Monitors Ultra Wide? Yes or No

Should I buy an UW display for gaming?

  • Total voters
    10
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

saumilsingh

Galvanizer
When buying a new monitor today, does it make sense to migrate to UW 21:9 or is it better to stick to 16:9?
Talking strictly about 2k resolutions here i.e. 2560x1080. The GPUs required to power 21:9 at 4k are out of my reach.

My usage will be limited to games and movies.
And the way things are looking atm, both of those appear to be objectively better at 21:9 (no black bars in movies and games look incredible).

The only problems are:
- Lack of support in some games leading to vertical bars
- Lack of sufficient GPU power (my GTX 1060 6GB should be enough for 2560x1080 right?)

I realize that neither are problems caused by 21:9, but they are problems nonetheless.
Similar to how it all went down when the paradigm shifted from 4:3 to 16:9.

My Dell 22" is on its deathbed and out of warranty and the urge to go for an Ultra Wide display is strong.
So is it time yet?
 
Last edited:
What size are you looking at? And what's the pixel pitch for monitors you are looking at? Compare it with 1080p displays of similar size.

Plus you'll have to consider that any ratio other than 21:9, which is usually lower than that, would have vertical bars on both sides.
 
These ultrawide monitors are excellent for productivity. Games have to support the resolution natively. e.g. ME Andromeda does. Other games, like you said would have vertical bars or they will be stretched to fill the screens. If you play a lot of older games, then either dont buy this monitor or get a new cheap 16:9 monitor also. This is the same transition we had back when games were moving from 4:3 (1024x768 etc.) to 16:9 (720p etc.). New games will definitely support it. Old games may have to be "fixed" for compatibility. You can check the link below for the said fixes:
http://www.wsgf.org/

Movies, again, have to natively support this resolution. I have no clue as to what can be done about them, unfortunately.
 
atiamd said:
Movies, again, have to natively support this resolution. I have no clue as to what can be done about them, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Movies are natively 21:9. You get no black bars unlike a 16:9 display where you get bars on the top and bottom.

One more reason why 21:9 is the one true meant-to-be ratio. Games and movies both look objectively better.
But lack of guaranteed support in all games keeps the gaming community from embracing it.

If only the industry captains stopped focussing on the simplistic numbers bump that is 4k, and realized that a ratio bump is the better way ahead.
 
The only reasonably priced 2560x1080 (29") displays are from LG. And LG has some of the most polarised consumer opinions.
Spending 30k+ on primary display isn't exactly a bad thing, but those 20k LG displays are so very tempting.

My current monitor still hasn't died so I still have time to think about it.
Definitely going for 21:9 though, been playing Metro Redux and the game feels so wasted on 16:9.
 
I have LG 29UB67 + LG 22" IPS (portrait mount)

If you are looking for productivity ... then you should go for the ultrawides. Even with a single monitor there is enough room to open 2 documents. Enough room on timeline if you are into audio/video editing.

Games - Far Cry 5 and GTA V looked good with so much wide space. But then I may not be a good judge as I do not game much. Card is GTX 960.
Movies too look better on 21:9. Games and movies looks kind of immersive, if one is at right distance.

Only thing to consider -> With UW of 29" .. I'm not happy with Vertical space I get. I feel 34" will be better as the height would then match that of a 25"(16:9) .. 29"(21:9) gives a feel of horizontally stretched 22"
 
mk76 said:
I have LG 29UB67 + LG 22" IPS (portrait mount)

If you are looking for productivity ... then you should go for the ultrawides. Even with a single monitor there is enough room to open 2 documents. Enough room on timeline if you are into audio/video editing.

Games - Far Cry 5 and GTA V looked good with so much wide space. But then I may not be a good judge as I do not game much. Card is GTX 960.
Movies too look better on 21:9. Games and movies looks kind of immersive, if one is at right distance.

Only thing to consider -> With UW of 29" .. I'm not happy with Vertical space I get. I feel 34" will be better as the height would then match that of a 25"(16:9) .. 29"(21:9) gives a feel of horizontally stretched 22"
Click to expand...

How old are your LG monitors, any complaints so far? Specifically in regards to build quality, performance and customer support.
Most complaints I read were related to build quality and RMA.

For work stuff I agree 34" would be better for the bigger pixels, but for gaming it would be too much of a loss in pixel density translating into bigger visible jaggies.

22" has the ideal vertical height for 1920x1080 gaming. Personally I already find it to be too visibly jaggy but Nvidia DSR helps a ton by artificially packing in more pixels per square inch.
Hence only considering 2560x1080 displays which are of similar vertical height.

A 29" screen in 21:9 seems to be the size closest to a 22" in 16:9.
 
Last edited:
22" is 5+ and 29" 2+ years.

My primary need is work + occasional editing. That's where I find 29" having less vertical length. For gaming you may be right about pixel density.
 
I think the ultra wide is really only desirable if you're a gamer who plays a lot of first-person shooter games where you need the extra peripheral field of view.
 
^ Ultra Wide is objectively better for work and movies. There's little doubt about that.

It's only under contention for gaming where I feel it's a matter of whether you have convinced yourself or not.

Either you feel 16:9 is sufficient and 21:9 isn't worth the issues caused by lack of proper support throughout the board.
Or you are already finding 16:9 too constricted, and can live with improper support in 3/10 games in return for enjoying a much more expansive aspect ratio in the remaining 7/10.

Games like Metro and Dead Space, one can really feel how restrictive 16:9 is.
Simply increasing the fov is not even close to the actual thing, not to mention the fish-eye it induces.


I am just waiting for my current monitor to die :P.
 
saumilsingh said:
^ Ultra Wide is objectively better for work and movies. There's little doubt about that.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with this. Ultra wide is better for multitasking and work which requires more horizontal space but at the same time, it is less ideal for work which requires more vertical space. Ultra wide or not, a bigger monitor with more resolution is always better for work or media consumption. I have a 1440P 27" monitor and I can open 2 windows side by side with ultra wide I could probably open 3 but then the vertical space on 16:9 is really useful for some task like excel sheet editing, web browsing and I can't compromise on that. For movies and videos, I have Potplyer and SVP set up which detects and cuts those pesky black bars from every video and fills the whole screen. Without those black bars movies and videos looks amazing. Both 16:9 and 21:9 has their pros and cons none of them is better. Bigger displays are better, this is why some people have started using 40" 4K TVs as monitors but it is not easy to find TVs with Chroma 4:4:4 support, low response time and good PQ at least in India.
 
Last edited:
Him said:
For movies and videos, I have Potplyer and SVP set up which detects and cuts those pesky black bars from every video and fills the whole screen.
Click to expand...

Even for movies with wider aspect ratios (The Hateful Eight or Ben-Hur) or movies like The Grand Budapest Hotel which was made with black bars in mind?

Cause that's just blasphemy IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NotMyRealName
Him said:
I have to disagree with this. Ultra wide is better for multitasking and work which requires more horizontal space but at the same time, it is less ideal for work which requires more vertical space. Ultra wide or not, a bigger monitor with more resolution is always better for work or media consumption. I have a 1440P 27" monitor and I can open 2 windows side by side with ultra wide I could probably open 3 but then the vertical space on 16:9 is really useful for some task like excel sheet editing, web browsing and I can't compromise on that. For movies and videos, I have Potplyer and SVP set up which detects and cuts those pesky black bars from every video and fills the whole screen. Without those black bars movies and videos looks amazing. Both 16:9 and 21:9 has their pros and cons none of them is better. Bigger displays are better, this is why some people have started using 40" 4K TVs as monitors but it is not easy to find TVs with Chroma 4:4:4 support, low response time and good PQ at least in India.
Click to expand...

21:9 doesn't have less vertical space (which is number of pixels), it's exactly the same amount of vertical space as 16:9; which is 9 units.
What you mean to say is that an UW 27" has less height than a regular 27".

While that is true, it's only half the picture.
One really shouldn't compare different aspect ratios using the same yardstick of diagonal inches.
It's like comparing a 17" 4:3 to a 17" 16:9. The 4:3 display would obviously be bigger, but nobody would place them in the same tier would they?

Similarly, a 27" 21:9 and a 27" 16:9 are in two very different size tiers.
A fair comparison can only be made between a 34" 21:9 and a 27" 16:9, in which case the former will equal the vertical height of the latter and exceed the horizontal space and width by 33%.


Here's a proper apples to apples (ergo same verticality) comparison between an UW 34" and a regular 27".
Should be pretty obvious now which one is the clear winner for work and media consumption :).

kmo2_Wwu.jpg



Suffice to say the standard Diagonal Inches system is found lacking when dealing with different aspect ratios.
Maybe it's time they switched to Vertical Inches, or heck make it completely future proof with Square Inches.
 
Last edited:
Mr.J said:
Even for movies with wider aspect ratios (The Hateful Eight or Ben-Hur) or movies like The Grand Budapest Hotel which was made with black bars in mind?

Cause that's just blasphemy IMO.
Click to expand...
Downloaded the official trailer of The Hateful Eight to check how it fares after removal of black bars. Check the 2 screenshots, it looks far better to me after the black bars were gone. Your opinion might differ.
eight 1.jpg eight.jpg
 
saumilsingh said:
21:9 doesn't have less vertical space (which is number of pixels), it's exactly the same amount of vertical space as 16:9; which is 9 units.
What you mean to say is that an UW 27" has less height than a regular 27".

While that is true, it's only half the picture.
One really shouldn't compare different aspect ratios using the same yardstick of diagonal inches.
It's like comparing a 17" 4:3 to a 17" 16:9. The 4:3 display would obviously be bigger, but nobody would place them in the same tier would they?

Similarly, a 27" 21:9 and a 27" 16:9 are in two very different size tiers.
A fair comparison can only be made between a 34" 21:9 and a 27" 16:9, in which case the former will equal the vertical height of the latter and exceed the horizontal space and width by 33%.


Here's a proper apples to apples (ergo same verticality) comparison between an UW 34" and a regular 27".
Should be pretty obvious now which one is the clear winner for work and media consumption :).

Suffice to say the standard Diagonal Inches system is found lacking when dealing with different aspect ratios.
Maybe it's time they switched to Vertical Inches, or heck make it completely future proof with Square Inches.
Click to expand...
Yes, I meant height, thanks. We can compare a 27" to a 34" UW but price-wise we're moving to 43" 4K territory.
 
Last edited:
We're discussing getting an UW to reduce the letterboxing while maintaining aspect ratio. If someone doesn't understand why proper aspect ratio is important, and that the letterboxing is only to maintain that, then they probably need to go do some research first. opinion about something looking better doesn't mean sh!t if a round object appears oval, for example, just because you wanted to remove black bars. But hey, this could be good for short actors i guess... ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom