***21.9 Ultrawide Thread***

CapitalOne said:
Not at all true, some games inc. SWBF which aren't stretched to widescreen still look stunning in 2560x1080 (ok, I only have 34"), and I have a swift to compare it with. Have you seen 2560x1080?
Click to expand...

at ~34 the sharpness doesnt compare - the 2560x1080 panels are a real step backwards. Its not arse but it is poor.
 
PCM2 said:
With 'Low Frame Rate Compensation' that AMD have included in the drivers, the lower bound may not matter quite so much. In theory, that is. I haven't actually tested this, but if it works like Nvidia G-SYNC below the physical hardware floor then it should be quite decent at smoothing out the experience. :)
Click to expand...

Sounds like some of these poor freesync ranges might be ok then... Is screen tearing still present though?
 
PCM2 said:
With 'Low Frame Rate Compensation' that AMD have included in the drivers, the lower bound may not matter quite so much. In theory, that is. I haven't actually tested this, but if it works like Nvidia G-SYNC below the physical hardware floor then it should be quite decent at smoothing out the experience. :)
Click to expand...

From what I gather it won't kick in at all on monitors with a low freesync range like the X34 Freesync version - you'll need a range around 40-144. Which is one of the reasons why I'm going for 1080p 21:9. I know it won't look as sharp and desktop use will suffer, but i'll be able to run pretty much any game going at between 60 and 144 fps and stay well within the freesync range on a single card. 1440p 21:9 looks lovely - but it's no good to me if minimum frame rates are dropping into the 30s and 40s (and I can't justify two beefy gfx cards!)
 
Last edited:
Warbie said:
From what I gather it won't kick in at all on monitors with a low freesync range like the X34 Freesync version - you'll need a range around 40-144. Which is one of the reasons why I'm going for 1080p 21:9. I know it won't look as sharp and desktop use will suffer, but i'll be able to run pretty much any game going at between 60 and 144 fps and stay well within the freesync range on a single card. 1440p 21:9 looks lovely - but it's no good to me if minimum frame rates are dropping into the 30s and 40s (and I can't justify two beefy gfx cards!)
Click to expand...

Ah yes actually, you're right. I completely forgot about that as on G-SYNC it would work regardless of the variable refresh rate range being relatively narrow. Ah well, disregard that. Sorry Nexus and others. :p
 
Cannot seem to find the 34UM95-P thread so I'll post this here for owners of this display. Just noticed LG have a calibration software package called True Color Pro. The default software with these monitors is True Color Finder.

I've now used TCP and it's the same as TCF but with the addition of a scheduled reminder, profile version selection and palette variation choices as well as a validation mode which was sorely missing from the default version of the software. TCP also appears to load at startup without faffing with DIY methods in Windows 10 like TCF needed.

Calibration results are the same as TCF though, just this time the validation mode is there to track changes over time which is exactly what I've been looking for to see how my panel is ageing over time without having to install the Xrite software or anything else (which I don't like).

LG_TCP_2016.01.24.JPG


To download you gotta select the OS in the download page as LG Firm" for TCP to show up at the bottom (bit weird...):

http://www.lg.com/uk/support-product/lg-34UM95

The latest TCF version is 3.3.5 whereas TCP is at 3.5.8.

As before, it does create a windows icm/ico profile and applies it, but this makes no difference to the calibration when turning it on and off in Windows since the calibration is saved directly to the monitor's LUT. I guess this part of the output is for models without built in LUTs.
 
Last edited:
I recently upgraded my 8 year ld HP w2207 TN (1680x1050) to a 27" 1440p 144hz Freesync and although the experience is glorious, the panel lottery is not.

So, back to square one.

The increased resolution was nice.... but 16:9 is not really exciting for gaming.

So, if dropping £500 ish on a 21:9, 3440x1440, do I get anything decent for the money.

Is it worth foregoing 144hz and Freesync?

Also, is it playable with a 390/8GB?

I play Arma 3 (Freesync did help smoothen gameplay), Insurgency, Trackmania, Truck Sim 2 and Indie games.
 
Last edited:
21.9 is nice indeed, I recently purchased one. The extra width to me is far more prominent on desktop use than gaming. Your vision is still pointing to the middle of the screen and only when you use or see a 21.9 over a 16.9 will you know if it's worth the extra cost for gaming/productivity. It's taking me an age to get to grips with 21.9 1440p 34" unit over my 32" VA 1440p 16.9 panel.

My 980GTX is fairly happy with the 3440x1440 but obviously more happier with the lesser pixels of 16.9. Your 390 I couldn't say how well it'll cope @ 3440x1440 and as for gsync and 144 htz that's all in the eye of the beholder (I can see the difference but it doesn't bother me)
 
Last edited:
Everything else feels weak once you've had a 34" 1440p 21:9 :p

The day I upgrade this panel, I'm taking the old one to work and it's becoming my work monitor :cool:
 
wellibob said:
21.9 is nice indeed, I recently purchased one. The extra width to me is far more prominent on desktop use than gaming. Your vision is still pointing to the middle of the screen and only when you use or see a 21.9 over a 16.9 will you know if it's worth the extra cost for gaming/productivity. It's taking me an age to get to grips with 21.9 1440p 34" unit over my 32" VA 1440p 16.9 panel.

My 980GTX is fairly happy with the 3440x1440 but obviously more happier with the lesser pixels of 16.9. Your 390 I couldn't say how well it'll cope @ 3440x1440 and as for gsync and 144 htz that's all in the eye of the beholder (I can see the difference but it doesn't bother me)
Click to expand...

Also have a VA 32" (guessing the Benq/Acer/Samsung panel), are you overall happy with the upgrade?
I'm thinking of maybe waiting for a 37"+, because I believe it might feel "smaller" due to the lower height.
 
how bad does games look that dont support 21:9
I play heros of the storm a ton and im pretty sure its never going to have 21:9 support, does playing the game with massive black borders kill immersion/annoy the hell out of you, its the main thing holding me back from buying one
 
Honestly, I don't think I have played a game where 21.9 doesn't work, there have been a few that don't have support out of the box but they were easily fixed with flawless widescreen or some tweak in the config.

If I ever come across a game that doesn't have any 21.9 support then I rather have black bars at the side than a stretched or cut image, it would be annoying as 21.9 is so much more immersive than 16.9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom