Ultrawide 34" or 'small' 120hz/Gsync monitor?

[CannedLobster]

Hello! I've been watching LinusTechTips videos for a while but only just now decided to make this account and I've got a question to ask, which I hope you guys can help me with! And sorry, I am not a concisive guy, please bear with me because I'd really like an answer!

So, I've been in a good position to save up quite a lot of money and I'm going to shell out quite a lot of money for a great (and completely overkill) PC.

(Side question if that's ok? SKIP THIS PARENTHESIS IF YOU JUST WANT TO ANSWER THE MONITOR QUESTION: Overkill = 3000mhz DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX980, i7-5960X 8x3.00GHz, ASUS X99 Rampage V Extreme etc. -- To be quite honest I am not massively tech savvy, I know basically what different parts do and what's "good" and what "sucks" etc. I also know enough to say that 3000mhz RAM is completely overkill, at least for gaming etc. anyway, I still want to buy this overkill thing because I have this idea in my head that the PC will be "good" for a longer time, it'll last me longer. Is t his true? A buddy of mine said to me that regardless of how good the stuff you buy is, you'll most likely end up needing to upgrade after 4 years because of physical wear on the things?? Is that true? If it is, such an overkill PC would be completely useless to buy, no?)


Anyway, I saw Linus' review of the LG 34UC97 34" and I was blown away by it and with the new PC I'm looking to get a new monitor. When I saw that I thought to myself that I simply *had* to have it because I absolutely love have tons of space, I love being able to split windows and on my dual-monitor set-up (one is 24" the other I forget, it's smaller) I often sit with 4 windows, it's almost become a bad habit, so yeah, that look absolutely amazing to me.
But I've read a lot about 120hz and Gsync as well. My current is 60 so I've never "experienced" 120hz and effectively don't know what I'm missing out on.

Basically my question is would you go for a smaller (biggest 120hz/Gsync I've seen is 27") monitor with 120hz or Gsync or that massive "Ultrawide" LG monitor? I spend an INSANE amount of time on my PC (seriously) - I have hundreds on top of hundreds of games, I have once had at least a 100 tabs on firefox and I watch as many movies on my PC as I play video games. --- So yeah, how big of a deal *is* 120hz?? Is it just that it reduces screen tearing and that's it?? Or does it feel waaaay smoother the same way 60+ fps feels compared to say, 30?? Because the same way I spend and insane amount of time on my PC and multi-task a lot of stuff, I'm also extremely "FPS-sensitive" and I just hate running lower than 60 FPS... I *can*, seeing as I also have all major consoles but I hate it still. ------ What would you choose?

Again, sorry for not being so consise, I hope you guys can help me, Linus is always talking about how helpful people are here (he's biased I suppose, but I trust him, haha)

[aduman]

Hello! I've been watching LinusTechTips videos for a while but only just now decided to make this account and I've got a question to ask, which I hope you guys can help me with! And sorry, I am not a concisive guy, please bear with me because I'd really like an answer!

So, I've been in a good position to save up quite a lot of money and I'm going to shell out quite a lot of money for a great (and completely overkill) PC.

(Side question if that's ok? SKIP THIS PARENTHESIS IF YOU JUST WANT TO ANSWER THE MONITOR QUESTION: Overkill = 3000mhz DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX980, i7-5960X 8x3.00GHz, ASUS X99 Rampage V Extreme etc. -- To be quite honest I am not massively tech savvy, I know basically what different parts do and what's "good" and what "sucks" etc. I also know enough to say that 3000mhz RAM is completely overkill, at least for gaming etc. anyway, I still want to buy this overkill thing because I have this idea in my head that the PC will be "good" for a longer time, it'll last me longer. Is t his true? A buddy of mine said to me that regardless of how good the stuff you buy is, you'll most likely end up needing to upgrade after 4 years because of physical wear on the things?? Is that true? If it is, such an overkill PC would be completely useless to buy, no?)

Anyway, I saw Linus' review of the LG 34UC97 34" and I was blown away by it and with the new PC I'm looking to get a new monitor. When I saw that I thought to myself that I simply *had* to have it because I absolutely love have tons of space, I love being able to split windows and on my dual-monitor set-up (one is 24" the other I forget, it's smaller) I often sit with 4 windows, it's almost become a bad habit, so yeah, that look absolutely amazing to me.

But I've read a lot about 120hz and Gsync as well. My current is 60 so I've never "experienced" 120hz and effectively don't know what I'm missing out on.

Basically my question is would you go for a smaller (biggest 120hz/Gsync I've seen is 27") monitor with 120hz or Gsync or that massive "Ultrawide" LG monitor? I spend an INSANE amount of time on my PC (seriously) - I have hundreds on top of hundreds of games, I have once had at least a 100 tabs on firefox and I watch as many movies on my PC as I play video games. --- So yeah, how big of a deal *is* 120hz?? Is it just that it reduces screen tearing and that's it?? Or does it feel waaaay smoother the same way 60+ fps feels compared to say, 30?? Because the same way I spend and insane amount of time on my PC and multi-task a lot of stuff, I'm also extremely "FPS-sensitive" and I just hate running lower than 60 FPS... I *can*, seeing as I also have all major consoles but I hate it still. ------ What would you choose?

Again, sorry for not being so consise, I hope you guys can help me, Linus is always talking about how helpful people are here (he's biased I suppose, but I trust him, haha)

 

It all comes down to personal preference. Have you ever experienced 120/144Hz gaming? If you did you probably already know what to do. If you can live with 60Hz then go with the LG, it's an amazing monitor with magnificent colors, aspect ratio is very good for gaming too. 

 

Newer TN panels are far better with color accuracy than the older ones. Old ones sucked I know... View angles however are still bad but that's to be expected. Here's my 2 cents:

• Go with 120/144Hz if you prefer buttery-smooth gameplay rather than the colors LG provides.
• Go with LG if you can live with 60Hz and enjoy the amazing colors!

Tough choice, good luck!

 

EDIT: I prefer higher refresh rate but that's just me!

 

As for the last statement, Linus is dead on.

[Sauron]

-

 

Welcome to the forum! Please remember to follow your topics so you're notified when someone answers in my sig you can find links to the CoC and the forum's F.A.Q. check them out!

 

I appreciate people who write their questions extensively, it makes them way easier for me to answer ^^ don't worry about that.

 

Before I answer the monitor question, I'll talk about the build: there is no such thing as a future proof pc. Chances are a consumer grade cpu (such as an i5 4690k) will be more than enough for gaming for quite a while, and while you can't be certain, what you can be almost sure of is that the 5960x will be outdated just as fast as the i5. Sure, it will always be more powerful for heavily multithreaded workloads, but games are not such workloads. Buying a 1000$ cpu with the intention of having it "last" more because of the headroom is the wrong way to go about things. Either you actually need the performance here and now, or you really shouldn't get that kind of cpu. By the time the i5 is outdated, chances are consumer cpus will be faster than the 5960x meaning that with an upgrade you'd get way better performance than a 5960x at a fraction of the price. Same goes with 3ghz ram: in a few years it will be way cheaper and so will be motherboards that support it. Secondly, the 980 is currently not worth the extra money over a gtx 970. Two 970s can power 4k pretty well, no reason to spend more (as with the cpu, in a few years you'll be able to upgrade to something much faster for less than you would have paid for 2 980s).

 

As for the monitor: if you didn't feel uncomfortable with 60hz, chances are you don't need 120hz. It does make a difference, but unless you're a professional gamer you can perfectly live without it. I would go for the 34" OR! for a 4k monitor. There are a number of benefits to 4k, including even more space for windows. 21:9 also suffers from scaling (you can learn more about what that is following the link in my signature). I chose 4k, but ultimately it's up to you. The lg is ips too, that's worth noting in its favour (although tn monitors have become very good recently too).

[Elbstrand]

1. No, your PC wont "wear out" after only 4 years. Still i probably wouldnt invest in the X99 platform, other than for work.

Depends on your living situation dust could be a problem for moving parts like fans, be sure to clean them regularly.

 

2. I would go for the 34" 21:9 monitor. In all case other than extreme FPS gaming.

[CannedLobster]

1. No, your PC wont "wear out" after only 4 years. Still i probably wouldnt invest in the X99 platform, other than for work.

Depends on your living situation dust could be a problem for moving parts like fans, be sure to clean them regularly.

 

2. I would go for the 34" 21:9 monitor. In all case other than extreme FPS gaming.

1. The website I'm buying it from (no, I'm not building my own. I simply don't have the surplus energy and/or overview to do this.) only has MSI X99 SLI Plus as the basic motherboard or MSI X99-Gaming 9AC as the 'middle choice' and then the one I listed as the most expensive. (and not by a lot, compared to the 9AC) - The reason I just want to go for the "best" is because my current PC is pretty much "unupgradeable" - the MHz on my RAM are incredibly low (even from the standard of when I bought it, 4-5 years ago) but I can't upgrade the RAM because my CPU would cap them anyway (so I'm told as that's as far as my "tech savviness" goes) and I can't upgrade my CPU because my motherboard doesn't have newer sockets.

So I just don't want to end up in such a position again, which is why I want the "newest" so it'll (hopefully?) be a thing I can upgrade farther into the future.

2: Why, exactly? Personally I *am* very FPS sensitive as I said, but anything above 60 is just "E-penis" as far as I'm concerned. I think 60 FPS is extremely pleasant and just fine for me. I'm told that 120hz has the same effect in that it makes the experience more "smooth" but how much smoother? Is it only something you can "feel"? Personally I'm definitely leaning towards the 34" but 'Linus himself' even said that he doesn't use that at home despite how much he loves it (and he really did seem to love that thing in the review) because it doesn't support G sync/Isn't 120hz.

[CannedLobster]

Welcome to the forum! Please remember to follow your topics so you're notified when someone answers in my sig you can find links to the CoC and the forum's F.A.Q. check them out!

 

I appreciate people who write their questions extensively, it makes them way easier for me to answer ^^ don't worry about that.

 

Before I answer the monitor question, I'll talk about the build: there is no such thing as a future proof pc. Chances are a consumer grade cpu (such as an i5 4690k) will be more than enough for gaming for quite a while, and while you can't be certain, what you can be almost sure of is that the 5960x will be outdated just as fast as the i5. Sure, it will always be more powerful for heavily multithreaded workloads, but games are not such workloads. Buying a 1000$ cpu with the intention of having it "last" more because of the headroom is the wrong way to go about things. Either you actually need the performance here and now, or you really shouldn't get that kind of cpu. By the time the i5 is outdated, chances are consumer cpus will be faster than the 5960x meaning that with an upgrade you'd get way better performance than a 5960x at a fraction of the price. Same goes with 3ghz ram: in a few years it will be way cheaper and so will be motherboards that support it. Secondly, the 980 is currently not worth the extra money over a gtx 970. Two 970s can power 4k pretty well, no reason to spend more (as with the cpu, in a few years you'll be able to upgrade to something much faster for less than you would have paid for 2 980s).

 

As for the monitor: if you didn't feel uncomfortable with 60hz, chances are you don't need 120hz. It does make a difference, but unless you're a professional gamer you can perfectly live without it. I would go for the 34" OR! for a 4k monitor. There are a number of benefits to 4k, including even more space for windows. 21:9 also suffers from scaling (you can learn more about what that is following the link in my signature). I chose 4k, but ultimately it's up to you. The lg is ips too, that's worth noting in its favour (although tn monitors have become very good recently too).

Oh I hadn't planned on following the topic, actually. I just have the tab up "forever" - there's a reason I've had 100+ tabs at one point, haha.

I'm glad someone appreciates me not being concise, haha.

I see your point about the CPUs. Say I bought two identical CPUs, one with the i5 you mentioned and one with the 5960X I mentioned in 4 years both of those are obviously going to be "slow" compared to what you can buy at that time, of course. So in a sense it's redundant to buy the most expensive because something much better will be out before even a year has gone by. This much I *do* know about tech, it's the same with everything in tech, really. Especially with PCs.

The reason I'm thinking the 5960X would still be a better choice for longevity is that say in 4 years I don't have money to buy a new CPU, then obviously, at that time, the 5960X is going to be better than the 4690k you mentioned as well, it just *is* better. So will it not also be able to run games better at that time? I know it's not going to be much better because both CPUs will be very outdated, but the 5960X will still be better and will still be able to run the games better, no?

The same is my rationale for buying the 3000mhz RAM.

And it's the same for the GPUs, really. Well, I know the 980 is cheaper than the 780Ti, this is what people are so excited about with the 980 that basically 780Ti only a bit better but it's cheaper.

All of that said, I know you're just giving me tips and telling me that basically it's a "waste" of money to buy the most expensive because in a year something even better will be on the market and what I had planned on buying now (3000mhz, 5960X, 980 etc.) will be much more cheaper than it is now. But I don't really want to know if it's a "waste" but rather if it's *completely* useless? I.e. in 4 years, will the 780s run games just as well as 980s?? As far as I'm aware and as far as my knowledge goes and can be applied to logic, then no, the 780s would not be able to run games as well as the 980s in 4 years and that's an important thing for me because the only reason I have this much money to "throw away" is because I've got a reasonable well paying job and next-to-nothing in terms of expenses something I know will not be the case in 4 years where I most definitely will not be able to buy such a "beastly" computer or probably even upgrade to two better GPUs for SLI. So I really am buying it for longevity and I can't really tell if your entire point is that there literally is no such thing as "longevity" when it comes to PC or if it's just a "waste of money" (i.e. there IS longevity, but it's just a very very very expensive and essentially stupid thing to do, from a financial standpoint)

The monitor... I've never felt "uncomfortable" with the current monitor I have now, which is a Samsung SyncMaster P2450H http://www.cnet.com/products/samsung-syncmaster-p2450h/specs/ -- A link provided in case it has "something" like it has this " MagicSpeed (2ms)" (I'm really showing how not tech savvy I am, haha) thing that I don't really know what is that essentially makes it act like a 120hz which would have made me "used" to a 120hz.

I'm definitely not a pro-gamer but I would argue that I game just as much as one, I think I have at least 200 games on Steam alone, for example. Why would it only benefit pro gamers? Does it not make gaming more "pleasant" but only makes it more "accurate"??

4K I can see would be just as nice in terms of having lots of room but my experience is that it doesn't actually give you more "physical" space it really just makes everything smaller so it feels as if there's more space. As opposed to a 34" monitor which is legitimately massive. On top of that, 4K gaming--- Yeah no thanks, haha.

I hope I'm understanable, it's quite late where I am.

[CannedLobster]

It all comes down to personal preference. Have you ever experienced 120/144Hz gaming? If you did you probably already know what to do. If you can live with 60Hz then go with the LG, it's an amazing monitor with magnificent colors, aspect ratio is very good for gaming too. 

 

Newer TN panels are far better with color accuracy than the older ones. Old ones sucked I know... View angles however are still bad but that's to be expected. Here's my 2 cents:

• Go with 120/144Hz if you prefer buttery-smooth gameplay rather than the colors LG provides.
• Go with LG if you can live with 60Hz and enjoy the amazing colors!

Tough choice, good luck!

 

EDIT: I prefer higher refresh rate but that's just me!

 

As for the last statement, Linus is dead on.

Do you have the LG monitor and a 120/144hz?

"TN panels"? (told you I'm not tech-savvy, haha. I don't even know what PCI-e ports are. I've probably seen them and plugged something in them, but I don't actually know what they are just from the name, Lol!)

The view angles of what? The LG monitor I mentioned?

Oh I see now. I googled TN panel quickly and to my understand it's what old 'flat panel monitors' had where it would black out as you change angles. Are you telling me the LG is a TN? To be honest I don't really see the proble, in TN because with PC monitors we're sitting right in front of them. I don't plan on watching movies with other people on it and on top of that, it's angled which should provide even less "blackening" -- Are TN panels worse in more ways?

As for your two points that's essentially what is already making me conflicted about which to go for (aside from the colour, which I didn't know the LG had. Is it an OLED screen or something? Hehe)

So your '2 cents' I can't really use. I know that sounds ungrateful but I really don't mean it that way, haha. I'm just saying that those are the exact two things that have me conflicted over which to choose!

What kind of "buttery-smooth" gameplay does a 120hz+ give you? Is it "smooth" the same way 60+ is compared to 30 FPS? Or is it "smooth" in the sense that it has no screen tearing? What exactly is this "smoothness"?? I mean, won't an insanely powerful computer give you the "buttery-smooth" (FPS, at least) gameplay anyway??

-- It seems he is, hehe.

[jttiglao]

You have a big decision to make here.

 

1. It's all about personal thought.

        a. If you like to game a lot, and you are hardcore, so you need a good gaming monitor, go with the 120 hz monitor.

               i. You should also go with this monitor if you are on a budget, or if you have a PC that can't handle the 34" but can handle this.

        b. If you don't game that much, and you like colors and big real estate, then go with the 34"!

               i. You should get this if you have the money, and really desire it, and has a build that can support it!

 

EDIT: It seems that you have quite the PC. So scratch my thoughts, just go with your heart! Eenie Meenie Minie Mo Catch a Tiger by its Toe.

[aduman]

Do you have the LG monitor and a 120/144hz?

"TN panels"? (told you I'm not tech-savvy, haha. I don't even know what PCI-e ports are. I've probably seen them and plugged something in them, but I don't actually know what they are just from the name, Lol!)

The view angles of what? The LG monitor I mentioned?

Oh I see now. I googled TN panel quickly and to my understand it's what old 'flat panel monitors' had where it would black out as you change angles. Are you telling me the LG is a TN? To be honest I don't really see the proble, in TN because with PC monitors we're sitting right in front of them. I don't plan on watching movies with other people on it and on top of that, it's angled which should provide even less "blackening" -- Are TN panels worse in more ways?

As for your two points that's essentially what is already making me conflicted about which to go for (aside from the colour, which I didn't know the LG had. Is it an OLED screen or something? Hehe)

So your '2 cents' I can't really use. I know that sounds ungrateful but I really don't mean it that way, haha. I'm just saying that those are the exact two things that have me conflicted over which to choose!

What kind of "buttery-smooth" gameplay does a 120hz+ give you? Is it "smooth" the same way 60+ is compared to 30 FPS? Or is it "smooth" in the sense that it has no screen tearing? What exactly is this "smoothness"?? I mean, won't an insanely powerful computer give you the "buttery-smooth" (FPS, at least) gameplay anyway??

-- It seems he is, hehe.

 

See them in person. None of this will help you unless you experience them both. This is the best way to decide.

[deadmerc]

I was in the same positive not long ago, I was looking to buy the Rog swift or LG 34 inch. I went with the ROG because I really just game on my pc, internet browse, etc. I went with the ROG and I love it. I have been playing BF4 and all the stutters are gone, its just smooth all the time. It is great.

[Sauron]

-

 

Let me put it this way: suppose today you bought a Ferrari F12 Berlinetta instead of a BMW class M. You'd think that the Ferrari will always be faster, and you're correct, however in the tech world minimum speed limits are constantly raised. If in a few years the minimum limit suddenly goes to 400 km/h and Golfs can reach that speed for 20k$. Suddenly the Ferrari can't circulate just as much as the bmw while being 3.5 times the price and buying the bmw and then a golf would have spared you a lot of money. When the i5 will NOT be able to even run games anymore, the 5960x will probably be giving you a basically unplayable experience. The longevity is really not that much more. And as I said, if you're not satisfied with the performance, nobody stops you from upgrading 3 years from now. The same reasonment goes for the gpus and ram. It's your money of course, but I just think you shouldn't throw it away.

 

Bare in mind that 4k contains fully the resolution of the lg monitor, so if you want to game at that res you can do so no problem. As for size, there are 32" 4k monitors (and I wouldn't go higher otherwise you're throwing away the higher pixel density). 120hz makes the experience smoother, however only pro gamers legitimately need it for faster reactions.

[nick99n]

i would get the ultra wide monitor ( i love this sort of monitors) 

yes your system is overkill ,if you have enough money and you really want it buy it ,but personaly i would get a single 980 and ddr3 ram 

[CannedLobster]

Let me put it this way: suppose today you bought a Ferrari F12 Berlinetta instead of a BMW class M. You'd think that the Ferrari will always be faster, and you're correct, however in the tech world minimum speed limits are constantly raised. If in a few years the minimum limit suddenly goes to 400 km/h and Golfs can reach that speed for 20k$. Suddenly the Ferrari can't circulate just as much as the bmw while being 3.5 times the price and buying the bmw and then a golf would have spared you a lot of money. When the i5 will NOT be able to even run games anymore, the 5960x will probably be giving you a basically unplayable experience. The longevity is really not that much more. And as I said, if you're not satisfied with the performance, nobody stops you from upgrading 3 years from now. The same reasonment goes for the gpus and ram. It's your money of course, but I just think you shouldn't throw it away.

 

Bare in mind that 4k contains fully the resolution of the lg monitor, so if you want to game at that res you can do so no problem. As for size, there are 32" 4k monitors (and I wouldn't go higher otherwise you're throwing away the higher pixel density). 120hz makes the experience smoother, however only pro gamers legitimately need it for faster reactions.

I see what you're saying, but I can't be certain that I'll be in as good a position to upgrade in 3 years and that's why I wanted to best that could, theoretically, last longer?

http://www.sharkgaming.dk/almighty-shark-megalodon-extreme.html

This is the PC I had planned on buying, naturally you can't understand it (assuming you're not Scandinavian, of course) but if you go all the way down to the bottom there should be a massive button saying "TILPAS OG KØB" and if you click that you get the option to upgrade things. Most of the terms used are the same as in English, I.e. RAM, CPU, GPU etc. the only one different is "Bundkort" which is Motherboard.

Maybe you can tell me what you'd do?

[Sauron]

I see what you're saying, but I can't be certain that I'll be in as good a position to upgrade in 3 years and that's why I wanted to best that could, theoretically, last longer?

http://www.sharkgaming.dk/almighty-shark-megalodon-extreme.html

This is the PC I had planned on buying, naturally you can't understand it (assuming you're not Scandinavian, of course) but if you go all the way down to the bottom there should be a massive button saying "TILPAS OG KØB" and if you click that you get the option to upgrade things. Most of the terms used are the same as in English, I.e. RAM, CPU, GPU etc. the only one different is "Bundkort" which is Motherboard.

Maybe you can tell me what you'd do?

 

Well, if you're concerned about not having enough money to upgrade in the future, you could just put your pc money somewhee safe and leave it untouched until you need to upgrade.

 

For one thing, I'd build my own pc, no point in buying it from an oem. Atm I can't make you a build but I'll come back and make it in a few hours.

[LinusTech]

Love how constructive and positive everyone in this thread has been

 

Great experience for a new poster

 

EDIT: I guess I should actually weigh in on the question.

 

For gaming I prefer the ROG Swift. That's what I'm using at home. I love the responsiveness and I have the GPU horsepower to handle 120Hz+

 

For work though (or a 50/50 work & play machine) I think 21:9 34" is a truly magical size/form factor.

[CannedLobster]

Love how constructive and positive everyone in this thread has been

 

Great experience for a new poster

 

EDIT: I guess I should actually weigh in on the question.

 

For gaming I prefer the ROG Swift. That's what I'm using at home. I love the responsiveness and I have the GPU horsepower to handle 120Hz+

 

For work though (or a 50/50 work & play machine) I think 21:9 34" is a truly magical size/form factor.

The owner himself comments on the thread?

This is shaping up to be a cool community! 

 

[CannedLobster]

Well, if you're concerned about not having enough money to upgrade in the future, you could just put your pc money somewhee safe and leave it untouched until you need to upgrade.

 

For one thing, I'd build my own pc, no point in buying it from an oem. Atm I can't make you a build but I'll come back and make it in a few hours.

Really? Thanks a lot, I'll look forward to hearing what you have to say.

[skypine27]

Hey guys.

 

I ended up here via google and created an account just to respond to this thread.  I probably won't have time to follow up any responses, since I have limited time to kill on forums.  But I felt compelled to register here and respond.

 

I'm copy / pasting from the thread I created on the forum I regularly use:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1834794

 

(pics are also in that thread)

 

Anyway, to OP, here ya go:

 

Hey guys.   I have more money than common sense, so I actually have both of these monitors right now (using the system in my Sig):

The LG 34" (34UM95-P)

and 

The Asus PG278Q 27" (the biggest / fastest g-sync monitor at 27" and 144hz)

 

What happened was....

 

I had been using a Dell Ultrasharp 27" (u2711) and wanted to try something different, so I picked up the LG 34"

 

The LG shows up, and WOW I thought, this thing is HUGE.  And buy Huge, I mean AWESOME.  Not huge like thick and heavy.  Huge like the view screen on the Starship Enterprise kind of huge.  

 

Time to fire it up!

Initially I was a bit disappointed a the colors being too dark on 100% brightness after coming from my high end Dell, but I was awed by the amount of screen real estate.  You almost have to physically turn your head a few degrees to see the far edges of the screen.  Looks amazing sitting there too.  Moving files around the Windows environment, web browsing in once browser while having a song or video playing in another (open at the same time of course), etc.  You pretty much NEVER have to resize a file or web browser explorer window to make room to see everything at the same time.  Stuff like that was WAAAAY improved over my Dell 2711.

 

Game wise, I'm a light-medium gamer.  The first title I fired up on the LG was WarThunder (which supports 3440 x 1440 with no problems).  "WOW this looks nice."  You can simply see more stuff (ie, distance) laterally.  I was getting the full 60fps (v-sync on) on the LG as I was with the Dell;  the Titan Im using handled the slightly tougher task of rendering the higher resolution of the LG fine.  Also played around in Guild Wars 2 (full 3440 x 1440 support) and Heroes and Generals (which has a slight glitch at 3440 x 1440) and was really impressed at how much "more" I could see in these games vs on my 27" Dell at 2560 x 1440.

 

Fast forward a few months, and I figured I'd see what this whole "g-sync fad" is about and I just got the PG278Q today.

 

First impression taking it out of the box was...

"WTF, they accidently packed the 24" version in the box for the 27!!!"  (Obviously they didn't.)  I was just so used to the 34" LG "wide" widescreen that going back to a normal aspect ratio 27" feels fucking tiny.  I literally had to get my tape measure out and measure the screen size diagonally to convince myself that I was not somehow duped into buying a 24" monitor.  

 

Fired it up today, and the colors feel too bright everywhere, but I think this is a result of using the darker LG for a few months.  Immediately miss the lateral real estate advantage of the LG when web browsing multiple browsers / windows, moving pics around, etc at the same time.  Time to game.  Just like the first game I fired up when going from the Dell to the LG was WarThunder, so it shall be again.  Enabled g-sync everywhere, set the monitor to 144hz in the control panel, and fired up WarThunder. Disabled v-sync in game, of course, and had to change resolution DOWN to 2560 x 1440

First thoughts, WOW this IS smooth.  I now see this whole "smoothness" thing that g-sync fans are talking about.  FPS counter in game is showing stable at 144 nearly all the time.  Aircraft animation and just panning around the scenery in game definitely feel smother.  

 

Fire up Heroes and Generals.  Same feeling.  Wow this IS smooth.  I never felt like me Dell or LG was "rough" (ie, the opposite of smooth).  I generally got a steady 60fps in any game I played with mostly high settings when using the Titan and DP cable with the Dell and the LG (note, you have to use the DP connection to get 60hz with the LG.  If you use HDMI, it is limited to 50hz!).  But panning and running around at 144 fps on this Asus is definitely smoother.

 

I'm tired of typing so a summary of first impressions after now owning both of these beasts.

 

LG 34" 21:9

+Amazing lateral screen real estate is great for the Windows 8 desktop environment / productivity

+When the game has full support of this resolution, which most modern games do, the amount of extra "space" you can see laterally really is very very very nice.

+I can see why several online reviewers who received the LG as a review sample said after a few hours of use, it literally became their favorite monitor and did not want to put anything else on their desk.

-Colors felt slightly too dark (at max brightness) coming from my high quality Dell

-G-sync tech definitely has a detectable advantage in games, especially the hard-core FPS games that are populated with 13 year olds on Ritalin (BF4, BF3, CoD's, etc)

-Non adjustable stand (height wise) but the height was perfect for my desk / chair anyway

 

Asus PG278Q 27"

+Yes, games are definitely smoother when paired with a high end video card (again, Im using an overclocked Titan)

+In first person shooters, this is where you notice this new tech the most.

-The screen literally feels TINY after using the LG for only a few months.  Going from the "wide" widescreen of 34" @ 21:9 to a "normal" wide screen of 27" feels like I literally went back to a 19" 1080p from years ago.

 

Pic related, the 2 x monitors side by side.  I don't have an HDMI cable to connect the LG to show you side by side with both powered on and in a desktop:

 

 

To me, there is NO winner here.  The LG 34" way out classes the Asus in the windows operating environment as well as in games like GuildWars 2, WarGame Red Dragon, etc.  Ie games where seeing "more" of the environment is a bigger help than instant mouse response time.   The Asus 27" loses badly in the windows operating environment but when you fire up BF4 for the first time on it (as long as you are paired up with a GTX 780 or above), you will say "OHHH, this IS smooth..." and maybe get a few extra head shots that you wouldn't have before.

 

After using both of these screens for Win 8 general use and light-medium gaming, the real winner would be the LG 34" 21:9 with a 144hz panel paired up with G-Sync.  A monitor like that will be my next purchase.  

 

There simply isn't a winner (to me) between these two screens, so I'm not sure yet which one is going on E-Bay...

 

In my thread on hardforum, there are some responses from me to other users as time goes on, and to summarize my opinion here (in case you cant visit the thread on hardfordum):

 

The 144hz / g-sync combo on the Asus is amazing in FPS games.  Also, worth note, is the hardware driven aim point available on that monitor.  This is often not discussed as it might be labeled a "cheat" in online FPS games, and there is nothing the game Devs can do about it, since its on your hardware side.  The hardware aim point DEFINITELY allowed me to get kills in BF4 and Heroes and Generals that I would not have gotten without it.  Its useful.  BUT...

 

The amazing colors and the huge space of the LG are too hard to give up in all other titles.  When friends come over, if they happen to walk by my PC with the LG plugged in and turned on (just showing a normal windows 8.1 desert scenery background), they say things like "Jesus!" or "I love your monitor!  What is that??"  No one says anything walking by with the Asus fired up.  But of course, if they happened to play BF4 with the Asus for a bit, I bet they'd comment on the smoothness.

 

Anyway, its a shame we cant (currently) get a huge 34" 21:9 IPS w/ 120+hz refresh rates.  My LG paired with 144hz and g-sync would REALLY be amazing.

[Sauron]

Really? Thanks a lot, I'll look forward to hearing what you have to say.

 

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/k9tMXL there ya go! Plenty for pretty much any game at any resolution (unless you want surround 1440p or 4k ^^, nothing is enough for that) and a lot of room for overclocking everything from the cpu to the gpus to the ram! Have fun

[FloRolf]

Love how constructive and positive everyone in this thread has been

 

Great experience for a new poster

 

EDIT: I guess I should actually weigh in on the question.

 

For gaming I prefer the ROG Swift. That's what I'm using at home. I love the responsiveness and I have the GPU horsepower to handle 120Hz+

 

For work though (or a 50/50 work & play machine) I think 21:9 34" is a truly magical size/form factor.

 

can you say something about playing CS:GO on the 34um95? Maybe slick can play a game on it and compare to a 120hz panel?

[Grrizz]

Personally I would go with the 34" (and intend to when prices drop a bit more or the Koreans start bringing cheap overclockable ones out) but it is very much a personal decision as both options are great and both have pros and cons vs. each other. You've got 21:9 with great colour reproduction but more motion blur and lower refresh rate on one hand and on the other high refresh with ULMB/G-sync but a more conservative 16:9, not quite as accurate colours and more colour shift.

I'll admit it is a hard decision though, I really cant wait for large OLED displays to become affordable so we can have the best of both worlds

[CannedLobster]

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/k9tMXL there ya go! Plenty for pretty much any game at any resolution (unless you want surround 1440p or 4k ^^, nothing is enough for that) and a lot of room for overclocking everything from the cpu to the gpus to the ram! Have fun

Thanks, I'll take a look at what you put up.

 

[CannedLobster]

 

 

Thanks a lot for that, I've not read it yet but skimmed a bit.

You said you would most likely not reply here again so just saying thanks and letting it be like that!

[CannedLobster]

I've been thinking about something.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I've been led to believe that AMDs "Free sync" is the same as Gsync only it doesn't require any special hardware.

Would it be possible to run Freesync on the LG 34"? If it does, that'd only eliminate tearing and not provide the 'smoother' experience, no?

[Sauron]

I've been thinking about something.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I've been led to believe that AMDs "Free sync" is the same as Gsync only it doesn't require any special hardware.

Would it be possible to run Freesync on the LG 34"? If it does, that'd only eliminate tearing and not provide the 'smoother' experience, no?

 

I think you'd still need an add-on, however we can't be sure until it comes out. Theoretically you need dp 1.3 which the lg monitor doesn't have, so you'll probably need something inbetween.the gpu and the display. What it does is eliminate tearing and actully see all the frames you're generating when you go under 60 fps. So it does make it a little bit smoother, too. However tearing is the most relevant thing.