3840x1600 is the ultrawide master race resolution. 3440x1440 is for poor people.3840x1600 is the new Ultra-wide
3440x1440 is dated now
2k or 4k for gaming?
- Thread starter chascos69
- Start date
3840x1600 is the new Ultra-wide
3440x1440 is dated now
Both wrong
, 5120x 1440 49" is the ultimate master race ultrawide 
.But to the OP 3440x1440 and a 3070 or 3060ti is a great combo for a good while.
Too wide, too little vertical resolution and only with VA panels.Both wrong
But to the OP 3440x1440 and a 3070 or 3060ti is a great combo for a good while.
3840x1600 MASTER RACE.
No IPS glow too
, Agree a high refresh rate IPS would be great but at the 49" size the IPS glow is not great, till they fix that then VA for now wins on the 49" ultrawide.
Soldato
Both wrong
Tried it and didn't like it. It's got wow factor for the first 10 mins or so and is good for racing, but then when you wanna play an FPS (or any 1st person perspective game) it becomes a chore.
3840x1600 is perfect. Not quite as stressful on the GPU as 4K but has more real estate than 3440x1440. It also doesn't take up the whole desk
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 2,775
Ultra wide is still a struggle for 3090, that's if you try to chase 100+ FPS at ultra settings.
4K is the place to be. New consoles are making 4k gaming ubiquitous, games are now designed for 4K primarily, using lovely textures that take full advantage of the increased resolution.
Ultrawide - always been complete joke for gaming, with many games not supporting this resolution. Often requires extra work to fiddle with config files, settings (not possible for all games), basically meant for the masochistic folk among us.
1440P - Used it for 6-7 years, though is now old hat and only meant for budget setups.
IMO the only exception to the above is elite professional gamers. Of course these folk use 1080P with 300hz monitors for any possible advantage they can get.
Ultrawide - always been complete joke for gaming, with many games not supporting this resolution. Often requires extra work to fiddle with config files, settings (not possible for all games), basically meant for the masochistic folk among us.
1440P - Used it for 6-7 years, though is now old hat and only meant for budget setups.
IMO the only exception to the above is elite professional gamers. Of course these folk use 1080P with 300hz monitors for any possible advantage they can get.
I haven’t played a game that has been released in the past five years doesn’t support Ultrawide natively. I don’t buy that many games but unless it’s a crap studio that doesn’t care (Japanese PC ports seem to suffer from this) or a small Imdie game it’ll support UW natively, often with HUD elements pushed into the corners of the screen as well. Saying games don’t support it is nonsense these days.
Wait, Overwatch doesn’t have proper 21:9 support for reasons of balance they said. That’s the only one I can think of.
Last edited:
Just buy 48" 4K LG OLED.No IPS glow too
You'll get far superior image quality to any LCD crap.
And also at lower price...
Soldato
Just got my Ultrawide after years of 1440p and I think its great. Found none of the fiddle that you suggest. Only slight issue I have is Streaming like Disney etc dont support UW. 4k gaming (IPS) at 144mhz is too expensive or I would have gone for that.
Ditto
Not when you sit less than 1 metre from the screen and have limited desk space. TV's with a PC are a cop out anyway like being a console owner. (joke)
Not according to the Steam spec survey its still 1080p (drops pinch of salt) comes out top.
48" 16:9 takes clearly less desk space than 49" ultra low screen.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 380
2k monitor with high refresh rate monitor (144hz+) is the best option
I've got an 27GN950-B 4K 144hz monitor and a Radeon RX 580 graphics card. At 3840*2160 medium graphics settings in Battlefield 4 (which I know is old but only game I got) it rarely goes below 70fps. If I want more fps and/or higher graphics settings I can drop down to 2560*1440 and it still looks good.
I was planning to get a Radeon 6800XT graphics card but won't be doing that soon at the current crazy prices.
I was planning to get a Radeon 6800XT graphics card but won't be doing that soon at the current crazy prices.
Soldato
Which in turn hogs nearly 10cm more desk space than 32" 16:9 for actually smaller image area because of 6 cm lower image height.Not when you only have space for a 34" UW.
Which games do you play? If you're a RTS player, go 4k. If you play driving games go 3440x1440. If you play competitive fps then you want 1080p ultra high refresh. If you're a non-competitive fps / adventure (The Witcher & the like) player and enjoy looking at the scenery, then 4k is for you.
Yes but what you forget is the middle of the screen is too high on a 48" 16:9 and not really practical for normal distance viewing.. Unless you want to end up with a neckbrace. It's not practical for working comfortably and trust me I thought about it and then the obvious issues with oled and static images. So decided against it and went 49" ultrawide and has worked out great and this is coming from a 21:9 34" I used previously and I always found I needed more screen space to the sides. 21:9 is perfect for movies in the letterbox format and wish they would make a large 21:9 tvs again.. Only Philips made one years ago..