Undecided on 4k flat vs 1440p curved ultrawide - Productivity with some gaming

Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,508
Location
Surrey
I'm undecided between a flat 4k screen or a curved 34" ultrawide 1440p. I would place my usage as:

30% general browsing, email, etc
30% programming
20% watching video content
20% gaming but I want to get back into gaming so increase this

On my current 30" 2560x1600 screen I tend to browse or program on one side of the screen and have media opened on the other side. Initially I was leaning towards a 34" 1400p ultrawide but as my use case is more productivity I am also considering a 4k flat screen. I have a Vega 64.

Any opinions appreciated. Thank you.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Nov 2007
Posts
16,060
Location
In the Land of Grey and Pink
Ultrawide all the way.

I used to program for a living and I would have loved one of these for its ability to display two pages on screen at once.

And it's brilliant for gaming, the immersion factor is worth the upgrade by itself.

I will never go back to 16:9 given the choice.
 
Associate
Joined
1 May 2019
Posts
253
My main monitor for coding/gaming has been a curved 40” 4k for the past 3 years. It’s 92cm x 54cm so about 6cm wider than a 34” ultrawide.

The main reason I mention it is that I’ve really enjoyed using it for coding. You’ll get a similar pixel density as a 34” 1440p ultrawide and you’ve got a fair bit of extra height (an extra 15cm). I have Visual Studio on it with 4 code windows (134 chars x 164 lines) and the extra vertical height is really nice – especially for things like splitting windows and viewing long-terribly-coded functions. I think it’s near the equivalent of having 2 26” monitors in portrait mode?

It does feel a little big for some games as screen edge UI elements can disappear from your main field of vision (a shared problem with ultrawide), but games do also feel more immersive. Some games I want to play in ultrawide so I’ll run them in borderless windows and just use an ultrawide aspect ratio.

I had been toying with the idea of upgrading recently, as my screen doesn’t have a great refresh rate, but I think I’d really miss the height now if I went ultrawide…
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2005
Posts
5,810
Location
Earth, for now
I tried a 32" 4k and then a 34" UW, curved. For several reasons neither of them convinced me to keep as my main monitor.
Then moving my main rig into another room allowed me to get a bigger desk.
Now I have kept my 27" 1440p screen and just added a second 25" 1440p Dell.
Having the room for two monitors, and enjoying that use, I would doubt that a single screen would be my choice again.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2006
Posts
7,224
It REALLY depends what you value most. 4K trumps UW for productivity every day... there's more pixels, a lot more, so there's no contest here. If it's gaming, and you want more than 60Hz and really do feel those higher frame rates are necessary, then UW (100Hz+) would be the way forward.

I went from UW to 4K, and for productivity I couldn't be happier. It's very obviously superior in this regard. For gaming... I'm less than 20%, so it's not that big a deal for me. I have G-Sync, so that helps. I don't play fast twitch shooters so don't need fast refresh.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2008
Posts
11,616
Location
Finland
On my current 30" 2560x1600...
Initially I was leaning towards a 34" 1400p ultrawide
Those aren't ultrawides, but ultra low with less vertical image size while consuming more desk space.
That 34 marketing inch ultra low has same height as 27" 16:9, which is small compared to 30" 16:10.
http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-30-inch-16x10
http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-30-inch-16x10
(not forgetting lower resolution)

32" 4K would be only one with no major drawbacks in something.
Monitors have simply more devolved than evolved, with all this marketing BS for western consumers with NOT APPROPRIATE!
(+no progress for getting rid of all contrast/response time/viewing angle problems of LCD)

AU Optronics was supposed to start making higher refresh rate capable 32" 4K IPS panels during winter, so maybe Computex or E3 comes with release or two.
Samsung's 31.5" curved VA panel again was apparently delayed to summer. (but VA has black crush...)

Myself would have hell of time in choosing new monitor, if current Dell U3014 broke.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,508
Location
Surrey
It REALLY depends what you value most. 4K trumps UW for productivity every day... there's more pixels, a lot more, so there's no contest here. If it's gaming, and you want more than 60Hz and really do feel those higher frame rates are necessary, then UW (100Hz+) would be the way forward.

I went from UW to 4K, and for productivity I couldn't be happier. It's very obviously superior in this regard. For gaming... I'm less than 20%, so it's not that big a deal for me. I have G-Sync, so that helps. I don't play fast twitch shooters so don't need fast refresh.

Good points. I'd put my current gaming at 10% to 20% so that's not quite as important.

Those aren't ultrawides, but ultra low with less vertical image size while consuming more desk space.
That 34 marketing inch ultra low has same height as 27" 16:9, which is small compared to 30" 16:10.
http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-30-inch-16x10
http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-30-inch-16x10
(not forgetting lower resolution)

32" 4K would be only one with no major drawbacks in something.
Monitors have simply more devolved than evolved, with all this marketing BS for western consumers with NOT APPROPRIATE!
(+no progress for getting rid of all contrast/response time/viewing angle problems of LCD)

AU Optronics was supposed to start making higher refresh rate capable 32" 4K IPS panels during winter, so maybe Computex or E3 comes with release or two.
Samsung's 31.5" curved VA panel again was apparently delayed to summer. (but VA has black crush...)

Myself would have hell of time in choosing new monitor, if current Dell U3014 broke.

The loss of vertical height does concern me, which is why I also started to look at 4k screens. I currently have a Dell 3007 and even 12 year later am struggling to find anything to beat it significantly. I'm in no rush so may see what comes out this year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2006
Posts
7,224
Good points. I'd put my current gaming at 10% to 20% so that's not quite as important.

The loss of vertical height does concern me, which is why I also started to look at 4k screens. I currently have a Dell 3007 and even 12 year later am struggling to find anything to beat it significantly. I'm in no rush so may see what comes out this year.


The loss of vertical height IS significant too. A 1440p ultrawide is, duh, 1440 pixels high... 4K is 2160 pixels. That's 720 pixels difference, which is 50% of a 1440p screen you've just lost. When it comes to productivity, that's MASSIVE! Width wise, there's not so much of a noticeable difference, but it was the height where I really noticed it myself. However, because of that, all those extra pixels are what makes the GPU demand in gaming that much higher on 4K vs 1440p UW.

I am annoyed at the lack of progress with 32" 4K... it's a great size, yet to this day there is only one single 32" 4K G-Sync monitor available (the Acer XB321HK), but there are a few Freesync ones though (all still 60Hz). I have my eye on the 43" 4K 144Hz offerings from Acer and Asus due later this year, although the PPI of those will be equivalent to 1440p, so you lose the sharpness benefit which you get at 32", but retain the significant GPU demands of 4K of course. There is also the LG 38GL950G which is a tad closer to 4K resolution (3840x1600) and again the same PPI as 1440p. If I had my choice though, I think I'd rather have a high refresh 32" 4K monitor... but none exist, yet.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Posts
18,532
Location
Aberdeen
I think you would benefit from having two monitors: one for productivity and one for miscellaneous and gaming. So turn your current monitor into a portrait-mode monitor for productivity and get the monitor that best runs your games.

I have both 4K and 1440pUW gaming monitors (Acer Nitro and Asus PG348Q) and games like RTS work best on the 4K and games like racing games work best on the UW. But my work monitor is a 4k monitor in portrait mode.

If you want the simplicity of only one monitor, consider the mega-wide 32:9 Samsung CRG9
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,508
Location
Surrey
I think you would benefit from having two monitors: one for productivity and one for miscellaneous and gaming. So turn your current monitor into a portrait-mode monitor for productivity and get the monitor that best runs your games.

I have both 4K and 1440pUW gaming monitors (Acer Nitro and Asus PG348Q) and games like RTS work best on the 4K and games like racing games work best on the UW. But my work monitor is a 4k monitor in portrait mode.

If you want the simplicity of only one monitor, consider the mega-wide 32:9 Samsung CRG9

Also a good idea but it just takes me back to a similar situation to what I have now. I currently just use the single Dell 3007 16:10 2560x1600. But I also have two spare Dell 2007's with 1900x1600 resolution. My original plan was to put these either side using a triple mount when I finally finish the office. They would be in rotated in PLP orientation so matching the vertical size and resolution of the central 3007 perfectly. But after thinking a while I thought this would be overkill and look very cluttered. It also presents problems if I just want to dock my laptop instead of my desktop. So I started looking at 34" 21:9 ultrawides and then the 4K 16:9's.

...If I keep my current screen then I may as well stay with the original triple screen setup.

But all opinions are very much appreciated and are getting me thinking about what I really want. So thanks.


The loss of vertical height IS significant too. A 1440p ultrawide is, duh, 1440 pixels high... 4K is 2160 pixels. That's 720 pixels difference, which is 50% of a 1440p screen you've just lost. When it comes to productivity, that's MASSIVE! Width wise, there's not so much of a noticeable difference, but it was the height where I really noticed it myself. However, because of that, all those extra pixels are what makes the GPU demand in gaming that much higher on 4K vs 1440p UW.

I am annoyed at the lack of progress with 32" 4K... it's a great size, yet to this day there is only one single 32" 4K G-Sync monitor available (the Acer XB321HK), but there are a few Freesync ones though (all still 60Hz). I have my eye on the 43" 4K 144Hz offerings from Acer and Asus due later this year, although the PPI of those will be equivalent to 1440p, so you lose the sharpness benefit which you get at 32", but retain the significant GPU demands of 4K of course. There is also the LG 38GL950G which is a tad closer to 4K resolution (3840x1600) and again the same PPI as 1440p. If I had my choice though, I think I'd rather have a high refresh 32" 4K monitor... but none exist, yet.

:rolleyes:
I think I'd prefer Freesync. but would want more than just 60hz, which is a problem.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Posts
18,532
Location
Aberdeen
Also a good idea but it just takes me back to a similar situation to what I have now. I currently just use the single Dell 3007 16:10 2560x1600. But I also have two spare Dell 2007's with 1900x1600 resolution. My original plan was to put these either side using a triple mount when I finally finish the office.

I had that problem too. But I couldn't find a triple mount that would work for me. So I used separate mounts to keep the monitors on the edge:

yTg0W84.jpg
 
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,508
Location
Surrey
Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2006
Posts
7,224
Multiple monitors certainly solve a lot of problems... but as you point out, the biggest issue is space. Loads of stands available these days though, so you should be able to find a solution that works. Worst case, you can always get a new desk lol!
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Aug 2003
Posts
20,158
Location
Woburn Sand Dunes
Those aren't ultrawides, but ultra low with less vertical image size while consuming more desk space.

This hurts my head. It's a wide aspect ratio, much wider than 16:9 so yes it's bleeding obvious it's going to take up more desk space. And since it's much wider, ultrawide is a perfectly acceptable name.

As far as not being tall enough, well, that depends if you want something taller doesn't it?(obvious again). 13.4" tall is more than enough for me and I've tried just about everything including a 4x (2x2) 29" UW display wall.

Where productivity is concerned, anything you do on a 3440x1440 UW can be done on a 3840x2160 4k panel with room to spare. It just won't look as awesomesauce on your desk as a big UW.

Monitors have simply more devolved than evolved, with all this marketing BS for western consumers with more slanted eyes than orientals.

Woah.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
OP
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,508
Location
Surrey
Presumably if my GPU struggles to drive a 4K monitor for the latest games then I could drop the resolution to 1920x1080? I appreciate it's not ideal but I don't game much but for FPS games back in my Quake days I always valued framerate over visual quality.
 
Back
Top Bottom