Personally, imo, regardless of the issues, these LCD panels just aren't worth more than £500, at least not for anyone's who primary concern is IQ. The displays by themselves might look good for IQ/colours but put them beside any decent £500+ TV and it will look pretty poor in comparison, put them beside a similar priced TV or one for a few hundred pounds more and the TV will destroy said monitors for colours/IQ.
***21.9 Ultrawide Thread***
- Thread starter Nexus18
- Start date
Personally, imo, regardless of the issues, these LCD panels just aren't worth more than £500, at least not for anyone's who primary concern is IQ. The displays by themselves might look good for IQ/colours but put them beside any decent £500+ TV and it will look pretty poor in comparison, put them beside a similar priced TV or one for a few hundred pounds more and the TV will destroy said monitors for colours/IQ.
Depends entirely on the game really, some old games have perfect support and some don't. For the older games, which don't have support, there are a lot of fixes now. When 21.9 first came about (4 years ago), there weren't many fixes then.
Maybe not a rip of in your eyes... but it is a rip off in my eyes
As you said in the GS7 thread a while back, even that screen makes your x34 look crap for colours/IQ so just imagine what LG's 2016 55"+ 4k HDR OLED TVs would look like in comparison to a basic LCD panel
Last edited:
£1k?! Try £3K!
I would have no problems paying £1000 for a non HDR 34" 1440 OLED freesync monitor though! Sad thing is, it would probably be close to £3k or very possibly cost even more than that... Given that the upcoming 27" 4K IPS HDR screens will be $2000 and 21.9 screens carry extra tax just for being 21.9....
I can't see OLED monitors coming for a long time as there is just no way would people buy them at such crazy prices given the OLED TV market now so yeah until manufacturers can mass produce oled for monitors and sell them at <£1500, we are in for a long wait.
I think the next few years for the monitor market will be all about full array local dimming + HDR.
Just remembered the dell 30" 4k OLED monitor (which I believe has been scrapped now), iirc, its initial price was going to be $4999 so yeah OLED 34" 1440 21.9 won't be cheap
29" 21.9 has the same height as a 23" 16.9 so that may put you off...
http://www.displaywars.com/23-inch-16x9-vs-29-inch-21x9
I wouldn't worry about the resolution, the PPI isn't the same as the 1440 34" but it is still high enough to be sharp/clear + the good thing about 2560x1080 is that it's considerably easier to run on the GPU.
Depending on which 29" you are looking at... most of them are more or less the same in terms of colours etc. as the 34" 1440 screens. You will need to individually check them on the official sites for the likes of the colour depth and freesync range. Main difference is probably the refresh rate, which would be a bonus for motion clarity if you could run the games near the 100HZ/FPS. The input lag is very good on certain LG 29" monitors even though it is only 60/75HZ.
And no, no word at all of 21.9 HDR and when they do come, it won't be cheap considering the 16.9 27" 4k are looking to be $2000
http://www.displaywars.com/23-inch-16x9-vs-29-inch-21x9
I wouldn't worry about the resolution, the PPI isn't the same as the 1440 34" but it is still high enough to be sharp/clear + the good thing about 2560x1080 is that it's considerably easier to run on the GPU.
Depending on which 29" you are looking at... most of them are more or less the same in terms of colours etc. as the 34" 1440 screens. You will need to individually check them on the official sites for the likes of the colour depth and freesync range. Main difference is probably the refresh rate, which would be a bonus for motion clarity if you could run the games near the 100HZ/FPS. The input lag is very good on certain LG 29" monitors even though it is only 60/75HZ.
And no, no word at all of 21.9 HDR and when they do come, it won't be cheap considering the 16.9 27" 4k are looking to be $2000
I came from a dual setup consisting of a 23" 16.9 and 19" 4:3 to a single 29" 21.9 and don't really miss the dual setup, 21.9 29" with a hor. res of 2560 is enough for me and my uses. A second display was nice for having the likes of discord open but not something that I really needed tbh.
This is the main time I will have a couple of windows open, which even then, isn't very often:
3440x1440 will be even better for having 2 or more windows side by side.
2560x1080 21.9 is very easy to run so you should have no problems with a 970 and mostly max settings. I only have to turn down/off AA and a couple of settings down a notch (generally shadows) to be able to get 60 FPS 90% of the time on my 290.
If you get a 34" 1440, you will def. need to upgrade the GPU instead of the CPU, that or turn down the settings to medium to get 50+FPS in the newer demanding titles.
As for 29" VS 34" 2560x1080, depends entirely on your uses and how far you will be sitting back from the monitor. If for lots of text based stuff then I would avoid 34" 2560x1080. Personally I wouldn't spend more than £400 max on a 34" 2560x1080 display either.
Sounds like 29" will suit you size wise as well then. The 34" monitors are spot on for height but the width is too big imo. The advantage with the smaller 29" models is that IPS glow isn't as problematic either + the 29" screens seem to have a slightly higher contrast ratio than the 34" models.
Yup unfortunately the 29" models aren't getting any love with regards to the newer tech such as higher refresh rate and the higher res. If you want the "premium" experience with all the bells and whistles, unfortunately there are only really a couple of choices and they are 34/38" screens, I don't think we will see any truly high end 29-32" 21.9 monitors any time soon
The only other smaller model, which is a bit more fancy is the acer 30" gsync 200HZ VA 2560x1080 screen but at £650, you might as well buy a 34" 1440 screen then...
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/acer...ng-widescreen-led-monitor-blac-mo-118-ac.html
Last edited:
I have the 29um65, got it about 4 years ago and unfortunately, the choice for 29" is still more or less the same as today as well as the pricing
Did a brief review of it here:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...l-um95-monitor.18565786/page-52#post-26626342
The main complaints I see with people not going for the 29" model is usually down to the physical height and/or only being 1080P vertically, if those 2 things don't bother you now, then you shouldn't be disappointed.
Decent video showing some performance figures for the 970:
And to give you an idea of what you would ideally need to drive 3440x1440:
1440P/110 PPI is nice but it won't make up for lower graphic settings.
Also, I would only get a freesync monitor if you are intending on switching to AMD at some point, nvidia cards generally don't work well with freesync (you won't get 75HZ to work for that monitor with a nvidia GPU iirc). The sync tech. is better and worth investing in than the higher refresh rate and resolution imo.
Don't forget you have 14 day CCR so you can always buy either one, try it, don't like, just return it although if bought through the likes of ocuk, I think you have to cover the shipping back.
Probably be about the same, might lose some and win some depending on the game.
Think so, it seems to be down to the gsync module and pushing the monitor to its max with regards to the refresh rate. Some seem to be worse than others though, you ca reduce it but its requires some faff.
Wunkley post on it:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/what-monitor-for-gtx-1080-1070.18730174/#post-29472741
+1
G/free sync tech is great but low FPS is still low FPS, I wouldn't want to be dropping below 50FPS even with sync tech.
There are so many ways to get games running smoothly without free/g sync, it just takes some time and experimenting with different configs i.e. borderless VS fullscreen, 59 VS 60 fps cap, triple buffering on/off etc. etc.
Well regarding VA VS IPS for sharpness etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidem...c6/sharpness_and_subpixellayout_on_ips_vs_va/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidem...c6/sharpness_and_subpixellayout_on_ips_vs_va/
If you are talking about the 34" model, it is 100HZ.
£690?!
Blimey, mustn't be selling well if originally being sold for £900+ when first released a few months ago.
A good thread here looking at 21.9 across many games over the last year with ratings on how good the support has been:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1625842/...y-support-summary-in-57-games-i-played-tested
http://www.overclock.net/t/1625842/...y-support-summary-in-57-games-i-played-tested
Oh yeah it is 100hz. I got mixed up.
Its around 790 in places now.
The £690 price has disappeared since last night though
Yeah £600 would be my max that I would be willing to pay for a standard LCD based screen. Given Gibbo's reasons for the first version of the freesync acer x34 for dropping to £600 (and at times, it could even be had for £560) from the £800 price tag i.e. wasn't selling well, I'm sure it won't be too long until this Samsung screen is in the same boat (probably more so given the amount of people returning it due to flickering etc. problems)
Just wish the Samsung didn't use as aggressive of a curve!
Still that is a substantial drop in such a short space of time considering it was going for £900/1000 only a few months ago.
You can buy the monitor on other sites you know
I find OCUK are generally the most expensive for everything outside of GPUs. They do some good deals every now and then though...
Never noticed that myself. All the popular stuff generally stays highly priced if selling well because there is no need for the manufacturers and etailers to drop the price, if something isn't selling well then they have no choice but to drop the price in order to shift the stock. Gibbo had to do this with the first acer freesync x34 screen.
21.9 improves all games. My fav. for 21.9 gaming are definitely 3rd person (i.e. division) and FPS (i.e. doom) games though.
Once again, the OP contains everything you need to know about 21.9 including comparisons to 16.9
On a slightly separate note, watched moana blu ray the other day and damn.... it looked stunning on 21.9 IPS!
Once again, the OP contains everything you need to know about 21.9 including comparisons to 16.9
On a slightly separate note, watched moana blu ray the other day and damn.... it looked stunning on 21.9 IPS!
PFFFFFFFT! Moana is in a league of its own!Yeah agree with that 100% Nexus , I'm sitting here watching Dances With Wolves and it looks so nice and crisp
TrueFixed.
Another stunner is wall-e.
That is the first version, I believe it is no longer made and has been replaced by a newer model, which ocuk no longer sells either (was priced at £750/800 iirc). According to gibbo they weren't/aren't good sellers hence the big price (first version even dropped to £560 at some points last year) drop and removal
Won't be noticeable unless you are able to maintain a FPS higher than 75FPS. There will be far more of a difference between IPS and VA
Oh maybe that is the newer version then, not 100% sure, hard to keep up with all these model numbers!
I just thought it was the first one as the images are exact same as what they used for the first version where as the images they used for the second version where different/better looking.
I just thought it was the first one as the images are exact same as what they used for the first version where as the images they used for the second version where different/better looking.