21:9 and 1080p questions

[675409]

I am wondering if paying a marginal premium for that extra real estate would be worth it for gaming. I am also wondering if a 1080p ultrawide is as bad as people say, and if so if I can use windows to scale and even scale my games in the settings (wazone)

[Middcore]

Not sure what "as bad as people say" means. In my experience people just look down on it because it's not 1440p or 1440p ultrawide.

 

I used a 2560x1080p ultrawide for a while and my biggest problem was that even some relatively modern AAA games (RDR2 for example) still didn't know how to handle 21:9 properly in cutscenes. 

[GuiltySpark_]

I'm a diehard 21:9 fan but 2560x1080 is a problem for me for the same reason 1920x1080 is, just not enough desktop real estate to make using the PC when not gaming comfortable. I like big, high resolution displays. 1080 vertical pixels is.. just unbearable. If its all you've ever known though, go for it. 

[Stahlmann]

I'd say the main problem with 1080p 21:9 is that it's a small market segment and thus missing a bunch of good options to choose from. As long as you stay under 30" pixel density is still good enough. Still, most 1080p ultrawides are budget class displays with subpar performance. That's the main reason it's looked down upon.

[Donut417]

7 hours ago, 675409 said:

I am wondering if paying a marginal premium for that extra real estate would be worth it for gaming. I am also wondering if a 1080p ultrawide is as bad as people say, and if so if I can use windows to scale and even scale my games in the settings (wazone)

I run dual ultrawides but for a while I used just a 25" 1080p model and it worked great. As far as game support goes, thats game to game. I have some games that have no issue and others that wont do that resolution, so I get black bars on the sides. I have sense upgraded to a 34" 1440p ultrawide, its nice. From what I have seen in 21:9 displays most 1080p models seem to be around 25", anything bigger generally comes in 1440p or higher. 

[dizmo]

I love ultrawide monitors, and I don't think I'll ever go back to long term usage of anything but ultrawides.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean regarding the issues you think you'll have. Virtually all games I played, aside from a few really old ones play perfectly fine on an ultrawide monitor. There's no need for scaling or anything of that nature.

 

10 hours ago, GuiltySpark_ said:

I'm a diehard 21:9 fan but 2560x1080 is a problem for me for the same reason 1920x1080 is, just not enough desktop real estate to make using the PC when not gaming comfortable. I like big, high resolution displays. 1080 vertical pixels is.. just unbearable. If its all you've ever known though, go for it. 

That's one of the reasons I'm worried about going to a 1440p monitor It's coming, but it's also going to mean I'll have another thing I'll never be able to go back from.

9 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

I'd say the main problem with 1080p 21:9 is that it's a small market segment and thus missing a bunch of good options to choose from. As long as you stay under 30" pixel density is still good enough. Still, most 1080p ultrawides are budget class displays with subpar performance. That's the main reason it's looked down upon.

Subpar performance isn't exactly accurate. You can still get very nice IPS panels with 75hz refresh, and if you look hard enough there's some good 200hz panels out there.

3 hours ago, Donut417 said:

I run dual ultrawides but for a while I used just a 25" 1080p model and it worked great. As far as game support goes, thats game to game. I have some games that have no issue and others that wont do that resolution, so I get black bars on the sides. I have sense upgraded to a 34" 1440p ultrawide, its nice. From what I have seen in 21:9 displays most 1080p models seem to be around 25", anything bigger generally comes in 1440p or higher. 

29" is an incredibly common size for that resolution, and there's quite a few 34" as well, though I wouldn't suggest those.

[Stahlmann]

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

Subpar performance isn't exactly accurate. You can still get very nice IPS panels with 75hz refresh, and if you look hard enough there's some good 200hz panels out there.

You missed the part where i said "mostly". You confirmed that with "if you look hard enough". I wouldn't call a standard run of the mill 75Hz IPS monitor a good gaming monitor nowadays, not even decent. Filtering by 2560x1080p, 144Hz+, IPS, 99% sRGB+ only brings up 4 monitors. I wouldn't call that common by any means. And especially for the price (all around 350-380€) you can get significantly better 16:9 1440p 144Hz-class monitors.

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, Stahlmann said:

You missed the part where i said "mostly". You confirmed that with "if you look hard enough". I wouldn't call a standard run of the mill 75Hz IPS monitor a good gaming monitor nowadays, not even decent. Filtering by 2560x1080p, 144Hz+, IPS, 99% sRGB+ only brings up 4 monitors. I wouldn't call that common by any means. And especially for the price (all around 350-380€) you can get significantly better 16:9 1440p 144Hz-class monitors.

Right. And you're wrong. If you look at PCPartPicker, there's 82 2560x1080 monitors. There's only 8 that are 25".

You're being oddly specific with the SRGB coverage. It's a gaming monitor, it doesn't need to be perfect.

[Stahlmann]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Right. And you're wrong. If you look at PCPartPicker, there's 82 2560x1080 monitors. There's only 8 that are 25".

You're being oddly specific with the SRGB coverage. It's a gaming monitor, it doesn't need to be perfect.

Again, i said:

12 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

I'd say the main problem with 1080p 21:9 is that it's a small market segment and thus missing a bunch of good options to choose from. As long as you stay under 30" pixel density is still good enough. Still, most 1080p ultrawides are budget class displays with subpar performance. That's the main reason it's looked down upon.

99% sRGB coverage is a minimum spec for a decent IPS monitor. Even most $120 office monitors meet this spec no problem. Everything below that is just garbage-tier cheap panels. That's why i filtered for that - to rule out garbage monitors.

[675409]

I can still add a custom resolution to windows to upscale from 1080p to 1440p right? I did this with an old 720p monitor as a secondary, and it upscaled to 1440p easy.

[Middcore]

34 minutes ago, 675409 said:

I can still add a custom resolution to windows to upscale from 1080p to 1440p right? I did this with an old 720p monitor as a secondary, and it upscaled to 1440p easy.

1440p is exactly 4x 720p. 

 

Upscaling from 1080p ultrawide to 1440p ultrawide is going to be... More problematic.

[IPD]

IMHO, there is zero reason to go with ultrawide and stay with the shite-ass 1080p vertical line limit; just because you want more real-estate.

 

1440p or better 2160p.  THEN...if you decide you must have UW, go for it.

 

p.s.

I can't believe people still buy 1080p displays--new--in 2022....

[IPD]

1 hour ago, 675409 said:

I can still add a custom resolution to windows to upscale from 1080p to 1440p right? I did this with an old 720p monitor as a secondary, and it upscaled to 1440p easy.

 

43 minutes ago, Middcore said:

1440p is exactly 4x 720p. 

 

Upscaling from 1080p ultrawide to 1440p ultrawide is going to be... More problematic.

^ this.  the issue is that 1440p is 2x2 of 720p.

 

p.s.

Now granted, 720p was only created as a stop-gap resolution, and 1440p fulfills the same niche need.  But the industry can't seem to ween itself off this bastardized family of resolutions based on 720p; hence why 2880p will probably become a mainstream standard at some point.

 

Frankly, I don't care if the industry picks 720p as a base or 1080p.  But I am extremely tired of the pinging back and forth between them--which makes scaling a PITA.  Pick one and stick to it.  And personally, I'd rather rip off the band-aid and go directly to 4320p--rather than stop off at 2880p.

[Stahlmann]

19 minutes ago, IPD said:

 

^ this.  the issue is that 1440p is 2x2 of 720p.

 

p.s.

Now granted, 720p was only created as a stop-gap resolution, and 1440p fulfills the same niche need.  But the industry can't seem to ween itself off this bastardized family of resolutions based on 720p; hence why 2880p will probably become a mainstream standard at some point.

 

Frankly, I don't care if the industry picks 720p as a base or 1080p.  But I am extremely tired of the pinging back and forth between them--which makes scaling a PITA.  Pick one and stick to it.  And personally, I'd rather rip off the band-aid and go directly to 4320p--rather than stop off at 2880p.

Aren't you the ambassador of 4K displays?

Both 1080p and 720p scale perfectly into 3840x2160.

[IPD]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Aren't you the ambassador of 4K displays?

Both 1080p and 720p scale perfectly into 3840x2160.

Yes.  And hopefully that is where it dies.  But the industry has proven itself stupid on many, many occasions--and still does.

[675409]

On 4/13/2022 at 10:18 AM, Stahlmann said:

Aren't you the ambassador of 4K displays?

Both 1080p and 720p scale perfectly into 3840x2160.

But does it scale to 1440p?

[Stahlmann]

6 hours ago, 675409 said:

But does it scale to 1440p?

1080p doesn't scale well into 1440p. 720p on the other hand yes.