TR Forums

Any suggestion fellow Gerbils? I'm looking for 27-29" screen size. I've been looking at the Dell UltraSharp U2913WM 29" and it gets very positive reviews. It'll be mainly used for gaming, I play mainly RTS/Turn based games so really image quality is paramount for me, as I can deal with slightly higher input high as a result if the image quality is top notch.

What about LG's 21:9 34" 2560-1080 panel......The 29" 21:9 panels are really short when it comes to height. I Would get a 34" if I had the money for it.
Here is a 29" AOC http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... &rrindex=3

I am pretty sure LG makes the majority of the 21:9 panels especially the 34" ones.
You missed the LG 34" 2560-1080 panel at tiger direct for 384$ !!! that was with a 15$ off coupon code...needless to say they sold out!
I want the 3440-1440 resolution 34" panel but if I had $384 and would have caught that deal at the same time I probably would have pulled the trigger on that 34" 2560-1080 buy.
Keep Hunting for deals.

vargis14 wrote:

What about LG's 21:9 34" 2560-1080 panel......The 29" 21:9 panels are really short when it comes to height. I Would get a 34" if I had the money for it.
Here is a 29" AOC http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications ... &rrindex=3

I am pretty sure LG makes the majority of the 21:9 panels especially the 34" ones.
You missed the LG 34" 2560-1080 panel at tiger direct for 384$ !!! that was with a 15$ off coupon code...needless to say they sold out!
I want the 3440-1440 resolution 34" panel but if I had $384 and would have caught that deal at the same time I probably would have pulled the trigger on that 34" 2560-1080 buy.
Keep Hunting for deals.

That AOC looks pretty good mind. I'm in the UK so I'll have a dig for prices for that if it's available. Not sure my budget or desk would stretch to a 34" mind!

Just stumbled into this thread, I did not know about the LG 34UM95 34" IPS Panorama UltraWide QHD Monitor. Wowza! I'm on 2560x1440 now and my next monitor is very likely a 4K, but I love the UltraWide format for writing and gaming.

...definitely gonna need another 290....

MethylONE wrote:

Just stumbled into this thread, I did not know about the LG 34UM95 34" IPS Panorama UltraWide QHD Monitor. Wowza! I'm on 2560x1440 now and my next monitor is very likely a 4K, but I love the UltraWide format for writing and gaming.

...definitely gonna need another 290....

Methy,
I think 34 INCHES of 3440-1440 QHD IPS panel has plenty of pixels, its approx 2.4-2.5 times the pixels of 1080p not 4 times 1080p like UHD is. So it will be easier on your graphics card and I am sure the color and picture is gorgeous. I would want UHD on a monitor bigger then 34" but 30" and under I think UHD is a waste since the pixels are so small. Plus how is the font situation in Windows 8 for UHD anyways? I think I recall people saying its very randomly tiny or big on chrome and other programs are hit and miss when it comes to UHD support. I like the SUPER WIDE 34" 3440-1440...its like having 2 monitors @ once with no bezel and easily can show 2 full windows side by side for productivity and a full widescreen gaming panel for playing games. I know It would make for great peripheral vision especially if you race sims in cockpit mode when running side by side with another racer I think it would be wide enough to see your opponent until your rear view picks him up.

The bottom line is it is all what you want...you have a 1440p monitor whereas I do not so you would know better then me if 34" of 3440-1440 QHD res compares to UHD and if it is plenty for at least the next 3 years.

I do know if I ever get a second monitor it will be a kickstand USB3 powered 13-16" 1366-768 and up panel that can be quickly put anywhere and away when I want it and I am gaming on the 34" 21-9 for monitoring teamspeak, temps watching TV shows or a movie playing or whatever. But it will be nice to be able to quickly put it away when I am not using it instead of a permanent 2nd monitor cluttering up and taking up precious space on the desktop. That space is for all your junk like your PC xbox controller, a joystick maybe a ashtray even one of those new Razer Orbweaver mechanical keypad to replace my OLD rubber domed belkin N52 keypad. It has a lot way much more awesome r thumb controls that look like they would work awesome in FPS games compared to my old ancient N52 keypad Now I got off subject dreaming about new stuff I cannot afford.

Every time someone mentions a 2560x1080 display I ridicule them till they buy something else.

Why would anyone ever go for a 2560x1080 panel that is the bastardization of 2560x1440 and 1920x1080? You can get a 2560x1440 for ~$300 bucks now. Even the Dell Ultrasharps, with great color accuracy, can be had for ~$450 when they go on sale. Why pay more to get less? I bought my 4K display for $370 on sale. Granted 30fps, but it is 4K! That's like having 4 1080p displays in each corner - no bezels in the way.

21:9 is just a stupid gimmick. If you've already bought into it, then so be it. But you would have to be a complete dummy to pay money for one considering the alternatives available in the market at this point.

LASR wrote:

Every time someone mentions a 2560x1080 display I ridicule them till they buy something else.

Why would anyone ever go for a 2560x1080 panel that is the bastardization of 2560x1440 and 1920x1080? You can get a 2560x1440 for ~$300 bucks now. Even the Dell Ultrasharps, with great color accuracy, can be had for ~$450 when they go on sale. Why pay more to get less? I bought my 4K display for $370 on sale. Granted 30fps, but it is 4K! That's like having 4 1080p displays in each corner - no bezels in the way.

21:9 is just a stupid gimmick. If you've already bought into it, then so be it. But you would have to be a complete dummy to pay money for one considering the alternatives available in the market at this point.

I wouldn't call it a gimmick, but I would call it a poor choice due to the majority of games not supporting that aspect ratio. Support for it will improve over time, but I imagine it will continue to be an issue for indie games and non AAA titles for quite a while.

As for your 4K monitor, I think that's an even poorer choice, as in addition to the resolution issues mentioned above, you need to spend a small fortune on GPUs just to get respectable framerates.

A few years ago NEC released a beastly curved monitor but it didn't last long. Maybe now that panel manufacturers are turning out curved screens for status seeking consumers we'll see the idea revamped. A curved 21:9 or similar monitor would be just about ideal IMO.

The Egg wrote:

As for your 4K monitor, I think that's an even poorer choice, as in addition to the resolution issues mentioned above, you need to spend a small fortune on GPUs just to get respectable framerates.

What resolution issues? UHD 4K is an exact pixel doubling of 1080p. For GPUs/games that can't handle 4K, run them at 1080p and get perfectly sharp images that fill your entire screen. This is way better than having stupid pillarboxing on an ultrawide monitor. As for performance, I run a $299 R9 280X. It runs modern RTSes super well on 4K.

I don't think you would contest that mainstream support in games will come to 4K well before they do for 21:9.

Besides, your line of argument has historically always been invalidated due to the rapid exponential growth of processing power. Right from "640k ought to be enough for anybody," anyone who has put forward this myopic argument has been wrong. GPU performance increases much much faster than screen pixel counts. A typical mainstream GPU costs much less than one of these displays. All in all, you are bound to upgrade your GPU much more frequently than your display. Spending more money for less pixels simply because your existing (and soon to be obsolete) GPU may not be able to handle it is an obviously stupid move.

LASR wrote:

The Egg wrote:

As for your 4K monitor, I think that's an even poorer choice, as in addition to the resolution issues mentioned above, you need to spend a small fortune on GPUs just to get respectable framerates.

What resolution issues? UHD 4K is an exact pixel doubling of 1080p. For GPUs/games that can't handle 4K, run them at 1080p and get perfectly sharp images that fill your entire screen. This is way better than having stupid pillarboxing on an ultrawide monitor. As for performance, I run a $299 R9 280X. It runs modern RTSes super well on 4K.

I don't think you would contest that mainstream support in games will come to 4K well before they do for 21:9.

Besides, your line of argument has historically always been invalidated due to the rapid exponential growth of processing power. Right from "640k ought to be enough for anybody," anyone who has put forward this myopic argument has been wrong. GPU performance increases much much faster than screen pixel counts. A typical mainstream GPU costs much less than one of these displays. All in all, you are bound to upgrade your GPU much more frequently than your display. Spending more money for less pixels simply because your existing (and soon to be obsolete) GPU may not be able to handle it is an obviously stupid move.

Someone who bought a 30 fps 4k monitor shouldn't cast stones.

Voldenuit wrote:

Someone who bought a 30 fps 4k monitor shouldn't cast stones.

For $370 bucks. That is all. I win.

+1 for 4k. 4k is getting less expensive very quickly.

The one featured in the TR front page is super tempting for $649.
http://techreport.com/review/26510/4k-for-649-asus-pb287q-monitor-reviewed

EDIT: Meh. It's TN.

LASR wrote:

What resolution issues? UHD 4K is an exact pixel doubling (sic) of 1080p. For GPUs/games that can't handle 4K, run them at 1080p and get perfectly sharp images that fill your entire screen. This is way better than having stupid pillarboxing on an ultrawide monitor. As for performance, I run a $299 R9 280X. It runs modern RTSes super well on 4K.

I suppose it's kindof neat that 1080p divides evenly into 4K (3840 x 2160). That should give you a usable resolution for the several years it's going to be until the majority of games support that resolution. It'll also give you something to fall back on when your 280X can't pull off more 15fps (probably the majority of the time right now).

LASR wrote:

Besides, your line of argument has historically always been invalidated due to the rapid exponential growth of processing power. Right from "640k ought to be enough for anybody," anyone who has put forward this myopic argument has been wrong. GPU performance increases much much faster than screen pixel counts. A typical mainstream GPU costs much less than one of these displays. All in all, you are bound to upgrade your GPU much more frequently than your display. Spending more money for less pixels simply because your existing (and soon to be obsolete) GPU may not be able to handle it is an obviously stupid move.

It's interesting you mention "640k", because that was misquoted over 10 years later, and had nothing to do with processing power. The 4K resolution (3840 x 2160) is actually FOUR TIMES (4x) the number of pixels as 1080p virtually overnight. Yes, GPU power is always increasing, but nowhere near fast enough to cover that increase in requirements. New games also use more visual effects, which negates a moderate percentage of the GPU's generational gains. Current benchmarks show that if you want to consistently hit even 40fps at 3840 x 2160 with decent settings, you're going to need to spend a minimum of $800 for dual-290's or better. You're also going to need to regularly upgrade those (probably at least every 18 months), and take a beating each time.

I'm lost as to how that saves money over a $180-230 GPU every 2-3 years.

Thanks for the input, Vargis14 I've found that AOC in the UK from Amazon with Free delivery:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-Q2963PM-inch-Ultrawide-Monitor/dp/B00BLZAYHC


I think I'll pull the trigger this weekend after I've checked a few more out

Thanks for you help



Edit: Spelling

Anandtech just reviewed the new LG 34UM95 21:9 monitor and were seemingly impressed. The higher resolution is good (3440x1440) but I think the price is a bit steep at $1K, that's good 4K price. Still it's good to see more products in this form.

AOC is now getting in on the 3440x1440 game. They're launching the U3477PQU this month which RPS says will retail for around £500. That's half the price of the LG 34UM95 and it has an adjustable stand too. I'll be awaiting reviews for this eagerly.

I cannot wait for a 3440-1440 monitor that costs $500 USD. Like i previously stated it has only 2.4 X the pixels and not 4 X the pixels a 4K monitor has thus making it easier on our graphics cards.
As for the few games that do not support the ultra widescreen I can deal with 2560-1440 and a couple black bars. For the games that do support widescreen....look out since i have good peripheral vision for racing, Flying, and FPS games and no freaking bezels.

I like 4k but it gives you nothing 1080p already gives you since it is 4-1 ratio. At least with 3440 vs 2560 you almost get a extra 450 pixels of width on either side of your 2560 monitor.

I am also happy more companies are coming out with them....that will bring the price down.
Just like I hope AMD/ATI hang in there and fight the good fight to keep NVidia in line price and performance wise.