Ultrawide Decision

[Deders]

I'll be pulling the trigger this friday on an Ultrawide, either the Dell U2913WM, or one of the LG models.

The only thing putting me off the Dell is the 16ms+ input lag, which in addition Vsync might make gameplay that much harder as my reactions aren't what they used to be these days. I'm also wondering if they used a different anti glare coating on the panel than all the rest. I know it's less coarse than the older Dell panels.

It's difficult to find any good information on the variety of LG models so I guess I'd want to go for the EA93 so long as it had been updated to at least firmware v1.25 which brings very fast response times and better colours/contrast ratio then previous revisions.

I have a feeling I'll be using this monitor for a very long time so I want to get it right. Has anybody seen these side by side

 

[Attic]

I've seen the 34UM95 (34" 21x9 3440x1440 IPS) from LG and was blown away from my brief look at it. I didn't see games on it, but it advertises 5ms response time.

I compared it to a 2560x1080 29" ultrawide from LG and where the ratio for a 29" didn't look right (not enough height of screen area) the 34" with the slightly more robust height looked tits on for my taste.

 

[toyota]

have fun getting all your games to run "properly" on a 21:9 screen.

 

[blastingcap]

I considered but ultimately turned down the idea for many reasons:

- nonstandard aspect ratio means ugly black bars on 16:9 media, though it may be better for anamorphic movies
- nonstandard aspect ratio may mean software issues for some games, especially those made by has-been, pathetic excuses for companies like ActivisionBlizzard that lock down aspect ratios for games like SC2
- there are already reports of driver issues when you try to Crossfire w/ these panels, and possibly Eyefinity-ing w/ them
- worse FOV than my 3x1080p array which gives me WAY more information about my surroundings since it's 48:9 aspect ratio instead of a puny 21:9, and no the bezels really don't matter when you're playing the game in Eyefinity, as opposed to watching someone else playing the game... if you disagree then feel free to remove the a-pillars from your car. When you're playing, the bezels fade away from your perception, like the a-pillars of your car do when you're driving.
- while the AH-IPS on the LG screens may be nice, my eIPS screens are doing fine
- 34" isn't as big as you'd think if it's being dragged over a narrower rectangle; the total surface area is probably comparable to a 30" 16:10 screen, and I'd DEFINITELY rather have the 30" 16:10 screen
- current displays do not have the logic necessary for GSync or Adaptive Sync
- no VESA mount on the LG model I was looking at

and most importantly

- Not enough pixels, and not enough pixel density. Pixel density isn't as high as it would be for 4K, and If I am editing a photo at 100%, I want as many pixels on he screen as possible; similarly I want high dpi for games so I can turn off anti aliasing. That was the biggest nail in the coffin of the idea of going 2560x1080. That resolution is like 1.33K--not good enough. There are also the higher-rez 21:9 panels that are more like ~2.5K or something, but that's still not UHD (~4K) resolution.

 

[AkumaX]

honestly it depends what game you're intending on using

i played CS:GO on the Dell 29" UW, and there was some slight clipping, but it was *glorious*

also, if anyone's on the fence on trying out a 21:9 (2560x1080), you can pick up the LG 25" version @ Costco for only $250, and rely on their generous return policy

 

[toyota]

well really all you have to do is get a nice 27 inch 2560x1440 screen and run 2560x1080 for the games that support it. I would rather have small black bars top and bottom than black bars on the side. heck if you have a 1920x1080 screen then all you have to do is run games in 1920x810 to see what 21:9 looks like. some games will work fine, some will have anomalies, some will cut of top and bottom and zoom in, and some will not run in 21:9 at all. I would much rather have all the horizontal and vertical space of a 2560x1440 screen and run what game I want to in 2560x1080 than to be limited to that res for everything.

 

[MongGrel]

Lots of people love the 1440, and I really haven't been gaming a lot.

I still do love my U2913WM though.

But I got it cheap at the time too.

 

[Stuka87]

- nonstandard aspect ratio may mean software issues for some games, especially those made by has-been, pathetic excuses for companies like ActivisionBlizzard that lock down aspect ratios for games like SC2

While a bit off topic, this is done on purpose so that everybody sees the same amount of the map. This is not uncommon for RTS games.

As for the 21:9 screen, I would never buy one unless all I did was look at spreadsheets all day they had a tone of columns. I think they would be terrible for gaming for many of the reasons stated above.

 

[Wag]

I just bought the 34UM95. Great display. Playing Bioshock Infinite right now, runs fine in widescreen. For the most part all new FPS support 21:9 (Battlefield 4, etc), and even games like Infinite Crisis support it as well. There are a few holdouts though.

If the game doesn't support it you have to play it 16:9 with black bars on the sides.

 

[blastingcap]

While a bit off topic, this is done on purpose so that everybody sees the same amount of the map. This is not uncommon for RTS games.

As for the 21:9 screen, I would never buy one unless all I did was look at spreadsheets all day they had a tone of columns. I think they would be terrible for gaming for many of the reasons stated above.

SC2 doesn't ban people from using fancy keyboards, mice, bigger and better monitors of the same aspect ratio with lower input lag and higher refresh rates, etc., but the moment you go eyefinity they ban-hammer it? For everyone? Ridiculous! And if you're gonna do that then why allow 16:9? Why not force everyone to 4:3? Just because 16:9 is deemed common enough? Whatever.

If ActivBladder wants to ban >16:9 aspect ratios in tournaments that's fine, but for non-tourney games, regular gamers already have tons of differences in hardware anyway.

But yeah off topic.

 

[Deders]

I've already pretty much made up my mind that I'll be going 21:9, either that or there is a Samsung 3D TV with an amazing picture quality going cheap in a cash generators nearby which would be just as big for movies. but i'll have to look into that.

I was originally asking about differences between the 2 models, not a critique on 21:9 monitors in general. But since we're here...

The main reasons are for watching movies from the other side of the room, something that a 2560x1440 monitor won't have the extra width for.

I have a better chance of not having to fork out another £400 on a graphics card (and therefore another £100 on a PSU) to be able to run games with 2560x1080.

I'd like to experience Ultrawide but I don't have the desk space for 3 monitors and I don't want to have to upgrade to an SLI config just to be able to power them properly. I feel 21:9 will be plenty immersive, and a lot of people that have actually used them will testify to this.

I've seen the 34UM95 (34" 21x9 3440x1440 IPS) from LG and was blown away from my brief look at it. I didn't see games on it, but it advertises 5ms response time.

I compared it to a 2560x1080 29" ultrawide from LG and where the ratio for a 29" didn't look right (not enough height of screen area) the 34" with the slightly more robust height looked tits on for my taste.

The 34" does look like the most ideal but it's bit of a different beast it has a 10 bit display amongst other things so I can't really compare them side to side. I'd also probably need an SLI rig to power it properly.

have fun getting all your games to run "properly" on a 21:9 screen.

I'm a tweaker (in the computer sense) I've been tweaking all my life, I'm looking forward to the challenge. Most games will run fine out of the box. I'm expecting about the same level of games support as I got when I upgraded from 5:4 to widescreen 5 years ago.

I considered but ultimately turned down the idea for many reasons:

- nonstandard aspect ratio means ugly black bars on 16:9 media, though it may be better for anamorphic movies

I can probably live with this especially in the dark, even 16:9 media will be slightly bigger than it is on my current 1680x1050 monitor. It's the anamorphic movies that seem too small.

- nonstandard aspect ratio may mean software issues for some games, especially those made by has-been, pathetic excuses for companies like ActivisionBlizzard that lock down aspect ratios for games like SC2

I expect this in some games but if the gameplay is good enough I don't think i'll mind

- there are already reports of driver issues when you try to Crossfire w/ these panels, and possibly Eyefinity-ing w/ them

Won't be using Crossfire any time soon.

- worse FOV than my 3x1080p array which gives me WAY more information about my surroundings since it's 48:9 aspect ratio instead of a puny 21:9, and no the bezels really don't matter when you're playing the game in Eyefinity, as opposed to watching someone else playing the game... if you disagree then feel free to remove the a-pillars from your car. When you're playing, the bezels fade away from your perception, like the a-pillars of your car do when you're driving.

Don't have the deskpace or GPU grunt for 3 monitors, or enough room for a stand.

- while the AH-IPS on the LG screens may be nice, my eIPS screens are doing fine

I'm upgrading form TN so it should be an improvement.

- 34" isn't as big as you'd think if it's being dragged over a narrower rectangle; the total surface area is probably comparable to a 30" 16:10 screen, and I'd DEFINITELY rather have the 30" 16:10 screen

Going from 1680x1050 I won't feel the loss of space that 1440p+ users might. And I'll still be able to put 2 documents side by side which is something I don't currently have enough space for.

- current displays do not have the logic necessary for GSync or Adaptive Sync

I use Triple buffering, not going to fork out extra for a monitor that pretty much does the same job.

- no VESA mount on the LG model I was looking at

Don't need a mount, but the Dell has one.

- Not enough pixels, and not enough pixel density. Pixel density isn't as high as it would be for 4K, and If I am editing a photo at 100%, I want as many pixels on he screen as possible; similarly I want high dpi for games so I can turn off anti aliasing. That was the biggest nail in the coffin of the idea of going 2560x1080. That resolution is like 1.33K--not good enough. There are also the higher-rez 21:9 panels that are more like ~2.5K or something, but that's still not UHD (~4K) resolution.

Again 4k would need more GPU grunt than I can afford. I'll wait for it to become more mainstream. The pixels on these will still be smaller than my current monitor.

 

[Deders]

SC2 doesn't ban people from using fancy keyboards, mice, bigger and better monitors of the same aspect ratio with lower input lag and higher refresh rates, etc., but the moment you go eyefinity they ban-hammer it? For everyone? Ridiculous! And if you're gonna do that then why allow 16:9? Why not force everyone to 4:3? Just because 16:9 is deemed common enough? Whatever.

If ActivBladder wants to ban >16:9 aspect ratios in tournaments that's fine, but for non-tourney games, regular gamers already have tons of differences in hardware anyway.

But yeah off topic.

There is a program that will allow you to play SCII in single player, but likely to get you banned in multi:

http://www.flawlesswidescreen.org/#FWSSupportedTitles

 

[blastingcap]

There is a program that will allow you to play SCII in single player, but likely to get you banned in multi:

http://www.flawlesswidescreen.org/#FWSSupportedTitles

SC2 is primarily a multiplayer game, I am talking about regular non-tournament games allowing >16:9. Or how about an opt-out where if you use eyefinity you can't play ranked games, i.e. games do not count towards your rank in league.

Team Fortress 2, BF4, and many other games allow multimonitor. Yeah ok, SC2 is intended to be a serious, competitive game with tournaments and all unlike TF2/BF4/etc., but allowing people to "opt out" and disqualify themselves from league play seems fair.

ActivBunghole wants to preserve SC2's purity somehow by banning eyefinity, but it's not pure in the first place. You can buy a more powerful CPU, GPU, better and faster refresh monitors with lower input lag, better keyboards, mice, mousepads, headphones/speakers, etc., and in some cases those could offer bigger advantages than the peripheral vision granted by Eyefinity.

Why stop the nannying at 16:9? Why not force everyone to play at 5:4 and have black bars on the sides? 16:9 is an semi-arbitrary cutoff. Setting that cutoff is like setting an arbitary cutoff for CPU or GPU strength or frames per second. I imagine it'd be easy enough to set a frame limit for SC2 in the game engine, so why not implement that, too?

I am voting with my wallet. Not buying further SC2 games beyond Wings of Liberty.

Rant over, let's get back on topic.

Although not quite accurate, let's say 1920x1080 = 1K. It's close enough to 2 megapixels for purposes of this conversation.

An ultrawide 2560x1080 (~1.33K resolution) is an upgrade for those coming from a far smaller, lower-rez monitor, but for the same price or less, you could get one of those Korean 27" 2560x1440 monitors (1.78K resolution), so why would you opt for the 34" ultrawide unless you really, really value being able to split your screen down the middle for productivity purposes that rely more on horizontal pixels? (Korean 27" = two 1280x1440 windows; ultrwide 1080p = two 1280x1080 windows... the Korean 27" gives you 33% more vertical pixels per window).

Alternatively, 3x1080p eIPS monitors cost less than one Korean 27" or one 34" 2560x1080 monitor and are even better for productivity... you get a massive 3K resolution instead of 1.78K and 1.33K (for the Korean 27" and ultrawide 1080p screens, respectively). If you are worried you don't have enough GPU power for that, just game on the central 1080p screen. And yes, you can split-screen each of the three screens as well. I've had six browser windows open before when doing things like comparing lens MTF charts, as just one example.

Up until now I have talked about 2560x1080 screens only. $1k+ ultrawides with 1440p resolution are another animal. Those are about 2.5k resolution and if they have good input lag and refresh rates, can serve as good general-purpose monitors. But they also cost $1k+ right now and have some of the disadvantages I already laid out.

 

[KingFatty]

I'm still worried about whether ultrawide will be adopted as the way forward, or if it will wither and die off as a gimmick? I dunno, it seems awesome but in the past, awesome technology can sometimes fall by the wayside because of dumb reasons like advertising or herd/group thinking that may just choose whatever is simplest and cheapest.

Anyone have any sales trends/market shares etc. to see where this is going?

 

[Wag]

Ultrawide is good for productivity and if you're into movies. For gaming it's OK.

I only hope Watch Dogs supports it.

 

[Midwayman]

The ultrawides aren't gaming monitors. It that's important to you I would avoid. I'd spend the money towards cheaper 16:9 in a triple setup.

 

[bepo]

I bought the LG 34UM95 at microcenter a week ago and so far love it.

I'm coming from a 24" 16:9 1080p TN monitor so this is a huge upgrade for me. The monitor is amazing for productivity and general browsing since you essentially have two 5:4 monitors at your disposal with more pixels each than a 16:9 1080p. My favorite use is putting a live stream on the left half and then using the right half for browsing the web while I watch. Movies look amazing in 21:9 with no black bars which is nice since I was watching movies on my PC more often then my TV anyways.

I currently have a 670 so I couldn't crank up the settings but playing Skyrim was absolutely amazing. It took 2 minutes to edit the config file to the right resolution and it loaded right up. The monitor definitely needs more GPU horsepower since the number of pixels is closer to 4k than 1080p but even with my 670 it wasn't too slow with settings toned down.

I don't have experience with any of the 21:9 1080p monitors but I'd imagine 29" would work better than 34" if you're looking at them. At 34" the 1440p image looks really sharp and pixel density is good but I could see 1080p being stretched a bit. With 21:9 I think it's best to stick to the sizes that correlate with the standard 16:9 sizes (24"->29" and 27"->34").

 

[AkumaX]

I bought the LG 34UM95 at microcenter a week ago and so far love it.

I'm coming from a 24" 16:9 1080p TN monitor so this is a huge upgrade for me. The monitor is amazing for productivity and general browsing since you essentially have two 5:4 monitors at your disposal with more pixels each than a 16:9 1080p. My favorite use is putting a live stream on the left half and then using the right half for browsing the web while I watch. Movies look amazing in 21:9 with no black bars which is nice since I was watching movies on my PC more often then my TV anyways.

I currently have a 670 so I couldn't crank up the settings but playing Skyrim was absolutely amazing. It took 2 minutes to edit the config file to the right resolution and it loaded right up. The monitor definitely needs more GPU horsepower since the number of pixels is closer to 4k than 1080p but even with my 670 it wasn't too slow with settings toned down.

I don't have experience with any of the 21:9 1080p monitors but I'd imagine 29" would work better than 34" if you're looking at them. At 34" the 1440p image looks really sharp and pixel density is good but I could see 1080p being stretched a bit. With 21:9 I think it's best to stick to the sizes that correlate with the standard 16:9 sizes (24"->29" and 27"->34").

This is the argument that 21:9 29" 2560x1080p naysayers go with: why get a monitor that gives you LESS vertical than a 27" 2560x1440p!

The 2560x1080p @ 29" ends up being 2 x 17"~ (?) 5:4 monitors @ 1280x1080.

Now with the 34" 3440x1440, you'd have 2 x 20"~ (?) 5:4 monitors @ 1720x1440.

I'd want to see one of these in person for sure Although for gaming, even when I had the 29", I couldn't see "corners".. I wish they started making these monitors curved

edit: someone make this gif to include 21:9 http://media-diablofans.cursecdn.com/attachments/7/904/635170215417714775.gif

review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnrxNfxRK_4

 

[x3sphere]

The UM95 is amazing, I just got mine today. I've always wanted to get a 21:9 monitor but until now being limited to 1080 vertical was the dealbreaker for me. The extra horizontal space is just great for productivity (excel, having multiple Word docs open, etc.)

Compared to my Dell 3008WFP the coating on this LG is very light and almost looks glossy. The coating was one of my main gripes with the 3008WFP, super grainy and had a sparkle effect on white BGs. UM95 has none of that, very pleasing to the eye.

Btw... I tried one of the 32" 4K Dell monitors for a week and I actually prefer this, MST issues aside (main reason I returned it). Had to enable 125% DPI scaling at 4K which has issues in Windows right now, depending on what you apps you use. And with DPI scaling at 125%, the total usable desktop space is similar to this monitor, less if you go up to 150%. After my experience with the 32" Dell, I decided to get this instead and pick up a 4K TV for gaming purposes.

 

[johnydoe]

What resolution does the UM95 use in PbP mode? 1720x1440 or 1720x1376 (true 5:4)?

 

[exar333]

Just took the plunge on the (LG) 34UM95 myself. After participating in some recent pre-alpha dogfighting for Star Citizen, it was glaringly apparent that my 3x1200P triple display would not work well. The bezel was fine for adventure, RPG and other titles but doesn't work well for a more precise application. I do lose a bit of vertical space, but still keep my horizontal usage. On the plus side, I am now bezel-less and don't have to worry about that any more. Cannot wait to get the display next week!

There was no way a 1080P ultra-wide would ever work for me, so this did the trick. It checked 'all the boxes' for what I want, minus true 4k support and >60hz refresh. Unfortunately, I don't like the DPI scaling issues with 4K right now, so 4K is not something I feel I would be happy with if I purchased one now. This monitor is IPS and 10-bit, so the panel is quite good.

 

[ElFenix]

the 34" LG ultrawide reviewed on the front page is the only one i'd get at this point. 29" ultrawides aren't enough of a step up to justify the price imho, as you're losing physical screen area and pixels to every 27" screen out there.

 

[exar333]

Honestly, the next upgrade after this would likely be somewhere around a 5120x2160 panel, but I doubt that will be available for <$3k for a long time.

 

[Insomniator]

I've been interested in a 29, 1080 panel for a while. Can't quite decide if its for me though. I don't think I want the 1440p version because of GPU requirements and the 1k price tag.

I have limited desk space so the usual 2 24's is a stretch, and I don't do a whole lot of work on my home computer. For just movies, Dota 2, single player games and Sc2 (could deal with windowed) I think a ultra widescreen is a great choice especially if you have little space.

I want a 29 inch IPS with 120hz for 350. I can wait

 

[Headfoot]

I bought the LG 34UM95 at microcenter a week ago and so far love it.

I'm coming from a 24" 16:9 1080p TN monitor so this is a huge upgrade for me. The monitor is amazing for productivity and general browsing since you essentially have two 5:4 monitors at your disposal with more pixels each than a 16:9 1080p. My favorite use is putting a live stream on the left half and then using the right half for browsing the web while I watch. Movies look amazing in 21:9 with no black bars which is nice since I was watching movies on my PC more often then my TV anyways.

I currently have a 670 so I couldn't crank up the settings but playing Skyrim was absolutely amazing. It took 2 minutes to edit the config file to the right resolution and it loaded right up. The monitor definitely needs more GPU horsepower since the number of pixels is closer to 4k than 1080p but even with my 670 it wasn't too slow with settings toned down.

I don't have experience with any of the 21:9 1080p monitors but I'd imagine 29" would work better than 34" if you're looking at them. At 34" the 1440p image looks really sharp and pixel density is good but I could see 1080p being stretched a bit. With 21:9 I think it's best to stick to the sizes that correlate with the standard 16:9 sizes (24"->29" and 27"->34").

Do you have any links for where you figured out how to fix Skyrim UI elements to work with the ultra wide? I've got 3x1680x1050 in landscape eyefinity and Skyrim is setting the UI as if my monitors are as tall as they are wide so the the words like "Save" etc. in the main menu are hilariously enormous. I fixed that issue in Fallout NV but the same .ini tricks didn't work for Skyrim for me.