Does this exist

howdeedoodee

howdeedoodee

howdeedoodee

Associate
Joined
1 Dec 2012
Posts
37
Does a 38 inch ultrawide 163ppi monitor exist
I'm using a 27 inch 4k acer preditor 60hz, i dont play fast paced games so 60hz is ok
I want a 38 inch wide curved or flat monitor but want to maintain the 163ppi.
I looked at lower resolution monitors but I've been spoilt so long with 4k gaming that 2k 38 inch monitors dont look good res wise.
LG do a 34 inch 5120 x 2160 but I'm only getting a tiny bit more screen each side on the width so the upgrade isnt worth it (a 34 inch monitor is 29 inch wide) (a 27 inch is 23 inch wide)
But a 38 inch monitor will give me 6 inches each side wider as its 35 inch wide, so instead of have a 23 inch wide monitor I'll have a 35 inch wide, 12 inches wider (6 inches each side)
Now that would be worth the upgrade, I think 38 inch is the sweet spot for an ultrawide out of the 34-38-43-49's on the market so why is not a 38 inch available?
 
Because we arent there yet? Having 5k panels of any size is a rarity. You actually want an ultawide panel that is 5705 x 2445 pixels. Thats a lot. I dont even think there are 16:9 panels that are 5705 pixels yet. Thats 68% more pixels than a 4k screen. We are only just there with gfx cards to run 4k screens at 60Hz and not at max image quality always so there wouldnt be a market for a screen like yours yet.

So you could have a 38" screen now but you will have to let go of your 163ppi requirement. Going on the speed that gfx cards and monitors move forwards I suspect it will be another 5 years at least before you will see the screen you want.

So either get the LG and keep the 163ppi or go for a lower res 38" for more screen acreage or keep your existing screen for another 5 years.
 
I dont see why they couldn't get closer to it say like a 38" monitor with a resolution of 5000 x 2000 21.9 Aspec ratio instead of 3840 x 1600 being the highest resolution.
LG have done a 34" with 5120x2160 which is 11 million pixels, 4k is approx 8.3 million pixels so a monitor approx 5000 x 2000 is 10 million pixels 130ppi (4k is approx 163ppi)
I just worked it out and a 38" monitor maintaining 163ppi is 18 million pixels so i supose it is asking a bit much.
My water cooled overclocked RTX2080TI runs Red Dead Redemption 2 in Ultra so i guess it could run another 2 million pixels (approx 20% more than 4k) if there was a 38" monitor at about 10 million pixels as mentioned above but reducing the game down to medium settings....I mean there's millions with a dual RTX2080TI setup that could run that.
I just dont see why the resolution has to be cut in half when you step up to 34-38" again as per figures above.
Maybe when the new Nvidia cards come out next year it will change...new card normally add about 20-25% extra power overclocked so there's your extra 2 million pixels.
 
Last edited:
Niche market and expensive cost of building screens that size and that ppi. Hell, I think there are only 2 screens I am aware of which are 1600 pixels high. The majority are only 1440.

So we are several years away from having ones which are 2000 pixels high never mind the 2445 you are seeking.

Its why although I like the look of the format of ultrawide screens I am not prepared to take the ppi drop.
 
Greebo said:
Niche market and expensive cost of building screens that size and that ppi. Hell, I think there are only 2 screens I am aware of which are 1600 pixels high. The majority are only 1440.

So we are several years away from having ones which are 2000 pixels high never mind the 2445 you are seeking.

Its why although I like the look of the format of ultrawide screens I am not prepared to take the ppi drop.
Click to expand...
Yes same here!
But as said in my previous comment the 10,000,000 pixels is less pixels than the LG at 11,000,000 plus apple do a 5k thunderbolt screen that is 12,000,000 pixels which is mainstream....I know quite a few people that have them, my next door neighbour being one of them.
 
howdeedoodee said:
Yes same here!
But as said in my previous comment the 10,000,000 pixels is less pixels than the LG at 11,000,000 plus apple do a 5k thunderbolt screen that is 12,000,000 pixels which is mainstream....I know quite a few people that have them, my next door neighbour being one of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah but like you now realise, you are after a screen which is 18m pixels and even Apple havent gone there yet.

And yes, there are a couple of screens that manage over 10m but they are few and far between and normally dont come cheap.

Sadly LG's first attempt at a high res ultra wide, the 32UK950, is seriously flawed and expensive so will have not sold well for those reasons which may well put other people off trying.
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
Yeah but like you now realise, you are after a screen which is 18m pixels and even Apple havent gone there yet.

And yes, there are a couple of screens that manage over 10m but they are few and far between and normally dont come cheap.

Sadly LG's first attempt at a high res ultra wide, the 32UK950, is seriously flawed and expensive so will have not sold well for those reasons which may well put other people off trying.
Click to expand...

No they've gone further at 21,000,000 pixels
https://www.apple.com/uk/pro-display-xdr/
 
Apple products are always twice the price as everyone else.
I bet if LG made one it would be £2000 or less.
I'm lucky enough that I run my own business and I would offset the cost against tax because here in the UK Computers and office equipment is 100% reclaimed against tax due to computers being the main thing to file your income tax, Vat (sales tax) and national insurance payments.
So potentially I would be paying for the monitor the tax man will.
I last night read on a monitor only tech site that 38" will be for coming maybe at CES.
To summarise the GPU's are out there to run it, 2 x gtx 1080ti nv link or 2 x Rtx2080ti.
Did you see the video where Apple are making their own in house graphics card in their new desktop tower which goes with the 6k screen, the card will have over 100 gigabyte's of VR 12 thunderbolt ports.
There motherboard is going to be dual layer with 8 x pci slots and a 28 core cpu
 
I love your optimism! Maybe in a few years time a screen like that would be only £2k but if somebody did one now, even LG, I would expect it to carry a £4k price tag (if it was any good)

Hell the normal aspect 120Hz 32" 4k hdr screen I am looking at buying next is going to be £4k and I have waited 5 years for manufacturers to even come out with it never mind an even more niche market of the ultrawide screen.

Its a real shame there arent 32" or even 40" OLED Tv's as they would cost less than a grand and I would just buy another if it got screen burn after a few years.

And no the tax man wont be paying for it even with 100% write off. You will save 19% of it so about £380. It will still cost you personally over £1600.
 
Just a thought
Monitor resolutions

A sony Z5 has 806ppi (pixels per inch) over its 5 inch screen.....so they physically have the panel technology to squeeze 806 pixels per inch on a screen as per the phone mobile phone mentioned above,.
Note:A Sony Z5 is 5 plus years old so fairly old technology
So say if you made a pc monitor (which is a screen) with 806ppi.
A 27inch monitor which is measured diagonally is actually about 23" wide x 13" high.
So 23" wide x 806ppi is approximately 18500 pixels spread over the width of the 23" wide monitor.
13" high at 806ppi is approximately 10,500 pixels.
So 18500 x 10500 = 194,000,000 (194 million) pixels over a 27 inch monitor.
So divided 194 million pixels by say 4k at 8.3 million pixels this shows that panel technology is 24 x ahead of say a RTX2080TI running a 4k screen at 60 fps (194,000,000 million x 8.3,000,000 million is approximately 24)
So I'm guessing we would need 24 x new generations of GPU to come out to make panel manufacturers think of making a 64k pc monitor
As I said it's just a thought.
I always thought that anything over 4k couldn't look that much better but after seeing 8k I was very wrong....so based on my calculations above why aren't we all gaming in 8k? The panel technology is there but GPU's are lagging way behind.



Monitor resolutions

A sony Z5 has 806ppi (pixels per inch) over its 5 inch screen.....so they physically have the panel technology to squeeze 806 pixels per inch on a screen as per the phone mobile phone mentioned above,.
Note:A Sony Z5 is 5 plus years old so fairly old technology
So say if you made a pc monitor (which is a screen) with 806ppi.
A 27inch monitor which is measured diagonally is actually about 23" wide x 13" high.
So 23" wide x 806ppi is approximately 18500 pixels spread over the width of the 23" wide monitor.
13" high at 806ppi is approximately 10,500 pixels.
So 18500 x 10500 = 194,000,000 (194 million) pixels over a 27 inch monitor.
So divided 194 million pixels by say 4k at 8.3 million pixels this shows that panel technology is 24 x ahead of say a RTX2080TI running a 4k screen at 60 fps (194,000,000 million x 8.3,000,000 million is approximately 24)
So I'm guessing we would need 24 x new generations of GPU to come out to make panel manufacturers think of making a 64k pc monitor
As I said it's just a thought.
I always thought that anything over 4k couldn't look that much better but after seeing 8k I was very wrong....so based on my calculations above why aren't we all gaming in 8k? The panel technology is there but GPU's are lagging way behind.
 
800 pixels per inch on a 5" screen is all well and good but a 27" monitor is like 30x the size. So it would presumably cost a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom