Ultra-wide monitors are a lie.

[Man]

Okay, so I'm looking forward to replacing my aging 21.5" 16:9 monitor (Asus VH222 1080p). During my search, I stumbled upon some cool 21:9 'ultra-wide' monitors and immediately, I was in love.

 

But that was a spur of the moment kind of thing. The more I researched, the more I lost my enthusiasm. And now, I think I'm finally over ultra-wides, due to a number of reasons: 

 

1. As the title suggests they are indeed a lie. Check the first picture below. A 30" ultra-wide is comparable to a 31.6" 16:9! Not only that, but the boring, old 16:9 will also give you more vertical screen space, which is what matters 99.99% of the time (browsing, navigating Windows etc.). 
2. A 32" 1440p 16:9 will cost you about as much as a 30" 1080p 21:9 and would be even wider! Check the second picture. 
3. The pixel density of a 32" 16:9 1440p would also be comparable to a 30" ultra-wide 1080p (92 vs. 93 PPI). 
4. If you have to have that 'cool' 21:9 look then you can always create a custom resolution via the open-source ToastyX CRU utility and enable GPU scaling from your driver settings. That way, you'll get black bars on top and bottom. The games will think you've an ultra-wide when you select 2560x1080 resolution. Plus, it'd be optional!  

Bottom line: When you get an ultra-wide, you don't get an ultra-wide! You get a 16:9 display that's been chopped off.

 

Frankly, they're just plain stupid. But of course, feel free to disagree and live the ultra-wide fantasy. 

 

 

 

[Action_Johnson]

16:10 is, and always will be, the superior aspect ratio. 

[Man]

2 minutes ago, Action_Johnson said:

16:10 is, and always will be, the superior aspect ratio. 

I hear ya. I'll always love my 1050p... or the "1680" as people used to call them back in the ol' days!

 

Would still love to get my hands on a nice 2560×1600, just for nostalgia's sake. 

[dizmo]

Eh, I don't really agree. They have their place, and in a lot of ways, make more sense than a larger format 16:9 monitor.

27" is about as big as I'd go with a 16:9 monitor. After that there's a little too much movement required to look at all the items on the screen.

 

30" ultrawide monitors are very rare. It's also an odd choice to use as a comparison. 34" is a more standard size, and gives you considerably more width. Something that makes having two windows open side by side a much nicer experience. They're not a great deal more than the 32" 1440p monitor.

 

You also used rather disingenuous numbers in your comparisons. There is no such thing as a 31.65" monitor. 31.5", sure. It makes the 30" ever so slightly wider. Noticeable? Not really, no. But still, the way you put the visual comparison forth is inaccurate.

 

I love ultrawide monitors. I went with a 27" monitor due to desk space restrictions with my current build, but will probably move over to a 38" UW when I get a new display. It eliminates the need for 2 displays, and saves me from having to look around more than I need to when navigating.

[GuiltySpark_]

10 minutes ago, Man said:

I hear ya. I'll always love my 1050p... or the "1680" as people used to call them back in the ol' days!

 

Would still love to get my hands on a nice 2560×1600, just for nostalgia's sake. 

I've got my 30" Dell 2560x1600 on my desk for a secondary PC. Its... aging. 

 

I moved to a 3440x1440 34" ultrawide in 2017 and then a 3840x1600 38" ultrawide earlier this year and I'm really not sure what you're on about them being a lie. I'll never go back to 16x9 (say that but if I had a spare $3500, an Odyssey Ark would be on my desk in a heartbeat)

 

Those 2560x1080 ultrawides are a waste, don't bother with those.

[Andrewtst]

You comparing 2560x1080 ultrawide with 2560x1440 wide. This is a very wrong comparison.

 

You should comparing 3440x1440 ultrawide vs 2560x1440 wide.

 

Always compare same height resolution.

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, Andrewtst said:

You comparing 2560x1080 ultrawide with 2560x1440 wide. This is a very wrong comparison.

 

You should comparing 3440x1440 ultrawide vs 2560x1440 wide.

 

Always compare same height resolution.

The monitor heights stay about the same, just the resolution changes  

[Andrewtst]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

The monitor heights stay about the same, just the resolution changes  

Off course it is about the same, resolution is the important key point.

[Man]

I don't think you're quite getting my point. 

  

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

30" ultrawide monitors are very rare. It's also an odd choice to use as a comparison. 34" is a more standard size, and gives you considerably more width.

It was merely a reference. You can compare a 34" ultra-wide with a 36" 16:9. 

 

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

You also used rather disingenuous numbers in your comparisons. There is no such thing as a 31.65" monitor. 31.5", sure. It makes the 30" ever so slightly wider.

Again, I was just trying to convey the point that a 30" ultra-wide is "exactly" as wide as a 31.65" 16:9 would be, hypothetically. 

 

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

I love ultrawide monitors.

Sure. But love is generally biased!

[dizmo]

Just now, Man said:

I don't think you're quite getting my point. 

  

It was merely a reference. You can compare a 34" ultra-wide with a 36" 16:9. 

 

Again, I was just trying to convey the point that a 30" ultra-wide is "exactly" as wide as a 31.65" 16:9 would be, hypothetically. 

 

Sure. But love is generally biased!

Except for the fact that a 36" monitor doesn't exist. So it makes absolutely no sense to try and use that as a comparison. 

 

Right. Aspect ratios do that. Your argument really makes little sense. 

[Man]

Just now, dizmo said:

Except for the fact that a 36" monitor doesn't exist. So it makes absolutely no sense to try and use that as a comparison. 

 

Right. Aspect ratios do that. Your argument really makes little sense. 

It was an apples-to-apples comparison. You'll need a minimum of 36" 16:9 to break "even" with a 34" ultra-wide.

 

And just for the heck of it, here's a comparison with a 38" 16:9.  

[dizmo]

1 minute ago, Man said:

It was an apples-to-apples comparison. You'll need a minimum of 36" 16:9 to break "even" with a 34" ultra-wide.

 

And just for the heck of it, here's a comparison with a 38" 16:9.  

You understand you get considerably more information on the 34" 21:9 than the 32" 16:9 though, right? 

[Man]

2 hours ago, Andrewtst said:

You comparing 2560x1080 ultrawide with 2560x1440 wide. This is a very wrong comparison.

 

You should comparing 3440x1440 ultrawide vs 2560x1440 wide.

 

Always compare same height resolution.

I was speaking purely from a price-point perspective. 

 

Besides, no 16:9 monitor has a horizontal resolution of 3440, which would be 3440 x 1935p. It's either 2560 x 1440p, which is lower than 3440, or 4K which is higher at 3840 x 2160p. 

[varrys]

For my work, I don't need extra vertical space, I need more width. I have 2-4 Word windows open plus a browser window with multiple tabs. On a standard monitor best I can do is have two windows mostly not overlapping, so rest are layered behind. An ultrawide allows 3 windows easily. And no, I would not want to set up four 1080 size 16:9 windows on a 4K instead because I need the documents to fill the vertical space. 

 

My use case may be very specific. But there are pros and cons for all formats. Gamers also enjoy the immersion effect of filling peripheral as opposed to just taller/bigger. To each their own.

[TechnoLawyer]

Width matters. It's common for me to need 3-5 windows open side by side when working. Vertical space doesn't matter quite as much. 

 

This stuff said, a basic 32in 4k is so cheap that for productivity, most ultra-wides that aren't the big-boys don't make much sense. 

[Man]

9 hours ago, TechnoLawyer said:

Width matters. It's common for me to need 3-5 windows open side by side when working. Vertical space doesn't matter quite as much. 

 

This stuff said, a basic 32in 4k is so cheap that for productivity, most ultra-wides that aren't the big-boys don't make much sense. 

Well, here' my standard 16:9 1080p monitor running in "ultra-wide" at 1920 x 823. As you can tell, the horizontal is the same at 1920 pixels. It's only the vertical resolution that's been 'squished' from 1080p to 823p.

 

So, if you like more horizontal screen real-estate on a 16:9 then it can be done. Quickly. I accomplished it in under 5 minutes via freeware ToastyX CRU, after calculating the proper aspect ratio.

 

Just add the resolution of your choice in a vacant extension block, hit OK and either restart the PC or - preferably - just run restart64.exe, which is bundled with CRU package. 

 

 

[TechnoLawyer]

12 hours ago, Man said:

Well, here' my standard 16:9 1080p monitor running in "ultra-wide" at 1920 x 823. As you can tell, the horizontal is the same at 1920 pixels. It's only the vertical resolution that's been 'squished' from 1080p to 823p.

 

So, if you like more horizontal screen real-estate on a 16:9 then it can be done. Quickly. I accomplished it in under 5 minutes via freeware ToastyX CRU, after calculating the proper aspect ratio.

 

Just add the resolution of your choice in a vacant extension block, hit OK and either restart the PC or - preferably - just run restart64.exe, which is bundled with CRU package. 

 

 

 

What are you getting at? That dumb ultra-wides exist? So? Dumb 16:9 monitors exist as well -- 1080p 32in monitors and such.

 

Good ultra-wides do exist. Look, for example, at the 5120x2160 21:9 monitors. That's ultra-wide done right. You're taking a 4k 16:9 monitor of a given size, adding more horizontal width.

 

I'm currently looking at the 40in 5120x2160 21:9 monitors. A 4k 16:9 32in monitor has the perfect amount of vertical space for me, but I could use some extra horizontal space. The 40in does that exactly, without sacrificing DPI, without adding vertical space that I neither need nor want. 

[Man]

15 hours ago, TechnoLawyer said:

 

What are you getting at? That dumb ultra-wides exist? So? Dumb 16:9 monitors exist as well -- 1080p 32in monitors and such.

 

Good ultra-wides do exist. Look, for example, at the 5120x2160 21:9 monitors. That's ultra-wide done right. You're taking a 4k 16:9 monitor of a given size, adding more horizontal width.

 

I'm currently looking at the 40in 5120x2160 21:9 monitors. A 4k 16:9 32in monitor has the perfect amount of vertical space for me, but I could use some extra horizontal space. The 40in does that exactly, without sacrificing DPI, without adding vertical space that I neither need nor want. 

Then you completely missed my point!

I was talking about 1080p and 1440p ultra-wides. 

 

And besides, anything beyond 4K is worthless... unless we are talking about 50" or larger displays. There are only so many pixels the eyes can see. 

 

Microscopes exist for a reason, after all!

[ewitte]

These make more sense, common sizes and similar dpi if you keep the same vertical resolution

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cmndr]

They can be fine for some productivity use cases where you want ONE monitor on a desk. 

I generally agree though.

I bought a 4K 120Hz 55" TV and use it as a monitor. Same price as a 35" ultra wide with the top chopped off. 
 

10 hours ago, Man said:

And besides, anything beyond 4K is worthless... unless we are talking about 50" or larger displays. There are only so many pixels the eyes can see. 

I can feel a need for more pixels at 4K 55". Part of me feels like 5K 240Hz would be kind of an "end game" for me. I need to wait for those prices to settle in though, we're probably 5-10 years off before I can get a solid OLED with those specs or better. 

[ewitte]

9 minutes ago, cmndr said:

I can feel a need for more pixels at 4K 55". Part of me feels like 5K 240Hz would be kind of an "end game" for me. I need to wait for those prices to settle in though, we're probably 5-10 years off before I can get a solid OLED with those specs or better. 

At 48in the ppi for me is borderline.  I can definitely see a new for more than 4k at that size.  Likely when new technology is out, I may go down to 42in, but I don't see wanting to go below that anymore.

[cmndr]

6 minutes ago, ewitte said:

At 48in the ppi for me is borderline.  I can definitely see a new for more than 4k at that size.  Likely when new technology is out, I may go down to 42in, but I don't see wanting to go below that anymore.

One thing to keep in mind, PPI itself isn't an ideal metric. 
It's probably pixels per degree. This accounts for viewing distance. The viewing distance for a 55" display is further back than a 27" display. 

I'd go as far as saying most people can get away with one GOOD monitor in the center and that the side monitors can be lower resolution since peripheral vision isn't as high fidelity. 

[ewitte]

Just now, cmndr said:

One thing to keep in mind, PPI itself isn't an ideal metric. 
It's probably pixels per degree. This accounts for viewing distance. The viewing distance for a 55" display is further back than a 27" display. 

I'd go as far as saying most people can get away with one GOOD monitor in the center and that the side monitors can be lower resolution since peripheral vision isn't as high fidelity. 

I use my 48in as a primary monitor I'm like 32-35 inches away.

[dilpickle]

This is why using diagonal screen size is stupid. You can't compare different aspect ratios unless you use screen height.

 

Ultra wides are great for productivity. I don't like them for gaming.

[Andrewtst]

26 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

Ultra wides are great for productivity

I agreed Ultrawide is great for productivity as well as I always prefer put apps side by side in a single row only.

 

Gaming still Wide better due to compatibility issue.

 

No regret having one Super Ultrawide for productivity and one Wide for gaming usage.  To me this is the perfect combination.