Jump to content

Merranza

Member
  • Posts

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

Merranza's Achievements

  1. I was more looking at a 40 inches 4k. I thought the pixel density of 3840x2160@40 inches was similar to 3440x1440@34 inches. But for sure, 4k at 28-32 would be a lot smaller. Thanks for your input
  2. To be honest, seeing how fast 21:9 monitors are becoming more and more popular, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more 21:9 content on youtube. Probably not content coming from users as most of us have 16:9 camera but other created content will be. I'm not concerned about pixel density. I'm coming from a 22 inches 1680x1050 so the jump will be massive for either the 3440x1440 or the 4k. It's more about the height. I need to get used to the form factor of a 21:9. It feels so narrow when you look at it.
  3. Yeah that's true. Anyway, tabs exist so what's the need to have 4 windows opened at the same time I know for me it will really come down to missing that vertical height or not. For all the rest, the PG348Q is a superior monitor to that Philips one I was checking (aesthetics, the adjustable stand, GSYNC (though this can now be found on some 4k monitors), the higher refresh rate (important to me as I am a gamer), etc.).
  4. Yup, that's what I'm gonna do. Got a full 30 days to try it out. Some 4k lovers would answer to your first sentence by saying you could fit 4 windows on your screen for regular web browsing and that same 34 inches 3440x1440 would fit entirely inside that 40 inches 4k And I can't contradict them arggh
  5. So, do you think Linus is still sold on 21:9 3440x1440 or he went back to 4k? Currently waiting on a PG348Q to ship to my place. I need to get used to it. I hesitated between this and the Philips BDM4065UC quite a lot and the "4k is dead to me" video of Linus played a part in that decision. Everytime I look at a 21:9 monitor in store, I also get that feeling it's missing some height. It all comes down to vertical estate vs everything else. I'm coming from a 16:10 22 inches 1680x1050 monitor so the jump to 3440x1440 will be as amazing as the jump to 4k in terms of resolution. So it's 6 inches more vertical estate vs 100hz, GSYNC and all the other features the PG348Q brings to the table. For sure I would have preferred the height of a 32-34 inches 16:9 monitor on that 21:9 one but it doesn't exist unfortunately and PPI would have been affected.I need to try it. If I don't, I know I'll always ask myself what a 21:9 monitor feels like If I like it, so be it and I'll enjoy my new PG348Q. If I don't, I'll ask for a refund and change for another model or wait for the next gen of 4k monitors with refresh rates higher than 60hz... no monitor is perfect after all heh.
  6. I agree Metro is on a roll and clearly is spamming the forum. Like it was stated before, indeed, we are facing a 1st gen product and pretty much all 1st gen tech do have problems. I have to agree on one element from Metro and it's waiting for competitors to release their version. I am also on the verge of buying and I'm waiting for Asus to release the PG348Q. Where I strongly disagree though is stating in advance without any doubt that the PG348Q will be better than the X34. It has the same panel so the same problems might arise... or maybe not if implementation is done better. I want to have the choice when I will pull the trigger and after reviews and feedback will be given for both products. For now though, Metro has to stop spewing all this bs around as it is pure speculation until the PG348Q actually releases.
  7. Then I will take a 21:9 the same height as your "bigger" 16:9 and have more usable space. It's a never ending circle. Your argument makes no sense at all.
  8. Don't you have a 15% return fee with NCIX? 1790x15% = 269$ It's quite pricey for a tryout
  9. I expect 980 ti Pascal to come out somewhere around Q3-Q4 2017. I mean we are almost in 2016 and we have no news of any Pascal release/official specs. By the time low end and mid range Pascal come out, it will take some more time to see high end Pascal.
  10. I wasn't expecting 60hz to receive twice as many votes as 144hz. It's interesting.
  11. This is interesting as it will give a segmented overview of what forum members want to have on their monitor to be comfortable. Incrementation is not proportional as I've used the most common refresh rates I've seen on monitors up to now. If a new default value needs to be added, let me know or select the "other" answer and specify. Feel free to comment in your post.
  12. There should be more options in your poll like 75-90-100-120 hz with a question like "how many hz is enough for you?"
  13. Thank you very much for the update. It's really appreciated. I think it is a wise choice to keep 21:9 i your decision process. For now, I tend to favor a bit more 21:9 over 16:9 based on a couple of reasons. First of all, while 100hz in not 144hz, it is still a big leap over 60hz. If the PG348Q or the XR34 were 60-75 I'd say it is a major difference. At 100hz, while perceptible, it is much less. Secondly, all the comments I hear about 144hz is it makes a noticeable difference on two different scenarios: FPS (major) and desktop usage (not as importantly as FPS). That means that unless you use your PC primarily for FPS, the 144hz vs 100hz doesn't apply most of the time. I game on FPS yes, but the rest of the time, I will enjoy my 3440x1440 for coding, movie watching, music composing, extra FOV in games including FPS, browsing, etc. And still like I was saying, 100hz is not complete crap. Finally, don't forget you get used to everything after a whike. When I bought my 55 inches tv back in 2012, I was amazed at how big it was. After a month or two, I was questionning myself if I shouldn't have pulled the trigget on a 60 or 65 inches because I got used to the size. While 27 looks big today, it might not look as big in a few weeks and you might regret those extra inches on each side I'm not completely decided yet. Just some food for thought
×