What has OLED got to do with the first bit though, I feel like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here because there are the QD-OLED UW's. TBH I don't consider pixel wear anymore, I just accept it's a consumable and if I ever get burn-in etc then I'll get rid. That said, it's also quite unlikely for my use case.
The context was that on reddit and other places people were talking about why get an ultrawide OLED when you can get a 42" OLED TV that functions just great as a monitor, has VRR etc, and has a built in 21:9 mode so when gaming in the dark on a 42" OLED TV in 21:9 mode, it "feels" like you're on a physical ultrawide because the rest of the pixels are pitch black.
They were arguing that this is the benefit of the LG G/C series over an actual OLED ultrawide 34", but forgetting to make note of the pixel wear top and bottom on the 42" by doing this consistently since you can't move the portion in 21:9 mode as it's fixed to the centre of the TV (which has other issues as noted above about desk config, seating, eyeline etc).
Anyway it's a side-bar discussion just thought worth mentioning because the topic filtered into OLED and ultrawide.
@mrk Have you done testing with native at quality dlss vs 5160x2160?
I did a quick test on both native and DLSS Quality with RTX HDR and also 5160x2160 and DLSS performance. The latter still has the edge. You just see the higher resolution is character faces etc. But surprisingly the gap is not that huge this time, not night and day like hogwarts for example. That said I only tested this briefly in a single area. Will test again once I get further into the game.
Right now I am learning towards going the 5160x2160 route. But I do get 10fps or there abouts more going the native route.
Decisions decisions
Hogwarts is a niche example because the engine itself only loads ultra quality textures when you select a resolution of say 4K, at 1440P it will not load ultra quality textures, even when you select ultra quality textures in the settings.
@Nexus18 pointed this out the other day too. This is an obvious flaw in the game and this comparison in this game should be labelled as void as a result lol.
As for my testing, I did do some testing, just not had a chance to post yet as was too immersed in that marathon late night session hunting Wild Meat for Mildurf to cook me up something before my epic adventure into the Forbidden areas, but then ran into Petre who wanted to exchange war stories
Here were my findings,
DLAA vs DLSS (3440x1440 & 5160x2160):
(do not compare the 3440 res ones with 5160 res as I have not rescaled the 5160 so when you zoom in with both side by side, the 3440 will look more pixellated as it's actually zooming in more to match the crop of the 5160 resolution so would be an optically unfair comparison to make)
I did some fps checks too and they were quite interesting, just in one scene looking at the vegetation:
3440x1440 DLAA, No FG: 98 fps average
3440x1440 DLSS Quality, No FG: 108 fps average
3440x1440 DLSS Ultra Performance, No FG: 111 fps average
The above leads me to believe that Nixxes are using proper DLSS Preset settings to get the best out of DLSS even in Ultra Performance at the cost of not much fps difference between Quality and Ultra Performance like you see in other games.
At DLSS Ultra Performance the temporal stability of the long grass about 20 feet in front of Aloy is visible but only if you look for it, from sitting back casually playing you'd never notice it really.
At DLAA and DLSS Quality the same temporal stability is 1:1 identical, no stability loss at all not even eyeballs up to the screen.
I also tried FSR 2.2 Quality and to my surprise I could not spot any temporal stability issues in the same grass, didn't try FSR Performance though but this so far is the first game I have played where FSR Quality has zero temporal instability
-
How have they managed to do what AMD themselves have never been able to do in AMD sponsored games 
The game's native SMAA method instead of DLAA is trash, it is temporally unstable in the same scene. The TAA method is much cleaner but eyeballs up close you can see it's not 100% as stable as DLAA/DLSS or FSR Quality.
DLSS Frame Gen has zero issues in this too,it just works and boosts fps. I'm not using it though as no real need. Don't need to exceed my refresh rate so no need to keep it bouncing at 141fps by using Frame Gen.
Me personally I'm using 3440x1440 DLSS Quality because the image has sharper details than with DLAA which is a neutral flat on the details in both 3440x1440 and 5160x2160. There is no advantage in this game for DLDSR it seems because everything else is rendered so good at all other resolutions/upscaler settings.
www.eurogamer.net
only a few cms wider than a 34" ultrawide
