Become a Patron!

34" Ultrawide isn't THAT amazing...

Discussion in 'Displays' started by CompletelyBrokn, Mar 29, 2017.

  1. Phlorge

    Phlorge Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    360
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2014
    I feel like the black bars on some games would bug me too much. At this point I am just waiting for 4k with 144hz.

    I was really tempted to get the ASUS ultrawide but I would be losing some refresh rate and performance - not sure if its worth it right now. 144hz on UW would make it a lot more tempting.
     
  2. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,455
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    I just tried a TDM level (the one with the dense European town houses) on ultra and got about 45fps on average. Dropping to High put it at about 50 or 52. On FAO Fortress it was more like 52-70 on Ultra.

    It's playable at those settings, but it's much more enjoyable to me at >80 fps.
     
  3. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    50,307
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I can't look at shitty medium quality textures.
     
  4. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,455
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Skimping on textures don't make a lot of difference in performance so you keep those at high/ultra - it's usually terrain, lighting, shadows, occlusion, effects and AA tend to eat more fps than they give in IQ - every game is different. The great thing about my system is that between IQ, FPS and 1vs3 screens, I can pick any two. For another $700, I can have all 3, all the time.
     
  5. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,746
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    I'll go to very high, or very high+ ("ultra minus" if you prefer) as necessary to achieve a target of at least 100fps-hz average. Noone wants to play in mud but the graphics ceiling cut off at the very top of the highest ranges of settings is an arbitrary cut off point set by devs anyway.

    By the end of 2017 we will not only have dp 1.4 3440x1440 144hz and 4k 144hz with very low response time, modern gaming overdrive, g-sync/variable hz.. We will also have few 4k 144hz low response time, modern gaming overdrive g-sync monitors with 1000nit peak brightness, 384 zone FALD (full array local dimming backlight), HDR gaming monitors. So the list of features that make a modern, full featured gaming monitor will go up even higher. 60hz and low frame rate is well below the bar. It may be "good enough" for some people, but it's inferior. The first 120hz lcd gaming monitors came out in 2009.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  6. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,746
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    superultra wide

    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/35.htm
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2017
  7. Armenius

    Armenius [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Not all games properly adjust aspect ratio and focal point when adjusting the FOV like the example you give. Whatever game is being shown is properly adjusting all the variables to properly set the viewing frustum, avoiding the fisheye.
    It's not great in Overwatch because Blizzard deliberately set the viewing frustum to vert- instead of hor+ because they think the latter would give an unfair advantage. If I'm not mistaken, I think they now give you three options for 21:9: pillar boxed, stretched or vert-.
     
  8. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    50,307
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Not supporting proper FOV adjustments that "could" give some players and advantage has been EA's mantra from the onset of 16:9 popularity. I believe Blizzard said the same shit about StarCraft 2 and as a result I'm not surprised Overwatch is similarly gimped.
     
    ziocomposite likes this.
  9. ziocomposite

    ziocomposite n00bie

    Messages:
    51
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    It's so dumb though. I'm surprised they don't limit the game to 60hz and have everyone play on the same settings lol

     
    Armenius likes this.
  10. refraxion

    refraxion [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,279
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Wait, hasn't EA been allowing proper 21:9 support for their games? atleast in BF4/BF1. Unless I'm misunderstanding your post
     
  11. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    50,307
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I do not know. I've never tried it as I don't have a 21:9 display.
     
  12. Phlorge

    Phlorge Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    360
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2014
    EA games support ultrawide.

    overwatch sadly does not
     
    Armenius likes this.
  13. XBarbarian

    XBarbarian [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,339
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    WoW does, luckily, as that's the game I still play the most currently.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  14. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,746
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    It's been years since I played WoW but I do remember that mods allowed you to make the extensive action bars and hud elements completely modular and configurable in size and orientation, stacking, etc. The game "Rift" in the same genre was dev'd that way by default. Idk why more games don't do that out of the box. It's a simple tetris overlay scheme. This kind of thing is especially annoying in console ports sometimes.

    I've seen Team Fortress 2 , Diablo III, witcher 3, etc. in widescreen in images and vids among other games. WSGforum.com as a huge spreadsheet list of games with widescreen support listed defined by default, by ini/tweaks, windowed mode, and also by whether it stretches. Flawlesswidescreen fixer fixes a lot of games aspect ratios too (e.g. shadow of mordor).

    WoW mods also allowed you to increase the view distance and zoom-out by a large amount, with animated objects in the distance as well (not just geography and buildings). This makes a huge difference and would be a huge benefit to large screen users by adding a lot of game world real-estate instead of just making the same 16:9 scene giant on a wall. It's too bad dev's don't let you do this in games by default. Note that it can increase the demand on the gpu considerably though which is why games use view distance cutoffs and tricks in the first place.

    Unfortunately the more cutthroat cock fight/laser-tag arena games usually don't allow any of this. For single player gameplay I wish a lot more did. For multiplayer gameplay the browser could just checkbox different game types/restrictions the same way it does hardcore mode, etc.

    Widescreengamingforum Wsgf.org master list - by release date, newest first

    Widescreengaming forum - main site

    Flawless Widescreen - Gaming the way it should be! flawlesswidescreen.org
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017
    XBarbarian likes this.
  15. XBarbarian

    XBarbarian [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,339
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    lots of great info here, thank you.
     
  16. TwistedMetalGear

    TwistedMetalGear [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,650
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    They should've kept it console exclusive if they wanted everyone on a level playing field. There's much more than ultrawide monitors that can give players a competitive advantage on PC. To me Overwatch is a casual cartoony shooter, so it baffles me why they have to be so strict about the minuscule advantage that an ultrawide provides.
     
    XBarbarian and Armenius like this.
  17. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,746
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    I believe LoL and DoTA both support 21:9 and way more people play them competitively. Also counterstrike/cs:go and bf4, BF1.
     
    XBarbarian likes this.
  18. SixFootDuo

    SixFootDuo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    4,016
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    I had one and I hated ... hated .... HATED it.

    The monitor is very very narrow. it's about that same size as a tiny fucking 19" or 20" monitor vertically.

    When you surf the web you have this black borders that are just terrible.

    I am so happy and glad that I'm not the type of 'narrow' minded consumer, pun intended that would purchase one of these nasty looking things.

    You literally gain a few more inches over a wide screen monitor so I really don't see a point. To me, there are just too many downsides.

    Also, these 34" ultra wide screen monitors can be very expensive. I think it's more of a thing for them to just charge you more money.

    For ultra wide to work it needs to be in a 45"+ inch display so the top and bottom aren't so narrow.

    My amazing 49" 4k Samsung with 4:4:4, amazing color and PQ and a very low 18ms blows just about anything away. Not my words ... but all my friends or people that see it.

    Seriously, 19" or 20" or whatever narrow top and bottom? WHY ............................. It's 2017. Or else you guys have tiny narrow eyes and a small head and you're .... OK? with that ...
     
    almalino likes this.
  19. refraxion

    refraxion [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,279
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    34" UW = 27" 16:9. I don't know which UW you ended up using, but it sounds like you cheaped out.
     
    Armenius and Bandalo like this.
  20. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,746
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
  21. TwistedMetalGear

    TwistedMetalGear [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,650
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    What are you talking about?

    27" 16:9 vs. 34" ultrawide

    [​IMG]
     
    Saturn_V, Met-AL, XBarbarian and 2 others like this.
  22. SixFootDuo

    SixFootDuo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    4,016
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    He said the 1080p was fine. And it is. A lot of people are ok with 1080 even at 40+ inches. I have a 42" 1080p on my desk and it looks great.

    4k takes a ton of GPU power.

    So let's rephase, "TO YOU" .... it looks like shit.
     
  23. SixFootDuo

    SixFootDuo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    4,016
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    First of all, you have the smaller display obscured about 2 or so inches. As I said, the ultra wide is only about 2" or 3" wider on either side. NOT that big of a deal and to me, certainly not worth the hassle of the cons you get to deal with. For me, those black borders are not not fun to deal with.

    Notice, I am not telling anyone to not buy one of these. For me, I couldn't do it. I get what the original poster is saying, hence the reason I chimed in.

    You guys with the small 24" and 27" monitors, rock it out. No hate here.
     
  24. refraxion

    refraxion [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,279
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    It's not that you agree or disagree. It's that you have a condescending tone. You have your opinion, but I believe there is a better way of expressing it.

    Even when you say "you guys with the small 24" and 27" monitors, rock it out. No hate here." That is condescending in nature.
     
    Met-AL, XBarbarian and Armenius like this.
  25. SixFootDuo

    SixFootDuo 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    4,016
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    No, you're putting words into my mouth. I meant exactly what I said, which was basically rock whatever you want. I said that so people like you wouldn't have their feelings hurt, which, apparently didn't work too well for you. You're not picking up me being condescending, you're just experiencing your own issues. Not mine.
     
  26. zone74

    zone74 Gawd

    Messages:
    583
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Oh, so you weren't being condescending with these comments.

     
    Met-AL, XBarbarian and refraxion like this.
  27. GodOfGaming

    GodOfGaming Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    150
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    34" 21:9 is indeed a bit too low vertically, I'm used to 32" 16:9 and I really like the vertical size, I find it to be perfect, I don't want anything lower or anything higher, but I would certainly like something wider (without losing on the vertical size). That one 38" ultrawide LG fits the bill, but it's just that one model, I hope they make more monitors in 38" ultrawide. Also I like the idea of the new Samsung 44" 29:9 aspect ratio 3840x1200 monitor coming out in September, but that won't be any taller vertically than a 34" 21:9, 27" 16:9 or 25" 16:10...
     
  28. N4CR

    N4CR [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,723
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    Put it next to a 4k 40" plus screen and you won't bother with UW again.
    Aspectfagging is just silly when support is an equally important part of gaming, unless you only play latest AA title.
     
    almalino likes this.
  29. Gasaraki_

    Gasaraki_ Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    230
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    It's not that amazing because that's shitty. Why would anyone buy a 1080 ultrawide? I rather have a 24" at 1080.
     
  30. Armenius

    Armenius [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    A 29" 2560x1080 would be about the same PPI as a 24" 1920x1080. OP's mistake was getting a 34" at that resolution.
     
    refraxion likes this.
  31. refraxion

    refraxion [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,279
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Or I could put it against my 70" 4k screen compared to a 40" 4k screen. Still prefer my UW for PC gaming. 60hz 4k gaming is not for me, too slow and non fluid.
     
    XBarbarian and DooKey like this.
  32. jhatfie

    jhatfie [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,318
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    I feel the same way. I had a 34" Ultra Wide, but found that I did not like the vertical height compared to my 32" 16:9's. Every person that checked out my setup always liked the 32" better, every time. A good gaming Ultra Wide with the same vertical height (or slightly taller) as a 32" 16:9 and high refresh rate might be fantastic. For now I'll just keep enjoying my Omen while I wait.
     
  33. SoupyFlow

    SoupyFlow [H]Lite

    Messages:
    81
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2011
    I tried out the LG 34UC79G-B ultrawide, which is 34 inches, Curved, 2560x1080 and does 144Hz all in a IPS panel. While it was a nice monitor, I just couldn't get into the 21:9 ultrawide format. I mainly used it for gaming but some games looked great and other games were just weird. For example World of Warcraft looked amazing and was very immersive in 21:9, but then games like Battlefield 4 I could never seem to get the right FOV setting that I liked. Also a lot of games did the whole stretching FOV effect on the sides which drove me nuts. Lastly some game flat out didn't support 21:9 and I had to deal with black bars, or games nerfed 21:9 users like on Overwatch, which just cuts off the top and bottom of the screen a bit.

    I had two of the LG 34UC79G-B (both returned) and while nice, both had pretty bad backlight bleed (not IPS glow) right where the monitor curved. I heard this is pretty common with the curved ones though. Unfortunately I don't think I would like a completely flat 21:9 ultrawide.
     
  34. Armenius

    Armenius [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,358
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
  35. zone74

    zone74 Gawd

    Messages:
    583
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2015
    Looks fine to me when compared against a 46" 16:9 screen.
    [​IMG]

    It's physically smaller, but both end up filling the same vertical FoV when I sit at a comfortable distance to work on either display, while the 21:9 panel is wider.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  36. x3sphere

    x3sphere 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,504
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    yeah, I have one :) It's an awesome monitor, I've had an X34 and also own a C6 OLED but this is my go to for productivity. I feel the size is just perfect and I love the more aggressive curved compared to some of the other options. Wish Vega would hurry up and release so I can drive this thing properly in games. Using it with an AMD Fury at the moment, which struggles in more recent games at this res.

    [​IMG]
     
    Saturn_V, Armenius and ziocomposite like this.
  37. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    50,307
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    It is relative, I'd agree but I also think that people who still think 1080P looks good simply haven't truly experienced 4K aren't they aren't observant enough to see the difference. Some people just don't see it. My girlfriend can't tell the difference between 4K and 1080P beyond saying 4K looks better. She can't articulate what's better about it, she just knows it looks better. A lot of people are like that. You see a similar effect with people who don't use the HD channels on their HD TV and can't really tell the difference between SD stretched and HD in the proper aspect ratio. They don't see it and it's hard to believe when the difference stands out so clearly to you.

    In my opinion 1080P looks OK for gaming. I've got a 65" 4K TV in my theatre room and I've played console games on it many times. It looks good for the most part. That said, I'm rocking a 49" 4K on my gaming rig and I use it for both work and gaming. I've also tried using 1080P TV's upwards of 55" in the past as monitors. Without UHD support, TV's are shitty monitors for anything but gaming. Before we had decent 4K sets I thought TV's were useless for anything but gaming due to their dot pitch and other issues. Even for gaming, there is a slight image quality hit without UHD support. You can see it whenever you enable game mode vs. PC mode on any of the Samsung TV's. When it comes to gaming or work, 4K is a huge step up from 1080P.

    Similarly, some people can't stand the soap opera effect on TVs while some don't seem to notice it or it doesn't bother them. Other people would trade refresh rate for resolution while others do the opposite. Its all comes down to personal preference. That said, I doubt there are many people that would be OK dropping back to 1080P if they've experienced a good 4K setup. Refresh rates and other things being equal anyway.
     
  38. XBarbarian

    XBarbarian [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,339
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    here's the simple point: if you sit fairly close, then 34" UW vertical is a NON Issue. - most brains do not process visual data outside of a fairly narrow band,.. if you sit back, as the 45"+ folks must, otherwise there is a whole lot of data outside your FOV.. then verticle pixel height would make a difference.

    I sit about 1.5'-2' away from my PD348Q and its PERFECT. any additional vertical data would be WASTED.. out of my FOV, without movement to see.
     
  39. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

    Messages:
    50,307
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    I sit about 2.5" or so from the monitor and I can make use of 40"-43" without any issue. 49" is a bit too much for productivity in my opinion. I do have to move my head a little to see stuff in the upper edges of the display. For gaming, it's absolutely spectacular. As for "wasted" space, I think that's nonsense. I'd rather have more pixels than I need instead of less.
     
    N4CR and XBarbarian like this.
  40. elvn

    elvn 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,746
    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    The conversation is getting circular. As previous replies show, more desktop real-estate is great. The problem is 27" 16:9 scene to 40" 16:9 scene is the exact same scene just JUMBO and pushed further into the periphery. You aren't gaining any more in game real estate in 1st/3rd person games like you do with a 21:9 (or an LG 24:10). That said, on a large enough 4k you could run a 21:9 rez with bars anyway.. which might be more appealing once 144hz g-sync 4k's come out on dp 1.4.

    Until dev's allow you to zoom out a lot further so that you can gain actual game world real-estate rather than just magnifying the same scene onto a wall in front of you, using a much larger 16:9 is not adding game world for immersion really.

    An annoyingly aspect of using an (overly) large 16:9 screen or an ultrawide up close is that it pushes crictical HUD elements.. notifications, pointers, maps, actionbar slots, inventories, etc much further out into the periphery.

    Another way (other than allowing further zoom out for added game real-estate) that I could see very large screens working up close is with games designed in a VR like scheme rather than the traditional HUDs and field of views.

    ---------------------------------------
    By the way, there is already a pretty similar modern discussion to what this thread has become
    And this is why 21:9 monitors are pretty much useless for gaming (hardforum display thread)
    ----------------------------------------

    Linked below you can find some very relevant statements in some old threads even though they are talking about old resolutions like 4:3 vs 16:9. I got quite a few chuckles out of reading them.
    ------------------------------------
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2017
    XBarbarian likes this.