4K 40 inch or 34 inch super wide?

Sukh · 20 Mar 2015 at 20:22

I am looking for a new monitor for general browsing and movie/ tv watching. Which aspect ratio is generally recommended?

I was thinking 21:9 as I can watch movies without the black bars and will be good for side by side browsing/ watching net flix.

theMilitant · 21 Mar 2015 at 13:20

I'd personally go for the ultrawide just because I prefer the aspect ratio. How close do you sit to your monitor though? any closer than ~3 feet and I'd say that the 40 inch would be too big.

Sukh · 21 Mar 2015 at 15:38

I sit just about 3 feet away if I wall mount it - but if its on the desk then only 2.5 feet.

Magic Man · 22 Mar 2015 at 00:43

A 40" 16:9 is going to give you roughly the same physical horizontal width as a 34" 21:9.

A 40" 3840x2160 panel can fit the 34" 3440x1440 panel inside its perimeter. You could watch the exact same 21:9 movie on the 40" panel at roughly the same physical size - yes, you'll have black bars but, so what. You have the extra vertical space to use that you'll lose on e 21:9 monitor for the same desk footprint.

JediFragger · 22 Mar 2015 at 08:22

This swayed me

http://www.displaywars.com/40-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9

Also, TV Eps with zero bars or anything is awwwwwwwwwwwesome!! also no aspect ratio problems with games that don't support UW

silvagti · 22 Mar 2015 at 09:30

I went for a 34" 21:9 as I felt that at 40" 16:9 would have been too large. It's not so much the width that was the issue but that I felt it was too tall vertically to comfortably sit in front of a 40" 16:9.

I suppose it does depend on your desk setup. With the 40" IMO you'd definitely need a VESA mount so you can get it as low down on your desk as possible to prevent you having to look up to see the top of the screen. Whilst the display itself is 20" high remember that's literally just the screen itself and doesn't account for any height added by the surrounding bezel and stand. That'll add noticeably to the height of the display.

Dazboots · 22 Mar 2015 at 11:57

Sukh said:
I am looking for a new monitor for general browsing and movie/ tv watching. Which aspect ratio is generally recommended?

I was thinking 21:9 as I can watch movies without the black bars and will be good for side by side browsing/ watching net flix.

I got one of there and love it.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-111-BQ&groupid=17&catid=1895

i came from a ultrawide 34 then went to 3x dell u2515h. then to the 32 benq. and real glad i didnt get the phillips. and the benq is a ips 4ms monitor. not many ips screens beat that.
back in november this screen was $3000

SamLombardo · 22 Mar 2015 at 12:26

40 inch with 3840x1620 custom resolution! Makes a 38 inch 21:9 experience. And believe me, "experience" is the right word

Matson · 22 Mar 2015 at 16:17

mine was a choice between the Philips 40 inch 4k and the 34 ultrawide Samsung. Went with the Samsung in the end as 40 was just too big for my desk and too big for a monitor for me. I would only use it for games as I have a proper tv for movies so ultrawide seemed the best way to go and I love it. I personally just love the 21:9 format for games. Yes you can make a custom res on the 40 inch for that but you would have black bars.

old gamer · 22 Mar 2015 at 17:16

same as matso, i had the philips 40" on pre order but changed my mind as i felt is was just too big, also opted for the 34" samsung and find it great for gaming

Mayh3M · 22 Mar 2015 at 17:30

I can't speak for 4k but I went from 32" 1080p to a 32 1440" and was underwhelmed to say the least. While the desktop looked fantastic compared to the 1080p one, there wasn't much difference for gaming. You have to remember game textures are designed primarily for 1080p, so higher resolutions don't necessarily scale as well as you'd think in terms of image quality.

I now have the Samsung 34" ultrawide and can say that 21:9 is almost revolutionary and creates a different, cinematic-like experience for your games that's far more immersive than anything you're used to. I will never buy a 16:9 again.

JediFragger · 22 Mar 2015 at 18:45

Dazboots said:
I got one of there and love it.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-111-BQ&groupid=17&catid=1895

i came from a ultrawide 34 then went to 3x dell u2515h. then to the 32 benq. and real glad i didnt get the phillips. and the benq is a ips 4ms monitor. not many ips screens beat that.
back in november this screen was $3000

That also looks like an awesome choice tbh, the 32" was a verrrrrrrrrry good size with no aspect ratio problems (I had an Acer briefly) :cool:

Dazboots · 22 Mar 2015 at 21:04

JediFragger said:
That also looks like an awesome choice tbh, the 32" was a verrrrrrrrrry good size with no aspect ratio problems (I had an Acer briefly)

Yeah and the stand and build quality is spot on as well.

love the controll external box.

Razor Time · 21 Nov 2015 at 02:19

I am 80/20 in favour of the ultrawide but I am wondering if the 4k will last longer and be better in the long run. I am looking at either a 32" or 40" 4k.

AgedIdiot · 21 Nov 2015 at 08:07

I was tempted by the 40" Phillips ,but it was at the time full retail which I found a little rich so went for a 34" Aoc.
The Aoc had to go back as it had a fault BUT I also realised that for me the width was just too much! - I sit about 2ft 6" from the screen when using computer/gaming and found the width/affect on peripheral vision disconcerting. (Best way I can describe it was I found the width /movements at the edges distracting as I saw something , not sure what , which made me pause and wonder.) Did consider wether I would , in time, get used to it but as it was going back.....
This 'peripheral vision' issue did make me decide against the 40" - too big , too close.
Was VERY tempted by the benq 32" 4k as it looks really nice and I had hopes that as it was 2" less I would not have the peripheral problem but it was at full price at the time and I was not willing to pay £700 so went for Dell 34" but curved! and have found this to be an excellent choice

No peripheral vision issues. Great to look at. Not 4K so not as GPU demanding .
It may be just me , rather than a problem everyone suffers from but be wary!- if I were choosing today it would be either the Dell or the benq ( in the case of the latter with fingers firmly crossed that the width did not cause me any peripheral vision issues!)

Diagro · 21 Nov 2015 at 10:44

You felt £600 was too rich for a 40" 4k va monitor? Seriously?

It's the ONLY one of its kind on the market. And it's priced below some of the 30" 1600p monitors.

I paid £400 for mine and if I didn't I would have easy paid the 600 instead. It kicks the but of those 34" super wides

andybird123 · 21 Nov 2015 at 11:17

The one thing to be aware of with the Phillips is PWM backlight

Diagro · 21 Nov 2015 at 12:01

andybird123 said:
The one thing to be aware of with the Phillips is PWM backlight

yes Ofc there is that.

But no flicker here and i just keep it at max brightness

Squink · 21 Nov 2015 at 19:55

I've got the Phillips 40" screen and it's outstanding. I probably sit 2' away from it and though I first thought it was going to be too big, it really isn't when you get used to it. It's an outstanding piece of kit. I was worried I was missing out on 34" ultra wide, but now I have a shortcut on my desktop that flicks the monitor to 21:9 ratio (with black bars above and below). I have never even felt the need to use this ratio for gaming.

I suspect there's no wrong answer to your question though.

Born_2_Kill_83 · 21 Nov 2015 at 21:21

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