AOC u3477Pqu 34-Inch 3440 x 1440 Monitor

I must say I underestimated the width of these screens. I must also say I'm probably overestimating the fov/pov correction the curved ones might give. It may be just the same afterall in terms of distance to use them properly. But yep, if you're 30-40cm far, don't even think about it.
 
I got my one brand new two weeks ago from OC with no problems at all.

The view is the DB in Arma 3 you can see all round and far far into the hills and spot enemy's from miles away which was impossible with my Hazro.

Visually it's on another level than the Hazro and I thought they would be the same.

Movies and also Chelsea V Man Utd today was better on the monitor and will never go back to my TV again for those.
 
Just checking back in - 3 months on, monitor still going strong and I love it - couldn't go back to a 16:9 monitor again now (in fact, upgraded from 21:9 29" monitor to this one so been sold on 21:9 monitors for a while now).

Best £360 I've ever spent on my computer.
 
I opted for the Dell U3415W in the end.
Bit of backlight bleed at the corners but only noticeable when the screen is black.

I totally agree about not going back to 16:9. GTA V is fantastic on Ultra Wide :)
 
any of you guys move to this monitor from a 120/144hz monitor? Just wondering have you noticed the difference and is the trade off worth it?

I would like to get this monitor as its at a great price at the moment, but I am stuck between this or a freesync monitor.
 
melmac said:
any of you guys move to this monitor from a 120/144hz monitor? Just wondering have you noticed the difference and is the trade off worth it?

I would like to get this monitor as its at a great price at the moment, but I am stuck between this or a freesync monitor.
Click to expand...

i used to have a 120hz monitor and cant say it did much for me, gaming with a 34" 21.9 is something else though
 
old gamer said:
i used to have a 120hz monitor and cant say it did much for me, gaming with a 34" 21.9 is something else though
Click to expand...

I can only imagine. It's just I have very bad timing with monitors. I know if I purchase this monitor as soon as I get it home a new 34inch superwide 144hz IPS freesync monitor will be announced :p
 
Can anyone tell me why most websites apart from overclockers think 3440 x 1440 is Ultra HD 4K Res?

Is that classed as 4K?

U3477Pqu 4K Ultra HD 34" IPS LED Monitor that gives you a staggering 3440 x 1440 resolution.
Click to expand...
 
Clov!s said:
Can anyone tell me why most websites apart from overclockers think 3440 x 1440 is Ultra HD 4K Res?

Is that classed as 4K?
Click to expand...

4K vs. UHD
The simplest way of defining the difference between 4K and UHD is this: 4K is a professional production and cinema standard, while UHD is a consumer display and broadcast standard. To discover how they became so confused, let’s look at the history of the two terms.

The term “4K” originally derives from the Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), a consortium of motion picture studios that standardized a spec for the production and digital projection of 4K content. In this case, 4K is 4,096 by 2,160, and is exactly four times the previous standard for digital editing and projection (2K, or 2,048 by 1,080). 4K refers to the fact that the horizontal pixel count (4,096) is roughly four thousand. The 4K standard is not just a resolution, either: It also defines how 4K content is encoded. A DCI 4K stream is compressed using JPEG2000, can have a bitrate of up to 250Mbps, and employs 12-bit 4:4:4 color depth. (See: How digital technology is reinventing cinema.)

Ultra High Definition, or UHD for short, is the next step up from what’s called full HD, the official name for the display resolution of 1,920 by 1,080. UHD quadruples that resolution to 3,840 by 2,160. It’s not the same as the 4K resolution made above — and yet almost every TV or monitor you see advertised as 4K is actually UHD. Sure, there are some panels out there that are 4,096 by 2,160, which adds up to an aspect ratio of 1.9:1. But the vast majority are 3,840 by 2,160, for a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.
 
Hiijinx said:
Please share your thoughts on it when you get a chance ! :)
Click to expand...

Well as im currently moving into my new apartment next thursday, i cant actually use the monitor until then due to lacking space.

However, i have tried and tested it to make sure no damage during delivery and im impressed.

As a big guildwars 2 player, its been the best upgrade i could have made, the field of view is amazing, and the higher pixel density has added a new clarity to the game.

will be able to give further updates next week :)
 
pigeonguyuk said:
4K vs. UHD
The simplest way of defining the difference between 4K and UHD is this: 4K is a professional production and cinema standard, while UHD is a consumer display and broadcast standard. To discover how they became so confused, let’s look at the history of the two terms.

The term “4K” originally derives from the Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), a consortium of motion picture studios that standardized a spec for the production and digital projection of 4K content. In this case, 4K is 4,096 by 2,160, and is exactly four times the previous standard for digital editing and projection (2K, or 2,048 by 1,080). 4K refers to the fact that the horizontal pixel count (4,096) is roughly four thousand. The 4K standard is not just a resolution, either: It also defines how 4K content is encoded. A DCI 4K stream is compressed using JPEG2000, can have a bitrate of up to 250Mbps, and employs 12-bit 4:4:4 color depth. (See: How digital technology is reinventing cinema.)

Ultra High Definition, or UHD for short, is the next step up from what’s called full HD, the official name for the display resolution of 1,920 by 1,080. UHD quadruples that resolution to 3,840 by 2,160. It’s not the same as the 4K resolution made above — and yet almost every TV or monitor you see advertised as 4K is actually UHD. Sure, there are some panels out there that are 4,096 by 2,160, which adds up to an aspect ratio of 1.9:1. But the vast majority are 3,840 by 2,160, for a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

That I agree with and can see why 3840 x 2160 get called "4k". But calling 21:9 widescreens with a res of 3440 x 1440 is pushing it a bit far! Even to call it UHD is pushing it. There is nothign wrong with 21:9 WQHD as compared with 16:9 WQHD. The 21:9 screen only has half the pixels of the 4k screen.

Its much less confusing then especially as at some point we will probably get 21:9 UHD screens with a res of 5110 x 2160. What are they going to call them? U4k screens? :P
 
Last edited:
So after agreeing to sell my current monitor for £130 and my old TV for £230, I convinced myself to buy this for £500 from here..

Been looking in the B section for ages in the hope that one would appear, but to no avail!!

So, what can I look forward to? Does anyone play any racing games, currently addicted to iRacing, and have th eoccasional run on Pcrs and Assetto Corsa.

Plus with Squad being released this weekend, any one let me know how the ARMA series plays out?

Currently have a i5 2500k @ 4.3 and a G1 970. Guessing I will need to upgrade either both or my card to utilise the full resolution.

Cheers

Roll on Wednesday :)
 
I don't play lots of racing games but I have PCARS and I love flight/space sims. I think sims in general are the absolute number-ONE category of games that benefits from such screens, followed by free-roaming and open world ones (GTA, TW3 or almost all the MMOs). I mean, fps too but while playing fps generally you're looking at the center of the screen or in any case you're focused on where the action is in sims having a wider angle on what's going on around you is really a key factor. Btw, being ARMA more strategic than fast paced, just mean it falls closer to the sims category than the fps one, if that makes any sense.

Imho your cpu can handle even the latest games, I have a 3570k @4.4 which is not that much better than yours, and it runs just fine. And a single 970 too. This is more a limiting factor than the cpu tbh, but that's perfectly able to push 60fps in 90% of the situations and titles. Pcars for instance runs @60fps just fine here. GTA V, not as much but I can sacrifice some settings or just stick with 50fps. No biggie anyway ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom