![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
4k vs. 21:9 1440p
- Thread starter Sky15
- Start date
Liquid_Cooled
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2004
- Messages
- 793
I'm going with 21:9 1440P. Ultrawide is more immersive.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,102
If main purpose is gaming I would go with 4k just because 21:9 is probably never going to be given a fair shake by developers as a viable aspect ratio. On the other hand, the scalar in the LG is pretty good, pillarboxing 16:9 content with the area of a 27" display. I guess it depends on what types of games you play. Input lag on current 21:9 monitors is questionable, probably around the same arena or even worse than current 4k displays.
For productivity I would go 21:9 all day, every day.
Myself, I'm looking at getting the forthcoming BenQ BL3201PH to go along with my ASUS PG278Q.
For productivity I would go 21:9 all day, every day.
Myself, I'm looking at getting the forthcoming BenQ BL3201PH to go along with my ASUS PG278Q.
980 SLI is like the bare minimum for 4K, while the same setup will handle 3440x1440 with ease.
Game requirements keep going up, too, I'd only go 4K if you don't mind having to turn down settings or plan on upgrading to the latest GPU flagship every year.
Game requirements keep going up, too, I'd only go 4K if you don't mind having to turn down settings or plan on upgrading to the latest GPU flagship every year.
More pixels for the people 
40 inch 16x9 display vs 34 inch 21x9 display
http://www.displaywars.com/40-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
40 inch 16x9 display vs 34 inch 21x9 display
http://www.displaywars.com/40-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
Nickbaldwin86
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,135
I am gettting the Dell 34" Curved 21:9 whenever it comes out. I have played on 4k surround and while it was amazing I don't have the money to buy 4 Titan Blacks to run it nor the monitors.
Nick
Nick
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
4K for multimedia productivity. 21:9 is good for looking at multiple documents.
But for gaming, unless they make a 120Hz 21:9, the Swift would give the best performance and experience.
I would go with two 290X cards; cheaper and faster for 4K.
I have been having this debate myself recently. I'm not a gamer, just a programmer. At resolutions like these, I can't imagine I would ever maximize a single window, so the question is, how would I virtually separate the monitor into usable sections. The ultra wide, I imagine being able to use essentially as a single dual monitor setup; web browser or office, or Visual Studio on the left, and a movie or SQL Studio, or webpage on the right. On 4k, I think of the monitor as 4 quadrants, and I can't think of how I would use the upper right area. If I have a 1080 movie on the bottom right, and am surfing the web on the left, is the upper right just dead space?
rabidz7
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2014
- Messages
- 1,331
Ultrawide and 16:9 are excessively wide for me. But if it is between the two, 16:9 is the clear winner. Plus, it has more total pixels.
I agree, he mentioned SLI though so I figured Nvidia was his only option.
Anyway, 4K performance on recent games is pretty dismal, take Dragon Age: Inquisition for example: http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...nquisition-test-DragonAgeInquisition_3840.jpg
Assuming the next cards from AMD/Nvidia see a 40-50% performance boost, two will still not be enough to hit 60 FPS in a game like this. Overclocked they might cut it, but only just.
More pixels for the people
40 inch 16x9 display vs 34 inch 21x9 display
http://www.displaywars.com/40-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
He is looking at a 32inch option, which while having more pixels, is nowhere near as drastic of a size difference.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,505
If the monitor's primary use is for serious gaming, have you considered the ROG Swift? I'd think that would be the best monitor given that price point. Anyways on topic between 4K and 21:9 @ 1440 I would have to say 21:9. Surprisingly going from a 27 inch 1440p to 28 inch 4k the difference between the two was not all that big, it just didn't have as much of an impact like going from 27 inch 1080p to 27 inch 1440p did and it takes a lot more horsepower to push 4k. 3440x1440 is a great sweet spot for two 980s. Just be aware you may need to use flawless widescreen or some other tweaks to get a few games working at 21:9
gungravevn
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2014
- Messages
- 43
I would go wit 1440p. 1440p at its peak atm with dual GTX970 you would be able to run them smoothly. 4k still too new, dual GTX 980SLi or R9 290x still have problem handling higher frame rate. I would save the money and wait for better graphic cards to be release next year.
Option now: consider 34" 21:9 curved - reportedly the best immersive experience.
Option wait: from January the willd be information about next year trends, e.g 4K curved, 40", etc.
I just bought both with a return policy and compared them on my desk. It's about the only way you're going to be able to really gauge which is right for you, though the nasty shipping charges are the price you pay.
For reference, the two I bought were the
34" 21:9 3440x1440 - LG 34UM95
32" 16:9 UHD - Acer B326HK
Just a few observations - the AG coating on the LG is pretty significantly less obtrusive (though both are better than my Dell U3011 in this regard), and the display just looked more vivid, less washed out, even before calibration. I calibrated the LG using my iRite i2Display using the built in utility and included software. It worked like a charm, and was super easy to use. I didn't take the time to calibrate the Acer since I didn't have the iRite software installed, but the colors looked fairly accurate next to the calibrated LG. It looked like it was a tad on the cool side even when in Cinema mode.
As far as the user experience with the two display sizes and resolutions, I preferred the UHD resolution almost everywhere (desktop, gaming, etc) of course. The LG was still very sharp from a PPI standpoint (better than my previous Dell) though. I did feel that 32" is about the minimum I could stand for UHD resolution in Windows without scaling.
Given that I liked the UHD display better for windows, it's a bit more "future proof", and the format is more widely used in gaming (16:9 vs 21:9), I wanted to like the Acer more, but I ended up going with the LG. It was gaming that did it for me. My 780 SLI setup was just not cutting it on UHD with some of the more demanding games I play (Crysis and DA:I for now, with a definite need for Witcher 3 playability in a few months). I was getting low 30 fps even after turning MSAA off and a few settings down from max. It was pretty much as compromised as I was willing to make it. My rationale was that the extra resolution isn't doing much for me in games if I have to turn all the eye candy off.
Also, the 21:9 widescreen POV was just spectacular for games. It really added something to the experience. I thought perhaps the wider field of view came at the expense of vertical FOV, but it doesn't. It just makes everything a bit smaller. So you still get the whole scene you'd get with the 16:9 AR, plus more. You may have already known this, but I didn't realize it.
I will say this about the LG - I wish it were curved. When using the desktop, the edges do feel like they're just not at the correct angle from where I'm sitting, though it's very easy to forget when you're gaming. Still, I got the LG for $810 on the newegg deal last week, and it's not worth almost $500 to me to add a slight curve to the same display.
All that said, I'd like to point out that the incompatibility of games with the AR is certainly a downside to consider, and if you can't get it working at native res, you're essentially using a really expensive 16:9 27" monitor. I've been meaning to replay the Witcher 2 in prep for TW3 coming out, and I can't get it to work at native res for the life of me (and yes, I've tried both Widescreen Fixer and Flawless Widescreen apps). I've read that it's just not working with the current version of the GoG TW2, so I guess I either have to buy it on Steam as well or play it in 16:9, which really cuts down on my effective screen size. It has worked for D3, DA:I, Crysis, and a few others I've tried though.
I realize I rambled quite a bit here, but hopefully my scattered thoughts were of some help.
For reference, the two I bought were the
34" 21:9 3440x1440 - LG 34UM95
32" 16:9 UHD - Acer B326HK
Just a few observations - the AG coating on the LG is pretty significantly less obtrusive (though both are better than my Dell U3011 in this regard), and the display just looked more vivid, less washed out, even before calibration. I calibrated the LG using my iRite i2Display using the built in utility and included software. It worked like a charm, and was super easy to use. I didn't take the time to calibrate the Acer since I didn't have the iRite software installed, but the colors looked fairly accurate next to the calibrated LG. It looked like it was a tad on the cool side even when in Cinema mode.
As far as the user experience with the two display sizes and resolutions, I preferred the UHD resolution almost everywhere (desktop, gaming, etc) of course. The LG was still very sharp from a PPI standpoint (better than my previous Dell) though. I did feel that 32" is about the minimum I could stand for UHD resolution in Windows without scaling.
Given that I liked the UHD display better for windows, it's a bit more "future proof", and the format is more widely used in gaming (16:9 vs 21:9), I wanted to like the Acer more, but I ended up going with the LG. It was gaming that did it for me. My 780 SLI setup was just not cutting it on UHD with some of the more demanding games I play (Crysis and DA:I for now, with a definite need for Witcher 3 playability in a few months). I was getting low 30 fps even after turning MSAA off and a few settings down from max. It was pretty much as compromised as I was willing to make it. My rationale was that the extra resolution isn't doing much for me in games if I have to turn all the eye candy off.
Also, the 21:9 widescreen POV was just spectacular for games. It really added something to the experience. I thought perhaps the wider field of view came at the expense of vertical FOV, but it doesn't. It just makes everything a bit smaller. So you still get the whole scene you'd get with the 16:9 AR, plus more. You may have already known this, but I didn't realize it.
I will say this about the LG - I wish it were curved. When using the desktop, the edges do feel like they're just not at the correct angle from where I'm sitting, though it's very easy to forget when you're gaming. Still, I got the LG for $810 on the newegg deal last week, and it's not worth almost $500 to me to add a slight curve to the same display.
All that said, I'd like to point out that the incompatibility of games with the AR is certainly a downside to consider, and if you can't get it working at native res, you're essentially using a really expensive 16:9 27" monitor. I've been meaning to replay the Witcher 2 in prep for TW3 coming out, and I can't get it to work at native res for the life of me (and yes, I've tried both Widescreen Fixer and Flawless Widescreen apps). I've read that it's just not working with the current version of the GoG TW2, so I guess I either have to buy it on Steam as well or play it in 16:9, which really cuts down on my effective screen size. It has worked for D3, DA:I, Crysis, and a few others I've tried though.
I realize I rambled quite a bit here, but hopefully my scattered thoughts were of some help.
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,718
Why not go 31MU97? Its 4096 x 2160 resolution is a hybrid between both a 4k and ultrawide. You get slightly more width than a 16:9 and a lot more vertical pixels versus the ultrawide!
[H]appymeal
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Messages
- 91
Did you get a chance to try 1080p or 1440p on the 4k monitor? how did it look?
[H]appymeal;1041272403 said:
I did, and it wasn't pretty. As I suspect you are, I was hoping that even with some scaling blurring they would look as sharp on a much higher res monitor than they do on a similar sized lower res monitor. Sort of a fall back plan in case my hardware couldn't run at full native UHD res for a particular game.
Let me say that the scaling blur was more significant than I would have expected, particularly on static images like an in-game HUD or UI elements. I quickly realized that I would have sooner turned game settings down to the mid-low range and run at full res before I used a non-native res. That I wouldn't really consider doing either was pretty much the reason I returned the Acer.
You mean such wide flat display makes apparent distortion to edges? That sounds revelation, my next monitor must be curved then
.[H]appymeal
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Messages
- 91
Thanks
I got the same deal on the 34UM95 from Newegg and I agree with you. It's not worth spending $500 for the curved version.
40" 4K is the ultimate sweet spot, in my opinion. It has the same PPI as the 34" 21:9 monitors, so it is just as sharp and crisp, but it has more width and height, so it has even greater immersiveness. Furthermore, you won't encounter any problems with the 16:9 aspect ratio, since it is widely used. The same can't be said of the 21:9 ratio, which is not as well supported. And if you want 21:9 anyway, you can just emulate it with the 1:1 pixel mapping setting.
The only real problem: you'll need more powerful hardware if you opt for the 4K choice, because your videocard has to drive 67 percent more pixels. But considering that even a single (overclocked) 980 GTX is able to run most games with normal settings at 4K, it is not much of an issue. You only encounter problems if you insist on ultra/extreme settings. But you could always add a second card in SLI to remove that problem, too.
The only real problem: you'll need more powerful hardware if you opt for the 4K choice, because your videocard has to drive 67 percent more pixels. But considering that even a single (overclocked) 980 GTX is able to run most games with normal settings at 4K, it is not much of an issue. You only encounter problems if you insist on ultra/extreme settings. But you could always add a second card in SLI to remove that problem, too.
[X]eltic;1041275107 said:
You are right with one remark. 40" has maximum height for the desktop use which is fine. But due to its substantial width a curved 40 incher would get most likely the crown of ultimate.
Curved monitors are still bit of enigma. It is not a fantasy anymore to speculate about 5K wide&curved monitor with about same height as the 40" but in the 21:9 or even 22:9 or 23:9 format. Would such very wide curved monitor feel good? People use much wider multimonitor systems but they are composed of flat panels so there is no curvature problem.
[X]eltic;1041275107 said:
This is bit too rosy, even the GTX 980 SLI not always guarantee buttersmooth 60fps@4K
Many of those are older games too... more recently there have been titles that struggle to maintain 30 FPS even with 290X CF or 980 SLI. I know a lot of people cry 'bad optimization' but it's looking more and more like a sign of things to come. Of course you can lower settings but what's the point in doing that when spending thousands of dollars on monitor + video cards.
Well, it depends. For games, certainly, but for normal desktop use, I'd say a curved monitor isn't an optimal choice. If I'm working, I want my lines to be straight. Picture distortion sucks if you're editing.
I disagree. It is not too rosy if people would stop being obsessed about super high levels of AA, the very highest settings and 60+ FPS at all times. At 4K resolution, AA isn't needed as much and 60 FPS isn't always necessary if you're playing RTS games. Also, the highest game settings are for the most part a stupid choice too, because it results in a huge FPS drop, but often with a meager picture quality improvement only. If people would notch their settings down just a tiny bit, the game would look almost as good, but with much higher FPS.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
Used GTX 660.
As far as GPU use, I don't have any issues with a single 980 playing more demanding games with AA off at 3440x1440. Other settings cranked.
I don't know about the OP or others, but to me the 31MU97 is too expensive. I still question whether the 34UM95 is too pricey at $810.
Did you run into any games that wouldn't run properly at 4k?
I saw your post about 1080p and 1440p not looking good, and I've seen reports of games that won't render at higher than 1440p resolution. At that point it's kind of a trade off between the 27" 1440p w/black bars mode of the 21:9 and the 32" 4k having to scale. Which do you think would be worse? I'm guessing the 32" 4k since you returned it?
Speaking of picture distortion while editing, has the square/round pixel issue been debunked for the 40" 4k yet?
I don't know about the OP or others, but to me the 31MU97 is too expensive. I still question whether the 34UM95 is too pricey at $810.
Did you run into any games that wouldn't run properly at 4k?
I saw your post about 1080p and 1440p not looking good, and I've seen reports of games that won't render at higher than 1440p resolution. At that point it's kind of a trade off between the 27" 1440p w/black bars mode of the 21:9 and the 32" 4k having to scale. Which do you think would be worse? I'm guessing the 32" 4k since you returned it?
[X]eltic;1041275677 said:
Speaking of picture distortion while editing, has the square/round pixel issue been debunked for the 40" 4k yet?
[X]eltic;1041275677 said:
There can be no disagreement with this provided the distortions are noticeable. The question is are the distortions from curved monitor really noticeable or just imaginary ('monitor is curved -> distortions must be there)
. If imaginary, the effect should die after some usage. If real, how serious this might be?
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
[X]eltic;1041275677 said:
Quoted for truth and emphasis. Aa is a very much optional thing at 4k, though it does help still. In times past on other high resolutions, I turned down a couple of settings in games that gave a 1 to 2 percent image quality boost only visible in zoomed in still screenshots, just as I do today with 4k, to get proper framerates. It's completely invisible in game, but your framerates generally shoot up nicely. Also to note that stock Gtx 980 reviews are fairly unrepresentative of what you'll actually get since they're extremely well known for their ocability, usually netting 15 to 20 percent more performance easily. My pair of MSI Gaming GTX 970 cards in SLI at quiet and cool air gaming speeds for 24/7 use work very well at 4k (1506mhz core, 7806mhz mem, 1.231v vgpu which is below stock even (which is 1.25v)). MSAA is generally out of reach on the newest games but it looks and runs amazingly anyway
. My monitor is an Acer b326hk 4k 60hz ips 32" sst panel.
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
Just grab a gtx 750ti 2gb. It's completely silent, takes basically no power, and costs about 100 dollars on most deals.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
Also a good choice. (make sure it has a displayport)
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,669
Nice catch, forgot they don't all come with it standard.
I didn't try a ton of older games, but all the games I tried at least accepted the native UHD resolution and seemed to run fine (albeit very slowly on my hardware). The only real exception was DA:Inquisition. As I posted previously, it recognized the resolution but for some reason it was rendering in 1440p. I don't know for sure it was 1440p, but it looked soft and clearly was not native UHD. When I changed settings in game to Borderless Windowed mode (vice fullscreen), it rendered properly in UHD. I have absolutely no idea why this is, but as it was unique to this game, it's probably not something to be concerned about.
Speaking of your comparison though, there's still another option. You can always set the 32" UHD display to 1:1 and just render and output in 1440p. It'll be letter AND pillar boxed (black borders all around the screen), but it'll still be super sharp because the pixel pitch is finer than the 34" 21:9 display. Of course, that also means that the actual usable area of the screen is slightly smaller. But in direct response to your hypothetical, yes, the 21:9 would be far superior to using a scaled res on the UHD. Scaled anything looks absolutely awful to me.
Also, the ultra wide format was really attractive to me for gaming, and it does look like the majority of games can use it (with WS Fixer or flawless WS). If I wanted to get that same ultra wide POV with the 32", the overall display would have been significantly smaller.
I would have kept the UHD instead if I were able to drive full UHD for the majority of games, with a few titles as exceptions. This wasn't really the case. It really comes down to whether you feel you get better visual impact from maxed graphical settings or a super high PPI. I prefer the former, so I went with a format that didn't require me to drive as many pixels.
As so many in 21:9 forums have said, there's so much more visual information horizontally depicted, and almost none vertically. Having the extra couple inches (and res) of height of the UHD display didn't really add to the experience, especially since games that render 21:9 properly still show the same amount of vertical image. The 4" of extra width, however, really did add something.
I'm still planning on buying a UHD display eventually, but maybe in a year or so my graphics cards will have caught up and there will be other larger options available. I thought 32" was where I wanted to be for UHD, but I've realized I'd really like something in the 36"+ range.
Thanks for the reply.
I've encountered similar to what you're referring to. I've had a game say 3440x1440 and stretch when it was obviously 2560x1440. Checking "Override the scaling mode set by games and programs" and setting Scaling to "No scaling" in the nVidia CP resulted in me seeing only 2560x1440. The game was limited to 2560x1440 in full screen mode. Putting it in windowed full screen resulted VER-, which is useless. Different games behave differently obviously, but in that case I just played windowed.
I was also rather surprised about how good HOR+ games were and how many of them there were. The amount of engines that games that are just straight up HOR+ as opposed to doing both VER-/HOR+ and scaling properly is surprising. It just gives the ultrawide a big advantage. Almost seems like they just treat it like eyefinity without bezels.
Do you keep the taskbar on the side?
Skylake1151
n00b
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2014
- Messages
- 1
Have you tried editing the ini file for Witcher 2?