Ultra-Wide Pros and Cons?

Master_Pain

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
4,947
So I am thinking about upgrading to an ultrawide monitor from my 1440. What are the pros and cons of this?

I do play a lot of older games from time to time that don't even support 1440p, so I have had to do a lot of tweaks to get them to run. I have done a bit of research on them, and it looks like you can force some ultrawides down to 16:9 and run it with black bars on the sides. How does that work? Is it a setting in the monitor, or do you do it in Windows?
 
GPU scaling handles the aspect ratios. You just send it a 4:3 or 16:9 resolution and it will scale with black bars.
2560x1440 should be the exact same as a 16:9 1440p monitor, just with black bars on the sides.
I've been more surprised by how many games do support ultrawides, than how many don't.
 
You get bored of an ultra-wide after a while....it loses its novelty and the 1440p feels too thin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
Well, I used to use Surround and Eyefinity, but stopped because of poor support. Just about everything required some BS hoop to get it working in their game. When it did work, it was phenomenal though.

Zone, thanks for the info. Didn't know I could control that. I assume I would just set it to whatever resolution and then use GPU scaling.

What are some good models of ultrawides to look into? I'd like IPS/PLS or better, 75hz or better, with GSync.
 
What do you do with your PC?

If this is for gaming, I'd say not worth it. If you do a workflow that involves working in multiple documents or a large toolset (Photo/Video editing, Programming, Large Datasets, 3d Graphic/CAD), it might be more useful.
 
I upgraded from a ROG 1440p gsync to a ROG UW gsync and I love the upgrade. I think it was well worth it.
 
I love the 21:9 aspect ratio. It feels really immersive vs a taller 16:9 screen.
dolby-monitor.jpg
 
Pros:
Immersion is real. It's super nice to have a big chunk of peripheral vision covered by screen.
Workflow improvement is also amazing - even editing simple documents against references and source material is so much easier side by side.

Cons:
Immersion doesn't improve gaming. I still suck... If anything, sometimes I get distracted!

Unsure:
1440 - could look nicer I guess? It's a minor niggle. I'd say it's similar to when you change from your beautiful phone display to a regular monitor - the initial shock isn't nice but you don't notice after that.
Curved screens distort lines - I had a hard time getting over it. I'd go so far to say that I had some motion sickness for a while during the adjustment. Could be to much BIM and CAD design work though...

Lastly - my experience is coming from an X34. The G-sync is a life changer. It's by far the nicest "upgrade" you can make.
 
Before "cheap" 4k monitors were everywhere, ultrawides were worth considering. That window closed sometime between 2015 and earlier this year, depending on your definition of cheap.

A 40-48" 4k panel can function both as an awesome 3840x2160 productivity monitor, and a super immersive 21:9 ultrawide monitor, by simply using custom resolutions. I usually run my 43" LG 43UD79 at 3820x1608 or there-abouts in games.

There's still a niche for the high refresh rate ultrawides, but they certainly aren't cheap for what they do.
 
I love the 21:9 aspect ratio. It feels really immersive vs a taller 16:9 screen.

Too bad Overwatch doesn't have real 21:9 support and just crops the maximum fov for 16:9, leaving you seeing less. :(
 
Too bad Overwatch doesn't have real 21:9 support and just crops the maximum fov for 16:9 :(

Ya, that was pretty shitty of them to do that, don't want to give UW users a very slight advantage so we'll just gimp their FOV, but I got used to it now.
 
A 40-48" 4k panel can function both as an awesome 3840x2160 productivity monitor, and a super immersive 21:9 ultrawide monitor, by simply using custom resolutions. I usually run my 43" LG 43UD79 at 3820x1608 or there-abouts in games.
The problem is that these 40"+ displays are typically 60Hz, high latency, don't support VRR, are flat, and use VA panels rather than IPS.

The advantage of an ultrawide display is that it has a fixed height.
Whether you are displaying 24:10, 16:9, or 4:3 content, only image width changes.

With a 16:9 display, you have to deal with image height changes - which means that you need to bring the display much closer when viewing letterboxed content or else it just feels much smaller, rather than wider.

There is a limit on how close I can sit to a display comfortably, based on the image height.
I've yet to find that limit with image width.
 
I love the 21:9 aspect ratio. It feels really immersive vs a taller 16:9 screen.

I do a lot of reading. So I find the exact opposite.

Hell, if I could find super-high resolution 4:3, I'd go for that with a quickness..
 
The problem is that these 40"+ displays are typically 60Hz, high latency, don't support VRR, are flat, and use VA panels rather than IPS.

The advantage of an ultrawide display is that it has a fixed height.
Whether you are displaying 24:10, 16:9, or 4:3 content, only image width changes.

With a 16:9 display, you have to deal with image height changes - which means that you need to bring the display much closer when viewing letterboxed content or else it just feels much smaller, rather than wider.

There is a limit on how close I can sit to a display comfortably, based on the image height.
I've yet to find that limit with image width.

So what? IPS vs VA is a preference thing, always has been. But you make it sound like it's an inferior option.
 
Before "cheap" 4k monitors were everywhere, ultrawides were worth considering. That window closed sometime between 2015 and earlier this year, depending on your definition of cheap.

A 40-48" 4k panel can function both as an awesome 3840x2160 productivity monitor, and a super immersive 21:9 ultrawide monitor, by simply using custom resolutions. I usually run my 43" LG 43UD79 at 3820x1608 or there-abouts in games.

There's still a niche for the high refresh rate ultrawides, but they certainly aren't cheap for what they do.

Agreed, I use curved 34 inch Samsung and it cool but if I have a choice I would change it to 4k display.
 
Agreed, I use curved 34 inch Samsung and it cool but if I have a choice I would change it to 4k display.
I wouldn't. I would like a high PPI variant of this display, but not 16:9.
As I said above, height is what determines viewing distance from a display for me.
So even if it's a physically larger panel like a 40" 4K, I would have to sit further from it which largely cancels out the increase in size.
Making the aspect ratio wider extends the display further out into my peripheral vision though, since height is relatively fixed for me.
My previous display was a 46" 5000:1 native VA panel with full array local dimming, so it's not like I've come from something smaller and been wowed by the ultrawide size or contrast of an IPS display.

So what? IPS vs VA is a preference thing, always has been. But you make it sound like it's an inferior option.
The only advantage VA panels have over IPS is contrast - which is largely nullified by their viewing angle problems. You only get the rated contrast in a tiny spot in the center of the display.
And don't forget that all the AUO panels used in these displays are 3000:1 contrast, not the 5000:1 Sharp panels the FG2421 used.
Higher contrast than IPS for sure, but not significant in my opinion, when you consider all the drawbacks that VA panels have compared to IPS.
I realize that some people care about contrast over all else, but then I would be looking at OLED displays, not VA.
 
How are colors on OLED vs. IPS? I love my IPS monitors and can't have a downgrade. I deal with a bit of backlight bleed on the IPS, but it's worth it to me for the colors.
 
Lack of focus for your eyes on top down games and UI scaling which are the downsides of Ultrawides.
 
The only advantage VA panels have over IPS is contrast - which is largely nullified by their viewing angle problems. You only get the rated contrast in a tiny spot in the center of the display.
And don't forget that all the AUO panels used in these displays are 3000:1 contrast, not the 5000:1 Sharp panels the FG2421 used.
Higher contrast than IPS for sure, but not significant in my opinion, when you consider all the drawbacks that VA panels have compared to IPS.
I realize that some people care about contrast over all else, but then I would be looking at OLED displays, not VA.

The only OLED monitor is now discontinued so the only option is VA and IPS have their own problems with glow. I still dont consider IPS to be a superior option, just an alternative.
 
Lack of focus for your eyes on top down games and UI scaling which are the downsides of Ultrawides.
What is "lack of focus for your eyes" supposed to mean?
UI scaling can be an issue for some games.

The only OLED monitor is now discontinued so the only option is VA and IPS have their own problems with glow. I still dont consider IPS to be a superior option, just an alternative.
In the context of “40″+ displays” the 55″ OLED TVs are an option.
Here's a comparison of viewing angle on a 34" IPS ultrawide and a 35" VA ultrawide:
Here's an example I shot on my phone to compare IPS (PG348Q) against VA (Omen X35, taken from this review)

ips-viewing-angle-3vvod0.jpg
va-viewing-angle-3hvpbg.jpg


"IPS Glow" is a total non-issue 99% of the time, and never an issue if you don't view the display in pitch darkness.
VA and TN panels have far worse issues with viewing angle.
Even LG's OLED displays have far worse color shifting than IPS displays - but no change in contrast.

In every aspect of image quality except contrast, VA panels are inferior to IPS.
Response time is especially problematic, as it can be 10x higher for color transitions near black, or with a lot of red.
And that contrast advantage only applies to a very small spot in the center of the display.

i have no idea what you're talking about. i've never used a VA where the corners were a different color from the rest of the screen.
It's difficult to get a good photo that shows what I see.
In the photo it looks like the center is orange and the corners are pink which is not quite how it looks in person - but it does show the extent of the color shifting.
va-color-shiftb0sfh.jpg



black crush is the only meaningful drawback listed here, and it's still a minor issue at worst. the insanely lower black level VA provides outweighs everything. there's a reason the vast majority of televisions and especially higher end ones are all VA. its multimedia image quality is unparalleled within LCD tech. IPS and TN black performance is a joke, especially in monitors because there aren't any consumer IPS monitors with A-TW polarizers
Subpixel structure is a big issue affecting the sharpness of a monitor - especially when displaying text. Just as important as matte vs glossy.

You don't think 50ms response times near black or with red are a problem?

VA panels only deliver their rated contrast in a tiny spot in the center of your vision, hence the black crush/contrast hot-spotting:
fg2421-contrast7ssri.jpg

That's an FG2421 which is a lot better panel than any of AUO's AMVA panels that gaming monitors use. (5000:1 native instead of 3000:1)

black performance, all else being equal, is the single greatest factor of image quality in a display. it doesn't matter if you can move around and see the same thing if the thing you're seeing looks awful. i'll take ideal picture quality with slightly restrictive viewing requirements over a lesser picture any day.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when this is a topic about matte vs glossy - which is largely about contrast - but I disagree.
Black level is important, but being able to see details in that darkness, or having a display which can show a uniform image across the entire screen are fundamental things that you have to get right first.

I had a Kuro Plasma but sold it because it only did black level well. The rest of the image quality sucked.
Low brightness, intrusive ABL, bad response times, posterization, lots of dither noise, poor shadow detail etc.
Black level alone is not enough for a display in my opinion.
It's the same thing with the current OLED displays. They solved black level but have issues with detail/posterization/noise near black, cheat brightness measurements with a white subpixel, have bad color shifting at wide viewing angles, don't support variable refresh rate or even 4K120 yet. Image retention/burn-in is still a problem too. Hopefully they'll get better.

Try viewing this image on a VA panel.
If you move your head even slightly, the image changes due to the gamma shifting and contrast hot-spotting.

b28611e7_samsung23334rsi5.jpeg


Does it look like the VA panel is higher contrast here, or does the contrast hot-spotting actually make the image brighter than IPS outside of the tiny spot in the center where you actually get the rated contrast?
That Samsung panel is specified as 4000:1 static contrast. I don't have details on the NEC panel but I would not be surprised if it was 800:1.

Here's a video describing it as a "silver glossy shine effect".

What is VA? I am unfamiliar with that panel.
It's the way that the liquid crystals are aligned in the display, and how they switch to control light output.

ips-vav3jp8.jpg


IPS displays have much better viewing angle because they don't change their alignment, while VA changes from vertical to horizontal alignment with brightness.
It's also why virtually all touchscreen displays are IPS:
0115avkd5.jpg
 
Oh geez who the hell uses their monitor at that kind of an angle. You view an IPS panel at that angle when displaying any sort of dark content and you won't be seeing anything because it'll all be masked in glow. I used to run AMD eyefinity using triple TN panels, a single 21:9 VA is hardly gives me problems with viewing angles compared to what was essentially a 48:9 (3x16:9) TN setup. I guess if you are that picky about viewing angles then IPS is the only way to go, I'm just picky about weak contrast combined with glow.
 
Oh geez who the hell uses their monitor at that kind of an angle. You view an IPS panel at that angle when displaying any sort of dark content and you won't be seeing anything because it'll all be masked in glow. I used to run AMD eyefinity using triple TN panels, a single 21:9 VA is hardly gives me problems with viewing angles compared to what was essentially a 48:9 (3x16:9) TN setup. I guess if you are that picky about viewing angles then IPS is the only way to go, I'm just picky about weak contrast combined with glow.
Even if you are looking straight-on to a VA panel the contrast drops off very quickly. I included examples in my post.
I should try and measure it some time, but I would not be surprised if contrast actually drops lower than an IPS display outside of the very center of the image.
Color is different in the corners from the center of the screen, and moving your head even slightly changes the image.
This gets worse the larger and higher contrast the display is.

"IPS glow" is either hilariously over-exaggerated by people, or some specific displays are much worse than the majority of other IPS panels - because I've never found it to be a problem on any of the IPS displays that I've owned, yet every VA display has had the same problems with viewing angle and response time.

I do wish they were higher contrast. It's very disappointing that there are IPS panels with much higher contrast than the desktop monitors we have now, but they are only available in portable devices.
But the trade-offs you make with a VA panel are not worth it to only go from 1000:1 to 3000:1 contrast. That's not a significant improvement.
 
It's going to be very interesting when the 27" 144hz 4K HDR FALD monitors come out alongside the 35" 200hz 3440x1440, cause the latter is apparently a VA panel while the former is IPS, so we'll see how much difference there is between the contrast and response time when both are using local dimming and panels intended for very high refresh rates.
 
Back
Top