120hz for even longer until a better gsync 120hz+ monitor than the PG278Q comes along somewhere down the line.. and spend $600+ out of pocket on the LG after selling ACD.

I would end up ditching my 900x1440 portrait mode monitor and having 3440x1440 + 2560x1440 ... desktop + gaming if combined in array with the PG278Q. So essentially dropping 20 pixels in width (3440 - 2560 = 880 out of 900) off a 1440x900 TN that was tacked onto my ACD's 2560x1440 at an angle on a monitor arm (vs TN shift)essentially, but one sweet bezel-less ips screen instead. I'd also be gaining a more functional 2560x1440 rez on the gaming monitor (if I buy the asus PG278Q eventually) instead of almost solely using my 1080p samsung for games.. so would actually gain a lot of desktop real-esate overall between the two and cut out two bezels (one on each side of the 19") between my two desktop monitors.

Like I said, this monitor is enticing, I just don't think it's best for 1st/3rd person gaming. It would be great for desktop/apps.. multiple windows and/or toolboxes, timeline lengths, etc (and maybe a tile-based isometric rpg or rts on occasion). It still sounds great even if I were to keep it next to my 27" 120hz 1080p similar to the setup I have now (with with less bezels and more ips).

Considering my options. :p

edit.. locally craigslisters posting them for $750 so maybe I could get more like $500 for the acd esp. with the add-on vesa mount bracket I had to purchase separately.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
Maybe in a few years a 4k 120hz(input) will come out, and a 21:9 similarly (on dp 1.3). However by then oculus rift and competitors should be out at 100hz or more with blur elimination tech (and hopefully rolling out higher than 1080p rez editions eventually).
Click to expand...

I too am hoping that advances in VR tech eliminate the current necessity of choosing between image quality and motion blur.
 
elvn said:
I'm considering seeing what I can get for my ACD + it's additional vesa mount on craigslist locally. I'm thinking I'll post for $450 - $500 but I'll take $400 +/-. Might spring for this LG34UM95 as desktop/app monitor with that + $600 out of pocket..and later try the asus 2560x1440 gsync 120hz next to it, sell my samsung a750D for around $300(if I can get it) if the asus PG278Q owner reviews come in glowing for the most part and I end up with one. The two monitor sales might cover a large part of one of the two new monitors anyway, $600 - $700 out of $800 asus or $600-700 out of $1k of this monitor.. depends on how you slice it. Total would probably be like $1100 - $1300 out of pocket in the end (esp. b/c not sure on tax/shipping). Otherwise I'd keep the samsung 120hz for even longer until a better gsync 120hz+ monitor than the PG278Q comes along somewhere down the line.. and spend $600+ out of pocket on the LG after selling ACD.

I would end up ditching my 900x1440 portrait mode monitor and having 3440x1440 + 2560x1440 ... desktop + gaming if combined in array with the PG278Q. So essentially dropping 20 pixels in width (3440 - 2560 = 880 out of 900) off a 1440x900 TN that was tacked onto my ACD's 2560x1440 at an angle on a monitor arm (vs TN shift)essentially, but one sweet bezel-less ips screen instead. I'd also be gaining a more functional 2560x1440 rez on the gaming monitor (if I buy the asus PG278Q eventually) instead of almost solely using my 1080p samsung for games.. so would actually gain a lot of desktop real-esate overall between the two and cut out two bezels (one on each side of the 19") between my two desktop monitors.

Like I said, this monitor is enticing, I just don't think it's best for 1st/3rd person gaming. It would be great for desktop/apps.. multiple windows and/or toolboxes, timeline lengths, etc (and maybe a tile-based isometric rpg or rts on occasion). It still sounds great even if I were to keep it next to my 27" 120hz 1080p similar to the setup I have now (with with less bezels and more ips).

Considering my options. :p

edit.. locally craigslisters posting them for $750 so maybe I could get more like $500 for the acd esp. with the add-on vesa mount bracket I had to purchase separately.
Click to expand...

We are in almost identical situations.
I am mostly into simracing and this monitor size and ratio are perfect for that because you are able to see more of a side by side battle.
However, I don't think this particular monitor is fast enough for simracing or online fps games.
On the other hand, I love everything about the Asus PG 278 Q except the screensize. If it were bigger, this would translate in wider FOV, which would again help me as described above.
I hope it will have colors on par with my current samsung s27a950d which has served me well for almost 4 years.
I will probably buy the Asus and wait for a similar tech but bigger screen in a year or two to replace it. It having G sync also matters to me because I don't plan on switching to an AMD gpu anytime soon.
 
almendragrande said:
I honestly prefer a 60Hz IPS panel over a 120Hz TN. I've tried two monitors so far, the ASUS VG278HE and the VG248QE. While I did enjoy the smoothness of 144Hz the image quality with both monitors compared to my HP ZR30w was shockingly bad. In both cases, when I switched back to my 30 I was amazed at how rich and vibrant everything looked (Battlefield 4 is all I play). FYI, 144Hz did not make any difference in my K/D in Battlefield 4.

When the ROG SWIFT PG278Q is up on Amazon I'll give that monitor a shot, but with it being TN I'm not expecting much. I have a feeling the UM95 is going to be the monitor that replaces my ZR30w. I've always thought multi-monitor setups looked interesting but bezels are a huge turnoff (even Vega's super thin bezels) .

At the end of the day it's just preference.
Click to expand...

I feel the same as you. I used to own an Asus 144hz monitor...but my daily driver is a Dell U3011. My KDR was no different in BF4 between the two monitors. I heard people say how the 120hz + monitors made it almost like cheating in FPS games....but to be completely honest, the smoothness only helped me in VERY rare select case scenarios....95% of the time I would get the same KDR between either monitors.

The smoothness was very nice on the 144hz, but I'd take the rich vibrancy of an IPS. This is from someone who currently has a 3.6 KDR in BF4, using a 60hz panel.
 
thats because bf4 has shit netcode. so there is no big difference because the delay of the game itself. it just feels smoother. the difference in games like quake live or cs go is bigger because there is no lag (bad netcode) from the game. anyway i currently have the vg278h and preordered the 34um95 because i love the 21:9 format.
 
AgentQ said:
A more realistic solution is to just treat it like two monitors. Use Windows' built-in half-width maximize function and it's trivial to put two windows side by side.
Click to expand...

Nothing replaces a true multi-monitor setup when it comes to work. When I have five different apps running, when one opens it overlaps the app beneath it until I move it to a certain position on the screen. But with an additional monitor, I can move the other apps to different canvas, leaving the main monitor with the app I'm working with. Programs like Adobe Premier I run fullscreen, so if I wanted to use another program like Dreamweaver which I also run fullscreen, I will have to minimize Premier first. Two monitors solves that trade off.

Also the price on this monitor is high for 400 less horizontal pixels and 600 less vertical pixels, along with the potential compatibly issues with standard formats...Pass
 
WorldExclusive said:
Nothing replaces a true multi-monitor setup when it comes to work. When I have five different apps running, when one opens it overlaps the app beneath it until I move it to a certain position on the screen. But with an additional monitor, I can move the other apps to different canvas, leaving the main monitor with the app I'm working with. Programs like Adobe Premier I run fullscreen, so if I wanted to use another program like Dreamweaver which I also run fullscreen, I will have to minimize Premier first. Two monitors solves that trade off.

Also the price on this monitor is high for 400 less horizontal pixels and 600 less vertical pixels, along with the potential compatibly issues with standard formats...Pass
Click to expand...

When it comes to work, I agree that 2x 27" 1440p korean monitors is a much better value... but when it comes to play/work no comparison

I'll pick this up and run a smaller monitor on an arm floating out to the side (similar setup I had w/my westinghouse 37").
 
This monitor would be way better for multi-viewport 3d modelling and video editing apps especially with their timelines being shown longer and in more detail (don't have to zoom the timelines out, etc) and the ability to use more floating toolboxes instead of hiding a lot of things you use behind tabs and drop down selection arrows... and all that without extending the main app across bezels or keeping toolboxes on a different monitor. You could still add another 2560x1440 on the side if you need a full monitor snap function for a app you use in tandem.

That said, a 4k screen would also add a lot of real estate for desktop/apps.
 
Last edited:
anonuser said:
When it comes to work, I agree that 2x 27" 1440p korean monitors is a much better value... but when it comes to play/work no comparison

I'll pick this up and run a smaller monitor on an arm floating out to the side (similar setup I had w/my westinghouse 37").
Click to expand...

I am disappointed that 4K generally looks like a sharper 1080p in games.
The game looks zoomed in, not taking advantage of the extra pixels.

I can see why the 21:9 format will be popular because it gives that mini multi-monitor effect without the bezels.
 
yeah that goes back to my previous post to why a giant wall of 16:9 monitor in your face at a desk just makes everything JUMBO with all scene elements remaining the same in relation to each other. The same virtual lens perspective.

Unless/until games allow you to zoom way out or to set a "virtual primary monitor" space in the middle with all extents being additional FoV, you are only going to be getting higher pixel density of the exact same scene. That is, without a longer aspect monitor like this one or using multiple monitors in landscape .. which still only extend the horizontal not the vertical.

That is in 1st/3rd person games.. some tiled click rpg's and rts's take advantage of higher resolutions.
 
elvn said:
yeah that goes back to my previous post to why a giant wall of 16:9 monitor in your face at a desk just makes everything JUMBO with all scene elements remaining the same in relation to each other. The same virtual lens perspective.

Unless/until games allow you to zoom way out or to set a "virtual primary monitor" space in the middle with all extents being additional FoV, you are only going to be getting higher pixel density of the exact same scene. That is, without a longer aspect monitor like this one or using multiple monitors in landscape .. which still only extend the horizontal not the vertical.

That is in 1st/3rd person games.. some tiled click rpg's and rts's take advantage of higher resolutions.
Click to expand...

Good to know there are others that see this effect. Where's the benefit in games if everything still looks 1080p, just sharper.
Wider seems like the answer now.

I kinda feel like Linus with this monitor. I don't want to give it a chance for some reason.
But looking at it closely, it solves all of my content creation issues. Multimedia work is generally done horizontally.
The more horizontal space, the better. Two of these would be killer, but the price needs to come down.

I can still rotate my 30" to portrait and use that for code. Hmmmm....I'm slowly coming around.

pux3YIl.gif
 
You don't have to use the Windows 7 window arrangement shurtcuts. LG provides a software for arranging windows on the monitor ( 4 screen split). http://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-34UM65-P/

Additionally you could use virtual desktop software like Dexpot.

A user already got his 34UM65.

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f111/cinemascreen-21-9-monitore-1012282-10.html#post22137668
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f111/cinemascreen-21-9-monitore-1012282-10.html#post22137955

And he made some pictures with a 29" 21:9 next to it.

And here is a dropbox link to more pictures of the 34um65
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/community/f111/cinemascreen-21-9-monitore-1012282-10.html#post22138602
 
I think this is fairly accurate. Gives an idea of desktop real estate differences and screen sizes at the same ppi (or relative view distances to where the ppi match to your perspective).

4k_21x9_27in_30in_same-ppi.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have a 4K monitor coming in a few weeks, but I'm thinking of getting one of these as well. The trouble is that my 780 Ti only has one DP connection. If I use a DVI to DP converter cable, is there sufficient bandwidth to run this monitor at 60 Hz?
 
What kind of GPU horsepower would it take to have one of these, flanked by a 27' on either side?
 
I'd buy the best performance card. One with a lot of memory. If that proved inadequate then I'd buy a second matching card and run dual GPUs. I would think that would do the job fine for gaming. First we need to see actual, and proper, reviews of this beast first before getting all excited. Just my opinion.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Nothing replaces a true multi-monitor setup when it comes to work. When I have five different apps running, when one opens it overlaps the app beneath it until I move it to a certain position on the screen. But with an additional monitor, I can move the other apps to different canvas, leaving the main monitor with the app I'm working with. Programs like Adobe Premier I run fullscreen, so if I wanted to use another program like Dreamweaver which I also run fullscreen, I will have to minimize Premier first. Two monitors solves that trade off.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you just need a proper window resizer app like Divvy or WinDivvy for most of those scenarios. ( http://mizage.com/windivvy/ ).

I agree that two monitors is still the way to go for some workflows. But with a 34" 21:9 monitor, you still have the option of running one app in a huge fullscreen. Or gaming. Not so with a two-monitor setup.

Apples and oranges.

WorldExclusive said:
Also the price on this monitor is high for 400 less horizontal pixels and 600 less vertical pixels, along with the potential compatibly issues with standard formats...Pass
Click to expand...

Again, apples and oranges. If you're happy with a two-monitor setup then of course there's no need to look into a single 34" 21:9.

Also, I think you're over-thinking the "potential compatibility issues" here. If you have an older game that isn't patched to play nice with 21:9 yet, it's not like you're just out of luck. Just set the output to whatever 16:9 or 16:10 resolution the game will allow and deal with the black bars on either side. Again, the 34" 21:9 isn't actually losing anything to a 2560x1440 monitor if you're feeding it 2560x1440 content. But you retain the option of using the full resolution for games which support it. Not an issue.

Finally, the price of this monitor is quite reasonable for what you're actually getting. If you just want pixel count and don't care how many monitors you end up with or how many bezels slice up your workspace, then two-monitor is the way to go.
 
The more I look at the comparison graphic I made the more I realize there is a lot more desktop/app real-estate on a 4k screen.

This monitor lacks g-sync and any kind of backlight strobing tech (neither the ulmb that g-sync has or one developed by a monitor mfg themselves). It's also 60hz (and 5ms respsonse) which is greatly inferior for 1st/3rd person games (aesthetically in motion+animation definition, motion tracking/motion flow, and blur reduction of the entire viewport during continual movement keying+mouse looking). Therefore I personally wouldn't classify this as a modern gaming monitor.

What this monitor does seem good for is pairing with a 2560x1440 as a desktop/app monitor since it is 1440 high, rather than mismatch pairing a 3840x2160 with a 2560x1440.
Right now I run a 2560x1440 27" ips next to a 1920x1080 27" tn and though the resolutions don't match, the heights do so it looks good together on a desk physically. I don't use the 1080p rez for much outside of gaming because 2560x1440 is so much better. I'm hoping the asus PG278Q 27" 120hz-144hz g-sync/ulmb 1ms monitor will be a good replacement for the 1080p 120hz gaming monitor to keep the same uniform physical monitor height in the array, but I would actually gain a uniform pixel height as well so things moved between the monitors remain the same size and the height wouldn't be cramped on one monitor compared to the other. That would make this monitor an appealing replacement to the 27" 2560x1440 ips panel at my desk (which is dedicated to desktop/apps) if I sold it and wanted to spring for this one for some reason.
 
AgentQ said:
Sounds like you just need a proper window resizer app like Divvy or WinDivvy for most of those scenarios. ( http://mizage.com/windivvy/ ).
Click to expand...

I like that program, especially for mac, which it a nightmare to work with multiple windows open.
We'll see what happens price wise when Dell releases their model.

But three 4K monitors in Surround/Eyefinity seems more practical(width wise) than three of the these in Surround/Eyefinty.
I will have to see how people will use 21:9 in multi-monitor setups.
 
I'm ready to go 21:9, but I may wait for a bigger monitor to come out. For the same price as these 34inchers, one can buy 3x 27inch 1440p.

I hate bezels so I won't be doing that, but either the price needs to come down by 30% or the size needs to be increased by 30%...
 
I'm sure the dell one will be a lot cheaper. Monitor prices have really been coming down here lately. Really looking to get one but probably not till it's in the 600-700 range.
 
Xinmosni said:
I'm ready to go 21:9, but I may wait for a bigger monitor to come out. For the same price as these 34inchers, one can buy 3x 27inch 1440p.

I hate bezels so I won't be doing that, but either the price needs to come down by 30% or the size needs to be increased by 30%...
Click to expand...

The hypothetical ~ for apples to apples comparison 4k monitor in the graphic I made is just over 40" diagonal at the same 108.8ppi baseline. That graphic represents either all of the monitors at 108.8ppi, or all of them at a distance where they would appear to be that same 108.8ppi from your viewing perspective.
If you added 1/2.9 more of the 4k dimension's width similarly to get a 21.9 at 2160 high, (2560 with additional 880 is not quite 1/3 more).. you would get +1320px width and arrive at 5160 x 2160 I think.
That would be really tough for gpu's to drive, and idk if a single dp1.3 could do more than 4k at 120hz were such monitors to exist at 120hz. I'm not sure of the ceiling. I know dp1.3 can do 8k at 60hz
 
Titan Z is advertised as a 5K card. (Not that it makes sense)
I will definitely buy a 5307x2160 40" monitor.
 
I understand the technical limitations (and extreme cost for higher pixel count), but I was griping more about price than anything. I'm not expecting companies to release a 5160x2160 21:9 monitor at $1000, but I sure as hell would expect them to drop the price of these to $700.

The current prices on these 34-inch 21:9 monitors are ridiculous atm, given they're not a whole lot bigger than ~$300 1440p 27-inchers. Granted, I'm comparing the price to Korean 27", but domestic 27" prices have been falling to sub-$500 this past year. Maybe my tape measurer is broken, but an extra 7" of width and the SAME EXACT height doesn't make sense for the price being double...

I'll probably end up getting one when they come down in price, just saying the MSRP is grasping at straws for how niche of an audience these 21:9s will have.
 
Xinmosni said:
I understand the technical limitations (and extreme cost for higher pixel count), but I was griping more about price than anything. I'm not expecting companies to release a 5160x2160 21:9 monitor at $1000, but I sure as hell would expect them to drop the price of these to $700.

The current prices on these 34-inch 21:9 monitors are ridiculous atm, given they're not a whole lot bigger than ~$300 1440p 27-inchers. Granted, I'm comparing the price to Korean 27", but domestic 27" prices have been falling to sub-$500 this past year. Maybe my tape measurer is broken, but an extra 7" of width and the SAME EXACT height doesn't make sense for the price being double...

I'll probably end up getting one when they come down in price, just saying the MSRP is grasping at straws for how niche of an audience these 21:9s will have.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm only considering one of these 34" because I currently use a 16:10 24", but even then I personally notice the added real estate of a 30"-32" more than a 34" due to the extra height.
 
I see the best setup for this is a 21:9 as the main monitor for editing video etc., and a 4K TV like the 39" Seiki as a preview monitor mounted above it.
The Seiki 4K has many uses, watching tv, movies, extra desktop space for windows etc.

I can still use my U3011 on the side for color adjustments on the secondary PC.

This may work.
 
Xinmosni said:
I understand the technical limitations (and extreme cost for higher pixel count), but I was griping more about price than anything. I'm not expecting companies to release a 5160x2160 21:9 monitor at $1000, but I sure as hell would expect them to drop the price of these to $700.

The current prices on these 34-inch 21:9 monitors are ridiculous atm, given they're not a whole lot bigger than ~$300 1440p 27-inchers. Granted, I'm comparing the price to Korean 27", but domestic 27" prices have been falling to sub-$500 this past year. Maybe my tape measurer is broken, but an extra 7" of width and the SAME EXACT height doesn't make sense for the price being double...

I'll probably end up getting one when they come down in price, just saying the MSRP is grasping at straws for how niche of an audience these 21:9s will have.
Click to expand...

I think the whole Korean monitor thing has distorted people's price expectations. A Korean eBay monitor is still a bit of a gamble and comes with virtually no support and no warranty. Of course it's going to be cheap.

Likewise, you're going to pay a premium for new and specialized technology.

You're not just paying for an extra 7" of monitor. You're paying for proper warranty, proper support, a one-of-a-kind panel that has just been released, a (presumably) quality scaler, etc.

If you wait long enough, you might be able to purchase a super-cheap Korean monitor using these panels. But to expect a brand-name, first-to-market monitor to be dirt cheap is just wishful thinking.
 
The 34UM65 costs about the same or slightly less than a 1440P 27" Monitor from Asus, BenQ, Dell, NEC, Philips, etc. in Europe. As AgentQ mentioned the "Korean monitor thing has distorted people's price expectations"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top