Why are there no curved ultrawide monitors with 2160p height?

[Balletje72]

Now with the new RTX 3080 release, the gigantic boost in fps allows easy playing on 4k monitors on max settings. So, I'm looking for a Curved Ultrawide monitor now with ~2160p height... but I literally can only find 1 ultrawide monitor with these specification. Which isn't curved. 

I mean... why aren't there any? And then I'm not even filtering on Hz / colors / other features yet.

 

There must be a reason... who can explain? : )

 

 

(edited: ultrawide != widescreen)

Edited September 20, 2020 by Balletje72

[pythonmegapixel]

Imagine how ridiculously expensive it would be. That's the reason.

[Gorou92]

by widescreen you mean ultrawide (21:9) ?

because widescreen means (16:9)

[Balletje72]

2 minutes ago, YsGrandi said:

by widescreen you mean ultrawide (21:9) ?

because widescreen means (16:9)

Yes, sorry

[Balletje72]

5 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Imagine how ridiculously expensive it would be. That's the reason.

Well, for €250-350 there are already many options for 60hz 4k IPS/VA monitors... and of course the higher the price the better the quality of the monitors get. 

 

So its not like those are already €1k+ which would make an ultrawide version just Crazy.

[jj9987]

There is - Samsung CHG90. It is 3840 pixels wide, which is basically 4K.

[Balletje72]

4 minutes ago, jj9987 said:

There is - Samsung CHG90. It is 3840 pixels wide, which is basically 4K.

Yes that is the monitor I currently have, which is 1080p.

But now I'm looking for a 2160p ultrawide (sorry, I see 4k as 2160p...)

[pythonmegapixel]

2 minutes ago, Balletje72 said:

Well, for €250-350 there are already many options for 60hz 4k IPS/VA monitors... and of course the higher the price the better the quality of the monitors get. 

 

So its not like those are already €1k+ which would make an ultrawide version just Crazy.

You're not wrong... but it would still be ultra high end. To the point where you would be spending as much on the monitor as on the PC that drives it.

And until recently there was no graphics card really capable of driving that kind of monitor anyway, so what's the point?

 

Even now, I reckon hardly anyone would buy it. Personally I'd rather spend the money on two 4K monitors and have a dual setup, and I know many who feel the same.

[jj9987]

Just now, Balletje72 said:

Yes that is the monitor I currently have, which is 1080p.

4K as a standard means approximately 4000 pixels wide. 1080p as a standard (and very often used to indicate) means 1920 by 1080 at 16:9 aspect ratio. So I wouldn't say your display is 1080p. Don't confuse the standards/terminology.

 

So I don't understand what the question is now. What is 4K in your mind then? What kind of a display are you looking for?

[Bad5ector]

3840 X 1080 is not the same as 1080p. 

[Balletje72]

21 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

You're not wrong... but it would still be ultra high end. To the point where you would be spending as much on the monitor as on the PC that drives it.

And until recently there was no graphics card really capable of driving that kind of monitor anyway, so what's the point?

 

Even now, I reckon hardly anyone would buy it. Personally I'd rather spend the money on two 4K monitors and have a dual setup, and I know many who feel the same.

I see... I did not expect Pricing would be the reason for it... I was expecting something like 'supply/demand' yeah. Which made me think that they would become very popular now, yet not seeing it xd

 

On the other hand, as I now have a 1080p Super Ultrawide... I really dislike a 2 monitor setup. Previous setup was 3 monitor, which is perfect for multitasking, but the Super Ultrawide still beats every other setup for gaming. (just for gaming, super ultrawide is annoying for multitasking, which is why I'm considering the step back to a normal ultrawide, with extra monitors)

[LyondellBasell]

7 minutes ago, Balletje72 said:

the gigantic boost in fps allows easy playing on 4k ultrawide on max settings. So, I'm looking for a 4k ultrawide monitor... but I literally can only find 1 ultrawide 4k monitor, from LG, which isnt even curved. I mean... why aren't there any? And then I'm not even filtering on Hz / colors / other features yet.

I think it depends on what you're looking for when you say 4K.

There's panels like the LG 38GL950G, which is 3840*1600. You're correct in that it isn't "true" 4K or DCI 4K.

No ultrawide will be in the expected 3840*2160 resolution, simply because of the aspect ratio.

So you'll either have to look for something like the 38GL950G, which is 4K in the horizontal dimension, or something like the LG 34WK95U-W, which is 5120*2160, which is "4K" in the vertical dimension. (and 5K in the horizontal).

 

To help the rest of us make better suggestions, can you elaborate a little more on *exactly* what you're looking for?

[AvMaverick]

8 minutes ago, Balletje72 said:

Yes that is the monitor I currently have, which is 1080p.

But now I'm looking for a 2160p ultrawide (sorry, I see 4k as 2160p...)

Your definition of 4k is wrong. It's 4K because it's approximately 4000 pixels wide. Better try 5K displays as they'll give you 2160p tall

[Balletje72]

I see my definition of resolutions is wrong yes. Will make an edit.

 

But to clarify, if it indeed was not clear, I'm looking for a Curved Ultrawide monitor with something close to ~2160p height. 

[Tan3l6]

 

22 minutes ago, jj9987 said:

There is - Samsung CHG90. It is 3840 pixels wide, which is basically 4K.

It has exactly 2 times less pixels than a regular 4K by the way. (non-ultrawide)

[tikker]

14 minutes ago, Balletje72 said:

I see my definition of resolutions is wrong yes. Will make an edit.

 

But to clarify, it it indeed was not clear, I'm looking for a Ultrawide monitor with ~2160p height. 

The MSI Prestige PS341WU and LG 34WK95U are 5120 x 2160 in ultra wide form factor.

[Bad5ector]

Then it won't be ultra wide. 2160p is a 16:9 aspect ratio.  Ultrawides are typically 21:9 or in the samsung example 32:9.

[Bombastinator]

This seems to be a definitions issue.  There is height, width, aspect ratio, and area. They all seem to be using the same name though.  
 

A wide monitor with a given height is going to have more area than a not-so-wide monitor of that same height.  A video card cares only about the number of pixels, so it cares about area only (sort of) if you want a wide screen monitor with 4k area resolution, its going to have lower than standard 4k height. 

[yeeyee123]

On 9/20/2020 at 9:18 AM, Balletje72 said:

Now with the new RTX 3080 release, the gigantic boost in fps allows easy playing on 4k monitors on max settings. So, I'm looking for a Curved Ultrawide monitor now with ~2160p height... but I literally can only find 1 ultrawide monitor with these specification. Which isn't curved. 

I mean... why aren't there any? And then I'm not even filtering on Hz / colors / other features yet.

 

There must be a reason... who can explain? : )

 

 

(edited: ultrawide != widescreen)

Gosh this thread is ridiculous. To actually answer your question, instead of arguing about what 4k means (although i must say anyone with a brain should know that a 4k ultrawide obviously means an ultrawide with 2160 vertical pixels, otherwise a led strip of 4000 leds would be a "4k monitor" by some's defintion) there aren't any YET. The thing to remember is 4k gaming is on the cutting edge of PC performance and is a bit of a niche market still. Likewise with ultrawide gaming. You're right that modern graphics cards are making it more accessible, but still, the demand for top end gear like this is extremely low, expecially considering the PC requirements needed.

 

The reason you see flat panels is 4k video editing and other productivety is a bigger market compared to gaming, and these monitors can get away with slower response times and refresh rates.

 

Also the step up from 1440p ultra wide to 4k ultrawide is probably bigger than you think. A 1440p 32:9 monitor would be 5120x1440 which is actually fewer pixels than a standard 4k 3840x2160 (7372800 compared to 8294400). A 4k 21:9 would be 5040x2160 (which is almost 11 million pixels) drastically increasing cost, which for the average gamer is possibly a step down from a 32:9. Producing curved panels that big probaly requires some R&D that's just not worth it for manufactures yet.

 

Hopefully once 3000 cards are in every computer in a few years we'll see some gaming focused 4k ultrawides coming out as more folks try to get into. But for now as the majority sticks with 1440p, your best bet is probably a dual 4k setup.

 

 

And just to be clear about his whole resolution naming debate (I can't help myself), the monikers we use refer to the vertical resolution always! 1080p means 1080 pixels tall, 1440p means 1440 pixels, with 4k, 5k, 8k the name itself is refering to the horizontal pixels, but when we talk about the corresponding resolution we still mean the vertical pixels 2160, 2880, 4320 respectively. It is confusing, and don't ask me why they changed the naming, but thats just the way it is. To call 5120x1440 monitor 5k would be absurd, it is an ultrawide 1440p and thats what literally everyone calls it (i.e. odyssey g9  is called BY SAMSUNG QHD Wide 1440p). So yes any monitor 1080 pixels high is 1080p and any monitor you call 4k is 2160 pixels high.

[tarsius]

On 3/15/2021 at 1:11 AM, yeeyee123 said:

Gosh this thread is ridiculous. To actually answer your question, instead of arguing about what 4k means (although i must say anyone with a brain should know that a 4k ultrawide obviously means an ultrawide with 2160 vertical pixels, otherwise a led strip of 4000 leds would be a "4k monitor" by some's defintion) there aren't any YET.

Dell U4021QW, Lenovo P40w and LG 40WP95C would disagree.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, tarsius said:

Dell U4021QW, Lenovo P40w and LG 40WP95C would disagree.

Monitors are monitors.  They do t have opinions about internet threads or anything else.

[OrdinaryPhil]

On 3/14/2021 at 6:11 PM, yeeyee123 said:

Gosh this thread is ridiculous. To actually answer your question, instead of arguing about what 4k means (although i must say anyone with a brain should know that a 4k ultrawide obviously means an ultrawide with 2160 vertical pixels, otherwise a led strip of 4000 leds would be a "4k monitor" by some's defintion) there aren't any YET. The thing to remember is 4k gaming is on the cutting edge of PC performance and is a bit of a niche market still. Likewise with ultrawide gaming. You're right that modern graphics cards are making it more accessible, but still, the demand for top end gear like this is extremely low, expecially considering the PC requirements needed.

 

The reason you see flat panels is 4k video editing and other productivety is a bigger market compared to gaming, and these monitors can get away with slower response times and refresh rates.

 

Also the step up from 1440p ultra wide to 4k ultrawide is probably bigger than you think. A 1440p 32:9 monitor would be 5120x1440 which is actually fewer pixels than a standard 4k 3840x2160 (7372800 compared to 8294400). A 4k 21:9 would be 5040x2160 (which is almost 11 million pixels) drastically increasing cost, which for the average gamer is possibly a step down from a 32:9. Producing curved panels that big probaly requires some R&D that's just not worth it for manufactures yet.

 

Hopefully once 3000 cards are in every computer in a few years we'll see some gaming focused 4k ultrawides coming out as more folks try to get into. But for now as the majority sticks with 1440p, your best bet is probably a dual 4k setup.

 

 

And just to be clear about his whole resolution naming debate (I can't help myself), the monikers we use refer to the vertical resolution always! 1080p means 1080 pixels tall, 1440p means 1440 pixels, with 4k, 5k, 8k the name itself is refering to the horizontal pixels, but when we talk about the corresponding resolution we still mean the vertical pixels 2160, 2880, 4320 respectively. It is confusing, and don't ask me why they changed the naming, but thats just the way it is. To call 5120x1440 monitor 5k would be absurd, it is an ultrawide 1440p and thats what literally everyone calls it (i.e. odyssey g9  is called BY SAMSUNG QHD Wide 1440p). So yes any monitor 1080 pixels high is 1080p and any monitor you call 4k is 2160 pixels high.

This is mostly accurate.

There are actually a few 2160p UW displays. They are $1500 and up which isn't terrible considering the market.

The reason there are so few of them is because they are all halo products. The kind of things that cost companies tons of money to engineer and produce, and they sell in extremely low quantities. They basically only exist to generate brand awareness and hype. Dell's display division sells a million 24" 1080p office monitors for every 1 2160p UW... and that's genuinely not much of an exaggeration.

These devices remain halo products for a few reasons. Curved displays are on their way out. In a few years we will be remembering them in much the same way we remember the "3D Vision" TVs and monitors that went the way of the Dodo. The overall reception of curved displays is ... meh. They best most people can say is that they don't active make the experience worse. Which is hardly something that merits an additional cost. The monitor market is typically about 2-years behind the TV market in adoption, and curved TVs are already being phased out since they just aren't selling in any meaningful volume.

Another thing to consider is that resolution is experiencing it's first real leap into the concept of diminishing returns. Going from DVDs at 480p, to Blu Rays at 1080p was a huge leap, and we stayed in the at market for years as the public warmed to it. At the same time as TV an Cinema began releasing producing for these resolutions, gaming was starting to develop into the FHD era. But what happened during the jump from sub HD to HD was more than just resolution. Gaming was growing like crazy, and while the native resolution games were rendered at was going up - it was going up along with other things like polygon count, physics, particle and lighting effects, and basically everything else.

Going from 1080p to 4K was a jump we made too early, and we mostly skipped over 1440p (or 2K) in the TV market. Games are still designed with the lowest common denominator in mind - they have to sell to a wide audience to be profitable, so they have to run on widespread, low-end hardware. The baseline is to create a game for 1080p consumption. Going to 4k will make textures look more smooth, and the increased PPI hides the other flaws introduced by integer scaling, but we're still playing games with similar polygon counts and physics as games from 15 years ago.

Characters and object still collide and clip through each other. Basic things like walking and taking actual steps up and down stairs looks like you're gliding along a flat surface. You can still count the polygons on characters and objects, regardless the texture resolution.

Ray Traced lighting is the first major development in visual fidelity in gaming in 15 years, and in order to have playable frame rates we still have render natively at 1080p and upscale using AI (DLSS and the like).

 

These flaws actively look WORSE at higher resolutions than they do at lower ones.

8K displays and TVs already exist, but they are content deserts for this very reason.

Before 8K displays become a thing, we need to let 2160p mature... when we increase polygon counts, shaders, and other post processing effects to the degree that they are enjoyable at 4k, then we will see the UW market fill out. Until then, they will remain niche, halo products.

 

[Glenwing]

On 3/14/2021 at 4:11 PM, yeeyee123 said:

Gosh this thread is ridiculous. To actually answer your question, instead of arguing about what 4k means

...and then proceed to spend the entire post arguing about what 4K means

On 3/14/2021 at 4:11 PM, yeeyee123 said:

(although i must say anyone with a brain should know that a 4k ultrawide obviously means an ultrawide with 2160 vertical pixels, otherwise a led strip of 4000 leds would be a "4k monitor" by some's defintion)

You realize the exact same thing can be said in the other direction, right? Everyone says "1080p" is 1080 vertical pixels, but then a vertical LED strip with 1080 LEDs would be considered a "1080p monitor" by that definition... Anyone with a brain knows that "1080p" doesn't really mean 1080 pixels tall, but secretly means it has width of 1920 pixels! What confusing terminology!

 

The reality is, a strip of 4000 LEDs wouldn't be considered a 4K monitor, because it wouldn't be considered a monitor at all. It's an LED strip. If you only specify one dimension of the monitor, then the other dimension could be anything. That's true whether you use "1080p" or "4K" notation. The only way to be completely specific is specify both, like 3840×2160, which is what I recommend doing.

 

The problem with "4K ultrawide" is that it's basically a nonsensical term. It specifies a particular width, and then says "extra width". That would be like me saying I want an extra-long 12-inch sub sandwich. It makes no sense. The solution is to teach people what they are saying, not trying to redefine the terminology to something that makes no sense at all in an attempt to make people's incorrect usage become meaningful. People should call it either "4K 21:9" or "2160p ultrawide". Not "4K ultrawide".

 

On 3/14/2021 at 4:11 PM, yeeyee123 said:

And just to be clear about his whole resolution naming debate (I can't help myself), the monikers we use refer to the vertical resolution always! 1080p means 1080 pixels tall, 1440p means 1440 pixels, with 4k, 5k, 8k the name itself is refering to the horizontal pixels, but when we talk about the corresponding resolution we still mean the vertical pixels 2160, 2880, 4320 respectively.

This is incorrect. They refer to the horizontal width. This comes from the film industry where images are often cropped vertically. If you cropped 1920×1080 footage (not realistic, but just to make the example easy) to a theatrical aspect ratio, it would be around 1920×800. Problem is, what do you call it? It's not 1080 pixels tall anymore, so is it still 1080p? Well.... sort of? The detail level hasn't changed. But not really, since it's not 1080 pixels tall anymore... But most people would have called this something like "1080p cropped" or whatever, and we'd have this silly mess of calling things by their vertical resolution even though that's not the actual vertical pixel count of the content.

 

The convention in TV was to use vertical resolution only, because the number of lines was an actual number (while the horizontal dimension was just an analog signal, harder to quantify). But when people started doing digital film scans, someone intelligent somewhere decided "hey, using vertical resolution for this application is dumb, because we crop vertically, so the vertical dimension changes. We should use the horizontal dimension instead". And so it was.

 

A 4K film scan is usually 4096×3112. That is 4K resolution, because it's 4000 pixels wide. It might be cropped to 4096×2214 (4K 1.85:1), or 4096×2160 (4K 1.90:1) or 4096×1728 (4K 2.37:1) or some other ratio depending on the project, and now there's no weirdness in deciding what to call these anymore. They are all still in 4K resolution, with varying aspect ratios. Good thing we decided to use horizontal resolution notation! Now our editors can say "it's shot in 4K, here's what it looks like in 1.85! And here's 4K at 2.37!"

 

Now this notation has been borrowed by the TV and monitor industry. Is that a good idea? Probably not, because wider aspect ratios aren't generally achieved by cropping like they are with film, but by expanding sideways (i.e. 2560×1440 to 3440×1440). Computer content (in games) is also often generated with fixed vertical content and horizontal expansion, so it makes more sense to use the fixed vertical notation (like 1080p). It's the opposite for cinema, where the horizontal dimension is fixed and the vertical dimension is modified to suit the needs.

 

But now people on the internet who misunderstood (or just don't like) how the notation works have decided to go around trying to change the definition of the notation in order to retroactively make their incorrect usage right by telling people "4K actually refers to a 2160p vertical resolution, not the width". This is simply not true, sorry. The entire point of the "4K" notation was that it refers to width, not height.

 

The issue is that the display industry decided to use notation (4K) that is not well-suited for their application (and was never intended to be).

 

But spreading misinformation about the notation and trying to change what it means is not going to help the sitation at all, it just creates confusion.

On 3/14/2021 at 4:11 PM, yeeyee123 said:

but when we talk about the corresponding resolution we still mean the vertical pixels 2160, 2880, 4320 respectively. It is confusing, and don't ask me why they changed the naming, but thats just the way it is.

4K, 5K, 8K is simply the first number in the resolution. Just like "1080p" and "1440p" is the second number in the resolution. It is no more or less simple that the notation used in previous years.

 

You are trying to convince people that 4K doesn't mean 4000 pixels wide, no instead it means "a monitor with the same vertical height as a monitor when it has that number of horizontal pixels and a 16:9 aspect ratio". You're right, it's confusing, but you are the one making it confusing, by trying to twist the meaning of the notation into this incredible contortion just because you are accustomed to sticking the word "ultrawide" on the end of the resolution shorthand to refer to an extended width version, and you want that to work with "4K" too.

 

The actual notation is dead simple and is not confusing at all if you just explain the actual meaning to people, and makes perfect sense within its industry. It doesn't work well for specifying the resolution of monitors, so if you want to address the problem you need to convince people to use "2160p" instead of "4K". The solution is not "convince people that 4K is an alias for 2160p", because that simply isn't true and isn't backed up by the last 20 years of usage of this notation in the industry.

[yeeyee123]

4 hours ago, Glenwing said:

...and then proceed to spend the entire post arguing about what 4K means

You realize the exact same thing can be said in the other direction, right? Everyone says "1080p" is 1080 vertical pixels, but then a vertical LED strip with 1080 LEDs would be considered a "1080p monitor" by that definition... Anyone with a brain knows that "1080p" doesn't really mean 1080 pixels tall, but secretly means it has width of 1920 pixels! What confusing terminology!

 

The reality is, a strip of 4000 LEDs wouldn't be considered a 4K monitor, because it wouldn't be considered a monitor at all. It's an LED strip. If you only specify one dimension of the monitor, then the other dimension could be anything. That's true whether you use "1080p" or "4K" notation. The only way to be completely specific is specify both, like 3840×2160, which is what I recommend doing.

 

The problem with "4K ultrawide" is that it's basically a nonsensical term. It specifies a particular width, and then says "extra width". That would be like me saying I want an extra-long 12-inch sub sandwich. It makes no sense. The solution is to teach people what they are saying, not trying to redefine the terminology to something that makes no sense at all in an attempt to make people's incorrect usage become meaningful. People should call it either "4K 21:9" or "2160p ultrawide". Not "4K ultrawide".

 

This is incorrect. They refer to the horizontal width. This comes from the film industry where images are often cropped vertically. If you cropped 1920×1080 footage (not realistic, but just to make the example easy) to a theatrical aspect ratio, it would be around 1920×800. Problem is, what do you call it? It's not 1080 pixels tall anymore, so is it still 1080p? Well.... sort of? The detail level hasn't changed. But not really, since it's not 1080 pixels tall anymore... But most people would have called this something like "1080p cropped" or whatever, and we'd have this silly mess of calling things by their vertical resolution even though that's not the actual vertical pixel count of the content.

 

The convention in TV was to use vertical resolution only, because the number of lines was an actual number (while the horizontal dimension was just an analog signal, harder to quantify). But when people started doing digital film scans, someone intelligent somewhere decided "hey, using vertical resolution for this application is dumb, because we crop vertically, so the vertical dimension changes. We should use the horizontal dimension instead". And so it was.

 

A 4K film scan is usually 4096×3112. That is 4K resolution, because it's 4000 pixels wide. It might be cropped to 4096×2214 (4K 1.85:1), or 4096×2160 (4K 1.90:1) or 4096×1728 (4K 2.37:1) or some other ratio depending on the project, and now there's no weirdness in deciding what to call these anymore. They are all still in 4K resolution, with varying aspect ratios. Good thing we decided to use horizontal resolution notation! Now our editors can say "it's short in 4K, hereps what it looks like in 1.85! And here's 4K at 2.37!"

 

Now this notation has been borrowed by the TV and monitor industry. Is that a good idea? Probably not, because wider aspect ratios aren't generally achieved by cropping like they are with film, but by expanding sideways (i.e. 2560×1440 to 3440×1440). Computer content (in games) is also often generated with fixed vertical content and horizontal expansion, so it makes more sense to use the fixed vertical notation (like 1080p). It's the opposite for cinema, where the horizontal dimension is fixed and the vertical dimension is modified to suit the needs.

 

But now people on the internet who misunderstood (or just don't like) how the notation works have decided to go around trying to change the definition of the notation in order to retroactively make their incorrect usage right by telling people "4K actually refers to a 2160p vertical resolution, not the width". This is simply not true, sorry. The entire point of the "4K" notation was that it refers to width, not height.

 

The issue is that the display industry decided to use notation (4K) that is not well-suited for their application (and was never intended to be).

 

But spreading misinformation about the notation and trying to change what it means is not going to help the sitation at all, it just creates confusion.

4K, 5K, 8K is simply the first number in the resolution. Just like "1080p" and "1440p" is the second number in the resolution. It is no more or less simple that the notation used in precious years.

 

You are trying to convince people that 4K doesn't mean 4000 pixels wide, no instead it means "a monitor with the same vertical height as a monitor with that number of horizontal pixels with a 16:9 aspect ratio". You're right, it's confusing, but you are the one making it confusing, by trying to twist the meaning of the notation into this incredible contortion just because you are accustomed to sticking the word "ultrawide" on the end of the resolution shorthand to refer to an extended width version, and you want that to work with "4K" too.

 

The actual notation is dead simple and is not confusing at all if you just explain the actual meaning to people, and makes perfect sense within its industry. It doesn't work well for specifying the resolution of monitors, so if you want to address the problem you need to convince people to use "2160p" instead of "4K". The solution is not "convince people that 4K is an alias for 2160p", because that simply isn't true and isn't backed up by the last 20 years of usage of this notation in the industry.

I can admit when I'm wrong, although I'm not sure a paragraph after I responded to actual question should be considered "spend[ing] the entire post arguing about what 4K means."

 

Thanks for clearing up where and why 4k notation comes from and is used. I will never  get defensive when I'm talking with someone who knows more than me. I think its a little unfair to say that I'm the one making confusing since you yourself said that using 4k notation for PC monitors "is not well-suited for their application". I agree that just saying 2160p is better for everyone. The reason I intially made my response is because others in this thread were arguing that a 4k by 1080p monitor is not 1080p which is not true, although I should not have been arguing that it is not 4k either, since it is. And no one actually answered his question, which by the phrasing of the initial question, I thought what he meant was pretty clear. 

 

Anyway thanks for clearing up this thread with some actual knowledge. Hopefully people on both sides of the aisle have a better understanding. I know I do. 

[yeeyee123]

19 hours ago, tarsius said:

Dell U4021QW, Lenovo P40w and LG 40WP95C would disagree.

To be fair they typically specify 5k2k to distinguish from what people usually expect from a 16:9 5k monitor.