Can't decide between 21:9 (ultrawide) or 16:9

Discussion in 'Displays' started by mmarsh, Aug 15, 2018.

  1. mmarsh

    mmarsh Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    I have a 3 x U2414H screen setup which I am not happy with. Right now I have 2x 780GTX which will be upgraded sometime later. System is mainly for gaming.

    Choices are

    21:9
    Dell AW3418AW

    or

    16:9
    ASUS PG279Q

    Both are G-SYNC, 1440p. Refresh is about the same (wont be OC).

    The monitor will set on my office desk roughly 65cm distance from me.

    My question is 21:9 worth the extra $300, and will I be able to see the entire Screen comfortably, or am I better off with a classic 27" in the 16:9
     
  2. GNUse_the_force

    GNUse_the_force Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    361
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    if the choice was between 16:9 4k or 1440p then id say go for the 4k, but seen as it is a choice between the same vertical resolutions why not have the extra space. The worth will be in a more immersive gaming experience, if you get a 16:9 you can't do 21:9 (well you can custom res but at 27" that's going to look really small) but if you get a 21:9 you can still 16:9 with bars on each side or if running borderless windowed your game on one side and a chat window in the spare space (#irc, steam, discord, twitch etc..)
     
    cybereality and Armenius like this.
  3. Armenius

    Armenius [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    16,249
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    I agree. Worst case scenario in games that don't support or can't be forced into proper ultrawide you'll be playing on the equivalent screenspace as a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

    OP, if you do go with the ultrawide be sure to make friends with this community:
    http://www.wsgf.org

    And get familiar with this tool:
    https://www.flawlesswidescreen.org

    Since you're coming from a 3x1 setup you probably already are.
     
    Archaea and GNUse_the_force like this.
  4. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,657
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    I came from three 32” HP Omen monitors in Eyefinity/Freesync to a Dell Alienware AW3418DW with G-sync.

    --------

    I don’t regret it at all.



    The Alienware 34”, specifically the AW3418DW, (since there are two 34" Alienware models) is probably the best gaming monitor currently available from the reviews I’ve read. Dell's Perfect Pixel guarantee, IPS, lowest input lag of any ultra-wide, G-sync, 120Hz O/C, very solid stand, great looks, RGB LEDs. Longest full replacement warranty.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018
    TroubleMagnet and Armenius like this.
  5. bigbluefe

    bigbluefe Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    462
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Go 16:9. You won't regret it. This shitty industry can't support actual standards let alone weird, esoteric aspect ratios. Most games still ship without proper support. It's just an exercise in frustration.
     
  6. XoR_

    XoR_ Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    400
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    Not much proper aspect ratio 16:10 monitors out there so go 16:9, the next best thing...
     
    Meeho and gtrguy like this.
  7. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,931
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    I tried a 21:9 for a while and didn't like how a lot of HUD elements were not centered, but pushed to the outer edge - it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it often puts things outside of "glance" range.

    Not all games do this and some have a fix, but I consider it a borderline deal breaker for 21:9 monitors.
     
    DanNeely likes this.
  8. mmarsh

    mmarsh Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Its a tough call 4K vs Ultrawide.

    I really want G-SYNC and the 4K monitors with G-SYNC are extremely expensive. It also looks like 4K is more in need of a top tier graphics card (which is on my shopping list but not right away).

    I am lean ultrawide, unless someone can make a good counter arguement.
     
  9. Tweak155

    Tweak155 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    486
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    While AW3418DW is the current king, a very interesting LG is going to be released soon, the 34GK950G (G sync 120hz) and 34GK950F (Freesync 144hz). The image should be better, which was my main gripe the the DW (poor contrast).

    I swapped to the HW to sacrifice resolution for now and get 160hz, but I might get the 144hz LG if the image quality is a lot better. The LG models are due to release by end of month or early Sept.

    EDIT:

    And Ultrawide all the way! 2xUW user here :)
     
  10. Meeho

    Meeho [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,168
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    I would say go for 16:9, but that one has one of the worst IPS panels and quality control on the market today.
     
  11. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,657
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    a 27" 1440p or 4K vs. a 34" 3440x1440 - for primarily gaming? I just don't see this as a reasonable question of which to pursue. The ultrawide with 3440x1440 wins hands down.

    You'd need a 32" 16x9 as the contender to even consider going 16x9 in my experiences.

    I made this video a couple years back. I owned a 30" Dell 3014 (16x10 - 2560x1600), and bought a 34" Acer ultrawide (21:9 - 2560x1080) as well as a HP Omen 32" (16x9 - 2560x1440). I kept the winner (HP Omen 32) and sold the other two. I then bought two more HP Omen 32 for an eyefinity setup. I then bought one of the new Dell 34" based on a nice sale price and rave reviews, and sold all three of my HP Omen displays.

    In the video you can see some gameplay footage of each of the different types of games in the different aspect ratios for comparison.

    I liked the HP Omen the best, of that roundup for gaming, but the Dell Alienware 34" I have now, beats all of them, and by a reasonable margin. It manages to amass the best traits of any of them, and put them in one monitor. The only downside specifically to the Alienware is typical IPS backlight glow, and the biggest downside to ultrawide format in general is old game titles - where you have to play in 16x9 so it isn't stretched at just the 27" size. Frankly, it's a bit disappointing to play 16x9 after playing newer titles with the wider 21x9 ratio. On newer, supported games the 34" ultra-wide aspect is the most immersive, and the extra resolution of 3440x1440 bests the 2560x1080 I had on the Acer panel in the review. But for older games I'd prefer a bigger 32" monitor with 16x9 or the 30" monitor with 16x10.

    I change displays fairly regularly, and the 34" Dell is the best I've owned so far. When a 38" comes out with G-Sync I will likely buy it --- but I'm also cautious/suspicious that adaptive sync support may be just around the corner for Nvidia to finally support since it's being integrated into the newest HDMI standard - and so g-sync may no longer matter a year or two from now.

    So I'll see how the future unfolds in regards to my pursuit of a 38" ultrawide with 3840x1600. A 38" ultra-wide is about the equivalent vertical height of a 30" 16x10 monitor (like my Dell 3014 - which I think is just about perfect size wize), while a 34" ultra-wide is about the equivalent vertical height of a 27" 16x9 monitor, which is a hair small for my preferences.

     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2018
  12. Zepher

    Zepher [H]ipster Replacement

    Messages:
    16,690
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    I've got a few ultrawides here. I personally feel constrained with a single 16:9 screen after using double and triple screens for so long, and the ultrawide makes it seem like I have 2 screens still.

    cubicle-desk-hard-apple.jpg

    Most games I have played work with 21:9, some require a mod or change, like Fallout 4, but some elements like the Scope on the sniper rifle and the hud in the power suit aren't correct, scope is oblong and you can see the background on the sides. other than that the game works fine.

    fallout4-sniper-glitch.jpg fallout4-desk-setup.jpg

    BF4, BF Hardline, and BF1 all work fine.
    bf-hardline-setup.jpg IMG_0416.JPG

    Overwatch supports ultrawide but uses the same horizontal FOV of 16:9 so the image is cropped on the top and bottom. They said they didn't want to give an advantage to 21:9 users so they gimped us instead, lol.
    IMG_0780.JPG
     
    cybereality and ApparitionG like this.
  13. exlink

    exlink 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,849
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2006
    I've been using a Predator X34 (21:9) for over a year and I cannot go back to 16:9 without reducing my productivity and the feeling of immersion. Almost every game I've recently played has had full support for it. Monster Hunter World is actually the first title that I've recently played that hasn't had support at launch.
     
  14. bigsnyder

    bigsnyder Gawd

    Messages:
    655
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Any suggestions for a decent 3840x1600 monitor that is not over $1000?
     
  15. Zepher

    Zepher [H]ipster Replacement

    Messages:
    16,690
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
  16. ReaperX22

    ReaperX22 Gawd

    Messages:
    608
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    IMO 27" 1440p is still the sweet spot for gaming/ability to run the res/pixel density etc. The ultrawide will give you a more immersive experience for sure, but it's harder to drive too.

    I'd personally grab the 27" and keep 2 Dells as side monitors maybe in vertical for content consumption, or whatever tickles your fancy. But it's really personal preference here.

    You'll likely find the ultrawide easier to get used to as you're used to having a spanned display, but as mentioned harder to drive and less universally supported as a resolution. HUD elements may end up in weird spots.
     
  17. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,657
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    To my knowledge there is only one 38” with HDR. My friend bought one and loves it.

    upload_2018-8-15_23-45-9.jpeg



    https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XR342CK-bmijqphuzx-Monitor-Adaptive-Sync/dp/B075LQLJ52?keywords=acer+38”+hdr&qid=1534394365&sr=8-1-fkmr0&ref=mp_s_a_1_fkmr0_1&th=1&psc=1

    bonus:
    It does support true 75Hz with Nvidia with no frame skipping. Make sure and get a model that does frame skip at 75Hz with Nvidia.
    —-
    However, no gsync means a no for me. A Vega 64 doesn’t have the guts to run one. He tried, and went back to his 1080Ti.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2018
    DrLobotomy and GNUse_the_force like this.
  18. prava

    prava [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,518
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    I had a 21:9 for some time... and it is hit and miss. For properly-supported content is SPECTACULAR. But when you are forced into using 16:9 on it IT SUCKS big time.

    TV-shows? 16:9
    Many modded-games: 16:9
    Some games: 16:9

    And any time you have to go 16:9 on a 21:9 screen you will go mad.

    So... it is a question of the amount of 16:9 content you will be using. If you use modern, AAA games and movies (but not tv-shows) then a 21:9 is the better idea. But if you like mods, games that aren't necessarily new or AAA and tv shows then forget 21:9 and get 16:9.
     
  19. mmarsh

    mmarsh Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Me Again...

    Another matchup

    ACER x34p vs Dell AW3418DW.

    Now, I know most of you will say the Dell is better, and I am willing to accept that BUT...I found the x34p for 200 EUROS less. I also like the stand on the ASUS better because of its smaller footprint (important because its on a desk, trying to save deskspace.) and slightly thinner bezels too.

    I'm kinda on a budget, Is the AW3418DW worth the extra 200 clams? I'll get the Dell if an argument can be made its worth the extra

    Yes there is the LG coming soon but I suspect it will be pricey.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  20. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,657
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
  21. bigsnyder

    bigsnyder Gawd

    Messages:
    655
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Do you mean Acer x34p? The Asus model is PG348Q. I think all three use the same panel so it will come down to features. TFT Central has a review on all three.
     
  22. Armenius

    Armenius [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    16,249
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    The Acer and ASUS use an older version of the same LG AH-IPS panel (Acer/ASUS = LM340UW2-SSA1, Dell = LM340UW4-SSA1). If I'm not mistaken the older one in the ASUS and Acer is a little slower. The newer one in the Dell is 8-bit, while the older one is 8-bit+FRC. The Dell also has a tighter curvature (1900R) than the Acer and ASUS (3800R).
     
  23. mmarsh

    mmarsh Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Yes Sorry ACER. Fixed.
     
  24. mmarsh

    mmarsh Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    You think the difference is worth an extra $200?
     
  25. Armenius

    Armenius [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    16,249
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    The Dell warranty is worth it, in my opinion. The difference between the panels is negligible. The major thing you have to consider is the curvature.
     
  26. thelead

    thelead [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,999
    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    The curve on the Alienware is very aggressive. I wasn’t thrilled with the contrast either which has shown up on reviews when comparing to the PG348Q and the x34.
     
  27. mmarsh

    mmarsh Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    So Just to let you all know...I went with the Acer x34p.

    I actually preferred the Alienware but I found a used x34p used (returned, opened but never taken out of box) for 702 Euros even. That was 300 Euros less than the Alienware.

    For that price that's a 1080 or 50% off a 1080ti. I felt the savings was better put toward the graphics card than the slight difference in the monitors.
     
    ReaperX22 likes this.
  28. myaccountbroke

    myaccountbroke n00bie

    Messages:
    32
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2016
    Late reply, but my 2cp:
    Although it is mainly for gaming; how do you use your monitors? Are you triple monitor gaming or single monitor gaming with browsers/videos playing on the other screens?

    If you are multitasking while gaming, you will still want a side monitor with the ultrawide.
    If you use all three for gaming, I think you will be pleased with the swap to a single ultrawide.
     
  29. mmarsh

    mmarsh Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    397
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    FYI, bought the x34p, will arrive tomorrow.


    My original plan was to triple monitor gaming, but it was too complicated. So mainly I game on 1 and use the other 2 for browsing. I plan to sell the 3 dells and the stand and get another monitor for the "other stuff".
     
  30. Anemone

    Anemone Gawd

    Messages:
    842
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    I have wrestled with this same choice for a while. 38" 3840x1600 vs 32" 4K. And yes I know that we will start to see more 5120x2160 ultrawides in the coming year. I can see the opinions vary and I figure I'll just have to order both and see for myself. But I'm curious when discussions like this come up as the options are evolving and people who have "been there" are having longer experience with their choices to share with us all. Gotta love the [H] community :)
     
  31. Spun Ducky

    Spun Ducky Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    474
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Why not do both? I have found this to be my favorite setup so far. 35" monoprice zero g 35 with an hp omen 32 on the side. It has been perfect for movie watching, gaming, and productivity. Sorry for the blur on pic it was taken fast to show size comparison and layout.
    20181026_154844.jpg
     
    Empyreal likes this.
  32. GNUse_the_force

    GNUse_the_force Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    361
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    For those who like the 1440p 32" vertical height but miss some of the PPI and workflow / aspect ratio possibilities of 1440p ultrawide it seems like the 38" is physically similar in picture size running 16:9 to a 32" 16:9.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2018
  33. myaccountbroke

    myaccountbroke n00bie

    Messages:
    32
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2016
    I've been using the almost exact same setup for a month now. I hate it :/ Vertical difference is maddening. I'm debating if I want to go back to multiple omens or get a 38 ultrawide.

    I'm also struggling with calibrating the monitors brightness, since you don't look at monitors head on at the same time, you really notice the off-angle difference. But that isn't unique to ultrawides, just a bit more pronounced due to the widths & curves.
     
  34. Archaea

    Archaea [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,657
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    I found multiple (3) HP 32” Omens too big/wide for productivity.
     
  35. DoubleTap

    DoubleTap [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,931
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Besides the HUD issues on the 21:9 monitors, I would not want to give up the refresh rate and pixel response and pixel density of my S2417 screen(s).

    I could maybe use an UW for most games, but I don't think they can compare the the speed and tightness of a 24" TN panel for FPS games.

    Edit:

    I've been playing Black Ops 4 a lot so I thought I would deactivate Surround and overclock my center panel so I could run at 165Hz instead of 144Hz.

    What an absolute debacle. Trying to activate 4 individual monitors and get them arranged properly and at the right scaling and refresh was a massive pain. The 3x 1440P monitors were not to bad, but trying to get the 1080P into to the mix was super frustrating because Windows didn't give me long to confirm and kept putting the monitors corner to corner so I couldn't get my mouse over to confirm settings.

    And after all that, I got the screen up at 165Hz and the game won't detect it at native resolution and keeps defaulting to 24Hz.

    I gave up and turned surround back on. It's surprisingly much easier to get the game up and running on the center screen vs trying to manage with 4 discrete screens. (NV Surround presents your 3 monitors to Windows as a single screen - setting games to single screen resolution makes them run in the center panel without issue).

    I'd actually forgotten what a pain multiple monitors can be in Windows - with all the ways Windows tries to "help" you by rearranging things arbitrarily from time to time.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2018
  36. Spun Ducky

    Spun Ducky Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    474
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    I can understand the vertical difference issue as that has bothered me on alternative setups. I use the 32" entirely for messaging and email besides movies. So the reality is I use the ultrawide about 90% of my viewing time and occasionally reference the 32". I could see the issue if you have a larger focus on the 32" for applications. In a perfect world I could afford and find a 38" ultrawide with high refresh rate but for now that scenario can't exist.
     
  37. Nebell

    Nebell [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,441
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    I was also wondering if I should give ultra wide a try. Looking specifically at that Acer 38"/75hz HDR.
    But then again I am annoyed that it's just wide. I do not like that 21:9 ratio.
    It's just too small for me. I'm gaming at 49" 4k TV and the picture is great. Not to mention that TVs have waaaaaay higher brightness compared to monitors (some TVs go up to 2000nits, Acer in question has 300).
    And since you actually need 1000+nits for true HDR, these monitors are not true HDR.
     
  38. euskalzabe

    euskalzabe Gawd

    Messages:
    830
    Joined:
    May 9, 2009
    Just FYI, seeing the size comparison above, you can just go to Display Wars and get a pretty good comparison that's not a guesstimate - http://www.displaywars.com/
     
  39. myaccountbroke

    myaccountbroke n00bie

    Messages:
    32
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2016
    Although it is 21:9, it is still x1600 which is very noticeable difference.
     
  40. GoodBoy

    GoodBoy [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,076
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    So now that you have had it awhile, how are you liking it?

    I'm running a 34" 21:9 1440x3440 100hz (oc) G-sync and really like it. I think once hdr and 120 or 144hz come out in the same resolution, I might upgrade it again. Might even consider going even wider.

    As far as games supporting/not supporting the ultra-wide resolution, so far pretty much everything in Steam has supported it. Only Fallout 4 doesn't use the full width. But u-play games like Far Cry 4 did, Origin games like star wars battlefront ii support it, valve games all support it (even old original half-life), Quake Champions supports it. And older games can often be made to support it as well, even if it isn't a native menu choice (Got Prey 2006 working just fine at 1440x3440). Hell I think even Quake 1 works at this resolution as well. HUD placement hasn't been a problem or bothered me so far.