Any 34" 21:9 Displays that will also run at 2560x1440?

Discussion in 'Displays' started by Brent_Justice, Aug 20, 2015.

  1. Brent_Justice

    Brent_Justice Moderator

    Messages:
    17,755
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2000
    Hey everyone, quick question, are there any 34" 3440x1440 21:9 displays that will run just fine at 2560x1440?

    I've herad that some won't even detect that as a usable resolution in Windows and that you have to manually create a custom resolution. Are there any UltraWide displays that will support and detect 2560x1440 without having to make a custom resolution?

    What will happen in games, I assume if the aspect ration is kept the same it should create two black bars on the left and right side, and keep the same vertical dimension, basically losing 440 resolution on both left and right side (880 total), but still maintaining the 1440p vertical aspect.

    I also wonder if you can use GPU hardware scaling to force a 2560x1440 game resolution to utilize the maximum size of the screen, stretching the aspect ratio, but maintaining the resolution.

    Anyone tried 2560x1440 on any of the 34" displays to see what happens while gaming?
     
  2. Xinmosni

    Xinmosni [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,974
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    The LG 34UM95 34" 3440x1440 ultra widescreen monitor displays 2560x1440 exactly how it's supposed to: with black bars on the sides, because that aspect ratio is 16x9 and not 21x9 >_>

    Similarly, a 4x3 movie or resolution will display with black bars on the sides when viewing on a 16x9 monitor. You can also get 3440x1440 to display on a 4K monitor -- with black bars on the top and bottom.

    I'm not sure if you're asking if there's a monitor out there that displays a STRETCHED 2560x1440 image while gaming (for movies that's easy depending on software used, and looks appropriately horrible)...
     
  3. Brent_Justice

    Brent_Justice Moderator

    Messages:
    17,755
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2000
    Thanks for the feedback.

    The question is really because of YouTube's reliance on 16:9. If you want to record Let's Play games on YouTube one has to record the games at 16:9 to fit YT's player properly, which in this case would be 2560x1440.

    So I know you'll lose a bit on the left and right while gaming, I'm just making sure that you even can run that resolution on 34" displays, like I said, some do not naively support that resolution in Windows and you have to create a custom resolution in Windows, I am just making sure which displays for sure support 2560x1440 without having to do this.

    I wish there were bigger 21:9 displays, I want a 39" 3440x1440 21:9 display :p

    To go 21:9 or not, that is the question.... Much thinking to do. For YT it makes more sense to stick with a 16:9 display, ugh. But UltraWide is so cool! :p
     
  4. rabidz7

    rabidz7 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,238
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    UltraWide is not in any way "cool". Aspect ratio is personal preference. I like 4:3.
     
  5. cbf123

    cbf123 n00b

    Messages:
    50
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Ultrawide is "cool" because games handle FOV poorly. :)
     
  6. Romir

    Romir Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    335
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    I got my Dell U3415W yesterday and 2560x1440 showed up with 1:1 pixel mapping in both Windows 7 and 10.

    I also played some of the new Tales from the Borderlands episode at 1440p without issue. It only supports 16:9 so playing at the desktop resolution would mar my screenshots with the black bars on both sides.

    What sealed the deal on this monitor for me was the dual usb upstream ports. That gives me a free KVM to my gaming desktop as a supplement to its Rog Swift. I'm going to take advantage of that this weekend to play Shadowrun: Hong Kong in 21:9.
     
  7. HybridHB

    HybridHB [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,248
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2002
    2560x1440 is not an option on a Acer XR341CK with windows 10. Ive had this monitor for a week and dont think ill ever go back to 16:9.
     
  8. i2abid

    i2abid [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,328
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Haven't tried 2560x1440 on my Acer since 21:9 is too badass!
     
  9. tegirinenashi

    tegirinenashi Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    140
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    You are correct noticing that ultrashort display proposition is woefully impractical. This is a "novelty" for which you have to pay a premium. If you insist that ultrawide is cool, what prevents you from buying 40" UHD for the same or even less money than 34" ultrawide and emulate 1440p with windowboxing and custom resolution? 40" is both taller and wider than 34":

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

    I'm warning you that after the 34" novelty wears off, you would still be compelled to upgrade to UHD, with wasted money for you little 34" adventure.
     
  10. Xinmosni

    Xinmosni [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,974
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    ^ actually, in my experience of moving from LG 34UM95 34" Ultra Wide to Phillips 40" 4K, 4K seems like more of a sidegrade than anything. Yes, 16x9 is better for so many things and the extra vertical real estate is much welcome, but there was something fresh and exciting about viewing things in ultrawide that you cannot capture with a custom resolution.

    I had the LG 34UM95 for almost a full year and the "novelty" never wore off. The only reason I purchased the Phillips 40" 4K was because I wanted to see how large panel VA looked (very great IMO), and because I felt 4K would justify me spending so much on the rest of my rig (which it does now, since 3440x1440 was too easy on my hardware).

    The 21x9 aspect ratio is something that I sorely miss and which I would have stuck with had any manufacturer offered a bigger panel than 34". It's true that I can still get that 21x9 feeling via custom resolution, but it's just not the same unless the image takes up the entire screen (kinda like how 2560x1440 on a 34" 21x9 panel is the same size as it is on a 27" 16x9 panel... but with black bars, which makes it feel not as satisfying).

    The only 4K 21x9 panel available for purchase that I've seen is like $100K last time I saw, so I think I'll just deal with 40" 16x9 4K and twiddle my thumbs -_-
     
  11. x3sphere

    x3sphere 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,627
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Bought an LG 34" at release, still extremely happy with it. I don't feel that compelled to go 4K - most of the good 4K displays lack any form of adaptive sync so you'll still be compelled to upgrade yet again when those start coming out. Freesync and Gsync makes a huge difference and I won't be buying another display without it.

    That's why my next upgrade will likely be the Acer Predator X34.

    4K IMHO not worth it until high refresh rate panels start coming out, but since that will require DP 1.3 we're likely 2 years away from seeing those. Not even sure if Pascal will have DP 1.3.
     
  12. Digital Viper-X-

    Digital Viper-X- [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,745
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2000
  13. Romir

    Romir Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    335
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Speaking for myself, the ergonomics of anything taller than 32" 16:9 or 30" 16:10 really doesn't comfortably suite my eye level.

    The all purpose monitor I'd like to see is a 32" 5k. Comfortable, sharp text for me at 200% scaling and a nice 1440p quarter resolution to fall back onto for demanding games. Or ones with UI's that don't scale.

    The only 4k display I'm interested in is a projector for my home theaters 11 foot wide 2:37 screen. The cinemascope vertical resolution increase from 812 to 1440 is going to be hugely noticeable.