Ultrawide monitor Downsides

babelmh13

babelmh13

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
196
Can you guys throw some points in my "cons" column? trying to decide if i should pull the trigger and on which one.
 
I've been using the 34" UM95 since it arrived (one of the first ones that arrived at the local MC during the first shipment.) Overall, pleased but there are some cons and/or potential quirks to get used to:

- Outside of gaming, it's a fairly poor "single task" monitor with the exception of some Excel but even then I prefer more height.
- Not an issue with the format, but this monitor is ideal for 3-zone work and Windows does not have a native way to snap to 1/3rd sections.
- There's a tiny bit of peripheral light fall-off at the corners
- You won't get more than 60Hz

Still, overall, pleased.
 
I have an AOC 29" in Sig. And , a lot of games hate the resolution. CS:GO looks weird, for example. The gameplay is fine, some menues are okay, but some are bad. I never used the snap feature of windows, so I don't seethe downside, but then again if it was implemented, it would be a nice plus for sure, but its not. I'm the type that moves windows around and with this monitor, it works great.
 
same here with the moving windows around. i have 2 monitors and extend display setup. i am rather concerned with having to game in windowed mode.. i mainly play bf4 and bf4 but have played csgo a bit and dont want gaming to suffer. the peripheral light fall off is something to look into for sure.. they are appealing tho, look fantastic just sitting there, havent had the pleasure of using one tho
 
4:3 content only fills half of the monitor, but you can have 2 4:3 videos playing side by side.
One game I was playing, Driver San Francisco, has the 21:9 resolution listed to use but the game looks stretched. Other games I play, BF4, Diablo 3, Dying Light, CS:S have all played and looked fine at 21:9.
Diablo 3 requires you to use Windowed Full Screen mode since the 21:9 resolution is not listed and they have no plans on putting it in as they say it gives an unfair competitive advantage to the player.

After using it for a day, I prefer a single 21:9 to my multi-monitor setups.
I have the 25" and 34" LG models.
 
I imagine that the game-stretch some people experience could be fixed by using a larger FOV setting and that FPSs would no doubt benefit from using a larger FOV.
 
i hated my dell 29

-standard desktop stuff sucks
-problem getting movies to fill the screen
-lag
-low refresh
-menus in games
 
trick0502 said:
i hated my dell 29

-standard desktop stuff sucks
-problem getting movies to fill the screen
-lag
-low refresh
-menus in games
Click to expand...

I have no issues getting cinemawide movies to fill the screen,
james-bond-2.jpg


cars.jpg


lg-34um95.jpg
 
I imagine 16:9 movie will suck, but still better if compared to 21:9 movie on a 16:10..

oh, missed this one, it gonna take a hella lots of desk space.
 
as someone who's multi-tasked with multi-monitors for years - I didn't find 21:9 (at 3440x1440) a good enough replacement for multiple monitors. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I still find it more intuitive to drag and drop windows around to physically different places. It's a good alternative for those without extra monitors or can't afford the space for more of them

and as far as immersion - surround setups are still more immersive just form sheer overload of information. 3440x1440 gives you just enough to fill your POV and not deal with rendering to the point of "fish-eye" distortion - but again, you do lose the sense of overloading your peripheral view. A decent alternative to surround setups for multiple reasons
 
Exyia said:
as someone who's multi-tasked with multi-monitors for years - I didn't find 21:9 (at 3440x1440) a good enough replacement for multiple monitors. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I still find it more intuitive to drag and drop windows around to physically different places. It's a good alternative for those without extra monitors or can't afford the space for more of them

and as far as immersion - surround setups are still more immersive just form sheer overload of information. 3440x1440 gives you just enough to fill your POV and not deal with rendering to the point of "fish-eye" distortion - but again, you do lose the sense of overloading your peripheral view. A decent alternative to surround setups for multiple reasons
Click to expand...

i think ultimately id be a fan of multiple monitors as well. i have a 24 inch ultrasharp and a 2006 model dell monitor next to it. i think what i would like most is a 30" with 2 widescreens rotated 90 degrees on either side at the same height as the 30"
 
Exyia said:
as someone who's multi-tasked with multi-monitors for years - I didn't find 21:9 (at 3440x1440) a good enough replacement for multiple monitors. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I still find it more intuitive to drag and drop windows around to physically different places. It's a good alternative for those without extra monitors or can't afford the space for more of them

and as far as immersion - surround setups are still more immersive just form sheer overload of information. 3440x1440 gives you just enough to fill your POV and not deal with rendering to the point of "fish-eye" distortion - but again, you do lose the sense of overloading your peripheral view. A decent alternative to surround setups for multiple reasons
Click to expand...

what do you run now?
 
babelmh13 said:
what do you run now?
Click to expand...

rog swift surround, with 1 accessory monitor (will be two once I get off my lazy butt and finish modding my extra monitor arm)

went from
1080p surround
UM95 (3440x1400)
4K g-sync
ROG Swift Surround

for reference, here's my setup when I had the UM95
IMAG0578_zps9faykdrt.jpg


As you can see - even though the UM95 has plenty of space to split windows, I still found multi-monitors more intuitive for multi-tasking. Just the ease of use and identification of "the monitor to my left is ____, the monitor to my right is ____" etc etc is hard to replace. Granted this is partly from years of using multi-monitors, but I still think 21:9 is an alternative multi-monitor multi-tasker - but not a replacement

for instance, some windows you just don't really want full sized and left in small windows, but most screen splitting software will treat all windows the same. So small things like steam chat windows and "Save As" pop up windows would be obnoxiously re-sized

more specific note - LG's screen split software is also not very fast to use - you have to click on the tray icon whenever you want to switch how you want your windows split. It just didn't feel intuitive - but it did work well enough that I could see it being an alternative for those that just can't have/afford multiple monitors.

I feel like I'm repeating myself now, but you get the point :)
 
Exyia said:
rog swift surround, with 1 accessory monitor (will be two once I get off my lazy butt and finish modding my extra monitor arm)

went from
1080p surround
UM95 (3440x1400)
4K g-sync
ROG Swift Surround

for reference, here's my setup when I had the UM95
IMAG0578_zps9faykdrt.jpg


As you can see - even though the UM95 has plenty of space to split windows, I still found multi-monitors more intuitive for multi-tasking. Just the ease of use and identification of "the monitor to my left is ____, the monitor to my right is ____" etc etc is hard to replace. Granted this is partly from years of using multi-monitors, but I still think 21:9 is an alternative multi-monitor multi-tasker - but not a replacement

for instance, some windows you just don't really want full sized and left in small windows, but most screen splitting software will treat all windows the same. So small things like steam chat windows and "Save As" pop up windows would be obnoxiously re-sized

more specific note - LG's screen split software is also not very fast to use - you have to click on the tray icon whenever you want to switch how you want your windows split. It just didn't feel intuitive - but it did work well enough that I could see it being an alternative for those that just can't have/afford multiple monitors.

I feel like I'm repeating myself now, but you get the point :)
Click to expand...

yea see i dont like having web pages or really anything other than games full screen ever. so i guess thats a big con if i were to only use an ultrawide
 
trick0502 said:
Try watching netfix
Click to expand...

I don't know if Netflix keeps films in 2.35:1. I was watching Hoffa last year on netflix and the scene where they are in the truck and the camera is looking directly into the cab, Netflixs' version was zoomed in and cutting between the actors.
I then went and looked my copy on my hard drive and realized that they cropped the film to 16:9.
 
babelmh13 said:
and very nice setup btw. jelly
Click to expand...

TY :)

biggest personal gripe I have with ultra-wides/21:9 is the price premium still. I swallowed the pill the first time when the UM95 was the only one, but when I asked myself if I would buy another (after selling the 4K), it just seemed silly to still pay near $1k for a non-variable-refresh monitor at the moment
 
Exyia said:
as someone who's multi-tasked with multi-monitors for years - I didn't find 21:9 (at 3440x1440) a good enough replacement for multiple monitors. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I still find it more intuitive to drag and drop windows around to physically different places. It's a good alternative for those without extra monitors or can't afford the space for more of them
Click to expand...

hmmm,

i have used three 1920x1200 24" monitors for years, and I'm interested in 34" 21:9 for gaming, because I have a problem with multi-monitor.

put another way, my problem is eyefinity, and game support and quirks with eyefinity.

seriously considering getting one 34" 21:9 (curved with active-sync), for gaming, and flanking that with two additional 1280x1024 monitors for non-gaming multitasking.
 
Here were my cons:

-Not all games support the resolution
-limited to 60hz
-if you stream the 21:9 resolution downscales poorly, leaving black bars on the stream

I went from the LG 34UM95 to a Asus ROG SWIFT PG278Q. I really regret my decision. However, I think it depends on how you use the monitors and what kind of gamer you are. I play games for the immersion. The LG 34UM95's 21:9 screen excels at this. I also due work and do a lot of multitasking which is where the LG 34UM95 is better. However, if you are a competitive gamer who needs high FPS and smooth as butter gameplay, the Asus is going to be the better bet.
 
R3MF said:
hmmm,

i have used three 1920x1200 24" monitors for years, and I'm interested in 34" 21:9 for gaming, because I have a problem with multi-monitor.

put another way, my problem is eyefinity, and game support and quirks with eyefinity.

seriously considering getting one 34" 21:9 (curved with active-sync), for gaming, and flanking that with two additional 1280x1024 monitors for non-gaming multitasking.
Click to expand...

I am considering this very same thing as well. Currently on triple 24" and difficulties with surround / eyefinity (and my current gaming selection) have me mostly using games in windowed mode on the middle monitor and other tasks up on the peripheral monitors.

I am considering whether a 34" will let me lose a bit of the bulk of my setup and keep some of the nice things about triple monitor.
 
Erasmus354 said:
I am considering this very same thing as well. Currently on triple 24" and difficulties with surround / eyefinity (and my current gaming selection) have me mostly using games in windowed mode on the middle monitor and other tasks up on the peripheral monitors.

I am considering whether a 34" will let me lose a bit of the bulk of my setup and keep some of the nice things about triple monitor.
Click to expand...

if anything, 21:9 support is worse than surround. there are a few games out there that "support" 3440x1440, but end up just rendering 1440p with black bars no matter what you do. (Splinter Cell Blacklist off the top of my head - supports surround just fine, but does the above with 3440x1440)

all depends on what you want to do with your setup and what games you like to play of course
 
Yeah its a personal preference. I used a triple monitor setup for a while and really hated the bezels. They really bothered me, even though they weren't that thick. Something about black lines breaking the info. Since switching to the 34UM95 I am really enjoying it. I still have a 24" monitor to one side for web browsing while movie watching or gaming. I looked at the curved monitors and didnt really feel they were worth the premium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top