4K 40 inch or 34 inch super wide?

Diagro · 21 Nov 2015 at 22:12

Born_2_Kill_83 said:
4k is lovely I had a hard time swapping but on a desk 40" is way to big to sit in front of, bring on 32" 4K IPS 120hz or 2160p Ultrawide. Out of them 2 the X34 all day long. It fills your view wonderfully while gaming.

If my comment is doesn't convince you well 4k without gsync is a massive massive no no unless your running 2X TX's

You used a 40" on a des?

Not too big at all

Born_2_Kill_83 · 21 Nov 2015 at 22:13

Certainly have and ninja edits are naughty

Diagro · 21 Nov 2015 at 23:01

Indeed. I r read your post just after so nijaaaaa had to happen

Raumarik · 22 Nov 2015 at 00:54

Done both prefer 40" 4k, but depends on your main use imho. I use mine for gaming, video editing and work, if it was just gaming I'd have stuck with my ultra wide

Participant · 22 Nov 2015 at 07:38

Not sure what the point of the ultra wide is really, when you can get the Philips to display exactly the same image within its boundaries and still have space left over.

PCM2 · 22 Nov 2015 at 07:44

Participant said:
Not sure what the point of the ultra wide is really, when you can get the Philips to display exactly the same image within its boundaries and still have space left over.

Not everybody likes to have thick black borders above and below the image. Or they may prefer a flicker-free backlight and matte rather than glossy screen surface. And perhaps they would want a lack of 'interlacing pattern artifacts' or require or prefer the consistency of an IPS over VA panel. And many users quite appreciate the curvature, which isn't there on the Philips. Speaking as somebody with extensive experience of both the BDM4065UC and various curved 34" UltraWides, the experience you get with both is quite different and you can't simply emulate the former on the latter and expect things to be just the same. They aren't.

Howling · 22 Nov 2015 at 10:03

Curve, Higher refresh, Sync tech, easier on the eyes - 40" is a lot of work for the eyes to keep scanning across O.o

For reference I moved from a 28" Samsung 4k to the Acer XR34, I do miss the sharpness of the 4k but that's 157ppi at 28" whereas you'd get 110ppi at 40" - 34" ultra wide also has 110ppi so ......

ToTheMax · 22 Nov 2015 at 10:52

I dunno about either option to be honest, running 3 * 27' screen surround is pretty sweet. Not sure I could move back to one screen.

Roger Ramjet · 22 Nov 2015 at 11:12

Philips 40" 4K is great for browsing and general PC use.

For gaming, fast moving FPS games can do your head in on this monitor.

When I game, it's mostly sim racing which is good on this monitor and sometimes third person RPG like Witcher 3, Fallout etc. which is not bad as you're mainly focused on your character in the middle of the screen.

The serious gamer would want something that can handle motion better.

SGTMASON · 22 Nov 2015 at 13:22

As an owner of both...
I'd take the 40" 4k first, 34" 1440p UW second...
The Phillips just has soooo much more wow factor for me personally and it works easier for those torrented movies/tv series... I've heard about...

Although it's pointless if you don't have the GPU grunt for the gaming... 980Ti minimum type stuff... SLI even better...

[/URL][/IMG]

Nexus18 · 22 Nov 2015 at 15:24

PCM2 said:
Not everybody likes to have thick black borders above and below the image. Or they may prefer a flicker-free backlight and matte rather than glossy screen surface. And perhaps they would want a lack of 'interlacing pattern artifacts' or require or prefer the consistency of an IPS over VA panel. And many users quite appreciate the curvature, which isn't there on the Philips. Speaking as somebody with extensive experience of both the BDM4065UC and various curved 34" UltraWides, the experience you get with both is quite different and you can't simply emulate the former on the latter and expect things to be just the same. They aren't.

This.

Far more to it than just 40" 4k VS 34" 21.9....

Razor Time · 22 Nov 2015 at 15:36

PCM2 said:
Not everybody likes to have thick black borders above and below the image. Or they may prefer a flicker-free backlight and matte rather than glossy screen surface. And perhaps they would want a lack of 'interlacing pattern artifacts' or require or prefer the consistency of an IPS over VA panel. And many users quite appreciate the curvature, which isn't there on the Philips. Speaking as somebody with extensive experience of both the BDM4065UC and various curved 34" UltraWides, the experience you get with both is quite different and you can't simply emulate the former on the latter and expect things to be just the same. They aren't.

What about an ultra wide vs a 32" ips 4K like the Benq?

Participant · 22 Nov 2015 at 16:02

PCM2 said:
Not everybody likes to have thick black borders above and below the image. Or they may prefer a flicker-free backlight and matte rather than glossy screen surface. And perhaps they would want a lack of 'interlacing pattern artifacts' or require or prefer the consistency of an IPS over VA panel. And many users quite appreciate the curvature, which isn't there on the Philips. Speaking as somebody with extensive experience of both the BDM4065UC and various curved 34" UltraWides, the experience you get with both is quite different and you can't simply emulate the former on the latter and expect things to be just the same. They aren't.

I wasn't personally comparing the respective qualities of the two monitors with my post, it was a 'ceteris paribus' question purely relating to dimensions of the image within the frame.

The only relevant part of your post was the bit about not everyone liking black borders, which doesn't really make sense since you get them on 34" UW too, only at the sides with 16:9 TV shows

.

SGTMASON said:
As an owner of both...
I'd take the 40" 4k first, 34" 1440p UW second...
The Phillips just has soooo much more wow factor for me personally and it works easier for those torrented movies/tv series... I've heard about...

[/URL][/IMG]

That makes the 34" UW look like someone bought a monitor and was only given half of it! Do not want!

PCM2 · 22 Nov 2015 at 16:19

Participant said:
I wasn't personally comparing the respective qualities of the two monitors with my post, it was a 'ceteris paribus' question purely relating to dimensions of the image within the frame.

The only relevant part of your post was the bit about not everyone liking black borders, which doesn't really make sense since you get them on 34" UW too, only at the sides with 16:9 TV shows .

Well you can't simply ignore other points in the comparison which are actually perfectly valid for somebody deciding whether they would like the BDM4065UC or one of the 34" UltraWides. And the point about black borders is not to be downplayed. There is quite a trend towards narrow bezels on monitors these days. People like that kind of thing. They do not necessarily appreciate having massive black borders which are just like having huge bezels at the top and bottom of the screen. This is with respect to gaming more than film watching, but some films certainly work better on a 34" UltraWide model than a 40" one as well. Others don't, of course.

Razor Time said:
What about an ultra wide vs a 32" ips 4K like the Benq?

That is an interesting comparison. The BenQ has a definite advantage when it comes to pixel density and also has considerably lower levels of 'glow' than the 34" UltraWide IPS models. But you lose out on the extra Field of View in games and better support for some movies that the 21:9 aspect ratio brings. Then again, 16:9 works better for other movies and it's only a matter of time before UHD movie content becomes more widely available. It's also worth noting that some users find a 32" flat screen to be less comfortable than a 34" curved UltraWide as well. It's really down to personal preferences - much like everything to do with monitors really.

Participant · 22 Nov 2015 at 19:56

PCM2 said:
Well you can't simply ignore other points in the comparison which are actually perfectly valid for somebody deciding whether they would like the BDM4065UC or one of the 34" UltraWides

Once again, take it up with somebody that was addressing that question.

All I was trying to do was understand the effect of the resolution and screen size on the content displayed.

34" UW = black bars at the side on 16:9 TV shows, 40" 4K = black bars at the top and bottom on UW shot movies...I think. So both have black bars assuming this is correct, only for different content.

Blackjack Davy · 22 Nov 2015 at 20:14

I've got a 40" TV and everyone thinks its massive and I sit 6' away from it I can't imagine that sat on my desk and me 2.5' away it'd be like looking at the side of a house, I'd need to crank my neck up and down just to take it all in, but each to their own I guess.

Participant said:
That makes the 34" UW look like someone bought a monitor and was only given half of it! Do not want!

What you're not getting a sense of there is the scale and size of the screens, the 34" just fills your FOV nicely if you're sitting at a desk.

PCM2 · 22 Nov 2015 at 21:32

Participant said:
Once again, take it up with somebody that was addressing that question.

All I was trying to do was understand the effect of the resolution and screen size on the content displayed.

34" UW = black bars at the side on 16:9 TV shows, 40" 4K = black bars at the top and bottom on UW shot movies...I think. So both have black bars assuming this is correct, only for different content.

If you're purely considering movie content then yes, it depends on the aspect ratio for which it is mastered. You should have been more explicit in your initial post as it wasn't at all clear this was all you were referring to.

Blackjack Davy said:
What you're not getting a sense of there is the scale and size of the screens, the 34" just fills your FOV nicely if you're sitting at a desk.

Indeed. Put a 55" TV next to the 40" Philips and it will look tiny. It doesn't mean it is.

GBMatt · 22 Nov 2015 at 21:56

I had the Philips 40" 4K but returned mine the picture was average at best and the PWM is an issue for some. I have tried so many monitors recently and they have all had their issues. I have also had many issues with DP on 4k monitors many would drop to 30hz and need resetting etc tried various cables non would solve the issues.

A friend put me onto a 40" Panasonic 4k tv which I am now using as my main PC gaming monitor and the PQ is excellent far better than the Philips plus it does 3840x2160p 1.1 @60hz 444 chroma over HDMI. I'm not a competative gamer so the input lag of 28ms is fine for me.

The HDMI connection is rock solid no more iffy DisplayPort to deal with thank goodness.

The best monitor I have owned and I've owned many. It is also great for Blu ray and consoles you can upscale to 4k which is very good or leave it as a true 1080p signal.

Razor Time · 22 Nov 2015 at 22:55

PCM2 said:
That is an interesting comparison. The BenQ has a definite advantage when it comes to pixel density and also has considerably lower levels of 'glow' than the 34" UltraWide IPS models. But you lose out on the extra Field of View in games and better support for some movies that the 21:9 aspect ratio brings. Then again, 16:9 works better for other movies and it's only a matter of time before UHD movie content becomes more widely available. It's also worth noting that some users find a 32" flat screen to be less comfortable than a 34" curved UltraWide as well. It's really down to personal preferences - much like everything to do with monitors really.

Thanks for the info pcm2.

As much as I like the ultrawide format for gaming I am just wondering how long it will remain relevant for with 4k now being the standard for tvs. GPU power is currently lagging but I cant see this being the case for too long and a display lasts many builds. I am not sure if I should just jump onto 4k now instead of going for something like an X34. The display will only be used for gaming and web surfing as I have a proper av setup for movies and tv shows.

I am also toying that if I do go for a ultrawide if I should try another Dell (sent the last one back due to back light bleed) or go for the X34 which I have read might fair better in terms of bleed. I liked the dell but the light bleed let it down, I am not sure if I had a particularly bad panel or thats just how they all are. My choice would be fair easier if there were a place where I could view all these displays and try them out, alas this isn't the case.

Decisions, decisions, Black Friday and xmas is on our doorstep and I fancy grabbing a new toy.

GBMatt said:
I had the Philips 40" 4K but returned mine the picture was average at best and the PWM is an issue for some. I have tried so many monitors recently and they have all had their issues. I have also had many issues with DP on 4k monitors many would drop to 30hz and need resetting etc tried various cables non would solve the issues.

A friend put me onto a 40" Panasonic 4k tv which I am now using as my main PC gaming monitor and the PQ is excellent far better than the Philips plus it does 3840x2160p 1.1 @60hz 444 chroma over HDMI. I'm not a competative gamer so the input lag of 28ms is fine for me.

The HDMI connection is rock solid no more iffy DisplayPort to deal with thank goodness.

The best monitor I have owned and I've owned many. It is also great for Blu ray and consoles you can upscale to 4k which is very good or leave it as a true 1080p signal.

What model panasonic did you go for?

Roger Ramjet · 22 Nov 2015 at 23:06

You get used to a 40" 4K screen very quickly. I recently added another 21.5" 1080P display. When gaming full screen, it's useful for showing stuff like TeamSpeak or my front door IP cam or telemetry for racing games etc.