ultrawide vs 4k monitors

[RuneDK]

So right now I can't afford a new gpu, but I'm planning on getting a 1080ti later this year(or an 11xx card when they come out next year?). However I need or well really want a new monitor now. I just can't decide between 4k and ultrawide. Anyone have experience w/ both? Ive read articles comparing the two and still cant make a decision =/.

Also running a GTX 970 FTW with a 2500k OC'd to 4.5Ghz and lots of RAM. So I am looking for a monitor for my next gpu really, I dont mind dishing out for a 4k monitor now for when I do get a new GPU if those are better, ive just heard really good things about ultrawide too.

[Fascinate]

Neither imo. Get a good 144hz 2560x1440 display, dell makes some of the better ones.

[PhantasmagoriaX]

I recently got a ultrawide and i gotta say i love it, especially on wow I recently went back to pandaria to get that worm mount and I was like HOLY SHIT I can see so much more of the world with it.


GL OP

[lolstorm]

If you're getting an ultra wide screen, prepare on having to search for mods for some games as not all games support it.

[Reinaerd]

Ive gotten an ultrawide curved screen myself.
An Acer Predator Z-35. And yes, it's worth it. once you setup the screen properly it's a blast to game on.
Word to the wise though, dont believe their boast on the onboard speakers, like all build in speakers they are attrocious.
It does come with G-sync, and uses ULMB, 35 Inch.. so yeah, it's brilliant.

https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/conten...tor-z35-series.

Beauty of it, you can overclock it to 200hz with the easy on board tools.

Never going back to a regular screen.

[DeltrusDisc]

I was one of the early adopters for the curved 34" 3440x1440 monitor, from Samsung, and I'm 2 years with it now and so happy I got it when I did. It's been a dream. Amazing gaming experience when games support the resolution, and yeah, sometimes you have to find a mod, or Heaven forbid have to force the game to do the resolution.

Worst is when there's no way to get the game to support the resolution, but that's, thankfully, not too common!

Nowadays, they even have 100Hz+ versions of monitors with these specs, and that's awesome. I am hopeful that Samsung will make a version with G-Sync on top of the 100Hz they've already managed with the second edition of my monitor.

Here's the thing, @Fascinate has a point about 144Hz 2560x1440 and I think what you need to decide is if that higher refresh rate matters to you. Now with 100Hz versions of 3440x1440 going for cheaper than what I initially paid for my 3440x1440, the gap is getting slimmer and slimmer between "why not" get the extra size and real estate of the 3440x1440 version. I, personally, had gotten used to the viewing angles of IPS, so when I got one of the first 144Hz 2560x1440 monitors, in fact, I think it was /the/ first, the ASUS ROG Swift, I was returning it within days. Saw they had the curved 34" 3440x1440 from Samsung as well as the flat 34" 3440x1440 and instantly could tell the difference when I sat in front of both. The edges looked weird on the flat one.

As far as 4k? I think @Synthaxx got you covered there, but really with 4k just imagine 1920x1080*4 and decide if that extra real estate is more important than a more immersive, literally cinematic (3440x1440 is the aspect ratio most high-end cinema is originally shot in, and when you can fill the monitor with a movie like this? LOOKS AMAZING, as do games!) experience. 21:9 > 16:9 for the rest of time for me. :P It coincides more with your eyes and their layout, to be frank. It fills more of your field of vision.

Happy medium between Fascinate's suggestion of the 144Hz 2560x1440 and the 4k@60Hz? I bet you guessed it: 3440x1440@100Hz.

Let us know how it goes. Best thing you can do is find a store which has these on display. www.microcenter.com is extremely good about this, hell they might crack one out to show you. 4k should be the easier one to see, the 3440x1440 might not be on display, though my store is in downtown Chicago, so they have a lot of stuff available.

And hell, most places have return periods, so you can always try both and make a judgment call at the end. ^_^ Cheers!

Your monitor should be the best you can afford, always.

[Kagthul]

I'm not a fan of Ultrawides for gaming.

A LOT of games dont support it well or at all.

For a purely productivity focused machine, Ultrawides are great. You can usually fit two full size web pages/documents side by side, at full size.

I solve this issue by simply using two computers. I have a MacBook Pro as a daily driver that i use (at home) docked with a Thunderbolt 2 dock and a 2560x1440 monitor, and a keyboard/mouse, etc. If i didnt already have a decent monitor, i'd highly consider using an Ultrawide for that machine.

My gaming PC i use a good 1080p gaming monitor.

If I were in the "only have a one machine/Windows PC to use" boat....

I'd probably go with a good 2560x1440 gaming monitor for the "main" gaming monitor and a 3440x1440 productivity monitor next to it for non-gaming tasks.

[DeltrusDisc]

I'm not a fan of Ultrawides for gaming.

A LOT of games dont support it well or at all.

For a purely productivity focused machine, Ultrawides are great. You can usually fit two full size web pages/documents side by side, at full size.

I solve this issue by simply using two computers. I have a MacBook Pro as a daily driver that i use (at home) docked with a Thunderbolt 2 dock and a 2560x1440 monitor, and a keyboard/mouse, etc. If i didnt already have a decent monitor, i'd highly consider using an Ultrawide for that machine.

My gaming PC i use a good 1080p gaming monitor.

If I were in the "only have a one machine/Windows PC to use" boat....

I'd probably go with a good 2560x1440 gaming monitor for the "main" gaming monitor and a 3440x1440 productivity monitor next to it for non-gaming tasks.

I think more games support that resolution now than you realize... Lately I've not been having any issues.

[Kagthul]

I think more games support that resolution now than you realize... Lately I've not been having any issues.

Doom's support is awful and looks distorted without extensive .ini modification, none of the Assassin's creed games support it natively (you just get weird fisheye crap on the sides), Deus EX looks wonky (Adams animations in the 3rd person portions get weird).

I can go on.

It's not well supported. Its more supported than SLI, but barely.

[Fascinate]

3440 100hz monitors START at 850 dollars lol.

Monitor pricing is seriously insane, you can get a really nice 65" 4k HDR TV for that price.

[DeltrusDisc]

Doom's support is awful and looks distorted without extensive .ini modification, none of the Assassin's creed games support it natively (you just get weird fisheye crap on the sides), Deus EX looks wonky (Adams animations in the 3rd person portions get weird).

I can go on.

It's not well supported. Its more supported than SLI, but barely.

I've run DOOM on my monitor flawlessly since the day I bought the game...
@Fascinate you know TVs aren't worth it. Come on now.

[Artorius]

3440 100hz monitors START at 850 dollars lol.

Monitor pricing is seriously insane, you can get a really nice 65" 4k HDR TV for that price.

For that size the OLEDs start at like ~3K USD and the decent LCDs are around ~1200 USD to ~2500 USD. But yeah, relatively speaking for their size, quality, and extra features, those monitors are very pricey for what they offer.

[Fascinate]

For that size the OLEDs start at like ~3K USD and the decent LCDs are around ~1200 USD to ~2500 USD. But yeah, relatively speaking for their size, quality, and extra features, those monitors are very pricey for what they offer.

True but you can get HDR 65" tv's for ~900 bucks lol. Heck you can get a 65" vizio P series for like 1200, which is what most 3440 100hz monitors go for.

Like i said, monitor pricing is insane.

[Ryuken]

I'd get myself a 24-27" BenQ 144hz gaming monitor or something similar. Probably your best bet if you're mainly gaming. If it's more for media/media editing/production then maybe i'd consider an ultrawide.

Good Luck!

[DeltrusDisc]

I'd get myself a 24-27" BenQ 144hz gaming monitor or something similar. Probably your best bet if you're mainly gaming. If it's more for media/media editing/production then maybe i'd consider an ultrawide.

Good Luck!

Honestly it also depends a lot on the games for the higher refresh rates... Some will see more benefit than others. But when games work in ultrawide? It's more immersive and that's a fact, not an opinion. Shouldn't have to explain why, either.

[Karon]

I own a Ultra Wide monitor and Curved 4K HDR TV and use them both with my PC and all I can say is:

Gaming: Ultra wide
Movies: 4K (HDR)

[apepi]

Would a 970 even be able to run a 4k decently?

[Deleted]

Would a 970 even be able to run a 4k decently?

knock down a few settings, it might actually do, almost all reviewers use max settings and for some reason, some of the max settings have crippling effects on performance more so then resolution, makes sense since most devs do not optimise for PC, they optimise for consoles, so console settings have the best performance to visual effect.

Personally speaking, I've yet to see much difference from mid/ high settings to max settings in any recent PC games lately, stuff like AFx16 and various AA settings have the largest visual impact in a game still.

This video goes into mid/high settings and 'ultra' settings and how some examples show just how hard hitting ultra settings hit the system.

[apepi]

knock down a few settings, it might actually do, almost all reviewers use max settings and for some reason, some of the max settings have crippling effects on performance more so then resolution, makes sense since most devs do not optimise for PC, they optimise for consoles, so console settings have the best performance to visual effect.

Personally speaking, I've yet to see much difference from mid/ high settings to max settings in any recent PC games lately, stuff like AFx16 and various AA settings have the largest visual impact in a game still.

This video goes into mid/high settings and 'ultra' settings and how some examples show just how hard hitting ultra settings hit the system.

I think going max settings is normal thing for reviews, as if everyone does it, then most of them stay consistent.

[Deleted]

I think going max settings is normal thing for reviews, as if everyone does it, then most of them stay consistent.

It is, however it answers your question and answers it pretty well if I'm honest, lowering some or certain settings will not impact the fidelity much at all but you will gain a lot of performance, mean look at those presets on certain games, like GTA5, medium having triple the frame rate of ultra.

I have to agree with the video that reviewers should include medium settings in their reviews but then again most reviewers aren't gamers, they only know ultra preset is highest (most games it actually isn't highest settings but they don't know games enough for when it comes into play).