Super-Wide Dying Off??

Associate
Joined
21 Nov 2014
Posts
98
Location
UK
As title, is super-wide 21:9 tailing off in terms of market interest? I've not been feverishly looking as I refreshed my gaming machine's monitor back at Xmas and my pair of monitors on my work machine are still going strong, but I certainly remember back at Xmas that there was a lot of activity with a lot of stuff coming soon and so on.

I check back reasonably often because at some point I hope to move the 29" 21:9 from the Gaming PC to the office and go 34" on the gaming PC but I seem to just see the same stuff all the time at the moment.

I really hope it's not falling out of favour. I love mine!
 
34" 21:9 only came out last year or so, and as far as I've seen has been gathering interest - 29" was too small, so this is perfect size for a lot of people. Even more so with 144hz coming soon.
 
Last edited:
Looking at superwide for my next screen, hope it's not dying off any time soon.

Noticed the same thing as you guddler regarding it seems like all the same stuff for a while now.
 
By the end of last year there was only the LG flat version, 34um95 that is, with all the related problems which made it quite famous all over the web. Now, despite the massive delay in availability measured in _months_ (plural, very plural!) there is his brother from AOC and the curved ones too from LG, DELL and Samsung with a VA panel. Acer hit the news with his Predator coming out "later on this year" so for the moment I believe the market is pretty much filled up.

Consider that it's still an emerging format and the masses are being hyped with the 4k mania and that many consider the risk of having problems out of the box not reasonable for the price these guys came out with. So apparently these things brought up some issues with the whole design, manufacturing and assembly procedure in general that I think deserved some more R&D from the manufacturers, which I hope is why they're quite silent at the moment.

TL;DR: keep calm and stay ultra-widely hyped.
 
From a 24/27" this is still a nice upgrade to me :) IF you can find the one right for you!!
So I hope that it stays as with freesync and 144 should be great.
Personal experience was to move from a 27" Dgm 1440 ips (good monitor , still working as it should, retained as a spare )and journey was :-
Aoc 34" - I did not find this to be as good as the reviews indicatated it would be. For me it was just too wide and my peripheral vision was not happy. Due to other issues it had to go back , although when it was returned I declined a replacement mainly because of the vision problems.
4k - Summary - lovely 'crisp' image BUT awful TN panel(s). Colour fade middle to bottom unforgivable !- sent back.
Just received a Dell 34" Curved screen . Gorgeous! Definately the case that the curve makes the 34" experience very pleasant. Even better half said she was impressed ( she was not impressed with either aoc or 4k!) . So , hopefully this will be a keeper :):)
Overall , if you can find the right one for you, the move from 2560/1440 to 3440/1440 is just as rewarding as the move from 1920/1200 to 2560/1440
I.e. Gives you a big smile every time you switch it on!
From ' a convert'
 
Last edited:
I have an LG 29UM65 2560x1080 and I tried gaming on it but just couldn't adapt. I only find it useful for productive purposes now.

Probably it depends on what you were used to before. The 34'' 21:9 are to be compared with their 27'' counterpart, the 29'' with a 24'' so if you for instance had a 27'' @1920x1080 going 29'' @2560x1080 would result in a significant reduction in "real estate" surface and due to the aspect ratio the screen would look much smaller than what it actually is. At least it happened for me: my AOC 34'' looked quite smaller than my previous 27'' whereas they had the exact same height.
 
Some interesting comments...

I'm on 29" 2560x1080. The Dell one. Partly down to price and partly down to the great support for different inputs. I reduce my desktop to 1280x1024 temporary and have both that an my Amiga on screen at the same time. That's shockingly good :)

34" was basically just too expensive (and still is) and I was a bit concerned about pushing all those pixels. Strangely I don't find the 29" too small at all but yeah, the 34" might be nice to have on the gaming PC. If I were to shell out that kind of money though it would have to be absolute perfection. No stuck pixels (which the LG I tried had), no really bad IPS glow (which the LG i tried had). Actually now I think of it, the Dell has a stuck pixel but it's green and out of my field of vision so I completely forget about it!

Oh well, hope the interest continues.

I've just changed my TV in the living room so won't be doing that again for another 5+ years but otherwise it would be great to see 50" equivalent 21:9 for a TV too. But then all the transmissions are not so I guess it wouldn't really work.
 
Probably it depends on what you were used to before. The 34'' 21:9 are to be compared with their 27'' counterpart, the 29'' with a 24'' so if you for instance had a 27'' @1920x1080 going 29'' @2560x1080 would result in a significant reduction in "real estate" surface and due to the aspect ratio the screen would look much smaller than what it actually is. At least it happened for me: my AOC 34'' looked quite smaller than my previous 27'' whereas they had the exact same height.

1080p 120Hz that I use for gaming.
Just couldn't get used to the aspect ratio in shooters. Whilst it perhaps looked better, my performance (gameplay not fps) was suffering!
 
As title, is super-wide 21:9 tailing off in terms of market interest? I've not been feverishly looking as I refreshed my gaming machine's monitor back at Xmas and my pair of monitors on my work machine are still going strong, but I certainly remember back at Xmas that there was a lot of activity with a lot of stuff coming soon and so on.

I check back reasonably often because at some point I hope to move the 29" 21:9 from the Gaming PC to the office and go 34" on the gaming PC but I seem to just see the same stuff all the time at the moment.

I really hope it's not falling out of favour. I love mine!

I would think the price is the factor here.
 
Incidentally, can a GTX970 run most games on max settings @ 3440x1440 at a reasonable rate? I know that's a bit of a subjective question and what it can run today, may not last for new games coming out, but just as a benchmark, right now, can it cope or do you have to make compromises in the settings?

My gaming PC does need a refresh because the motherboard and processor, while an i7 at 3.2Ghz, it's about 4 years old and is the version before all the fancy names (i7 950 maybe?) The rest of the system has gradually been updated with SSDs, new GPU but it's soon time for a mainboard refresh.

Point is, the current system can still just about cope with everything on max settings. Just about! Apart from Flight Sim X and Prepar3d. They were killed dead by going to super-wide but they're very old programs and need as much CPU as you can give them so won't be any good at that res until I upgrade the board and CPU.
 
Incidentally, can a GTX970 run most games on max settings @ 3440x1440 at a reasonable rate?
Nope

I know that's a bit of a subjective question and what it can run today, may not last for new games coming out, but just as a benchmark, right now, can it cope or do you have to make compromises in the settings?

It's not that subjective really. I have a 970, really good in oc, and with the latest games (gta v, pcars....) I'm in the 45-50fps range most of the times with everything @ULTRA. I must say that it's no biggie to find totally confortable compromises and gain those missing 10-15fps though. In some games (I noticed that only in gta v so far but I guess it's not the only one) you'll also have to face that 4Gb of vram are barely enough and maybe not even so.

Personally I decided to stay with the 970, eventually go sli, and skip the 980Ti or 390 since next year it's Pascal's year. That's what your 21:9 screen is itching for.
 
Thats interesting. 45 - 50 is perfectly acceptable to me. Most of the time I'm playing MMO's but I do venture into stuff like GTA-V every now and again. 45 - 50 is about what I get now on my existing motherboard / CPU and a GTX970, but I do get fair reduction in FPS when I'm in areas where there are a lot of people online. But that's CPU not GPU.

So basically if I were to end up 34" 3440 (which finances dictate won't be until autumn at least), by also upgrading the motherboard and CPU I'd probably stay about where I am now, then the further GPU upgrade sometime next year would really see the benefit.

That's not too bad and a reason to hope more 21:9 models see the light of day and hopefully greater take up makes it less of a niche and brings about some price reductions (we can but hope!)
 
Yeah actually GTA V is the only one who saturated the vram and that runs constantly at 45-50, others run perfectly smooth at 70-80 and even more obviously depends on the games. MMOs? You can multiaccount like there's no tomorrow with one of these things and a 970. Surely a sli it's the best
As for your CPU, it's clearly not the best but with a decent overclock it can survive at least untill skylake.
 
Back
Top Bottom