How Wide is too Wide?

Seventyfive said:
49" isn't too big? I have a 43" curved and I feel I'm pretty much near my visual limit. I think anything more and I'd be turning my head too much to use the computer? Would love to hear your input.
Click to expand...

I wrote many articles for the [H]ardocp front page and never got a cramp in my neck. The only thing that annoyed me was the Steam notification that announced that a friend has signed into the service. It used to be really tiny on my screen but I would always catch it in the corner of my eye. Steam fixed that in a Beta version of Steam awhile ago.

I play BF4, Warframe, Civilization, Black Desert Online, etc on this thing and never had an issue. Well sometimes I run it in 1440p mode because I don't want to turn down the visuals. 1440p on these Samsung TVs looks great! 1080p although "big" looking is just fine also.

Here is my desktop right now. I use 125% scaling in Display Settings. Warning 4K jpeg.

2018-05-17.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoMe
like this
When your eyes start to stretch I would say anything over 27" is too big. It's harder to focus on stuff on big screen mentally visually and spatially.
 
cageymaru said:
I'd take a FreeSync 2.0 version as it would work equally as well on my PC as it would a XBOX One. The new TVs coming in the Fall are supposed to have some version of VRR built into them. Also the ones from Samsung are supposed to have FreeSync straight from the factory.

Link to article about Samsung TVs with VRR and FreeSync.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/samsung-2018-qled-tvs-will-support-120hz-freesync-and-vrr.html

I would suspect that Nvidia would jump on the VRR train as that is now in the HDMI specification.
Click to expand...

I'd like that too, but the problem is that Nvidia doesn't support Freesync, and - at least currently - no other GPU maker has anything that is even halfway decent at 4k.

Maybe once Navi launches this will change? We'll see.
 
Shadowed said:
A lot of games support 21:9, but how many support 32:9? I know my favorite FPS does not. But it does at least support 144hz, which for $1000, it better.
Click to expand...

A few games like Overwatch lock the aspect ratio, but most AAA games support Hor+ which means they work on any aspect ratio.

This monitor is basically 2x 27" 1080P monitors fused into one panel. Lots of people run dual monitors and people don't freak out.

Here is my take:

1. I have no use for Freesync.

2. 21:9 is not enough of an improvement over 16x9

3. 3x 16:9 is nice because you don't have a center bezel, but it's too wide. Center bezels are a deal breaker

4. 2x 16:9 would be about perfect except the center bezel ruins it - which is why this screen is appealing.

5. LG is making a 1440p version which might be perfect.

6. LG has also decided to ruin theirs by going Freesync

7. A single Ti 1080 can drive 3x 1440P panels on lighter or older games (like driving games) so an 1180Ti on a 32:9 monitor might be ideal.

8. Pixel density is not the end all, be all. Some people want a wide aspect ratio for RPG/Driving/FPS games

9. SMH when people say they like the width/aspect ratio but too bad it's so short.


https://www.pcgamer.com/philips-is-giving-its-insanely-wide-49-inch-monitor-a-resolution-bump/

https://techreport.com/news/33360/philips-492p8-49-double-wide-display-gets-a-spec-bump


Samsung is working on a 1440P 120Hz 32:9 - if they make it G-Sync, I'm ditching NV Surround for good.
https://www.overclock3d.net/news/gp...orking_on_a_49-inch_120hz_5120x1440_monitor/1
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
I wrote many articles for the [H]ardocp front page and never got a cramp in my neck. The only thing that annoyed me was the Steam notification that announced that a friend has signed into the service. It used to be really tiny on my screen but I would always catch it in the corner of my eye. Steam fixed that in a Beta version of Steam awhile ago.

I play BF4, Warframe, Civilization, Black Desert Online, etc on this thing and never had an issue. Well sometimes I run it in 1440p mode because I don't want to turn down the visuals. 1440p on these Samsung TVs looks great! 1080p although "big" looking is just fine also.

Here is my desktop right now. I use 125% scaling in Display Settings. Warning 4K jpeg.

View attachment 74660
Click to expand...

It all comes down to personal preference, desk size and seating position.

I sit at arms length from my 48" Samsung JS9000, which is about 2.5ft. To me it is just a tad large. I think it would be perfect if it were 42-44", so a 43" screen would be perfect for 4k for me. I don't scale or anything. Run native res.
 
It might be useful for streaming, as you would want a lot of screen space for that.

Have the game in a traditional 1920x1080 window, running OBS, have discord open, have youtube/twitch opened in a browser.
yes, all that can easily eat up 5120x1440 pixels
 
Dan_D said:
I don't think the width of the monitor is a problem. However, the aspect ratio and the lack of vertical screen real estate is. I wouldn't buy this on that basis before I even took a look at the price or HDR performance and other specs. As far as I am concerned, this is another monitor that proves that monitor makers have very little idea on how to deliver what the market wants as it relates to higher end displays.
Click to expand...
Yep.
Games will need to take advantage of the real estate in a different way to make that much width usable. Which will involve turning your head and might not work out too well.
Otherwise you have to sit further away from it, everything becomes smaller and as you pointed out, the lack of vertical estate lessens the experience.
 
MrDeaf said:
It might be useful for streaming, as you would want a lot of screen space for that.

Have the game in a traditional 1920x1080 window, running OBS, have discord open, have youtube/twitch opened in a browser.
yes, all that can easily eat up 5120x1440 pixels
Click to expand...


Yeah, but you could do that more effectively with one or more side monitors.

IMG_20180304_220555.jpg



Besides, streaming is lame :p
 
For me it's too wide for gaming, but just about perfect for work. I would rather have it 32x10 just to get the extra vertical resolution.
 
MrDeaf said:
It might be useful for streaming, as you would want a lot of screen space for that.

Have the game in a traditional 1920x1080 window, running OBS, have discord open, have youtube/twitch opened in a browser.
yes, all that can easily eat up 5120x1440 pixels
Click to expand...

Comixbooks said:
When your eyes start to stretch I would say anything over 27" is too big. It's harder to focus on stuff on big screen mentally visually and spatially.
Click to expand...

sadsteve said:
For me it's too wide for gaming, but just about perfect for work. I would rather have it 32x10 just to get the extra vertical resolution.
Click to expand...

I'd say don't knock it until you try it. The trick to really wide gaming (like Eyefinity / NV Surround) is that you look at the center and the extra width is for immersion and peripheral vision. You shouldn't be scanning around 3 screens - that would drive you crazy and give you neck problems. However, it can take a day or three to get used to it. Your brain adapts, the bezels mostly disappear and when the game runs well, there is nothing like it. (I know, VR - but VR is different)

You get a much better sense of speed and space in a driving game and more of a sense of place and immersion in games like Guild Wars 2. I think FPS games are a mixed bag and have come to prefer a single monitor for most of them.

If it's too wide for your game, just set the game to 2560x1440 and it should run in the center with black bars (or run it windowed)

I think these are the future of high end gaming monitors.
 
DoubleTap said:
I'd say don't knock it until you try it. The trick to really wide gaming (like Eyefinity / NV Surround) is that you look at the center and the extra width is for immersion and peripheral vision. You shouldn't be scanning around 3 screens - that would drive you crazy and give you neck problems. However, it can take a day or three to get used to it. Your brain adapts, the bezels mostly disappear and when the game runs well, there is nothing like it. (I know, VR - but VR is different)

You get a much better sense of speed and space in a driving game and more of a sense of place and immersion in games like Guild Wars 2. I think FPS games are a mixed bag and have come to prefer a single monitor for most of them.

If it's too wide for your game, just set the game to 2560x1440 and it should run in the center with black bars (or run it windowed)

I think these are the future of high end gaming monitors.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I get the peripheral vision thing. That is the main selling point of sitting 2.5ft away from a 48" 4k screen.

Why wouldn't you want to have that peripheral vision up and down as well as side to side though?

Sitting close to a 48" screen I get all the peripheral vision I need or want in both axes.

If I ever don't have enough GPU to power the framerate at 4k, I actually use a custom 21:9 ultrawide resolution (3840x1646) letter boxed, and it's still better than with one of these ultrawides.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yeah, I get the peripheral vision thing. That is the main selling point of sitting 2.5ft away from a 48" 4k screen.

Why wouldn't you want to have that peripheral vision up and down as well as side to side though?

Sitting close to a 48" screen I get all the peripheral vision I need or want in both axes.

If I ever don't have enough GPU to power the framerate at 4k, I actually use a custom 21:9 ultrawide resolution (3840x1646) letter boxed, and it's still better than with one of these ultrawides.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You need height as well. I've tried 7680x1600 and 7680x1440. I didn't use 100% of the width often, but ofyen wished for vertical space in both cases. 1440 was a big no go immediately.
 
Fascinating

Zarathustra[H] said:
Agree entirely.

One thing I've noticed though, since I also am a casual reader of the silly "PCMR" groups on facebook is that a lot of the kids there these days they use their PC's ONLY for games. They don't even use the web browser on them. Instead of taking screenshots along with their questions they often take pictures of their screens with their phones and share them, with the explanation "i don't use facebook on my computer".

This is the mass market we are dealing with today. They don't see their computers as a great general purpose tool for everything. Heck, they don't even use email or office packages. They see it as an a very expensive xbox you assemble yourself and use for nothing but games.

As long as this is the mass market, we'll keep getting products designed for these simpletons.
Click to expand...
 
Forza 3A FOV example.jpg
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yeah, I get the peripheral vision thing. That is the main selling point of sitting 2.5ft away from a 48" 4k screen.

Why wouldn't you want to have that peripheral vision up and down as well as side to side though?

Sitting close to a 48" screen I get all the peripheral vision I need or want in both axes.

If I ever don't have enough GPU to power the framerate at 4k, I actually use a custom 21:9 ultrawide resolution (3840x1646) letter boxed, and it's still better than with one of these ultrawides.
Click to expand...

Because getting a bigger 16:9 monitor might fill your vision more, but it doesn't give you more visibility into the gaming world.

When you play on a 32:9 or triple screen system, you see more of the game.

I would also argue that simply getting a bigger/closer screen is counter productive because the the human eye has a relatively small area where we perceive things in high detail and scrunching up to the screen can have the effect of making you see less, not more.
 
Last edited:
Shadowed said:
4k is great, but buying a 60hz panel in 2018 is not what I recommend.
Click to expand...
I always figured 49" would be about the sweet spot for a curved display my 43" 4K display I've always felt could be bigger, but desk space is a bit of a limitation so a curved display is the only work around to that problem. Perhaps 49" is bit of a over estimation and something more like a 44-46" curved display is the right sweet spot balance.

DoubleTap said:
View attachment 74693

Because getting a bigger 16:9 monitor might fill your vision more, but it doesn't give you more visibility into the gaming world.

When you play on a 32:9 or triple screen system, you see more of the game.

I would also argue that simply getting a bigger/closer screen is counter productive because the the human eye has a relatively small area where we perceive things in high detail and scrunching up to the screen can have the effect of making you see less, not more.
Click to expand...
You want it close enough to see the detail and not so distant that you need to crane your neck to focus it's a balance. I think curved displays when set to close are much more susceptible to neck craning and claustrophobia. As for 16:9 vs 32:9 it depends on the task. Bezels also suck it I'd never go with that type of display setup you can get a 4K display and set a custom either 4096 x1484 or 4080 x 1478 resolutions with a 2.76:1 aspect ratio that require less rendering power than 3840x2160 and look a ton better.

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd....326/328558466B4E732B18842CF6E1C9CDFED394B44F/
328558466B4E732B18842CF6E1C9CDFED394B44F.jpg
 
Last edited:
Looks like it would be better than 2 separate monitors, side by side. That thing is bigger than my 43 Inch Samsung 4K TV I am using as a monitor.
 
DSC04908_0.JPG



People don't complain how small their cell phone screen is......unless it's a flip phone. Bigger isn't better it's going to take people about 20 years to figure that out.
 
Yeah tons of people watch Netflix on their cell's over their large screen TV's who'd want to watch on one of those by comparison!?
 
For gaming, I love my 21:9 display, for anything else... depends on what I'm doing.

Work is 3 different screens (varying resolutions) each that is for a specific thing.

I stuck with a 16:10 for the longest time... but finally caved in one day and never went back. ;)
 
DoubleTap said:
Because getting a bigger 16:9 monitor might fill your vision more, but it doesn't give you more visibility into the gaming world.

When you play on a 32:9 or triple screen system, you see more of the game.
Click to expand...

That's more of a problem with poorly designed games than a problem with monitors; many games do not limit your FOV in that way, and for the ones that do, you can just run a wide and short letterboxed resolution, while with ultrawides, you never get the benefits of height in any application.
 
I don't know but I couldn't see myself using anything wider than my current 32 inch at my desk. Maybe my 55" TV if I were sitting on my couch.
 
zamardii12 said:
Yes definitely too wide unless you are playing a simulator of some sort it's just not appealing to me. Also, the problem with these weird monitors is getting games to work with them and support their weird resolutions. The 3440 monitors are relatively well supported from what I found when I had one.
Click to expand...


On my old 8350 box I played at 5760*1080 - nv surround had it's moments of joy, the resolution its self was not much of a problem except in very old titles.

The price is a bit of an issue for me and 1440 rather then 1080 might be nice.

As for the curve/size - 3x 1080p 40" TV's worked fine - having sufficient desk space and room to sit back a little (use a microwave cart for my keyboard/mouse back a couple feet) I would still happily be using it had I not picked up a 48" 4k - still miss the additional FOV sometimes.
 
Comixbooks said:
View attachment 74709


People don't complain how small their cell phone screen is......unless it's a flip phone. Bigger isn't better it's going to take people about 20 years to figure that out.
Click to expand...

For many productivity tasks this is a great setup here. I love move triple 24" 1080p setup for work but the single 43" 4k monitor is better for gaming.
 
Comixbooks said:
View attachment 74709


People don't complain how small their cell phone screen is......unless it's a flip phone. Bigger isn't better it's going to take people about 20 years to figure that out.
Click to expand...

heatlesssun said:
For many productivity tasks this is a great setup here. I love move triple 24" 1080p setup for work but the single 43" 4k monitor is better for gaming.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that an ultrawide is terrible for productivity, especially one that is 1080p tall. 1080p height is insufficient for a full letter page display, and it is wide enough that snapping windows to the side results in awkwardly sized windows.

That being said, large amounts of screen real estate are absolutely amazing for productivity.

Here i have 4 1080p sized windows on my 48" Samsung 4k screen, and one window each at 10" 1600x1200 in portrait at the side,

Click for the huge size:
19379744722_eeba503712_c.jpg

The more you can have everything you are working on visible on screen at the same time the better. It reduces/eliminates switching time which is one of the biggest productivity killers, constantly switching back and forth between multiple windows trying to find the best one.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'd argue that an ultrawide is terrible for productivity, especially one that is 1080p tall. 1080p height is insufficient for a full letter page display, and it is wide enough that snapping windows to the side results in awkwardly sized windows.
Click to expand...

More vertical space is a good thing, all I was saying is that having 3 side by side 1080p monitors works well. Individual monitors are easier to control and snap, a breeze in Windows 10 at least, and the horizontal space is enormous.
 
Dragon_Fire said:
That's more of a problem with poorly designed games than a problem with monitors; many games do not limit your FOV in that way, and for the ones that do, you can just run a wide and short letterboxed resolution, while with ultrawides, you never get the benefits of height in any application.
Click to expand...

Poorly designed or not, most games are Hor+ and don't let you control the vertical FOV at all.

The large 4k monitor (43-55") seems to work for some people, but for me, it's too vertical and having to look up is hard on my neck. I've been thinking I may have made a mistake by adding a top monitor because anything above my 3 main 24" monitors (top of the screens are eye level) is hard on my neck. I have a very high amount of correction in my glasses and small lenses, so I can't really look up with just my eyes, I have to lift my head so for me, too much vertical is bad bad bad.

I almost went with a single 34" ultrawide for simplicity and I probably would have except using 3 1440P monitors really helps me in my work.
 
Too wide? No.

Too short? Yes.

Too expensive for a niche market item? Hell yes in my opinion.

This monitor might be great to somebody, or a boon to some kind of profession that needs that kind of ultra-wide real estate on the screen, but for me? Utterly pointless.
 
Sure, ultra-wide, me, baby!

But I want at least 2160 vertical pixels. I want to be able to watch 4K content at native resolution - just add more pixels to the sides. Give me a 46" 7680x2160, 60 Hz full HDR display that uses two DispalyPort 1.4 connections, that can do 144 Hz with GSync or FreeSync as a 16x9 3840x2160 area in the center or 3840x1920 full-width/half-resolution.
 
I'm one of those people who thinks even 21:9 is too wide.

I mean, with my 3x24" setup I was already pushing it, which is why my 3x27" setup has them in reading/portrait mode and I have, roughly, a 47" diagonal (albeit broken by two thin bezel lines).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top