Ultrawide 32:9 (7680 x 2160 - dual 4k) Monitor

[ConStyle]

Are there any true dual 4k ultrawide monitors (32:9 aspect ration with 7680 x 2160 resolution)?

Or are there any in the making?

 

I am literally waiting since 6 years for this yet I have never found any monitors like that

[IPD]

Negative.  The market for 1080p SUW already fleeting at best; 1440p SUW even smaller.  Selling a 16:9 2160p monitor is already a difficult proposition--given the prevailing mythos about it "being too powerful for your gpu, and makes non-4k games look like garbage".

 

You are pretty much the only person I've ever heard asking for a 2160p SUW.  That means that there's even less demand out there for it than there is for a large-size, curved 2160p display, like the Odyssey Ark (which I am eagerly awaiting).  I also tend to think that consumers are slowly realizing that for all but the most purpose-specific of gaming rigs, 32:9 just isn't as versatile as a regular UW at 21:9.

 

The reason you see so many vertically stacked monitors or portrait-mode monitors on people's setups--is because of the dearth of vertical height available in the segment.

[_l0_0l_]

I've been using triple 4k monitors for a few years now, also been waiting for 2160p SUW. As a mac user I think 4k is the minimal requirement for HIDPI to work properly. Also after years of wear, three monitors are degrading to more and more different color tones. Having one 2160p SUW can basically satisfy all my needs. One good news is 8k tv is now available, I'm thinking getting a 8k gaming tv and split it vertically into two 2160p SUW or four 2160p 16:9.

 

I also play games on windows pc using this triple screen setup, my current pc has 6800XT, with FSR enable triple 4k gaming is quite feasible. Most recent AAA games can run 50-60fps with high preset.

[IPD]

11 hours ago, _l0_0l_ said:

I've been using triple 4k monitors for a few years now, also been waiting for 2160p SUW. As a mac user I think 4k is the minimal requirement for HIDPI to work properly. Also after years of wear, three monitors are degrading to more and more different color tones. Having one 2160p SUW can basically satisfy all my needs. One good news is 8k tv is now available, I'm thinking getting a 8k gaming tv and split it vertically into two 2160p SUW or four 2160p 16:9.

 

I also play games on windows pc using this triple screen setup, my current pc has 6800XT, with FSR enable triple 4k gaming is quite feasible. Most recent AAA games can run 50-60fps with high preset.

If a 3000r, 8k was available, I'd be interested.  I think the age of curved permanently left from TV's though, and monitors are slow to progress.

[BetteBalterZen]

On 2/13/2022 at 11:31 PM, ConStyle said:

Are there any true dual 4k ultrawide monitors (32:9 aspect ration with 7680 x 2160 resolution)?

Or are there any in the making?

 

I am literally waiting since 6 years for this yet I have never found any monitors like that

I'm almost certain that 7680 x 2160 monitors will come, I have 0 doubt, but it has not happened yet, because of the bandwidth requirements. 

[Stahlmann]

5 minutes ago, BetteBalterZen said:

I'm almost certain that 7680 x 2160 monitors will come, I have 0 doubt, but it has not happened yet, because of the bandwidth requirements. 

Current ports offer enough bandwidth.

 

HDMI 2.1 has 48 Gbps

DP 1.4 has 25.92 Gbps

 

 

In fact we could even go up to 175Hz before running into bandwidth limitations with DP 1.4 DSC:

 

 

HDMI 2.1 can even go up to 100Hz uncompressed or 300Hz using DSC.

 

So i'd say it's not a bandwidth limitation, but rather a very niche usecase that makes it so manufacturers don't bother.

[BetteBalterZen]

40 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Current ports offer enough bandwidth.

 

HDMI 2.1 has 48 Gbps

DP 1.4 has 25.92 Gbps

 

 

In fact we could even go up to 175Hz before running into bandwidth limitations with DP 1.4 DSC:

 

 

HDMI 2.1 can even go up to 100Hz uncompressed or 300Hz using DSC.

 

So i'd say it's not a bandwidth limitation, but rather a very niche usecase that makes it so manufacturers don't bother.

Oh right, roger that, I see that my memory is that not good haha. Thank you for the correction. You are probably correct about it being a niche thing. Though I do believe we will see a monitor like this some day. 

[ralmin]

Buy an 8K TV and cover up the top or bottom half of the panel - there's your 7680 x 2160 ultrawide 

 

Seriously, I'd consider an 8K TV for productivity use if they made it at a small enough size to get the pixel density up over 200 ppi. That requires the panel size to be 43 inches or less. Ideally a 39 inch 8K for 215 ppi to make macOS Retina look perfect at native 2x scaling.

[SolarNova]

5120 x 2160 is the best ull find atm.

[ConStyle]

Any news on this?

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, ConStyle said:

Any news on this?

There are several 5K (5120x2160) ultrawides but so far no 8K super-ultrawides (7680x2160).

 

4K is a niche market, 32:9 even more so, and 8K is practically not even a market. I don't expect any brand to put in the money and produce such a display in the near future.

[Andrewtst]

I also want 7680 x 2160 Super Ultrawide 32:9 monitor, if they ever release with at least 144hz, I am sold and replace my current one.

 

But the issue is GPU is not that powerful yet for such high pixel count. Probably RTX 4090 will able to do that for all AAA games in maximum quality set.

 

I believe such display will come in future but just not this year and probably not next year as well.

[ConStyle]

Samsung announced a 57 inch 7680 x 2160 Super Ultrawide 32:9 with 240Hz (insane):

https://www.digitec.ch/en/page/but-what-if-it-were-even-bigger-samsung-introduces-57-inchers-26022

 

@Andrewtst

 

As of now there is no graphics card that has a port with enough bandwith to run it at this framerate though (I think there are Radeon cards with DP 2.1, but they lack the power)

[Andrewtst]

3 hours ago, ConStyle said:

Samsung announced a 57 inch 7680 x 2160 Super Ultrawide 32:9 with 240Hz (insane):

https://www.digitec.ch/en/page/but-what-if-it-were-even-bigger-samsung-introduces-57-inchers-26022

 

@Andrewtst

 

As of now there is no graphics card that has a port with enough bandwith to run it at this framerate though (I think there are Radeon cards with DP 2.1, but they lack the power)

The AMD RX 7900XTX has DP 2.1 but still requires DSC 2.0 to use this monitor at 240hz. 

 

HDMI 2.1 is unable to load 240hz even with DSC 3.0 is also limited in bandwidth.

 

This means only the AMD RX 7900XTX can run at 240hz.

 

Unless Samsung used two outputs. 

Then majority of GPUs will be capable.

[Stahlmann]

10 hours ago, ConStyle said:

Samsung announced a 57 inch 7680 x 2160 Super Ultrawide 32:9 with 240Hz (insane):

And expect there to be scanline issues among other stuff. All of Samsung's high bandwidth monitors in the last few generations had these issues.

[Andrewtst]

On 1/4/2023 at 6:22 PM, Stahlmann said:

scanline issues

This is a strange issue, and I'm not sure why Samsung can't resolve it properly.

 

According to the reviews, both the Neo G9 and the Neo G8 had this issue, but my Neo G9 did not have this issue in SDR or HDR.

The Neo G8 wise has this issue in SDR but not HDR.

 

I'm hoping that Samsung will notice this and release new firmware to fix the scan line issue on the Neo G8.

It's not noticeable unless you look closely, but it's not a cheap monitor, and Samsung should address it.

[ConStyle]

How can you run it at 240Hz?
Even with DP2.1 you do not have enough throughput for it right?
DP2.1 is maxed out at 77.37 Gbps afaik
 

• At 10bit colour depth (3x10 because 3 colour channel):
  7680 x 2160 x 3 x 10 x 240 bit bandwidth per second = 119.439... Gbps
   

• At 8bit colour depth:
  7680 x 2160 x 3 x 8 x 240 = 95.551... Gbps

 

Both are more than the cable can handle based on my understanding. Did I get anything wrong??

[Andrewtst]

4 hours ago, ConStyle said:

How can you run it at 240Hz?
Even with DP2.1 you do not have enough throughput for it right?
DP2.1 is maxed out at 77.37 Gbps afaik
 

• At 10bit colour depth (3x10 because 3 colour channel):
  7680 x 2160 x 3 x 10 x 240 bit bandwidth per second = 119.439... Gbps
   

• At 8bit colour depth:
  7680 x 2160 x 3 x 8 x 240 = 95.551... Gbps

 

Both are more than the cable can handle based on my understanding. Did I get anything wrong??

By using Display Stream Compression technology.

What Is Display Stream Compression, and Why Does It Matter? (howtogeek.com)

[Stahlmann]

11 hours ago, ConStyle said:

How can you run it at 240Hz?
Even with DP2.1 you do not have enough throughput for it right?
DP2.1 is maxed out at 77.37 Gbps afaik
 

• At 10bit colour depth (3x10 because 3 colour channel):
  7680 x 2160 x 3 x 10 x 240 bit bandwidth per second = 119.439... Gbps
   

• At 8bit colour depth:
  7680 x 2160 x 3 x 8 x 240 = 95.551... Gbps

 

Both are more than the cable can handle based on my understanding. Did I get anything wrong??

The data rates are even higher than your calculations.

 

As per the Display Cable / Adapter thread:

 

Quote

Note: Actual video transmission does require blanking intervals. The "Timing Format: None" option should only be used for mathematical curiosity, not to determine how much bandwidth a video signal actually needs. Even though modern non-CRT displays do not actually need blanking intervals to physically operate, these intervals have been repurposed in interfaces like HDMI for transmitting auxiliary data such as inline audio and control signals, and therefore are still required for the operation of display devices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But like @Andrewtst said, DSC is used to achieve the required data rates. Even at the lowest compression level, DSC still cuts the required data rate in half.