The RT Related Games, Benchmarks, Software, Etc Thread.

[cyclonus10]

I have and it's not too bad tbf due to the size and of course being oled, the black bars at the top and bottom aren't that bothersome but I prefer a physical 21.9 display over a custom 21.9 res on a 16.9 display. I will need to replace the TV at some point with a qd-oled one though as for HDR, there is a massive advantage on the qd-oled over woled here.

MLA or QD for myself when i say enough of my LG CX, had it 3.5 years, give it another year or so and time to upgrade it.

 

[JediFragger]

but I prefer a physical 21.9 display over a custom 21.9 res on a 16.9 display.

It's v nice to have both options on a 42 tbh, a 39/40 UW and the full-on 42 4K and with the inky black bars you can't really tell in a darkened room

(I have the res switch on a hotkey so easily done)

 

[Noxia]

It's v nice to have both options on a 42 tbh, a 39/40 UW and the full-on 42 4K and with the inky black bars you can't really tell in a darkened room

(I have the res switch on a hotkey so easily done)

True. However I've literally only ever done it once to test, I don't get what 21:9 adds value in whatsoever.

 

[Dicehunter]

True. However I've literally only ever done it once to test, I don't get what 21:9 adds value in whatsoever.

21:9 is love, 21:9 is life, Once you go ultrawide you need a wheelchair !

 

[Noxia]

21:9 is love, 21:9 is life, Once you go ultrawide you need a wheelchair !

I went there and I came straight back again

 

[JediFragger]

Once you go ultrawide you need a wheelchair !

I thought that was when you went black??

 

[Dicehunter]

I went there and I came straight back again

I have been tempted by the new Alienware 4K 240Hz QD-OLED, Looks quite nice.

I thought that was when you went black??

No that route just leads to epic amounts of disappointment due to a lot of false advertising according to a girly friend

 

[JediFragger]

according to a girly friend

Riiiiiiiiiiiight, 'friend'.....

 

[Nexus18]

True. However I've literally only ever done it once to test, I don't get what 21:9 adds value in whatsoever.

Where's @mrk when you need him and his screenshots

People always think it is just a display/AR with the top and bottom cut of but it's not, it's the same vertical screen real estate as a 16.9 equilvalent screen with extra horizontal screen real estate over a 16.9 equilvalent so you see more of a game world on the sides, people always then assume, oh, just turn up the FOV on a 16.9 screen to achieve the same effect but when you do this, you then distort your view entirely and encounter fish eye effect. Essentially 21.9 just provides a more immersive experience, some games benefit from this more than others.

Thread of topic now though, 21.9 thread here

***21.9 Ultrawide Thread***

Size & Resolution Comparisons PPI (Pixels Per Inch) comparisons, essentially how sharp content looks i.e. clarity: 24" 1920x1080 = 91 27" 2560x1440 = 108 32" 3840x2160 = 137 40" 3840x2160 = 110 25" 2560x1080 = 111 29" 2560x1080 = 95 34" 2560x1080 = 81 34" 3440x1440 = 109 35" 2560x1080 =...

forums.overclockers.co.uk

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

175hz is so yesterday. All about 240hz now!

Meanwhile, I still set mine to 144hz

Keep up! 240Hz is for playing 2D side scrollers when it's all about 540Hz monitors now.

 

[Noxia]

Where's @mrk when you need him and his screenshots

People always think it is just a display/AR with the top and bottom cut of but it's not, it's the same vertical screen real estate as a 16.9 equilvalent screen with extra horizontal screen real estate over a 16.9 equilvalent so you see more of a game world on the sides, people always then assume, oh, just turn up the FOV on a 16.9 screen to achieve the same effect but when you do this, you then distort your view entirely and encounter fish eye effect. Essentially 21.9 just provides a more immersive experience, some games benefit from this more than others.

Thread of topic now though, 21.9 thread here

***21.9 Ultrawide Thread***

Size & Resolution Comparisons PPI (Pixels Per Inch) comparisons, essentially how sharp content looks i.e. clarity: 24" 1920x1080 = 91 27" 2560x1440 = 108 32" 3840x2160 = 137 40" 3840x2160 = 110 25" 2560x1080 = 111 29" 2560x1080 = 95 34" 2560x1080 = 81 34" 3440x1440 = 109 35" 2560x1080 =...

forums.overclockers.co.uk

So as my 42 16:9" is wider than a 34" UW then I'm having a more immersive experience, awesome

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Where's @mrk when you need him and his screenshots

Only see somebody called BananaDunka on here. Perhaps they are preoccupied with dunking.

 

[Calin Banc]

I'm playing at the same res I was before ReSTIR GI got added, 3440x1440.

That's still higher base res than 1080p, even more so with lower DLSS presets.

 

[Calin Banc]

So as my 42 16:9" is wider than a 34" UW then I'm having a more immersive experience, awesome

Is not wider though... Personally I like better the 27"X3 in Surround .

 

[Noxia]

Is not wider though... Personally I like better the 27"X3 in Surround .

Sorry, what?

C2 is 93.2cm wide
AW34 is 81.5

Including the small bezels (can't recall how big it was on the AW34 it is at least 10cm wider lol) Personally I will take one decent size monitor over multiple ones because cba with wires and bezels are distracting.

 

[Nexus18]

Sorry, what?

C2 is 93.2cm wide
AW34 is 81.5

Including the small bezels (can't recall how big it was on the AW34 it is at least 10cm wider lol) Personally I will take one decent size monitor over multiple ones because cba with wires and bezels are distracting.

Still not sure if serious

Physically it is wider but in terms of game real estate with your view, it's not wider, you see less on the sides.

 

[Noxia]

Still not sure if serious

Physically it is wider but in terms of game real estate with your view, it's not wider, you see less on the sides.

Right, so if I set my resolution to 3440x1440 on a physically bigger screen, I am seeing the same as someone with 10cm less screen?

Ya'll must look like this if you think it's a good thing:




Bonus homer

Spoiler

 

[Nexus18]

Right, so if I set my resolution to 3440x1440 on a physically bigger screen, I am seeing the same as someone with 10cm less screen?

Ya'll must look like this if you think it's a good thing:

It's all to do with the AR and res so yes, using a 21.9 res. i.e. 2560x1080, 3440x1440 etc. you will see more of the gameworld than someone using a 16.9 res. i.e. 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 3840x2160 etc. You can see loads of examples in the OP of this thread, again, this is not just simply a higher FOV being used on 21.9 res either as you don't get a distorted/fish eye effect like you would when increasing the FOV on a 16.9 res.:

***21.9 Ultrawide Thread***

Size & Resolution Comparisons PPI (Pixels Per Inch) comparisons, essentially how sharp content looks i.e. clarity: 24" 1920x1080 = 91 27" 2560x1440 = 108 32" 3840x2160 = 137 40" 3840x2160 = 110 25" 2560x1080 = 111 29" 2560x1080 = 95 34" 2560x1080 = 81 34" 3440x1440 = 109 35" 2560x1080 =...

forums.overclockers.co.uk

There is no right or wrong but 21.9 is much closer to how our eye sight works in real life:

 

[TNA]

Also, if you like sit 4 foot or more away from the monitor like apparently people do then ultrawide is probably just right. But when like me you sit 2 foot away 16:9 is fine.

As Nexus said though. There is no right or wrong with this really, just a preference. I like both.

 

[Noxia]

Also, if you like sit 4 foot or more away from the monitor like apparently people do then ultrawide is probably just right. But when like me you sit 2 foot away 16:9 is fine.

As Nexus said though. There is no right or wrong with this really, just a preference. I like both.

Yeah my desk is like 70cm deep I think so the 42" pretty much fills my whole vision without moving my head around which is why I found it more immersive than the letterbox monitor.