Message to overclockers

howdeedoodee

howdeedoodee

howdeedoodee

Associate
Joined
1 Dec 2012
Posts
37
I sent this to overclockers but thought I would post here to see if any forum members know the answer.
Out of 34" 38" 43" and 49" the sweet spot in ultrawides seems to be a 38" screen.
With monitors being measured diagonally a 27" monitor is actually 23.5" wide a 34" monitor is only 28" wide and a 38" monitor is only 33.4" wide and the height of the screen is about 12- 15 inches high over the different widescreen.
I ordered a samsung 49" 5120 x1440 but the resolution was awful compared to my acer predator 27" 4k monitor, I've been spoilt with 4k gaming and cant bear the 100% drop in resolution so need a 38" 4k.
Hi Does a 38" monitor exist that still maintains 4k resolution?
You sell a 34" monitor that maintains the 4k as per the description below.
Or is there a 38" on the market that comes very close to 4k at 3840x2160 which I could run on my 2 x RTX 2080 in nv link
LG 34WK95U 34" 5120X2160 NANO IPS 5K2K HDR600 PROFESSIONAL WIDESCREEN LED MONITOR
 
Last edited:
Dimensions confuse things and isn't what matters necessarily. It's all about PPI and distance you sit from the screen. 38" monitors currently only come in one resolution... 3840x1600. 34" however does come in several variants, including the more popular 3440x1440. However, the PPI of both of these, the 38" and 34" are the same. Which is also the same as a 27" 16:9 1440p monitor. The 49" you mention ALSO has that same PPI (near as dammit). 35" ultrawides are also going to be the same... actually SLIGHTLY worse, but in every practical sense they're the same PPI.

The 34WK95U is different due to its much higher resolution and has a PPI equivalent to a 27" 4K monitor. This would be the closest to what you're used to, but keep in mind this monitor has no VRR, which could bother you. It isn't really a gaming monitor.

You may find 32" 4K is more suitable, as that definitely offers a sharper picture than the 49" and most 34" monitors, but falls a bit short of 27" 4K. If you want ultrawide though, you are out of luck unless you accept the shortcomings of the 34WK95U with its lack of VRR.

To confuse things even further, once you up screen size past 32", you start to lose much of the benefit of 4K, unless you sit further from the screen. 43" 4K for example has the same PPI as a 27" 16:9 1440p or 34" ultrawide... so sat at the same distance will have the same perceived level of sharpness. But with 43" you would likely be sat further back, so that would help.
 
Hi
Yes I understand the PPI situation.
Here's how it goes.
Example
A 27" monitor is only actually about 23 inches wide by about 13" high (there's a calculator online for this)
So 23 x 13 is 299 square inches.
3840 x 2160 is 8,249,400 pixels.
299 square inches divided by 8,249,400 pixels equals 27,740 ppi2 (squared) the square root of 27,740 pixels is 166ppi, very rare but some manufacturers give this figure in their 27" 4k monitor specifications but only 1 or 2.
If you use this equation to your last post regarding different monitor resolutions you'll see the statements aren't correct.
Their are some monitors on overclockers stating its 4k or even 5k and this is not true.
There's a monitor calculator online for you to enter the stated diagonal measure of monitor, which then gives you true height and with of panel, then you enter the stated resolution of said monitor and this then gives you the actual ppi.
Most tablets and cell phones give stated PPI but not in monitors..why?
I'm currently at work but can link the monitor/ppi calculator later this evening.
On overclokers there are monitors stating 4k (8,300,000 pixels) but when calculating are only just over 6,000,00.
 
34" monitor is
29.6" wide by 16.7 high
3840 ÷ 29.6 = 129ppi horizontal
1440 ÷ 16 7 = 86ppi vertical
29.6" x 16.7" = 494m2 " square
129 pixels x 86 pixels = 11094 pixels
11094 pixels x 494" = 5,480,436 total pixels.
This is not 4k or anywhere near it!
4k is 8,300,000 pixels 3840 x 2160.
Hower overclockers do state some monitors are 4k when its actually only just less than 3k.
 
howdeedoodee said:
34" monitor is
29.6" wide by 16.7 high
3840 ÷ 29.6 = 129ppi horizontal
1440 ÷ 16 7 = 86ppi vertical
29.6" x 16.7" = 494m2 " square
129 pixels x 86 pixels = 11094 pixels
11094 pixels x 494" = 5,480,436 total pixels.
This is not 4k or anywhere near it!
4k is 8,300,000 pixels 3840 x 2160.
Hower overclockers do state some monitors are 4k when its actually only just less than 3k.
Click to expand...

Remember, width changes with the aspect ratio. a 34" 21:9 screen is wider than a 34" 16:9 screen (which are the figures you've given above). I dont think I've ever seen a 34" 16:9 in the flesh.

howdeedoodee said:
On overclokers there are monitors stating 4k (8,300,000 pixels) but when calculating are only just over 6,000,00.
Click to expand...

do you have an example?
 
james.miller said:
Remember, width changes with the aspect ratio. a 34" 21:9 screen is wider than a 34" 16:9 screen (which are the figures you've given above). I dont think I've ever seen a 34" 16:9 in the flesh.



do you have an example?
Click to expand...
Yes the online calculator allows you to enter the aspect ratio giving a true resolution/ppi ect, ect
 
I think you may be confused with aspect ratios, as that changes things... 21:9 vs 16:9.

Beyond that though, PPI will always be the key determining factor. The physical dimensions of a screen are largely irrelevant, other than it will determine how far you sit back from the monitor... at an average desk, chair position and wall mounting vs monitor stand can have a 20-30cm variance. That's very significant.

All monitors have small variances in physical size, but that doesn't alter the PPI or sharpness... for example, all 27" 4K monitors have the same PPI. If that's your preference, there is no other monitor which replicates this PPI, other than the 21:9 34" 34WK95U.

There's no need to over-complicate things. You said you found the CRG9 resolution to be awful. That being the case, you clearly won't be happy with 34" 21:9 1440p, 27" 16:9 1440p, 43" 16:9 4K, or 38" 3840x1600, because they ALL have near identical PPI. You might sit a bit further back from the 38" and 43" though, due to their physical size, that's all, therefore you might find this preferable. Your desk set-up might not allow this however.
 
True 4K = 4096 × 2160
TV & Media 4K Standard = 3840 × 2160, which this is also considered 4k.
Quad HD (QHD) = 3840 x 1440

Due to "4k" being a loose standard QHD is known to be considered 4k by some.


I had to google for the info, due to me not knowing specifics surrounding 4k, since it's not worth it, a setup for it is too damn expensive with too much upkeep cost in maintaining a good FPS.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom