I'm torn... LG 34" 21:9 or 4k, help me choose.

B

Boyiee

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
250
Just bought a new house and free'd up some desk space by parting with my PLP setup and my Dell U3011 1600p monitor.

I'm looking to upgrade but to only one monitor this time around and I pretty much have my sight set on the LG 34UM95 or LG 34UC97 curved version. Being that the monitor will not be replaced for a very long time the premium for the curved is somewhat appealing.

My budget is $800-1300, and obviously 4k monitors are an option here so I didn't want to straight exclude them. The issue I see is I don't know if 4k is really worth it below 40", and since I'm using an Ikea Galant desk, I feel like I'd be too close to the 4k screen to enjoy it and am better off with my original choice of the LG.

I mainly play MMO's like WoW, MOBA's like Hon/Lol, and a TON of steam games. I do play some FPS, but not enough that the ROG swift is really worth it. Also I don't know if going from a 1600p to 1400p will be the best "upgrade" for me, whereas the LG or a 4k monitor may feel more like an improvement.
 
In a somewhat similar boat - am currently gaming with a 4K Seiki which is decent but am wondering if I should move to a LG 34" or some other 39/40" 4K monitor, preferably at 60Hz.
 
What GPU(s) are you using? The LG is a little easier to drive than a 4K display. At 32", 4K is a real benefit, depending on viewing distance, you will still be able to see pixels. 28" is more dense and much harder to see pixels in that one.
If you ever considered dual 27" or are attracted to dual screen setups, I think you will like the 34" more.
If you never wanted more space than your 30" Dell, then I would recommend a 4K display.
 
Boyiee said:
Just bought a new house and free'd up some desk space by parting with my PLP setup and my Dell U3011 1600p monitor.

I'm looking to upgrade but to only one monitor this time around and I pretty much have my sight set on the LG 34UM95 or LG 34UC97 curved version. Being that the monitor will not be replaced for a very long time the premium for the curved is somewhat appealing.

My budget is $800-1300, and obviously 4k monitors are an option here so I didn't want to straight exclude them. The issue I see is I don't know if 4k is really worth it below 40", and since I'm using an Ikea Galant desk, I feel like I'd be too close to the 4k screen to enjoy it and am better off with my original choice of the LG.

I mainly play MMO's like WoW, MOBA's like Hon/Lol, and a TON of steam games. I do play some FPS, but not enough that the ROG swift is really worth it. Also I don't know if going from a 1600p to 1400p will be the best "upgrade" for me, whereas the LG or a 4k monitor may feel more like an improvement.
Click to expand...

seems a few who bought the LG 34UM95 are really happy with the screen. Linustech tips made a review on video and he stated it was awesome.
Personally both be awesome.
 
i am in the exact similar dilemma right now, and leaning towards the LG 34UC97. Really just waiting to see the Dell and Samsung curved options to come out this year before i make a decision.
 
Same here. I need something for productivity (code monkey) and I'm a mostly fps player. So I'm skeptical that the Swift would be good enough for reading lots of text, but I suppose I would need to see it to believe it. As for the LG UltraWide's, they are the ultimate productivity monitors, but the refresh rate is a little low for fps. If they are a 90Hz monitor (obviously 120 would be even better), I would totally get it immediately. And for 4K, had the Vizio TV been 4K 60p 4:4:4, I would have gotten it already and play games at 1080p 120Hz; my search would have been over. The Philips 4K monitor does not have a 1080p 120Hz mode, so I'm saying no to that because I'm expecting either Seiki will or Vizio's reference series will. So right now, if I can get the Swift from best buy, I'll get the Swift, and meanwhile wait for Seiki and Vizio. Most of the 4K TV's capable of 4K60p 4:4:4 have crappy colors and/or contrast.

I'm also waiting to see Dell's curved monitor that they are claiming gamer cred, so did they overclock it or something to 120Hz?
 
Unless 4k is around over 37", I really don't see the point, except for engineering and professional use.
 
Well, with the 34" 21:9 the resolution won't nearly be as high as the 4K. It just depends if you want to put up with the lower clarity of the 34" to gain the wider aspect.

There is an option of the monitor already posted: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...w&cm_sp=&AID=10440897&PID=3891137&SID=rewrite

You get the high resolution of "big" 4k", meaning it's a little bit wider at 17:9 versus 16:9 and retain all the clarity benefits that the 34" 21:9 won't have.
 
What "clarity" benefits does 4k have over 1440p at this size? I agree that people still using low end resolutions like 1080p on 24" will see an improvement.

But we're talking 3440 x 1440, a fairly decent res, so much so that clarity should be a non-issue in practical use. Size at high resolutions is more important. From a practical and visual perspective, a 34" 3440 x 1440 and a 31" 4K are similar. Possibly the 4K will be worse off in games as it doesn't give the same panoramic view, but they similar. Now increase the 4k to a 40"+ screen and then the 4K wins hands down.
 
echn111 said:
What "clarity" benefits does 4k have over 1440p at this size? I agree that people still using low end resolutions like 1080p on 24" will see an improvement.

But we're talking 3440 x 1440, a fairly decent res, so much so that clarity should be a non-issue in practical use. Size at high resolutions is more important. From a practical and visual perspective, a 34" 3440 x 1440 and a 31" 4K are similar. Possibly the 4K will be worse off in games as it doesn't give the same panoramic view, but they similar. Now increase the 4k to a 40"+ screen and then the 4K wins hands down.
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, you don't need a 4K screen to be 40+ inches when you are dealing with the closeness of desktop use.

34" 3440x1440 is only 109PPI, not exactly anything special and still easy to see individual pixels. 31" "big 4K" is 150PPI, quite a considerable jump.

Heck, I use a 24" 4K that has an amazing picture and makes a 27" 1440 screen with 109PPI next to it look pretty bad. I also plan on getting the 27" Dell 5K, or 218PPI. No AA required, just utter clarity!
 
I don't understand how 34" 21:9 monitors can be more immersive since they are too short to fill ones field of view without sitting <30cm away. 32" monitors are almost as wide, taller and do not have perceived black depth ruining frame-less bezels (garbage). The 34UC97S is a joke since it costs 300-450$ more than the 34UM95, but has 3x higher input lag according to PRAD and only slightly better colour presets and overdrive, but is more likely to have glow in all 4 corners.

Until glossy 32" 4K monitors exist I will pick sub 350-500$, overclock-able 27" 1440p monitors (Overlord X27OC, Yamakasi Catleap 2B, Qnix QX2710 & X-Star DP2710) for gaming any day since they are easier to drive at high frame rates, feel far more responsive and offer equal or better image quality. I'm interested in 4K 32" monitors, but it is not possible to achieve such fluid gaming experiences since they are 60hz, have 1-2 frame delays, tear (can't handle low frame-rates+V-Sync anymore) and require extreme horsepower to drive, plus I can't afford 2-3x 970/290's and a 1000$ monitor.
 
Last edited:
NCX said:
I don't understand how 34" 21:9 monitors can be more immersive since they are too short to fill ones field of view without sitting <30cm away. 32" monitors are almost as wide, taller and do not have perceived black depth ruining frame-less bezels (garbage). The 34UC97S is a joke since it costs 300-450$ more than the 34UM95, but has 3x higher input lag according to PRAD and only slightly better colour presets and overdrive, but is more likely to have glow in all 4 corners.

Until glossy 32" 4K monitors exist I will pick sub 350-500$, overclock-able 27" 1440p monitors (Overlord X27OC, Yamakasi Catleap 2B, Qnix QX2710 & X-Star DP2710) for gaming any day since they are easier to drive at high frame rates, feel far more responsive and offer equal or better image quality. I'm interested in 4K 32" monitors, but it is not possible to achieve such fluid gaming experiences since they are 60hz, have 1-2 frame delays, tear (can't handle low frame-rates+V-Sync anymore) and require extreme horsepower to drive, plus I can't afford 2-3x 970/290's and a 1000$ monitor.
Click to expand...

Since you've seen your fair share of monitors up close, how well do you feel Windows and Windows applications handle DPI scaling for 4K 32" displays?

I've never seen a 32" 4K display in person, but from the calculated DPI at pxcalc I think the UI of many applications would become a lot harder to use at the higher DPI compared to a 27" 1440p.
 
NCX said:
I don't understand how 34" 21:9 monitors can be more immersive since they are too short to fill ones field of view without sitting <30cm away. 32" monitors are almost as wide, taller and do not have perceived black depth ruining frame-less bezels (garbage). The 34UC97S is a joke since it costs 300-450$ more than the 34UM95, but has 3x higher input lag according to PRAD and only slightly better colour presets and overdrive, but is more likely to have glow in all 4 corners.
Click to expand...

Have you tried using one of the 21:9 ultra-wides for gaming? I know it's only a few inches wider than the 32", but it's the aspect ratio that really makes the difference. Gaming on a 32" 16:9 monitor is going to give you the same FOV as gaming on a 24" 16:9 monitor by default. But stretch the width out and you end up with a lot more information and scenery on the screen. Stretching things vertically doesn't show you much more, usually just the ground and sky or floor and ceiling. It really is a neat effect.

Agreed on the curved version though.


NCX said:
Until glossy 32" 4K monitors exist I will pick sub 350-500$, overclock-able 27" 1440p monitors (Overlord X27OC, Yamakasi Catleap 2B, Qnix QX2710 & X-Star DP2710) for gaming any day since they are easier to drive at high frame rates, feel far more responsive and offer equal or better image quality. I'm interested in 4K 32" monitors, but it is not possible to achieve such fluid gaming experiences since they are 60hz, have 1-2 frame delays, tear (can't handle low frame-rates+V-Sync anymore) and require extreme horsepower to drive, plus I can't afford 2-3x 970/290's and a 1000$ monitor.
Click to expand...

Good points. I agree that the cheap 27" 1440p monitors are still the sweet spot. I love my 34UM95, but the price premium over even a pair of 27" monitors is still a bit painful.

These are exciting times, though. After years of relatively stagnant monitor development, we're getting a sudden deluge of new options. 4K monitors, 21:9 monitors, 120Hz monitors, G-sync and other technologies. It may be a few years before things settle down, but we're already starting to see prices creep downward.
 
kenox said:
Since you've seen your fair share of monitors up close, how well do you feel Windows and Windows applications handle DPI scaling for 4K 32" displays?
Click to expand...

I have only used the Samsung 4K TN in store with a windows 8 PC and was put off by the grainy matte coating and possible sharpness decreasing BGR pixel layout (vs. RGB), and virtual 4K via a 27" 1440p monitor which looked better. Most of the additional real-estate was lost by the time I increased the text to a comfortable size @4K on the 27".

AgentQ said:
Have you tried using one of the 21:9 ultra-wides for gaming?
Click to expand...

Not for gaming, but I have used some as well as 30" 1600p IPS and a 32" TV as a monitor, which was perfect aside from the corner glow (VA) and 1080p text. I have a glow free Qnix and a glossy X-Star with far less glow than normal AHVA/IPS panels, so I doubt I will like a 32" panel either since they are neither glossy nor glow free.

Glow is something most people don't consider when buying bigger displays. 30" IPS glow is vastly more obvious vs. 27" AHVA/IPS/PLS when viewed from less than 121cm/4ft away, and completely ruins 30" for me (and people with standards) since I sit 45-60cm away. Not sure about 4K 32" monitors, but I could not handle 32" VA TV glow without sitting far enough away that it no longer filled my field of view.
 
Last edited:
A 16:9 4K monitor is more or less the same thing as a 1080p display, just with higher pixel density/better clarify. 21:9 monitors, on the other hand, are much more interesting. I would not buy a 4k monitor before 21:9 versions are available.
 
21:9 sucks. It's a weird, non-standard aspect ratio, consoles aren't supporting it, so games will always have compatibility problems with it. It's useless for older games, so the resolution is completely wasted in emulators and so on. 4k is better because the extra resolution is useful everywhere.

You actually want 4k resolution when emulating older games due to the better looking CRT effects you can get when you run a shader on them.

21:9 is just a gimmick, and it'll never be mainstream and 100% supported as long as video game consoles aren't made with it in mind and mainstream TV manufacturers aren't making hardware using it. Go 16:9 and 4k.

I'd much rather have the Acer 4k G-Sync monitor than any 21:9 screen. Think about it. Tearing and input lag impact every game. More resolution helps every game. 21:9 works sometimes, and nobody's really designing for it.
 
AgentQ said:
it's the aspect ratio that really makes the difference. Gaming on a 32" 16:9 monitor is going to give you the same FOV as gaming on a 24" 16:9 monitor by default. But stretch the width out and you end up with a lot more information and scenery on the screen.
Click to expand...

whether that is true is purely up to the software developer. whether they make the 21:9 a crop of 16:9, or a superset of it, is totally up to them. also up to them: whether they offer the option to tweak the FOV manually.

summary: it is entirely possible for a 21:9 game to show the same (or less) width information than a 16:9


bigbluefe said:
21:9 sucks. It's a weird, non-standard aspect ratio, consoles aren't supporting it, so games will always have compatibility problems with it. It's useless for older games, so the resolution is completely wasted in emulators and so on. 4k is better because the extra resolution is useful everywhere.

You actually want 4k resolution when emulating older games due to the better looking CRT effects you can get when you run a shader on them.

21:9 is just a gimmick, and it'll never be mainstream and 100% supported as long as video game consoles aren't made with it in mind and mainstream TV manufacturers aren't making hardware using it. Go 16:9 and 4k.

I'd much rather have the Acer 4k G-Sync monitor than any 21:9 screen. Think about it. Tearing and input lag impact every game. More resolution helps every game. 21:9 works sometimes, and nobody's really designing for it.
Click to expand...

this is all so wrong. 21:9 software compatibility is good, and as long as the thing is big enough (34") the immersion is better than anything less-wide. 34" 21:9 is the best for visual immersion right now, unless you wander into a 40" 4k of course. the only downside: it's not nearly as fast or smooth as 144hz TN g-sync/ulmb, so daily multiplayer fps players need not join the 21:9 club
 
bigbluefe said:
21:9 sucks. It's a weird, non-standard aspect ratio, consoles aren't supporting it, so games will always have compatibility problems with it. It's useless for older games, so the resolution is completely wasted in emulators and so on. 4k is better because the extra resolution is useful everywhere.

You actually want 4k resolution when emulating older games due to the better looking CRT effects you can get when you run a shader on them.

21:9 is just a gimmick, and it'll never be mainstream and 100% supported as long as video game consoles aren't made with it in mind and mainstream TV manufacturers aren't making hardware using it. Go 16:9 and 4k.

I'd much rather have the Acer 4k G-Sync monitor than any 21:9 screen. Think about it. Tearing and input lag impact every game. More resolution helps every game. 21:9 works sometimes, and nobody's really designing for it.
Click to expand...


This is your opinion.all the latest blockbuster movies im watching on my monitor fill it perfectly, with no blackbars. good luck finding a 36" 16:9 (which will have similar content size) 1440p monitor let alone a 4k for < $1000. if you do, especially a 4k, i would have bought it already.
plus all the latest games ive been playing support 21:9 (diablo 3, shadow of mordor, titanfall)
different strokes for different folks.
 
bigbluefe said:
21:9 sucks. It's a weird, non-standard aspect ratio, consoles aren't supporting it, so games will always have compatibility problems with it. It's useless for older games, so the resolution is completely wasted in emulators and so on. 4k is better because the extra resolution is useful everywhere.

You actually want 4k resolution when emulating older games due to the better looking CRT effects you can get when you run a shader on them.

21:9 is just a gimmick, and it'll never be mainstream and 100% supported as long as video game consoles aren't made with it in mind and mainstream TV manufacturers aren't making hardware using it. Go 16:9 and 4k.

I'd much rather have the Acer 4k G-Sync monitor than any 21:9 screen. Think about it. Tearing and input lag impact every game. More resolution helps every game. 21:9 works sometimes, and nobody's really designing for it.
Click to expand...

it will never be mainstream when people like you spew out that kind of bull----, steering people away from buying it

by your logic, surround/eyefinity never should have lasted more than a month, yet look how many are using it now.....

Anyway

As a previous surround user (someone who enjoyed it for over a year, not someone who tried and jumped ship after a week) and now a 34UM95 user, I can tell you the UM95 is amazing because it gives just the right amount of pixels before rendering fov becomes distorted

no matter what you do, your side monitors on surround are going to go vastly distorted. it's still immersive - because you're completely overloaded on display so you're never NOT looking at something - but you're still wasting tons of GPU power on images that are distorted. Anti-aliasing? well have fun wasting that rendering/fps on your distorted side images

but 3440x1440 stops just before that distortion starts to become really noticeable. It is not a replacement for surround - nothing matches the sheer pixel overload of surround - but it provides enough to get lost in. I have 3 monitors surrounding my UM95, and I have to completely shift my focus off the UM95 to notice anything on those screens. It is big enough, wide enough, to be fully immersed in - without the surround caveats above.

This is what makes 21:9 such a wow factor to newcomers from standard 16:9 - and why I recommend it.

doesn't matter how many more pixels 4K is...to me, it's just more of the same. sure it's super sharp with such a high PPI, but it's still square and still staring at a monitor rather than being taken in by a wide view. that's my 2cents
IMAG0637_zpstp5ufzgk.jpg
 
Biggest issue with 21:9 is they are all 110PPI or lower, so nothing special in the clarity arena. At least if you go with the lower DPI you could compensate with something like the speed of the RoG Swift. But with the sole benefit of 21:9 being it's aspect ratio, you have lower DPI and bad motion clarity combined on the opposite end of the spectrum. Too many trade-offs IMO.
 
After looking at a 40" in a store, I feel like it will in fact be too large to sit on my Ikea Galant desk, and smaller than 40" I'd probably be happier with the Ultra Wide 21:9 monitors. I'm not 100% convinced on sitting in the corner of the Galant desk, so even with an arm or wall mount I would be way too close to a 40" on the sides of the desk.

I do feel I needed more screen than just my U3011. With that I've always had a side monitor for more productivity, and eventually upgraded to PLP 20-30-20. This monitor will be an upgrade from that. I had a lot of trouble gaming on PLP, and 21:9 is probably more for me considering that I wanted to game on PLP so badly.

The 31UM97 is an option I didn't originally consider, and I was at first debating the premium for the Curved 34, so I can probably convince myself to pay the extra for the 31. The only problem is, while the 31 is a direct upgrade in size, aspect ratio, and resolution, I don't know if it will "feel" as big of an upgrade as the 34 at 21:9 when I'm coming from 20-30-20. I'm probably being silly, but the cost difference is whats making me think it. Wish I got in on that last Massdrop!
 
I have a 34UM94-P and it's great. Only has a little bit of IPS glow in the corners due to being so wide but it's not noticable at all unless on a dark screen in a game/movie and only if you're aware of it and looking for it.
Games in 21:9 are more immersive (like mini triple screen), but without the harsh rez and bezels of a triple setup. 34UM94 or 95 has 18ms input lag which is the fastest of the IPS's and I notice no lag or issues in games. The only people that notice it's lag are folks that are used to 120-144hz screens.

The 3440x1440 rez and .232 dot pitch gives stellar clarity, productivity wise, you can't beat the 34", games wise, it's great. You will be amazed at how wide the screen is.

But be warned if you get this screen:
Just like the 120-144hz guys say, "once you try it, you can't go back", it's the same thing here. Once you use 21:9 for awhile, you can't go back to 16:9

Also, The curved version is WAY overpriced right now and not remotely worth it. All the curve does is reduce the IPS glow in the corners a tiny bit, but my flat version has little to no glow anyway. You have to nitpick to even notice it. Don't get the curved version. Way overpriced and you're paying for a marketing fad with the curvature.
 
I agree that the curved monitor is overpriced and not worth it. The curve is unnoticeable IMO. I had two 34UM95's that had terrible bleed and the rep had suggested to try the 34UC97. I eventually did buy it and the bleed is almost nonexistant on the curved model. Perhaps the QC on it is better? Is it worth an additional 300 dollar premium?

I only own the curved because all the 95's that I bought were just terrible.

As a note for anyone buying, the 95 does have sleep cycling issues. It's a known issue however on the 34UC97, it's corrected and does not have this issue. Again not worth 300 bucks. Unless the sleep function is really important to you.
 
Im waiting on that Dell curved 34" version to be released. Dell always has crazy deals around Christmas so I'm hoping to score one around ~$1000.
 
The more I watch from this fence the more I see that what people really gravitate on the 34" 21:9 is the width. Curved is best but flat or curved that width on the desktop hits some serious bells with buyers.

40" 4K is ok for some folks who really don't want to mess with a widespread and widely used aspect ratio but for whom they DO want something resembling that width. The most common complaint is that it s slightly on the too big side. Liveable, but probably just a bit too large.

The manufacturers have to be listening to all this. 36" 4K would sit squarely well with many of the camps for each class. Want to run 21:9? You'd have about the screen width of the 34" models just leave some blank inches above and below. 36" curved monitors do not exist. But I suspect for those who are willing to wait a bit longer, that they may soon exist, simply because they would entice all sides of this debate into a single screen to fit all. It would be a bit more pixel dense than the 34" 21:9, but slightly. It would be less high than the 40" 4K models which might not suit all those admirers, but there would always be 40" models for them if they wanted larger.

Simply put if no model currently really makes your day then sit and wait a bit. 21:9's aren't going away. Remember the 29's? Now there are 34's and I suspect there might even be one size larger in the offing someday. 21:9 fans are now known to exist in droves. But 40" 4K models were televisions first not monitors. It would take practically no manufacturing effort to make a 36" model.

So if nothing is so perfect you have to have it now, wait a bit as this new set of 30+ options is really just beginning.
 
A 21:9 version of the 32" 4k monitors maybe? I definitely like the concept that when "forced" back to 16:9 you drop to 4K as a "normal". The 34" models sort of make me feel like I'm paying a sum just to get bit wider 27" which I already have. Not that this isn't nice. But I also look at the width of the 34 and in particular the height and can't help but want for a bit more. Jumping from 29 to 34 was very good. But widening a 32" to 21:9 the same way they did with the 27" design when they built the 34's would probably be that "next best thing". It would be really wide. And many will easily argue that just going with a 40" 4k would do much of the same. But it's what I"m wishing for. And I'm inclined to wait to get it.
 
I've done the math and that's a 39" 21:9. Yes I know makes the 4k 39.5" monitors seem like the answer. Maybe so but 21:9 fits a PC space better. Wide is ok but too tall is a bit of an issue.
 
NCX said:
I don't understand how 34" 21:9 monitors can be more immersive since they are too short to fill ones field of view without sitting <30cm away. 32" monitors are almost as wide, taller and do not have perceived black depth ruining frame-less bezels (garbage). The 34UC97S is a joke since it costs 300-450$ more than the 34UM95, but has 3x higher input lag according to PRAD and only slightly better colour presets and overdrive, but is more likely to have glow in all 4 corners.

Until glossy 32" 4K monitors exist I will pick sub 350-500$, overclock-able 27" 1440p monitors (Overlord X27OC, Yamakasi Catleap 2B, Qnix QX2710 & X-Star DP2710) for gaming any day since they are easier to drive at high frame rates, feel far more responsive and offer equal or better image quality. I'm interested in 4K 32" monitors, but it is not possible to achieve such fluid gaming experiences since they are 60hz, have 1-2 frame delays, tear (can't handle low frame-rates+V-Sync anymore) and require extreme horsepower to drive, plus I can't afford 2-3x 970/290's and a 1000$ monitor.
Click to expand...

I agree with NCX , you are the God of monitor reviews
 
I will say that if you watch movies on your pc a lot that could sway you into 21:9. Not having black bars makes it a lot better.

If you like racing games or games like diablo/lol it gives you more to see. It really depends on your preference and willingness to buy the horsepower to drive them.

Is your preference super sharp images and always crank up AA or DSR to get the sharpest image and willing to spend on titan X sli, then go 4k
Is your preference in games that can utilize more immersion and FOV and also enjoy watching movies, then go 21:9

But honestly I think waiting till later this year would be best. 21:9 and 4k monitors with gsync/freesync and higher refresh rates are starting to pop up.
 
Depending on the movies you watch, you will have black bars, not on top and bottom but on the sides, as not all movies are 2.35:1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top