Is 34" 21:9 2560x1080 really that bad?

Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by pittster, Nov 19, 2018.

  1. pittster

    pittster Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    986
    Location:
    Newcastle
    Hey all,

    I feel I might be answering my own question but wanted feedback from people that own this size panel.


    Story time:

    I am looking to upgrade I have a 27" 1920x1080 IPS screen that runs at 90hz's (PPI Stats 81.59PPI 2.074 px)

    I have been eyeing off 34" 3440x1440 panels (PPI Stats 109.68PPI 4.95 px) but worry the massive additional load in resolution and going forward the 1080ti will struggle to run games with high ultra settings at there native 100hz and these models are $1200 easily and above.

    Now I have seen panels that run at 34" 21:9 2560x1080 (PPI Stats 81.72PPI 2.765 px) such as the LG 34UC89G-B which can be had for $800 at the moment. This Resolution would allow less load on the 1080ti and allow higher settings and fps, also this panel is 144hz

    Alot of reading tell me that at 81PPI you can see the pixels it looks rubbish dont buy it.

    Now having used my 27" for 6 years and comparing it to my gaming laptop with 17.3" 1920x1080 (PPI Stats 127.34PPI 2.074 px) I can see that higher pixel density is nice.



    But I ask the owners of 21:9 2560x1080, is it really that bad ?


    I would say me personally I am more sensitive to low fps and low graphic settings vs pixel density.

    Would appreciate some thoughts opinions.

    Also my other requirements for a 21:9 monitor is 34" , IPS and Gsync so that doesnt leave many options
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2018
  2. 2SHY

    2SHY Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    7,517
    Location:
    Sydney NSW Australia
    21:9 at 2560x1080 does have enough vertical height in my experience. You can get lucky with the sales that will be coming soon. Also remember that at 3440x1440p at least in my experience at 100% DPI scaling means a lot less problems in Windows.

    If you work on your ultra wide panel at home you will enjoy more real estate to spread out on and reduced my incentive to upgrade to a multi monitor setup.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2018
  3. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    57,957
    Location:
    brisbane
    I would never buy a panel with an odd resolution, lower resolutions do not scale well and not every game supports the weird res - just ask anyone that uses ultra-wide how that goes.
     
  4. 2SHY

    2SHY Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    7,517
    Location:
    Sydney NSW Australia
    I often don't run all games at 3440x1440p Usually run in windowed mode quite a lot.

    21:9 is just a wider 16:9 so it can still scale reasonably well.
     
  5. Thalyn

    Thalyn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    429
    A 34" ultra-wide has about the same vertical measurement as a 27" widescreen. Which is to say that the pixels are the same basic size, as evidenced by the PPI measurements you already provided. If your current 27" 1080p widescreen is adequate for your purposes, a 34" 1080p ultra-wide will also be adequate - it will simply have more horizontal realestate.

    Personally I would also rather have the 1440p screen. But I've also been using a 27" 1080p widescreen for a long, long time now, so it wouldn't be a deal breaker as I'm already quite used to the pixel size.
     
  6. OP
    OP
    pittster

    pittster Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    986
    Location:
    Newcastle
  7. OP
    OP
    pittster

    pittster Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    986
    Location:
    Newcastle
    Thanks again grabbed that LG price was right ill deal with the lower res for now. when GPU's get powerful enough to run 1440 at 144hz then i might upgrade. understand people's logic for wanting 3440x1440 thanks
     
  8. Annihilator69

    Annihilator69 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,032
    Location:
    Perth
    I have a 35" 2560x1080 and I really like it.
    I don't like high dpi screens as the text is too small.

    You can fix a lot of games without native 21:9 support via Flawless Widescreen or whatever is the new thing these days.

    Anything that doesn't run in 21:9 you pretty much have black bars on the side and it's equivlent to a 27" 16:9
     
  9. Mathuisella

    Mathuisella Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    6,586
    Location:
    in your gearbox...grindin
    Other side,

    I'm used to 2560*1600 or 1920*1200 16:10 ratio to fit a4 pages on a screen.

    16:9 sucks.
     
    fredhoon likes this.
  10. Luke212

    Luke212 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,571
    Location:
    Sydney
    1080 too low at that size unless fast paced gaming. Still, pixels too big

    1440p is good at that size. Can still 100% zoom
     
  11. OP
    OP
    pittster

    pittster Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    986
    Location:
    Newcastle
    Awesome good to hear Win 10 does scaling OK but some stuff has super tiny text (on my 4k TV on the HTPC)

    I also miss 16:10 I used to have a Dell 1920x1200 and that extra vertical height was great.

    I totally get this opinion and its 50:50 on the topic with people (reading from the internet)

    I agree something at 81PPI doesnt have a crisp look to it, but what bothers me more is fps going below 100fps since running higher refresh rate monitors I have become way more fps sensitive and 2560x1080 is a alot less load thus higher fps.

    I would love to be able to run 1440 and high fps but I don't think GPU's are there yet.

    This is probably the most first world problem thing I have ever had to think about haha
     
  12. itsmydamnation

    itsmydamnation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    10,254
    Location:
    Canberra
    I used to run 3x 17inch 5:4 1280x1024 in eyefinity , in generally very few problems with games.

    I picked up the korgan 34" 3440X1440P 100hz for about $600 including shipping. Its basically factory seconds samsung (but i cant fault it visually at all), being a VA panel if your concerned about ghosting that might be a problem.

    I use a Vega 56 and i do have to play with settings to strike the FPS/Quality balance, but generally speaking almost all ultra level settings aren't worth the performance cost vs IQ up lift. But more resolution and more FOV is awesome, its performance cost in linear, also using simple desktop apps you can switch between 2 virtual monitors of 1770X1440 or 3440x1440. Great when multitasking.
     
  13. Catweazle

    Catweazle Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,867
    Location:
    Sale, Vic.
    If you're not confident in your graphics card's ability to handle highe resolution then it should be a no-brainer for you. Your motivation/purpose is gaming. That's evident in your topic post. So get a monitor with native resolution to suit the graphics power you have, or get a more powerful graphics card as well and move to higher screen resolution. Games running at non-native lower screen res always look worse than ones running natively at that same res.
     
  14. coolroy

    coolroy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    2,855
    Watch out for lack of good Black on any curved IPS screen....

    As per my sig below recently changed from a 40" 4K screen to the curved monitor for Gsynch support & higher refresh rates.

    Gaming is fine if i don't see too many night scenes as black is not black, sort of a greyish black which i totally dislike.

    Contrast ratios/glow on IPS screens even on so called quality branded product is so so, & I made the mistake in not viewing in store prior to purchase, hope you avoid making the same mistake.
     
  15. AstinGC90

    AstinGC90 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    Messages:
    585
    Location:
    FNQ
    I purchased an lg ultra wide 1080p from scorptec to try out and i sent it back the following day. They look stretched for everything other then bluray movies. IMO 1440p height should be a minimum.
     
  16. Multiplexer

    Multiplexer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,048
    Location:
    Home
    I have 34" 1440p and found there is not enough vertical spaces for heavy office use. As personal home PC is okay... I think I will throw 1080p out the window if I was given one.
     
  17. flu!d

    flu!d Ubuntu Mate 16.04 LTS

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,121
    A monitor with a 2560x1080 resolution would have the exact same vertical resolution as 1080p. So if 1440p wasn't enough, than a 2560x1080 monitor is going to be worse.

    Are you sure you don't mean horizontal? As 1440p is a 16:10 resolution which should give you the most vertical screen space possible given a widescreen aspect ratio. Why not just run dual monitors, that's what I do.
     
  18. Multiplexer

    Multiplexer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,048
    Location:
    Home
    I have a 34" 3440x1440 and 38" 3840x1600. As comparison 34" have 14 rows of icon where else 38" have 15. May not sound like much but make a lot of difference when I have a RDP session in another RDP session and be able to click the start menu not having to need to minimize a window.

    I imagine it will be worst for 2560x1080.

    This is coming from office working, the OP is using the monitor for gaming. Why not get 3440x1440 monitor and run game at 2560x1080?
     
  19. OP
    OP
    pittster

    pittster Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    986
    Location:
    Newcastle
    Hey all, just want to answer my own question in the OP.

    2560x1080 is perfectly fine in fact its bloody brilliant I picked up the LG 34UC89C-B and the 2560x1080 is a non issue for gaming and general windows use, if I was a content creator or need to fit more stuff on my desktop then yeah 3440x1440 makes more sense.

    But all this talk online of people saying "ohh the pixel density will look like shit don't bother its garbage blah blah" I suspect alot haven't tried or they just cannot get there head around coming down from a high DPI device (phones etc)

    For me its the perfect compromise the resolution allows super high frame rates it looks great, now yes 3440x1440 would be more crisp and in certain games would have less jaggies but for me its a non issue.

    I did think about 3440x1440 and running at 2560x1080 but that always looks like garbage it is always blurry.

    Anyway thanks for the feedback on this, in summary having used this res on a 34" for a while now its amazing how divided people are on the topic, but having seen and used it in the flesh gaming in BF V with frame-rates between 120-144 on ultra in 21:9 is a awesome experience.

    21:9 is an awesome ratio for gaming.
     
    Catweazle likes this.
  20. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    57,957
    Location:
    brisbane
    i've always liked the idea of ultra wide but then i think.... why not just extend both ways (that's why i ended up at 4K 40" - I love having vertical space). and I remember the pain of going from 4:3 to 16:9, things just weren't ready and my fear is the same with ultra wide.

    glad you're loving it though, end of the day it's up to you what you find the best.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: