£500 for a 1080 screen, no thanks
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD freesync coming soon, no extra costs.... shocker
- Thread starter drunkenmaster
- Start date
£500 for a 1080 screen, no thanks
Caporegime
Gotta agree with this, 1080p is too old hat now, (as is my 1920x1200). Personally I think 2560x1440 is the sweetspot now for the majority of enthusiast gamers. 4k, I wont consider this myself for quite a few years to come.
Caporegime
It can't be 2560x1440P as it's an Ultra Wide screen ^^^^
If it was a 16:9 i would agree, as it's 21:9 i think it's alight, Multiscreens are too wide for me, this is just right for panoramic gaming.
If it was a 16:9 i would agree, as it's 21:9 i think it's alight, Multiscreens are too wide for me, this is just right for panoramic gaming.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Caporegime
To get a horizontal resolution of 1440P the vertical resolution would have to be over 3400 Lines, thats getting pretty close to 4K.
Too much GPU muscle is needed to power something like that, i think people forget that they have a lot more vertical lines when they scoff at 1080P Ultra Wide screens, it's all they see, there is more to it than that.
Too much GPU muscle is needed to power something like that, i think people forget that they have a lot more vertical lines when they scoff at 1080P Ultra Wide screens, it's all they see, there is more to it than that.
Last edited:
Caporegime
To get a horizontal resolution of 1440P the vertical resolution would have to be over 3400 Lines, thats getting pretty close to 4K.
Too much GPU muscle is needed to power something like that, i think people forget that Ultra Wide screens have a lot more vertical lines when they scoff at 1080P Ultra Wide screens, it's all they see, there is more too it than that.
I know from gaming on 3 screens, that quite a lot of games suffer from fisheye. There was quite a few that looked terrible on the outside screens and I imagine the same is going to happen with 2560x1080 and 3440x1440. Newer games might be better, as it was a year or so ago I was running 3 screens but that doesn't help the games that did have it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
To get a horizontal resolution of 1440P the vertical resolution would have to be over 3400 Lines, thats getting pretty close to 4K.
Too much GPU muscle is needed to power something like that, i think people forget that Ultra Wide screens have a lot more vertical lines when they scoff at 1080P Ultra Wide screens, it's all they see, there is more too it than that.
2560x1080 = <2.8m pixels
1920x1080 = <2.1m pixels
3440x1440 = <5.0m pixels
We scoff for good reason, it's only a handful more pixels and the screen is huge. 34" UW is too big for that few pixels. They're also asking a fair chunk. You can also see 3440 is only slightly more pixels than 1600p, nowhere near 4k.
Caporegime
After having briefly used an ultrawide monitor, tbh i wasnt that keen on it. But thats a personal preference i suppose. 27", 2560x1440, 144Hz and gsync is where ill be going. Yes it already is available in the swift, but bank balance currently says no.To get a horizontal resolution of 1440P the vertical resolution would have to be over 3400 Lines, thats getting pretty close to 4K.
Too much GPU muscle is needed to power something like that, i think people forget that Ultra Wide screens have a lot more vertical lines when they scoff at 1080P Ultra Wide screens, it's all they see, there is more too it than that.
Caporegime
None of those monitors are comparable.
We can start to compare in a few months when everything's out and pricing has settled.
That said, I expect g sync to either fall in price (still higher than a directly equivalent freesync) or command a premium (be that say 50-100.
We can start to compare in a few months when everything's out and pricing has settled.
That said, I expect g sync to either fall in price (still higher than a directly equivalent freesync) or command a premium (be that say 50-100.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
The UW monitors are nice, especially for general working. I wasn't a fan for gaming, but that's more to do with not being a fast TN with 120hz etc.
Caporegime
I love 21:9, have a 2560x1080, but 34" to me is far too soft for 1080. And 3440X1440 is still a decent bit off 4k, I'd be comfortable using my 290x.
Caporegime
It might be a lack of support with some games, i don't really know as i have never had a 21:9 screen, i think they are a fairly new phenomena.
Fish-eye would be caused if you set 1920x1080P and then stretch the image with a 'Field of View' setting, i think some of those options don't work well as for some strange reason they stretch the image from the outside in instead of stretching it evenly across the whole image. yet then you just end up with a stretched image.
If a native 2560x1080P setting is supported then there is no Fish-eye, or shouldn't be.
So perhaps until better native resolutions for these new screens comes around it is perhaps a little off putting.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I 21:9 is the future. And I think it may be FOV related, I've certainly seen some games on 2560x1080fish eye, but then a lot that don't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
I wouldn't hesitate to use a single GPU for 3440x1440, only slightly more demanding than 1600p. I've got a 21.9 monitor as my second screen, use it a fair chunk for general browsing. It's not my cuppa for gaming though
2560x1080 looks great on 29" but not for 34"....
You don't get fish eye problem with ultra wide monitors at all, at least this is the first I have heard of it....
The only issues you may have are:
- the image is stretched from 16.9 or zoomed/cropped in, that isn't "fish eye"
- you get black bars on the side so it will be like playing on a normal 16.9 screen, for a 29" UW, it is 23"16.9 and for a 34" UW it is a 27" 16.9
You don't get fish eye problem with ultra wide monitors at all, at least this is the first I have heard of it....
The only issues you may have are:
- the image is stretched from 16.9 or zoomed/cropped in, that isn't "fish eye"
- you get black bars on the side so it will be like playing on a normal 16.9 screen, for a 29" UW, it is 23"16.9 and for a 34" UW it is a 27" 16.9
Caporegime
personally preference, but as far as watching films and playing games (assuming all working correctly at 21:9) the experience to me is far superior to 16:9
Caporegime
Yeah, i do like the idea of Ultra Wide Screens, it's a good compramise if you find Multiscreen too wide.
It's just a better field of view, but they do need to have better native support. i guess
It's not difficult at the game development stage to clip the image if the setting is requested, much like they do in movies.
Last edited:
Yup, no way am I going back to 16.9 screens.
21.9 simply put feels a LOT more immersive.
I have watched quite a few films recently that have all been 21.9 and it just looks amazing.
Gaming is great too although aside from BF 4, I haven't really played much at all, I just hope GTA 5 will have proper 21.9 support.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,363
Clipping the image is the wrong way to do it, that isnt giving you a wider field of view it is just cropping the top and bottom off, its called vert-, what you want is hor+
Caporegime
Clipping isn't quite the same.
It's about getting more, not getting less to become another aspect ratio.
It's about getting more, not getting less to become another aspect ratio.