43" or 49" samsung superwide monitor

[Phil2008]

I am thinking about buying 1 of these 2.... Atm I have a 27" 1920x1080 samsung but thinking about upgrading to one of these superwide screens. I was hopeing the larger you go the screen height would increase in size, but from 43" to 49" there is barely any difference.

I have found 1 43" samsung monitor with a height resolution of 1200, if I Im right the 43" and 49" is slightly smaller height wise then On my 27" and with the 43" being 1200 everything will look slightly smaller on the screen then on my 27". https://www.samsung.com/us/computin...per-ultra-wide-curved-monitor-lc43j890dknxza/

But with the the 49" the res is 1080, so stuff will look smaller but not as small.https://www.samsung.com/uk/monitors/monitor-c49j89-lc49j890dkuxen/

The thing is, I want the text size near enough to be the same size as on my 27" so I dont mess up my eyes. So Im thinking I should go for the "49 with the lower resolution and also things will run better considering I have only got a R9 290 GPU. But isnt a 49" a tad too big?

 

[Legend]

These are essentially 27" monitors stretched... you won't see much difference in text size or sharpness. The 43" has a slight edge there, but not by much. I think an R9 290 would struggle with either, given the extra pixels overall, but depends what games you play. Both the monitors you've selected are more demanding than a 2560x1440 (16:9) monitor. Is there a reason you want superwide vs 1440p 16:9? Does your vision limit you to 1080p?

 

[Phil2008]

Thanks for replying so quickly..... Ah so the superwides are 27" monitors, that excellent... I have just been measuring my desk and the 43" would fit better on my desk then the 49". The 43" is a 1440 resolution, so how much smaller would things appear on the screen compared to my 1920x1080 27".

Years ago I upgraded from a 19" 1280x1024 to a 21" 1650x1080 I think it was....but It wasnt a upgrade as everything was so much smaller on the screen, I tried to get use to it for 6months , but in the process I was wrecking my eyes as the text was much smaller. Anyway I went back to my 19" in the end. So now I am always a tad wary of changing monitors because of that experience.... like people say that 1080 for a 27" is too low as you can see the pixels and yes I can see the pixels if I look closely, but Im not bother about that. Just aslong as reading text is comfortable, Im happy

Im guessing I dont have to max out the resolution with my games if my gpu cant cope just aslong as it maintains the 1440 res?

 

[Distracted]

Following the link for the 43" takes me to a page where the specs list the following:

• Curved 43" diagonal monitor with 32:10 aspect ratio is equal to two 24" (16:10) monitors
  
• Resolution: 3840 x 1200 (equivalent to 2x 24" 1920 x 1200 side by side)

I see zero mention of either 27" display size or 1440p resolution for the 43" screen in the specs.


The link to the 49" screen describes the display as equivalent to 2 x 27" screens however the resolution is still 3840 x 1200.

Split by 2 this would be equivalent to 2 27" screens with a resolution of 1920 x 1200 side by side.

 

[Phil2008]

Ummm,, yeah, some people say that the 34+ superwides are even equvellent to 22" monitor, so your not really sure, but yeh I think I need 1 with the lowest resolution that I can find, but Im thinking the 49" will be too big for my desk

 

[Legend]

Ummm,, yeah, some people say that the 34+ superwides are even equvellent to 22" monitor, so your not really sure, but yeh I think I need 1 with the lowest resolution that I can find, but Im thinking the 49" will be too big for my desk

A 34" isn't equivalent to 22"... 34" 1440p is essentially 27" 1440p with extra width. The physical height is the same, as is PPI.

All you need to do is look at the physical dimensions of a monitor and its PPI...

You have a 27" 1080p monitor currently... this will be approximately 33cm high, with a PPI of 81. The 49" Samsung C49J890 is also 33cm high with a PPI of 81... so you will see exactly the same as your existing monitor, same sharpness, eveything the same size... you'll just have a load more width to your screen space. The 43" will be slightly smaller with a PPI of 91, which is ever so slightly higher than what you're used to. Hard to say if you'd notice the difference overall, but you'd have to try it to know.

There will be more pixels overall (hence games will be harder to run), but on the 49", everything else will look the same (although you'll probably have better colours, contrast etc). In time, you can always upgrade your GPU if you want to push the monitor in games.

Have you tried 1440p @ 27"? If I were you I'd try and sit in front of one if you can. I wouldn't have thought this would wreck your eyes. Besides, you can always use Windows scaling to increase the size of text. The extra sharpness and productivity you gain is significant, and the upgrade from 1080p to 1440p is very obvious.

The Samsung C49RG90 and less gaming oriented Philips 499P9H are 1440p versions of the 49" you've mentioned (and basically 27" 16:9 1440p monitors in respect to physical height and PPI), but these would almost certainly necessitate a GPU upgrade.

 

[Phil2008]

Ok I have measured the screen of my 27" and from the specs of the 29" there's only a few mill difference. So in theory the display shouldnt be any smaller on the 49" with it also being a 1080p. So I have took the plunge and ordered the 49" and hopefully I will be able to fit it tidily on my desk, when it comes tomorrow,,,, yey

 

[Legend]

Ok I have measured the screen of my 27" and from the specs of the 29" there's only a few mill difference. So in theory the display shouldnt be any smaller on the 49" with it also being a 1080p. So I have took the plunge and ordered the 49" and hopefully I will be able to fit it tidily on my desk, when it comes tomorrow,,,, yey

Exactly, a 16:9 27" 1080p and SuperWide 49" 1080p are the same... you will just have a lot more width, that's all.

Physically, the 49" is just under 1.2m wide... so hopefully will fit your desk.

 

[james.miller]

The ratios of the screens are such that you need to increase the width of the display substantially to increase its height by any significant amount.

Exactly, a 16:9 27" 1080p and SuperWide 49" 1080p are the same... you will just have a lot more width, that's all.

Physically, the 49" is just under 1.2m wide... so hopefully will fit your desk.

The image is just soo soft though. if you are already used to 1080 lines of resolution at that size then fair enough, but a screen with a higher dpi really does offer a big improvement in clarity and sharpness. I will never, ever, buy a screen with a a DPI that low again and personally for the price those 49" super ultra-wides are commanding i think the screen density is a joke. Id much rather have a 34" 3440x1440 ultrawide on my desk.

 

[Phil2008]

Plus less gpu demanding on my gpu with it being 1080, but Im guessing I still wont be able to run a lot of games at the full width of the monitor though without upgrading my gpu,, but that will have to wait until next year.

 

[Legend]

The image is just soo soft though. if you are already used to 1080 lines of resolution at that size then fair enough, but a screen with a higher dpi really does offer a big improvement in clarity and sharpness. I will never, ever, buy a screen with a a DPI that low again and personally for the price those 49" super ultra-wides are commanding i think the screen density is a joke. Id much rather have a 34" 3440x1440 ultrawide on my desk.

I would 100% agree. I'm used to 4K now, and 1080p is just a blurry mess that gives me a headache. I can't stand it. I don't know if OP has actually tried a 1440p 27" monitor (or 34" UW), but as you say, this would be the preference for most people. I think the comparison he's made to his old 19" and 21" experience is not relevant, especially with modern Windows scaling and how that can be employed in circumstances where you might find text a bit on the small side... but 1440p is going to be fine for anyone but the more visually challenged.

I remember when I first went from 1080p to 1440p it was the most obvious and revelatory upgrade I'd ever made... and probably still is. 1440p to 4K isn't as big a leap.

 

[Phil2008]

The image is just soo soft though. if you are already used to 1080 lines of resolution at that size then fair enough, but a screen with a higher dpi really does offer a big improvement in clarity and sharpness. I will never, ever, buy a screen with a a DPI that low again and personally for the price those 49" super ultra-wides are commanding i think the screen density is a joke. Id much rather have a 34" 3440x1440 ultrawide on my desk.

I just go in to panic and wrorry mode if the resolution is high on a smallish monitor heightwise.

 

[james.miller]

Plus less gpu demanding on my gpu with it being 1080, but Im guessing I still wont be able to run a lot of games at the full width of the monitor though without upgrading my gpu,, but that will have to wait until next year.

between a 3840x1080 and 3440x1440 panel, it's just under 20% more pixels on the later. or to put it another way, 3840x1080 is exactly twice the pixels of 1080p and 3440x1440 is 140% more pixels. With your GPU you'll be able to run the games (that support that resolution!) but you'll have to sacrifice a lot of settings.

 

[Legend]

I just go in to panic mode if the resolution is high on a smallish monitor heightwise.

Define small though? You have referred to your old experience of going from 19" to 21"... those are TINY screens, so I'm not surprised. We're talking far bigger now, at 27". It's really not comparable. Of course, if you've already tried a 27" 1440p and found it too small, then fair enough, but you can't make an assumption based on a much smaller screen size.

 

[Phil2008]

Define small though? You have referred to your old experience of going from 19" to 21"... those are TINY screens, so I'm not surprised. We're talking far bigger now, at 27". It's really not comparable. Of course, if you've already tried a 27" 1440p and found it too small, then fair enough, but you can't make an assumption based on a much smaller screen size.

Id say font size 12 or smaller, is too small when reading a lot of text dayly on the pc,, Id say the text size is about 14 or slightly larger on my 27" printed out, and I try to aviod the up scaling if possible as some stuff dont look right when using it.

I just know higher resolutions make things smaller and thats not a good combo with a small screen heightwise. I really hope the 49" is as good as I am hopeing it is and have that wow factor.

between a 3840x1080 and 3440x1440 panel, it's just under 20% more pixels on the later. or to put it another way, 3840x1080 is exactly twice the pixels of 1080p and 3440x1440 is 140% more pixels. With your GPU you'll be able to run the games (that support that resolution!) but you'll have to sacrifice a lot of settings.

I have a dk2 vr headset and that doesnt even use as meny pixels as the 49" does and thats with the 2 eye screens added together So yeah gaming may be a prob if I try to use all the screen. I'll just wont use the full width of the monitor when gaming.

 

[Phil2008]

I received the screen today and its frecking amazing, my best monitor by far... The text size is near enough the same as on my 27" I have run dirt rally at full res and that runs nice and smooth, so does Alien Isolation. But even though the res is 3840x1080 things look stretched at the sides, the middle of the screen is fine tho... Here's what I mean,,, see the men look stretched?

 

[Phil2008]

Also, another question,, Is there anyway I can make different resolutions, because it goes from 1920x1080 to 3840x1080 and theres no others inbetween?