4K vs. 21:9 monitors

[Rdzona]

I haven't read much discussion regarding this topic, apologies if there has been and I missed it.

Anyway, with all the sales that seem to be going on, I am hopefully getting ready to punch my ticket on some new eye candy, I just can't decide which direction to go in. I currenty have a 1200p monitor and use it for everything. Gaming, movies, productivity....

Help me choose which direction [H]. So far I'm looking at the Dell U3415W, the samsung 4K tvs and the 404K crossover, but I'm open to anything else too. I also sit at what I think is a normal desk type of setup, so approx about 2 ft from eye to screen give or take.

Thanks

 

[tegirinenashi]

21:9 sucks.

1. Human vision field of view is close to 5:4 (even squarer than old boring 4:3). To get WOW effect ideally you want to cover your entire FOV. Therefore, even enormous covering the whole view standard 16:9 screen would waste pixels on the sides. "Cinematic" AR is ridiculous waste of pixels on the sides.
2. IMAX in all its glory is 4:3
3. Tablets are all 16:10 and 4:3. Laptops are 16:9. A puny attempt for ultrashort laptops failed miserably.
4. TVs are 16:9. Two experiments with ultrashort TVs by Phillips and Visio failed miserably.
5. Many movie producers are unhappy with "cinematic" AR. Stanley Kubrick hated even relatively modest 16:9, preferring 4:3.
6. For 2 screens with the same diagonal the "squarer" one has more area.
7. Currently ultrawide are niche with less variety of offering and steeper price. You pay almost twice for the same screen area. The situation is so ridiculous that you can buy 40" UHD for less money than 34" with the former being bigger in both dimensions:

http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-235x1-vs-40-inch-16x9

Some suggested even running custom cinematic resolution on 40" with black bars, which still has bigger image than 34"!

 

[_kardon_]

My take on the points above

1, I have a 4k tv and a Dell U3415W i feel more immersed in the ultra widescreen.
2. Can you really take IMAX into consideration you have to turn your head to see everything so aspect ration doesn't matter to much.
3. My tablet is 16:9. An ultrawide laptop would be awkward to move around. The only reason 4K is easy to use in laptops is because the form factor is an already proven design. But that fails to say any laptop can really handle 4k that well.
4. TV are 16:9 yet I seem to see a fair amount of black bars on the top and bottom.
5. No experience in the movie industry, So I will skip this one.
6. They can but I don't like bezels and I payed a premium for not having one.
7. Can't refute that, but I still don't regret getting mine.

"Some suggested even running custom cinematic resolution on 40" with black bars, which still has bigger image than 34"!"
This is not a bad option.

 

[Cyph]

If you're OK with black bars on top and bottom, you can turn the Samsung 4K into a 21:9 monitor as well. It'll end up being bigger than any 34" on the market. Also, if you get the curved Samsung, you'll end up with a 21:9 curve. There's no way you can get a real curved 21:9 34" at the price you can get a Samsung 4K for. Food for thoughts.

 

[Quix]

Remember, there is nothing stopping you keeping your existing monitor as a secondary.

 

[Mr Evil]

1. Human vision field of view is close to 5:4 (even squarer than old boring 4:3)...

Where are you getting that number from? Human field of vision is a bit over 180° horizontal and 130° vertical. A monitor that filled that would be somewhat wider than 4:3 (and a funny oval-shaped section of a sphere).

As for myself, I don't like anything wider than 16:9, and 16:10 is better. Look at it this way: "ultra widescreen" is equally well described as "ultra shortscreen". For gaming that means you will be missing things that are above or below you. For productivity, you can't fit as many lines of text on screen (but a second, portrait monitor is even better for that).

 

[Tyler-Durden]

Remember, there is nothing stopping you keeping your existing monitor as a secondary.

This. I was going to sell my 27" 1440p, but in portrait mode it's a nice side monitor to my 40" 4K for stuff like e-mail, Twitter, news feeds, etc.

 

[KeroHiro]

Oh look, the biggest hater of 21.9 on overclock.net is now on here spewing utter rubbish once again....

If your eyesight/peripheral vision is 5:4 then you really need to get your eyes checked out.

The imax films that I have seen have all been 16.9, not 4.3

I have over 400 films and guess what... the majority of them are 21.9 and that includes mostly modern ones so if directors etc. hated it so much, do you not think they would shoot their films in 16.9 format more often?

If 4k 40" monitors were so good + popular then where are all the 40" 4k monitors? I am seeing a lot more 21.9 screens....

21.9 is here to stay so deal with it and stop crying like a baby every time it is brought up.

@OP

If you have the room and don't mind the issues with the 40" philips screen i.e. higher input lag, worse motion clarity compared to the IPS 34" screens or even the Samsung 34" VA version and you have the desk space for it (recommended viewing distance for a 40" display is about 5 foot) then get the 40" as you can add a custom 21.9 resolution, which is pretty good as the black bars aren't obvious when you have a 4000:1 contrast ratio.

However, if you want good motion clarity, low input lag, a better anti-glare finish for rooms with lots of light and not have to faff around with custom resolution or/and don't have the room then get either the LG 34um95, AOC 34" or the Samsung 34" screen.


BTW, you don't lose anything at the top or bottom in gaming unless for some reason the game is being cropped (which in all the games I have played has never happened), you gain extra FOV at the sides.

Also, 34" 21.9 is the same height as a 27" 16.9 screen and both are 1440 so you will fit just as much on each screen for vertical height, in fact, chances are you might move the taskbar to the side of the 34" screen (due to the wideness) and thus fit even more vertically

EDIT:

Just re-read your post, personally I would wait for more 34" 1440 75HZ g/free sync screens before doing anything.

 

[Zepher]

As for myself, I don't like anything wider than 16:9, and 16:10 is better. Look at it this way: "ultra widescreen" is equally well described as "ultra shortscreen". For gaming that means you will be missing things that are above or below you. For productivity, you can't fit as many lines of text on screen (but a second, portrait monitor is even better for that).

Most games I have played have the same horizontal view regardless of the shape of the screen so I am getting more left and right and not losing anything vertical.
Some older games don't like the ultrawide and stretch a 16:9 image into it making everything short and fat.

Diablo 3 gives me more horizontal space,

I personally love the 21:9 shape

I still have my 25" 21:9, this is a really small screen and I bought this to see if I would like the aspect ratio.

 

[rive22]

Get 4k. Vertical res matters just as much as horizontal.

 

[KeroHiro]

I personally have had very little issues with games and 21.9, any that do have problems are thankfully easy to fix either via flawless widescreen or a simple tweak in a config file

 

[tegirinenashi]

Re: 5:4. Here is verbatim quote from wikipedia: "The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward"

(95+95)/(75+60)=1.4

So, claiming human FOV being 5:4 was a little bit of exaggeration.

Here is little sanity check. Humans have 2 (two) eyes. Each eyeball is round. Even if both eyes vision didn't overlap, the maximally wide FOV covered by two eyes would be two adjacent squares. Which makes the aspect ratio to 2:1 max. However, non-overlapping view this is extreme scenario, more applicable to lower species (such as fish).

Those folks claiming how 34" ultra short screen is somehow more immersive than 40" UHD are little bit disingenuous. With 40" UHD you are getting IMAX experience at your desk. Why should you settle for less than that?

 

[zone74]

Just because our eyes have such a wide range of motion without moving our heads, does not mean that a display needs to be that wide.

For the purposes of gaming, I can see where the peripheral vision of ultra-wide displays or multi-display setups may be useful.

For use as a monitor, peripheral vision means very little.
There is only a small area in the center of our vision which we use to read - perhaps that is closer to 5:4 or even square? I'd guess that it's a round spot.

I do know that sitting from the 46" display which I am currently using as a monitor, it is too large to focus on the whole screen at once, rather then moving my eyes across small portions of it. I normally split windows so that they take up 50% of the screen as that is much easier to read.
And that falls in line with the width of a 23" display, or close to the width of a rotated 27" display.

So I can see why many people seem to like 21-24" monitors instead of anything bigger, why a lot of the 27" monitors I see are rotated 90 degrees, and why many people end up using those 40-50" UHD screens like a borderless 4-monitor setup or as two tall displays rather than using full-screen windows.


But yes, compared to a UHD screen, current ultrawides are short, rather than wide.
UHD = 3840x2160
Ultrawide = 3440x1440

You could always do 5120x2160 though, which would be nice.
But then you can counter that with the existing 5120x2880 screens...
So most of the time, "ultrawide" just ends up being shorter.

I can see the appeal of ultrawide screens for movie watching, since most are natively in that aspect ratio, and black level on LCD is still poor, but for most uses I think I'd prefer something closer to square.

 

[Mr Evil]

Most games I have played have the same horizontal view regardless of the shape of the screen so I am getting more left and right and not losing anything vertical...

Different games handle it differently, but if like your example you keep the vertical FOV fixed so that you only gain at the sides, then you are showing more stuff on screen in total, which will lower FPS, and you get a lower vertical resolution (fewer pixels-per-degree). You can't get something for nothing just by changing the aspect ratio - you trade FOV, resolution, or framerate.

...There is only a small area in the center of our vision which we use to read - perhaps that is closer to 5:4 or even square? I'd guess that it's a round spot...

The human fovea is circular, but it's tiny compared to a monitor.

 

[Skott]

What I find many seem to forget is your own eye sight. If your eye sight isnt good you may find a 4k or even a 21:9 monitor too high a resolution. When it comes to gaming you also have to remember that many games have text in them or HUDs and the like. Try reading that during gaming. The higher the monitor resolution the smaller the text is. Reading it can be a pain for some people. Its not that 21:9 sucks. It may or may not be right for you and that's really what you need to find out. What is best for you. It could be 21:9 or it could be 4k, or even some other resolution. Going to a store to see a monitor is a good start but if all they show you is a movie or show (which is what most places will allow) it doesn't tell what a game looks like. Can you see what that HUD is saying? Can you actually read the text over the characters and avatars and read what it says? Without squinting ?

Whatever you get make sure the place you buy it from has a good return policy in case it turns out to be something you don't like. Also take each review and opinion here with a grain of salt because we all tend to speak our own opinions. Including myself. Personally I like my 21:9 monitor but its as about high as resolution as my eyes can deal with.

Note: I'm in my 50s and eye sight not so great and have to wear glasses when gaming.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm rambling.

 

[zone74]

What I find many seem to forget is your own eye sight. If your eye sight isnt good you may find a 4k or even a 21:9 monitor too high a resolution.

That is a factor of pixel density, not resolution.

A 3440x1440 display at 34" is 110 pixels per inch.
A 3840x2160 display at 40" is 110 pixels per inch.

Objects on these displays are displayed at an equal size, it's just that the UHD screen is physically larger and offers more workspace.

UHD displays at smaller sizes are designed for use with DPI scaling, not display at 100%.

UHD at 44" = 100% DPI scaling
UHD at 35" = 125% DPI scaling
UHD at 29" = 150% DPI scaling
UHD at 26" = 175% DPI scaling
UHD at 22" = 200% DPI scaling

As DPI scaling increases, so does text and image quality, but workspace decreases equally.
UHD at 200% scaling gives you the same workspace as a 1920x1080 screen, but significantly sharper/higher quality text and image rendering.

This is why my ideal display (that could reasonably be produced today) would be a "5K" monitor which is 29" in size.
Same workspace as a 2560x1440 monitor, but significantly higher quality text and image rendering.

When it comes to gaming you also have to remember that many games have text in them or HUDs and the like. Try reading that during gaming. The higher the monitor resolution the smaller the text is.

Again: this is pixel density, not resolution.
If you do not plan on using scaling, ideally your display would have 100 pixels per inch.

 

[tegirinenashi]

The idea that font in the games is not scalable is wrong. Like any other objects fonts in the game are 3D objects (because it would be actually more complicated to have it the other way). This implies that all of the fonts are subject to standard affine transformations, which implies they are easily scalable. I can't think of any excuse rather than plain incompetence for modern game making fonts unreadable.

The idea that lowering resolution can improve game quality can be debunked in a similar venue. Graphics developers have many leverages at their disposal to maximize quality given hardware constraints (most important of which is GPU rendering capabilities). For example, when rendering a frame at high resolution they can do more thorough processing at the center of the view, and skip some work at peripheral vision. Or they can render 1080p scene and upscale it to UHD. Or they can do less processing during dynamic scenes, where viewer simply has no chance to resolve tiny details on fast moving objects. At the end of the day they are more qualified (as compared to your average hardforum denizen). Therefore, when this forum inhabitants insist that at the same frame rate a game played at 1080p resolution at high quality settings is better than the same game played at UHD at medium (or even low) settings, it is dubious assertion, at best.

 

[Edgar]

You got to take into account can your rig handle 4k gaming? Mine cannot imo. So I went with 34 ultrawide. I really enjoy gaming on it. Batman Arkham Knight looks great on it(when it works). To me its what eyefinity/surround should've been like (without the bezels).

 

[zone74]

You got to take into account can your rig handle 4k gaming? Mine cannot imo. So I went with 34 ultrawide. I really enjoy gaming on it. Batman Arkham Knight looks great on it(when it works). To me its what eyefinity/surround should've been like (without the bezels).

3440x1440 (5MP) is still a lot closer to UHD (8.3MP) than 1080p (2MP) so it's still a pretty big performance hit.
That's part of the reason I've not been in a rush to upgrade my current display. No single card is capable of driving these displays at that sort of resolution with the kind of performance that I find acceptable.

However, if we had an integer scaling mode in the GPU drivers (or if the display can do it) then gaming performance would be far less of a concern. You could render games at a quarter the resolution and still get a perfectly sharp image, similar to that of a native 1080p screen - only with greater clarity due to the increased pixel density of the display.

 

[tegirinenashi]

Again, "can your rig handle 4K gaming" is nonsense. It has no meaning whatsoever. Sure, even with low end GPU you just start the game and it automatically choose the quality settings for you. Or NVIGIA Geforce experience supposedly would do it better. Or you set up it manually. What you don't supposed do, however, is moronically maxing all the settings. Now you may insist that you can tell the difference of the game run on low medium and max settings, but I after seen the screen shot comparisons I'm not so sure.

 

[wuzupfoo]

Again, "can your rig handle 4K gaming" is nonsense. It has no meaning whatsoever. Sure, even with low end GPU you just start the game and it automatically choose the quality settings for you. Or NVIGIA Geforce experience supposedly would do it better. Or you set up it manually. What you don't supposed do, however, is moronically maxing all the settings. Now you may insist that you can tell the difference of the game run on low medium and max settings, but I after seen the screen shot comparisons I'm not so sure.

I beg to differ... you are on the wrong site if you think otherwise. [H]ard is a place where ppl spend thousands on multi-GPU setups to achieve ridiculous framerates with max settings.

Also yes there is a difference. Its like saying XB1 and PS4 games are equivalent in graphics as a maxed out PC. If it didn't matter we wouldn't be sitting here modding our PCs we would be happy playing games on consoles like the rest of the masses.

Lastly its important as far as budget goes unless you are using your PC for productivity only which makes it much more manageable from an economic sense or are willing to sacrifice quality for speed as you suggest. With most 4K screens being huge the quality or lack thereof is much easier to spot. Though at least because of its resolution you can at least worry less about running high levels of AA.

Back to OPs question.

I considered 4K heavily before deciding on a Ultrawide. The things that deterred me were the relatively high input lag and high cost of running games in 4K at what I considered acceptable quality/framerates. Basically if a single 980ti or Fury could run most games on at least High settings I would've taken the plunge but since that's seems to be a crapshoot I went with the Ultrawide as a compromise. And after doing some light gaming and also some work on it the last day Im pretty happy with the decision. I do wish I had some more vertical space but having two 4:3 windows side by side is actually quite useful.

The problem with 4K is that its bleeding edge no compromises display you either jump in knowing that you aren't getting a super refined product in the low end of the spectrum or spend significant coin on a higher end model and still need more to grab a multi GPU set up to make it run the best. I mean whats the point of getting a gigantic screen if the images don't look as good as it was in your previous screen.. Go big or go home is the way I see it. And for me I went home with a Ultrawide. Though in a few years Im pretty sure I will upgrade again but by then Im hoping GPU tech has caught up to monitor tech.

 

[tegirinenashi]

OK, lets rollback 5 years. What was the typical screen size back then? 1080p. What was the top GPU at the time?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-radeon-hd-geforce-gtx,2676.html

Radeon HD 5850 or some such. It has passmark score

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+HD+5850

around a quarter of what we have today (980/980ti).

Therefore, there is no more reason to hold of your monitor upgrade to UHD today than there were to HD 5 years ago.

Finally, speaking of 4K vs XB1 and PS4 there was an article comparing screenshots and many readers were not compelled by the differences.

 

[wuzupfoo]

OK, lets rollback 5 years. What was the typical screen size back then? 1080p. What was the top GPU at the time?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-radeon-hd-geforce-gtx,2676.html

Radeon HD 5850 or some such. It has passmark score

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+HD+5850

around a quarter of what we have today (980/980ti).

Therefore, there is no more reason to hold of your monitor upgrade to UHD today than there were to HD 5 years ago.

Finally, speaking of 4K vs XB1 and PS4 there was an article comparing screenshots and many readers were not compelled by the differences.

I understand what you are saying but what I was saying is that 4K is a compromise right now. Some may think its fine others don't. Its subjective. If it wasn't clear I edited the response and added my take on it since I actually went thru the decision making process.

Also I don't understand the 4K vs. Xb1 PS4 comment. I wasn't comparing them I was just giving a general analogy about PC gamers wanting quality.

 

[zone74]

Again, "can your rig handle 4K gaming" is nonsense. It has no meaning whatsoever. Sure, even with low end GPU you just start the game and it automatically choose the quality settings for you. Or NVIGIA Geforce experience supposedly would do it better. Or you set up it manually. What you don't supposed do, however, is moronically maxing all the settings. Now you may insist that you can tell the difference of the game run on low medium and max settings, but I after seen the screen shot comparisons I'm not so sure.

A lot of screenshot comparisons do not highlight the differences very well, and things like Ambient Occlusion quality may not be nearly as apparent in a static image than one in motion for example.

At anything less than the highest quality Ambient Occlusion, I would rather disable the feature altogether.
Low quality AO adds a lot of ugly flickering/noise to the image.

It is the same for a lot of these settings that have "minimal impact" in a screenshot.
Or a poorly chosen screenshot which does not highlight the differences clearly.

Therefore, there is no more reason to hold of your monitor upgrade to UHD today than there were to HD 5 years ago.

My overclocked 970 dips below 60 FPS in the latest game releases at 1080p.
It's not an 980Ti, but a 980Ti is not >4x faster than a 970.

If I can't maintain a minimum of 60 FPS with acceptable image quality using a 970 at 1080p, how is anything supposed to handle that at UHD?

My GTX570, which is almost five years old now, had no problem running games well beyond 60 FPS at the time.
The GPUs may be faster now, but the demands that games are placing on them have gone up too.

 

[Edgar]

I have a 290x with an i7 930. As much as I would like too. My rig is not capable of 4k gaming(that I deem acceptable). So I settled for ultrawide with 2560x1080 resolution.

 

[tegirinenashi]

My GTX570, which is almost five years old now, had no problem running games well beyond 60 FPS at the time.
The GPUs may be faster now, but the demands that games are placing on them have gone up too.

GTX570 is 4.5 year old card
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+570
with performance roughly half of 970. This explains why it has no problem keeping decent fps at 1080p while 970 struggles at 4K. Given that 970/980 were released Oct last year, the interval shrinks to less than 4 years,while I was making 5 year comparison.

It is also true that the diiference between Crysis and the others narrowed down so that there are more GPU hungry titles today.

Yet, rolling back 5 years, if somebody at the time suggested that I quit enjoying 1920x1200 (and downgraded to 640x480 in the name of performance) is ridiculous.

 

[Zepher]

I've got a GTX980 with a 4790K and it struggles with some newer games at 3440x1440.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Lol one day when we get 21:9 5120x2160 resolution monitors we can then have the best of both worlds. Until that day comes this is nothing more than a matter of personal preference between the two.

 

[zone74]

GTX570 is 4.5 year old card
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+570
with performance roughly half of 970. This explains why it has no problem keeping decent fps at 1080p while 970 struggles at 4K. Given that 970/980 were released Oct last year, the interval shrinks to less than 4 years,while I was making 5 year comparison.

It is also true that the diiference between Crysis and the others narrowed down so that there are more GPU hungry titles today.

Yet, rolling back 5 years, if somebody at the time suggested that I quit enjoying 1920x1200 (and downgraded to 640x480 in the name of performance) is ridiculous.

I think you misunderstood.
4.5 years ago, I had no problem running the latest games at 1080p60 on a GTX570. (roughly equivalent to a GTX 480)
With today's games, a GTX 970 struggles to stay above 60 FPS at 1080p.

To play today's games - which are more demanding - at 1080p60 would require something faster than an overclocked GTX 970. (1530MHz)
A 980Ti would probably be sufficient.

To achieve that same performance (never dropping below 60) at 4K would require at least 4x that.
Such a card does not exist. A 980Ti is not even 2x the performance of a 970.
There are no single-GPU solutions which handle 4K well, unless you're playing old games.


To say that GPUs are 4x faster than they were 5 years ago, and that displays are 4x the resolution so things should be fine, is only telling half the story.
The demands of games have not gone unchanged in those last 5 years - the latest titles seem to demand more than 4x the GPU performance alone, even if you keep the resolution at 1080p.

Edit: And if we use numbers from NVIDIA in 3DMark Fire Strike, a 980Ti is roughly 4x the performance of a GTX 560 Ti. So GPU performance has not increased that much in the last 4-5 years.
It's more like 3x if you compare a 980Ti to a 580.

Lol one day when we get 21:9 5120x2160 resolution monitors we can then have the best of both worlds. Until that day comes this is nothing more than a matter of personal preference between the two.

By then I would hope that DisplayPort 1.3 is out, and 29" 5120x2880 will be more common.
I suspect the reason that we haven't seen more of those displays is because they require two DisplayPort 1.2a connections at the moment.