I reckon it will be more like Q3 before they are actually available.
21:9 - Thoughts from people who reguarly game on one?
- Thread starter Gimpymoo
- Start date
I reckon it will be more like Q3 before they are actually available.
I've had my X34 for just over 2 years now (!!!). Love it, 100Hz, Gsync, fantastic for the racing games that I predominantly play. Also the extra wide is good for Photoshop work I do, extra menus down the sides etc.
Having said that if there was a decent size 4k monitor with 100Hz+ and Gsync I'd be all over that too - but doesn't exist. Also extra power to drive 4k etc, I think 1440 ultra wide is a sweet spot still now. Surprised the price is still high though, I'm glad I bought early as wouldn't have saved much waiting.
Having said that if there was a decent size 4k monitor with 100Hz+ and Gsync I'd be all over that too - but doesn't exist. Also extra power to drive 4k etc, I think 1440 ultra wide is a sweet spot still now. Surprised the price is still high though, I'm glad I bought early as wouldn't have saved much waiting.
I've been on 3440x1440 for over 2 years now on a Acer and Asus monitor, It's the sweet spot for me I've got more than enough desktop space whilst browsing to have multiple windows open at the same time and gaming has been great since, the only 'upgrade' for me is 4k and I've tried that and it isn't for me.
Now the support is there for 21:9 gaming for the most part (cough Blizzard being Blizzard on Overwatch) it is a enjoyable experience and I don't think I could go back to gaming at 16:9 fulltime.
Now the support is there for 21:9 gaming for the most part (cough Blizzard being Blizzard on Overwatch) it is a enjoyable experience and I don't think I could go back to gaming at 16:9 fulltime.
I guess if there was a very good 32"+ 16:9 monitor I would consider it, but I would not go back to a 27" 16:9.
Thank you for the input.
I did indeed go with 21:9 and the immersion factor ramps up x100.
Having used a 144hz monitor in the past, I would say if choosing between 21:9 or 144Hz... 21:9 adds soo much immersion.
Paired with a 22" 16:9 in portrait, the workflow/usage abilities is beastly
Coming from a dual 16:10 setup before they both died, this is good.. I do miss 16:10 though but that is a story for another thread.
I did indeed go with 21:9 and the immersion factor ramps up x100.
Having used a 144hz monitor in the past, I would say if choosing between 21:9 or 144Hz... 21:9 adds soo much immersion.
Paired with a 22" 16:9 in portrait, the workflow/usage abilities is beastly
Coming from a dual 16:10 setup before they both died, this is good.. I do miss 16:10 though but that is a story for another thread.
Go for it! I have been using 21:9 since they came out and they are great. HOWEVER! Bear in mind that the vertical height is an issue. If you want a 21:9 that is as tall as a standard widescreen 24" monitor then you need an ultra that is at least 32". A 29" ultra is about the same height as a widescreen 22.5" monitor and you WILL notice the lack of height. Personally, I think for any ultra wide, 2560x1080 is just fine. Basically take what I have said above, the height of a 32" ultra is about the same as a widescreen 24" and that looks fine, right? So the same dots per inch works just great up to 32" ultra and beyond. I am currently planning on getting a 34" ultra soon and that will be 2560x1080. Mind you there are also some great 32" 2560x1440 monitors around at the same price, so I wouldn't get too fixed with the format. If you find a great monitor that's a different format but the same physical width, then I wouldn't worry too much about format.
No, I didn't mean that. I was just making a comparison that a widescreen 24" would be about the same as a 32" ultra or indeed widescreen. I was trying to give the buyer an idea of the pixels per inch. If they find a 24" 1080P widescreen monitor acceptable then anything ultra around the 32" size would be just fine. So 29 or 34 would be great at 2560x1080. Also, 31.5 and 32 widescreen 2560x1440 is about the same pixels per inch, so they are very viable options too.I would be tempted to base the purchase on what fits your budget rather than choosing a specific format. Whether that is ultra or widescreen.
Last edited:
I think 29" UW is same as 24" 16:9 (slightly smaller) and 34" UW is same as 27" 16:9 (slightly bigger).
Good website for this stuff :
http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
I would say for UW you REALLY want to get 34" or 35" 3440x1440, it is just much better than the other options. There are bigger ones as well which look interesting as well.
Good website for this stuff :
http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
I would say for UW you REALLY want to get 34" or 35" 3440x1440, it is just much better than the other options. There are bigger ones as well which look interesting as well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 11,489
Yup if I went UW it wouldn't be 29". Currently have 27" 16:9.
I don't see need of UW, 16:9 is a good ratio, a big enough screen and plenty of peripheral vision. Plus requirement of lots more pixels, I think 2560x1440 is max I'd go with GPU's in my budget.
Depending on the game, a wider resolution can allow a wider field of view. This is an advantage over players whose resolution is narrower.
Sometimes its fairness. Sometimes it's just less work to not create the support for niche resolutions.
1440p UW @ 100Hz actually ain't bad at all - except when I looked into it I couldn't find a monitor that didn't have QC issues and poorer image quality than my 29" 2560x1080 monitor (which I was looking to replace 29" UW and 1080 has its disadvantages) - I like having it as a second monitor but neither would replace the 2560x1440@144Hz panel I have as my main monitor.
For example CS:GO is a very competitive game, but you can use ultrawide in that, I do not see any pro's using ultrawide, I don't play overwatch anymore partly because it is annoying playing in 16:9 when I have a 21:9 screen.
get the Alienware AW3418DW if your worried about QC
i wanted to go UW for a long time but my experience with the QC of the PG279Q and hearing horror stories about the 34 UWs i held off... then the Alienware became available
been using mine since mid November and its been great and with Dell you know if you get a crap one they will swap out or refund no fuss
120Hz vs 100Hz no BLB but some IPS glow in the bottom left on mine
currently on sale for £1100 but if you start a live chat with sales they should be able to match the price of the Acer or Asus
i managed to get mine for £899 as thats how much the X34A was going for at the time
Tempting - my 29" uses an IPS that has very good image quality and is calibrated well and for my uses of that panel high refresh isn't as mandatory as my main gaming panel so the image quality wins out the Alienware would have to have top notch colour accuracy to supplant it.
It will take something quite particular to tempt me away from my X34. For 16:9 it would need to be 40"-43", at least 100Hz, HDR and ideally G-Sync... plus I'd want a GPU capable of pushing it to the frame rates I can get at 1440p. But I expect both of these to be a year or so away at the very least, a monitor even longer to be honest. We'll see faster GPUs sooner (not that Nvidia are under any pressure whatsoever), but I've not seen or heard of any monitors on the horizon yet. For the foreseeable future, 34" 1440p UW + 1080Ti is the ultimate sweet spot.
Ok, OK, after my previous "abouts" and general terrible examples, let me try to make this clearer.
When people are looking to upgrade to an ultra they are usually going to buy something better than their existing monitor. So when you go on youtube what you tend to see is people comparing equal height monitors. They typically compare a 29" to a 24" or they just fudge the picture so that both screens, whatever they are, are the same height. SO OF COURSE the ultra looks better because as presented it has far more area than the widescreen. But ( as an example ) if someone currently own a 24" 1920x1080 monitor, as an upgrade they would probably be looking for a 29" 1080P ultra or a 27" 1440P monitor. In which case the area of the 27" is just as large as the 29" and looks equally impressive.
Here, look, I made a picture! This directly compares the same image on a 29" ultra compared to a 27" wide. Now I am a huge fan of ultra BUT I think the pic shows that sat in front of a 27" you are going to be just as immersed, especially when you consider the higher pixel density and possible higher refresh rates.
My point is here that ultra really is nice, but when peeps choose a monitor they have to make compromises and to my mind there are times when the wide or ultra choice is just not the most important thing.
When people are looking to upgrade to an ultra they are usually going to buy something better than their existing monitor. So when you go on youtube what you tend to see is people comparing equal height monitors. They typically compare a 29" to a 24" or they just fudge the picture so that both screens, whatever they are, are the same height. SO OF COURSE the ultra looks better because as presented it has far more area than the widescreen. But ( as an example ) if someone currently own a 24" 1920x1080 monitor, as an upgrade they would probably be looking for a 29" 1080P ultra or a 27" 1440P monitor. In which case the area of the 27" is just as large as the 29" and looks equally impressive.
Here, look, I made a picture! This directly compares the same image on a 29" ultra compared to a 27" wide. Now I am a huge fan of ultra BUT I think the pic shows that sat in front of a 27" you are going to be just as immersed, especially when you consider the higher pixel density and possible higher refresh rates.
My point is here that ultra really is nice, but when peeps choose a monitor they have to make compromises and to my mind there are times when the wide or ultra choice is just not the most important thing.
Last edited: