34" Widescreen versus 40" 4k.

[st33l]

Just a quick note before I start, cost is not really an object for my requirements. This is my current requirement,

I primarily want a monitor for increasing productivity, but also would like to have a great experience playing games on it. The games I intend to play the most are WoW and Overwatch.

The two options that I have narrowed down are,

.) Acer Predater X34 - 34" curved ultra-wide screen - 3440x1440 @ 60Hz
.) Seiki Pro SM40UNP - 40" 4K - 3840x2160 @ 60Hz

I was almost set on buying the 34" ultra-wide, mostly because I read a lot of source code, and the more windows of code I can have side by side, the easier it is for me to consume and understand massive amounts of code. Then I saw this comparison,
http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-40-inch-16x9


The 40" Seiki is 3.6" wider than the 34" ultra-wide and 6.22" taller. This means that any amount of content I could see with this 'ultra-wide' screen, I can see in the Seiki. If I wanted to watch a cinemascope movie, it would still be wider on the 40". I can have the same or more windows of code next to each other and any game that I play, I can play with even more content visible at the same time.

Both of these displays have an acceptable refresh rate, response time and brightness levels. I will also have a graphics card capable of driving either monitor (looking at 1080 GTX for now, maybe a high end AMD if I decide to go with a freesync monitor) The points of contention are listed below in my current pros/cons list:

34" Pros:

1. Smaller, less of a monster wall of glass.
2. Matte finish, IPS display - better for work.
3. G-Sync (or Freesync if I get the Freesync version); though this is a low priority.
4. Curved display, so more immersive?
5. Adjustable stand, though with a curved display, I probably will want to keep it in the same place?

34" Cons:

1. Considerably less screen real estate.
2. Curved display can make lines seem wonky. I saw a monitor and a straight line across the monitor seemed, curved.
3. Being ultra-widescreen, certain games and movies will have black bars - essentially reducing their screen real estate to that of a 27" monitor.

40" Pros:

1. Way more screen real estate. More than one could ever want. I'll never feel "man, if I just had a bit more screen space".
2. 16:9 ratio means that almost all content can run using up all the screen real estate. 21:9 ratio content will still have more screen real-estate than it would on a 34"
3. Flat display means no worries about distorted picture.

40" Cons:

1. MASSIVE screen, it might be just way too much screen real estate.
2. Stand not adjustable, so I need to move, the monitor won't.
3. Semi-glossy display means that working with lights on brightly might become a problem. Since this is primarily intended for being a productivity increase, this is kind of a big deal.
4. M-VA panel, so the picture quality won't be as great as an IPS panel.

I am looking for opinions from people who may have had one of these monitors (or both!) to help me decide which setup to get. I am planning on getting on for home and one for work, and mirroring my displays for an efficient WFH setup, so it is kinda important I get this right. Whichever monitor I go with, I'll have to stick with for the next year or so at a minimum.


So, thoughts?

[DeltrusDisc]

A proper VA panel will be better than IPS. Like my Samsung 34" 3440x1440 monitor... if you want quality, Acer is pretty much one to steer clear from. =/

On my monitor, sitting directly in front of it, a couple feet away, straight lines look like straight lines.

Some movies/games will have black bars on 16:9 aspect ratios, some will have them on 21:9, you just have to decide what you want. Will the movies and games YOU desire, have black bars, or have an option?

For instance, Skyrim doesn't have a 3440x1440 option, but with a bit of .ini file tweaking, you can make it support 21:9.

In the end, it really just comes down to personal preference.

Some will want 4K because it's the new big hyped and marketed to death thing. Others will want 3440x1440.

Me? I'm deadset on sticking to 21:9 now that I've experienced it. I don't plan on ever going 4k, if anything, I'll go for the next higher 21:9 resolution, or get a 3440x1440 with a higher refresh rate if Samsung ever makes one, with a VA panel again.

The dynamic range on this thing is just completely unparalleled. I've had IPS monitors before, seen some of the best, and frankly, they didn't look as good, vibrant, or deep as this monitor.

[st33l]

Thank you for your insight! It helps get closer to a decision.

Me? I'm deadset on sticking to 21:9 now that I've experienced it. I don't plan on ever going 4k, if anything, I'll go for the next higher 21:9 resolution, or get a 3440x1440 with a higher refresh rate if Samsung ever makes one, with a VA panel again.

So I had this point of view too, till I realized that with a 40" 4k monitor, I *can* have a 21:9 resolution; just scaled. Both the 21:9 and the 16:9 both can do either ratio, it is just that the other ratio on them will be smaller since part of their screen will be wasted.

In fact, a 21:9 picture on my screen will get a larger 21:9 area than it would on a 34" monitor. This is one of the points because of which I am still so undecided.

[DeltrusDisc]

I guarantee you that if that monitor isn't curved, you will have image degradation at the edges/corners.

[st33l]

I guarantee you that if that monitor isn't curved, you will have image degradation at the edges/corners.

I haven't heard that before. Any references?

[Wries]

I am an IPS to VA convertee. Won't go IPS again as VA contrast and black levels are simply superior for only a very very small penalty in viewing angles. (And VA is freakin' cheap! Recently bought a 1080p as an extra monitor and it cost like half of what the equivalent IPS did)

I have also experienced both 3440x1440 and 4K 40-inch first hand as I have owned both. Unfortunately my LG 21:9 monitor broke and since I couldn't find another flat one (I really didn't want curved) I went with Philip's 40-inch 4K VA panel.

I think I did a write-up of pros and cons on these boards before, but I'd say

3440x1440 requires you to keep up with the latest high end cards if you want to game at native res with all or most eye-candy.

The same for 4K requires graphics cards so high-end that they simply don't exist yet. Or they cost 1200 dollars and you need two of them I'm scraping by with a GTX 1080 but I play like only WoW on the 4K monitor and most other games I send to the 1080p TV.

However if the 4K panel is VA, like you say you could set up a custom 21:9 AR resolution and the black bars will be so dark that they might not even be of bother

[Artorius]

Seeing posters actually know the difference between IPS and VA and realising that VA is better for overall picture quality due to the immensely better black levels makes me happier than it should.

I'm in the middle of a class here and can't give you an elaborated reply yet @st33l, but since you asked about DD's "image degradation" point I'll at least try to answer this.

What he means by image degradation is that since the display will be very wide, if you don't have a curve the edges of it I'll be completely off-angle from your eyes and this can cause contrast loss and color shifting. If the backlight is in the edges you'll notice backlight bleed too.

With a curve, you force those edges to be facing you even if they're far from your eyes so you eliminate the off-angle problem. Notice that bad off-angle performance is a characteristic of LCD panels, but IPS panels are strong in this regard because the technology focus entirely on making this problem in particular less visible. But with IPS you get horrible black levels and IPS glow, which makes its performance laughably bad if you're watching a movie with lights off for example.

The curve kind of "negates" VA's problem, which is not as good off-angle performance as IPS (VA panels will show you a significant contrast loss off-angle), so for curved displays in specific VA is better than IPS no matter how we look at it. For professional color correction where you should have perfect uniformity and can't even think about having any off-angle problem then you also can't have a curve and IPS is better than VA, but OLED is better than both due to better blacks and infinite contrast.

[DeltrusDisc]

@Artorius explained exactly what I was talking about.

This issue was especially bad during my short stint with the TN panel'd ASUS ROG Swift, the original one. Also, did I mention it was TN?

[st33l]

@Wries - could you link that writeup? I tried looking through the first few pages of your post history but couldn't find it there. Also, what were the negatives that you found with the 40"? Was the fact that there was so much real estate ever really a problem? Was the screen glossiness ever an issue? Did it ever end up hurting your neck to keep looking in all directions to see everyone on screen?

I am not too worried about the graphics cards - I will buy whatever is needed; cost isn't really an issue.


Thanks @Artorius and @DeltrusDisc. That makes sense. Though, the 40" non-curved is the VA panel (hence probably should have more backlight bleed?) and the curved is the IPS (with lower blacklight bleed). So the curve won't help too much on the 34" and the 40" will really need it.

[Wries]

@st33l I checked the post up and the list was basically.. uhm shorter than I remembered and also basically me again complaining about the GPU-requirements and how some games don't support ultrawide. Might have thought of something I wrote on another forum. Well then.. Basically the big other point is that 40 inch at a regular desktop monitor range is.. kind of huge. It's a lot to take in and the head needs to bob some since the size increase is vertical instead of only horizontal with the ultrawide. At the beginning I kind of disliked it even, and considered returning the screen. But I loved the picture quality and somehow started to grow accustomed to the size to the point where I now don't plan on replacing it anytime soon.

I kind of have the opinion though that no matter how much information you can fit in one screen, another one will pretty much always be of benefit. I wall mounted a 22" on the side recently because I can always find use for it, be it for an extra browser window or a video clip. Here it would probably have been more aesthetically pleasing for my setup to have 1x ultrawide and one 16:9 instead of one HUGE monitor and one tiny. But I digress.

Regarding bleed.. I don't have any science nor evidence to back this up but I found BLB to be more common on the IPS's I own and have owned vs my newly acquired VA's. But that's a pretty small sample.

I'd say either kind of monitor is fine depending on what trade-off you want to live with. But in case of ultrawide you might want to search for a VA instead.. maybe! Like the Samsung S34E790C

[Artorius]

IPS has worse backlight bleed than VA. @st33l

[st33l]

So the Phillips 40" - it seems that it has a glossy screen right? (at least this article seems to say so: https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/philips-bdm4065uc/). Does that ever bother you for work?

I think the Seiki is a semi-glossy screen, almost matte, but the 34" ultrawide predator I think has a pretty matte screen. I am really worried about my work getting impacted due to a glossy screen. At work, I can't control lighting and there will be pretty bright lights. Gloss can make reading the screen harder.

[Artorius]

This Phillips 40" also comes ridiculously off by default, it looks ultra blue with a white point of more than 8K Kelvin. So you'd need to mess with the setting to make it look more normal.

[Wries]

So the Phillips 40" - it seems that it has a glossy screen right? (at least this article seems to say so: https://pcmonitors.info/reviews/philips-bdm4065uc/). Does that ever bother you for work?

I think the Seiki is a semi-glossy screen, almost matte, but the 34" ultrawide predator I think has a pretty matte screen. I am really worried about my work getting impacted due to a glossy screen. At work, I can't control lighting and there will be pretty bright lights. Gloss can make reading the screen harder.

Lol, I went "Is it?" and started tapping it :P But yeah it's somewhat glossy. I'd say a macbook pro has a glossier finish than this, but it's at least sort of semi glossy and if I point a flashlight directly on it I get that light reflected back at me as a somewhat clear point and not something fuzzy like you get with a matte finish.

[st33l]

Lol, I went "Is it?" and started tapping it :P But yeah it's somewhat glossy. I'd say a macbook pro has a glossier finish than this, but it's at least sort of semi glossy and if I point a flashlight directly on it I get that light reflected back at me as a somewhat clear point and not something fuzzy like you get with a matte finish.

I've tentatively ordered the Seiki Pro. Once it arrives, I'll see if it works for me. I'll update this thread for posterity

[DeltrusDisc]

But in case of ultrawide you might want to search for a VA instead.. maybe! Like the Samsung S34E790C

What I have - and I love it!

My review for it on YouTube has more dislikes than likes!

One commentator recently said "they're disliking for you man, not for the monitor or your review. Sorry man. =/ "

rofl. You guys want a link to it?

[vindicatorx]

personally I went with the better choice I got the Dell 34 inch ultrawide monitor the thing is fucking ridiculously awesome. I looked at the Predator when I bought the Dell but
- the Nvidia G sync one is $1250 and only 2560 X 1080
- the Dell I paid $650 for both are 3440 x 1440 @60Hz
- If you have an AMD card you can go with the 34" Predator which is also 3440 x 1440 @75Hz for around $900.
I mean the Predator looks nice but I can't justify the cost difference for the small performance upgrade.

[DeltrusDisc]

personally I went with the better choice I got the Dell 34 inch ultrawide monitor the thing is fucking ridiculously awesome. I looked at the Predator when I bought the Dell but
- the Nvidia G sync one is $1250 and only 2560 X 1080
- the Dell I paid $650 for both are 3440 x 1440 @60Hz
- If you have an AMD card you can go with the 34" Predator which is also 3440 x 1440 @75Hz for around $900.
I mean the Predator looks nice but I can't justify the cost difference for the small performance upgrade.

lol... to think only a year and a few months ago, my Samsung one was $1,100 before tax. pffffffffffffffff

[vindicatorx]

lol... to think only a year and a few months ago, my Samsung one was $1,100 before tax. pffffffffffffffff

Yeah, price has dropped a lot on them. The Predator is the only one that really is still above $1000 the 35" is probably the best for gaming if you want an Ultrawide. The Dell is rated really well for everything as is LG's.

[DeltrusDisc]

Yeah, price has dropped a lot on them. The Predator is the only one that really is still above $1000 the 35" is probably the best for gaming if you want an Ultrawide. The Dell is rated really well for everything as is LG's.

The Acer is only so costly because of the higher refresh rate/brand new tech/brand new product.

I like the Samsung personally, more than the Dell and LG options. VA > IPS imho. Never again.