Should I go 21/9 or 32/9

[IAmAndre]

Hi,

 

I would like to upgrade my current Acer monitor, which is 4K and 16/9. I'm using it mostly for productivity and light gaming. I play mostly RTS, action, and sports games, so while I don't need for a particularly high refresh rate, I tend to get very nauseous when the response rate is low and things get kind of blurry.

 

So I've been dreaming of buying a 32/9 monitor one day, but I am seeing some very good deals with 21/9 models, and I also found a cheap 32/9 with a lower resolution. For example, buying this LG model would cost me around €500, which is half of what I would pay for a Samsung Odyssey.

 

I am also finding 32/9 monitors below €1000 but with a 3840 x 1080 resolution. Would the extra size make up for the low pixel density?

 

My other option is the AOC CU34G2 which has a great review by Hardware Unboxed.

 

So in summary, I'm looking for the best bang for the buck. Are 32/9 options worth paying the double of the price of a 21/9 model? Are the two 21/9 options I mentioned a solid upgrade over my current one?

 

Thanks

[dizmo]

You're asking a lot of questions that really, only you can answer yourself.

Personally I wouldn't buy a 3840x1080p panel. It's equivalent to 2 27" 1080p panels side by side, and I see 27" as too big for 1080p.

As for are they worth double the price, again, only you can answer that. I'd pay the extra. Will you? No idea.

 

Not sure what you mean by will the size make up for the low pixel density. You're not going to get any more on the screen than you would with a 1080p monitor.

 

Worth questions like this are pointless, and it kind of comes across as you trying to push your decision off onto others.

[IAmAndre]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

You're asking a lot of questions that really, only you can answer yourself.

Personally I wouldn't buy a 3840x1080p panel. It's equivalent to 2 27" 1080p panels side by side, and I see 27" as too big for 1080p.

As for are they worth double the price, again, only you can answer that. I'd pay the extra. Will you? No idea.

 

Not sure what you mean by will the size make up for the low pixel density. You're not going to get any more on the screen than you would with a 1080p monitor.

 

Worth questions like this are pointless, and it kind of comes across as you trying to push your decision off onto others.

I wouldn't call it pushing a decision, but collecting opinions and arguments to make a more informed decision as I may have missed some things to consider.

[SolarNova]

I would not suggest going back to 1080p vertical.

 

I also wouldn't suggest trying to get a 5120 x 1440 display as its not much lower in total pixel count to 4k. So ur performance wont be much better.

 

As such i'd suggest getting a 3840 x 1440, 3840 x 1600 , or 3440 x 1440 display.

 

I suggest u look at the following

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/72265

[IAmAndre]

6 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

I would not suggest going back to 1080p vertical.

 

I also wouldn't suggest trying to get a 5120 x 1440 display as its not much lower in total pixel count to 4k. So ur performance wont be much better.

 

As such i'd suggest getting a 3840 x 1440, 3840 x 1600 , or 3440 x 1440 display.

 

I suggest u look at the following

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tools/table/72265

Interesting. I was actually considering getting an RTC 3070 or a 3060 Ti. I'm in a waiting list for both. I'm currently able to play my RTS in 4K with no problem on my Vega 56, but I would like to change it because of the noise and the random crashes.

 

I tend to like these LG models as they keep having great reviews everywhere and have a reasonable price and an IPS panel. The extra width is a big plus too.

[SolarNova]

8 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

Interesting. I was actually considering getting an RTC 3070 or a 3060 Ti. I'm in a waiting list for both. I'm currently able to play my RTS in 4K with no problem on my Vega 56, but I would like to change it because of the noise and the random crashes.

 

I tend to like these LG models as they keep having great reviews everywhere and have a reasonable price and an IPS panel. The extra width is a big plus too.

 

LG IPS panels tend to have very poor contrast. So if u at all use ur display in a dimly lit room, u may want to avoid them. Just a heads up.

 

You'll also want to decide if u want a curved screen or not.

[IAmAndre]

14 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

 

LG IPS panels tend to have very poor contrast. So if u at all use ur display in a dimly lit room, u may want to avoid them. Just a heads up.

 

You'll also want to decide if u want a curved screen or not.

I want it curved. Especially if I end up getting a 32/9. On 21/9 I could live with a flat display if it's cheaper. Now I'm also seeing VA LG monitors of the same kind. They are even cheaper where I'm buying them. Here's one of them: https://www.lg.com/fr/moniteurs/lg-35wn75c-b-moniteur-ultrawide

[SolarNova]

2 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

I want it curved. Especially if I end up getting a 32/9. On 21/9 I could live with a flat display if it's cheaper. Now I'm also seeing VA LG monitors of the same kind. They are even cheaper where I'm buying them. Here's one of them: https://www.lg.com/fr/moniteurs/lg-35wn75c-b-moniteur-ultrawide

Fair warning with VA displays, and the reason i included the results in the table i linked, they can suffer from dark smearing (ghosting) due to their slow pixel response on dark transitions. With the notable exceptions of the Samsung G9 which has a very fast and well tuned VA panel, but is expensive in itself and would require a top of the line GPU to fully utilize it due to it being 240hz and 5120 x 1440.

 

For a flat 21:9 IPS panel consider the

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/gigabyte/m34wq

 

For a curved 21:9 VA panel consider the

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/s3422dwg

 

[GuiltySpark_]

Huge ultrawide fan here, i'll never go back to 16:9. That being said, 32:9 makes little sense to me unless its sole purpose was for driving/flight sims. 

 

For me, the perfect models at the moment are the 38" 3840x1600 21:9's. LG and Alienware both make solid models. 

[IAmAndre]

1 hour ago, SolarNova said:

Fair warning with VA displays, and the reason i included the results in the table i linked, they can suffer from dark smearing (ghosting) due to their slow pixel response on dark transitions. With the notable exceptions of the Samsung G9 which has a very fast and well tuned VA panel, but is expensive in itself and would require a top of the line GPU to fully utilize it due to it being 240hz and 5120 x 1440.

 

For a flat 21:9 IPS panel consider the

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/gigabyte/m34wq

 

For a curved 21:9 VA panel consider the

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/dell/s3422dwg

 

So I found the curved version refurbished for a bit under 400€. Would you recommend this one over the IPS LG model we discussed before? I can see on the review that it's decent but not great, although I can't complain for the price. The LG models support USB charging, which can be useful if I want to connect my Mac. The Gigabite doesn't seem to get dark enough too according to the review.

[IAmAndre]

1 hour ago, rickeo said:

Huge ultrawide fan here, i'll never go back to 16:9. That being said, 32:9 makes little sense to me unless its sole purpose was for driving/flight sims. 

 

For me, the perfect models at the moment are the 38" 3840x1600 21:9's. LG and Alienware both make solid models. 

Actually 32/9 makes a lot of sense to me, and if it wasn't for the price I would definitely pull the trigger. I don't game all that much, but it's still useful in strategy games. The most interesting use cases for me would opening use Excel files for work while still having a browser window open, or having Premiere or After Effects open without having to smirk to see some panels, and still have a document with the client's notes or script.

 

I wasn't aware of the 38" type though. I'll check some reviews!

[BuzzingBee]

I wouldn't go beyond 21:9 unless I would exclusively play certain games. I haven't tried 32:9 yet, but I did try triple 1080p monitors setup in the past (which is 48:9) and the games I did enjoy on it was racing, space sim, aRPG on birds-eye view and platforming games provided they support it. I went with 3440x1440 monitor and should I need to experience superwide again I can extend with my two 27 inch monitors.

 

Do you watch movies on your monitor, especially on 4K? Most of them are rendered at 21:9 and you could get 3840x1600 ultrawide to get true 4K movie viewing. I don't know if 3840x1600 VA exist as I only seen IPS panels so far, so you may have to deal with lower contrast ratio + IPS glow. 3440x1440 is still great for movie viewing, although it would be slightly downscaled you may benefit better with VA panel. 

[IAmAndre]

10 minutes ago, BuzzingBee said:

wouldn't go beyond 21:9 unless I would exclusively play certain games.

I won't be using it mainly for gaming. That's mostly for productivity work. With that said, now that I think about it, it must be daunting to play strategy games on such a screen. You'll be moving your mouse around a lot.

 

11 minutes ago, BuzzingBee said:

Do you watch movies on your monitor, especially on 4K? Most of them are rendered at 21:9 and you could get 3840x1600 ultrawide to get true 4K movie viewing

Not sure how this works. I do watch movies on Netflix but they are played at 16/9. Does Netflix support 21/9 monitors and load the appropriate version of the movie?

[GuiltySpark_]

1 minute ago, IAmAndre said:

I won't be using it mainly for gaming. That's mostly for productivity work. With that said, now that I think about it, it must be daunting to play strategy games on such a screen. You'll be moving your mouse around a lot.

 

Not sure how this works. I do watch movies on Netflix but they are played at 16/9. Does Netflix support 21/9 monitors and load the appropriate version of the movie?

If you open a 16:9 movie on a 32:9 display, that's more black bar than video haha. 

 

21:9 is great for this if the film/video is in true widescreen. 

[IAmAndre]

6 minutes ago, rickeo said:

you open a 16:9 movie on a 32:9 display, that's more black bar than video haha

Hence the need for a very deep blacks!

[SolarNova]

3 hours ago, IAmAndre said:

So I found the curved version refurbished for a bit under 400€. Would you recommend this one over the IPS LG model we discussed before? I can see on the review that it's decent but not great, although I can't complain for the price. The LG models support USB charging, which can be useful if I want to connect my Mac. The Gigabite doesn't seem to get dark enough too according to the review.

Which models are we talking about here specifically ?

 

[IAmAndre]

58 minutes ago, SolarNova said:

Which models are we talking about here specifically ?

 

I can have one of these 3 for about €500:

 

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34wn80c-b-ultrawide-monitor

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34wn780-b-ultrawide-monitor

https://www.lg.com/fr/moniteurs/lg-35wn75c-b-moniteur-ultrawide

[SolarNova]

17 hours ago, IAmAndre said:

I can have one of these 3 for about €500:

 

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34wn80c-b-ultrawide-monitor

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34wn780-b-ultrawide-monitor

https://www.lg.com/fr/moniteurs/lg-35wn75c-b-moniteur-ultrawide

If I have to choose between them, i'd go for one of the 2 IPS models as the VA model will likely have to much ghosting.

[BuzzingBee]

On 12/14/2021 at 10:55 AM, IAmAndre said:

I can have one of these 3 for about €500:

 

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34wn80c-b-ultrawide-monitor

https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34wn780-b-ultrawide-monitor

https://www.lg.com/fr/moniteurs/lg-35wn75c-b-moniteur-ultrawide

Sounds like you're set for 3440x1440, but because you're getting 3060ti/3070, are you sure you don't want higher refresh rate? I would go with minimum 100Hz and nowadays there are cheaper IPS ultrawide such as the following:

Acer Nitro XV340CKP 

AOC U34G3X 

Gigabyte M34WQ

 

UPDATE 28th Dec: I no longer recommend Acer XV340CKP as it may be fire hazard from recent discovery. 

 

In Australia Gigabyte M34WQ is only $40 more expensive than LG 34WN780 and I much rather pay that tiny extra for 144hz instead of 75hz.

 

If you're still undecided between VA and IPS, I would lean towards IPS because your original post stated you get nauseous from low response time which is typical from VA panel.

 

That's not to say I'm strongly against VA; I used to own one too and for content watching I prefer VA over IPS as response time don't matter at 24hz. Otherwise for productivity and gaming I would choose IPS. 

Edited December 28, 2021 by BuzzingBee

[IPD]

I concur on avoiding 1080 vertical.  I think for any non 1st person gaming, 21:9 is going to offer superior experience/use.

 

Personally, I think the letterboxing concerns are overblown, as the 16:9 argument is BS when 16:10 would allow you to have on-screen controls with minimal letterboxing for 16:9 playback.  Zero content besides games exists for 32:9 (afaik) so that's an extreme-fringe need.  As far as 21:9, movies sometimes come in 21:9, but there's FAR more content that comes in 16:9 (youtube, tv shows, etc).  I wouldn't put 21:9 screen in my living room either; I'll live with the minor letterboxing for 21:9 on my 16:9 screen.

 

Your existing 32" 2160p is ~15.5" vertical.  So keep in mind that if you keep the same vertical height and downgrade to 1440 vertical, you are probably going to notice the degraded DPI.  According to displaywars.com & my handy dandy calculator:

 

32" (15.69" vertical)@ 2160 vertical is 137.667

34" (13.39" vertical)@ 1440 vertical is 107.543

 

Granted, that's not a width PPI, that's just a vertical PPI--but it should give you some idea.  21:9, 1440 vertical @ 34" is a pretty clear downgrade.

 

[IAmAndre]

1 hour ago, IPD said:

I concur on avoiding 1080 vertical.  I think for any non 1st person gaming, 21:9 is going to offer superior experience/use.

 

Personally, I think the letterboxing concerns are overblown, as the 16:9 argument is BS when 16:10 would allow you to have on-screen controls with minimal letterboxing for 16:9 playback.  Zero content besides games exists for 32:9 (afaik) so that's an extreme-fringe need.  As far as 21:9, movies sometimes come in 21:9, but there's FAR more content that comes in 16:9 (youtube, tv shows, etc).  I wouldn't put 21:9 screen in my living room either; I'll live with the minor letterboxing for 21:9 on my 16:9 screen.

 

Your existing 32" 2160p is ~15.5" vertical.  So keep in mind that if you keep the same vertical height and downgrade to 1440 vertical, you are probably going to notice the degraded DPI.  According to displaywars.com & my handy dandy calculator:

 

32" (15.69" vertical)@ 2160 vertical is 137.667

34" (13.39" vertical)@ 1440 vertical is 107.543

 

Granted, that's not a width PPI, that's just a vertical PPI--but it should give you some idea.  21:9, 1440 vertical @ 34" is a pretty clear downgrade.

 

Actually, like most people who invest on 32/9 models, that's mainly for productivity. Gaming and content watching only comes second. I know that many games can stretch properly, including the ones that I play the most so that's a great bonus. The biggest plus is how much more comfortable my daily work tasks would be.

 

Also, like most people, even at 32", 4K is still too many pixels to be comfortable. I have to used a 150% scaling to be able to read anything on the screen, which is like using a 1440p screen. Then in movies and YouTube videos, I honestly cannot see any difference between 4K and 1440p, sometimes even 1080p. The only difference I see between 1080p and 4K in games in the size of the icons. So I have absolutely no problem going back to 1440p, although I am still concerned about the screen height. At 1440p I should still be able to fit as much content as I can currently, but things would be a tad smaller. Maybe something like 32/10 or 21/10 would be ideal.

[GuiltySpark_]

4 minutes ago, IAmAndre said:

Also, like most people, even at 32", 4K is still too many pixels to be comfortable. I have to used a 150% scaling to be able to read anything on the screen, which is like using a 1440p screen. 

 

I'm worried for when I get to that point. 35 now and I've always worn glasses but one of my favorite things are high resolution displays. I absolutely love 4K on the desktop for my office at 100% scaling. Having a ton of desktop space for "things" I find incredibly useful and I feel much less 'cramped". I truly feel like I get more work done when for example I can see a full excel spreadsheet (and we have some hefty ones) without having to scroll at all, that really throws me off when I'm trying to visualize things. 

 

 

[IAmAndre]

11 minutes ago, rickeo said:

 

I'm worried for when I get to that point. 35 now and I've always worn glasses but one of my favorite things are high resolution displays. I absolutely love 4K on the desktop for my office at 100% scaling. Having a ton of desktop space for "things" I find incredibly useful and I feel much less 'cramped". I truly feel like I get more work done when for example I can see a full excel spreadsheet (and we have some hefty ones) without having to scroll at all, that really throws me off when I'm trying to visualize things. 

 

 

I actually just turned 29 lol. How large is your monitor? I would love to be able to use the monitor at the native scaling It's just super impressive to see that many information. Maybe there's a bit more to it though: even with the 150%, I still need to wear my glasses to be able to use the desktop. However I can use my 13" MacBook Air without my glasses for a long period without any issues. Things only get messy when I need to do some sensitive work on it, but chatting and web browsing isn't an issue on it, let alone movie watching.

 

Do you think there could be some other aspects to consider like the type of panel or something?

[IPD]

40", 2160p, 125% scaling.

[IAmAndre]

3 hours ago, BuzzingBee said:

Sounds like you're set for 3440x1440, but because you're getting 3060ti/3070, are you sure you don't want higher refresh rate? I would go with minimum 100Hz and nowadays there are cheaper IPS ultrawide such as the following:

Acer Nitro XV340CKP 

AOC U34G3X 

Gigabyte M34WQ

 

In Australia Gigabyte M34WQ is only $40 more expensive than LG 34WN780 and I much rather pay that tiny extra for 144hz instead of 75hz.

 

If you're still undecided between VA and IPS, I would lean towards IPS because your original post stated you get nauseous from low response time which is typical from VA panel.

 

That's not to say I'm strongly against VA; I used to own one too and for content watching I prefer VA over IPS as response time don't matter at 24hz. Otherwise for productivity and gaming I would choose IPS. 

Yes the Gigabyte model is actually an option too and a bit cheaper than all LG models. I'm not "set" for 32/9 though. I still love 32/9 models, but I have so many more options, especially at half the price that I need to consider them. Heck I could even get two 21/9 monitors for the price of an Oddyssey G9.

 

Now just to clarify, I used to get nauseous on my previous monitor, which as a Samsung Syncmaster F2380. I happened to get nauseous when I first got the Acer model, for the first few months. It hasn't happened in a while but it could because I play more strategy games with less motion, and bright games like Apex Legens instead of dark ones like Dishonored or Fallen Order. But @rickeomade a good point: could readability be impacted by the type of panel or anything else?