21:9 and 16:9 thoughts

[Nasty Pirate]

So the new 21:9 1440p 34" Curved G-sync 100Hz monitor from Asus has been announced and is very interesting.

However is the upgrade from a 16:9 1080p 27" monitor worth it?

 

I mostly run 1080p content, I would run 1440p too, but what about the overall screensize. I did a comparison at display wars and the overall screen size area increase was only 20%. And on top of that, if you run 1080p content on that monitor the screen size is effectively like that of a 23" 16:9 monitor, which is a 4" decrease. I know 21:9 is more immersive and the movies have no black lines top and bottom, but it's essentially a wider 16:9 with its vertical size decreased too.

 

So my question is this: If I want to upgrade my monitor (27"/1080p) should I go to a 21:9 solution like the aforementioned one from Asus? or just skip to a 4K TV at 40" and be done with it? Also I plan on upgrading my graphics card too when I decide on the monitor in order to drive it.

 

Any thoughts/advice?

 

[AresKrieger]

Why do you want a curved monitor, that's just weird. As for the specs 1440 is noticeable  and 100hz is a definite boost, now 4K is just a waste in my opinion

[christianled59]

Why do you want a curved monitor, that's just weird. As for the specs 1440 is noticeable and 100hz is a definite boost, now 4K is just a waste in my opinion

How is it weird? It's a long monitor so the ends face you more. Therefore, less dramatic angles. 4k is definately not a waste. It's very nice to have all that real estate for work. Although, I don't yet recommend it for gaming.

Although, at 40 inches OP, pixels would be blurry. It's basically not much sharper than a 20-30" 1080p. Unless you sit a good distance away.

[Praesi]

IPS 1440p 144Hz Gsync

 

That are the specs you should look for when you upgrade.

 

No Question the x34 looks super cool. But since 21:9 isnt supported with every Game and if its true that you have to oc the Display yourself to reach 100hz i pass and wait till 21:9 is full accepted from the industry.

4K is waste of Money and not worth the performance loss.

[Nasty Pirate]

Why do you want a curved monitor, that's just weird. As for the specs 1440 is noticeable  and 100hz is a definite boost, now 4K is just a waste in my opinion

 

Supposedly it adds to the immersiveness. I have my doubts really as it can't be THAT much longer than my current one. If we were talking about a 50"+ 21:9 then it would play a more significant role. Α 4K 40" Samsung TV as a monitor is not that a waste I think.

[Nasty Pirate]

IPS 1440p 144Hz Gsync

 

That are the specs you should look for when you upgrade.

 

No Question the x34 looks super cool. But since 21:9 isnt supported with every Game and if its true that you have to oc the Display yourself to reach 100hz i pass and wait till 21:9 is full accepted from the industry.

4K is waste of Money and not worth the performance loss.

 

Do these specs come in larger than 27" monitors? 

[Praesi]

Do these specs come in larger than 27" monitors? 

No. Not yet. There is only one Monitor that have these Specs atm. Some more at end of the Year i quess.

[Nasty Pirate]

No. Not yet. There is only one Monitor that have these Specs atm. Some more at end of the Year i quess.

 

You mean the Asus ROG 27" one right? I think I will wait then. I wish the made 16:9 larger monitors with those specs...

[Praesi]

You mean the Asus ROG 27" one right? I think I will wait then. I wish the made 16:9 larger monitors with those specs...

Acer Predator xb270hu.

 

Asus ROG Swift should come this Year. But no releasedate yet.

[Praesi]

Acer Predator xb270hu.

 

Asus ROG Swift pg279q should come this Year. But no releasedate yet.

Selfquote mistake.

[Nasty Pirate]

The Asus ROG swift PG278Q has the same specs too but it's a TN panel

[Grrizz]

Go with what has the best quality in your price range, if quality is equal between everything and you have the hardware to drive it my preference is:

40" 4K 16:9 > 34" 1440p 21:9 > 27" 1080p 16:9

Reasoning (pros/cons):

27" 1080p 16:9

- Fine for most media, movies have black bars above and below though.

- Games look good with a little AA.

- Easy to drive.

- Desktop space is limited.

- Your base line screen these days, does everything well but nothing outstanding.

34" 1440p 21:9

- Same height as 27" 16:9 but wider.

- Good for movies because the black bars are gone (after setting it up right) effectively giving you a much larger image than 27" 16:9.

- Movies wont be running at native resolution but that's not a big deal for movies (matters more for desktop/games).

- Games look a little sharper but not drastically so however the wider screen makes it more immersive.

- 2.38x more pixels than 1080p so more processing power required.

- A lot more desktop space than 1080p.

40" 4K 16:9

- Roughly the same width as 34" 21:9 but taller.

- Good for movies because 1080p and 720p scale natively (2x/3x) and the image will be roughly the same size as on a 34" 21:9 but with black bars above and below.

- Games look a little sharper than the 1440p and the large screen makes it even more immersive.

- 4x more pixels than 1080p requiring a lot more processing power (1080p scales nicely though so that's an option but 1440p doesn't).

- Tons of desktop space.

- The size makes it comfortable to use on the desktop without scaling.

The IRL downsides of 40" 4K are the image quality generally isn't as good as what you can get from the other two sizes in the market today (that'll change in time), 4K is basically limited to 60Hz for the moment and obviously price is a lot higher which leaves me thinking 1440p 21:9 is the sweet spot at the moment, you get some nice improvements in games, you can get some nice IPS and now/soon high refresh rate panels with G/free-sync and its a nice pixel density for desktop/productivity. Only thing I don't like about a lot of the 1440p 21:9 monitors ATM is the curve, its not bad but a flat screen is better IMO. The 4K option will be the top dog when the panels and I/O interfaces have had a bit more time to evolve IMO.

P.S. Its a 28" 21:9 monitor that is roughly the height of a 23" 16:9 not a 34"

[Nasty Pirate]

Go with what has the best quality in your price range, if quality is equal between everything and you have the hardware to drive it my preference is:

40" 4K 16:9 > 34" 1440p 21:9 > 27" 1080p 16:9

Reasoning (pros/cons):

27" 1080p 16:9

- Fine for most media, movies have black bars above and below though.

- Games look good with a little AA.

- Easy to drive.

- Desktop space is limited.

- Your base line screen these days, does everything well but nothing outstanding.

34" 1440p 21:9

- Same height as 27" 16:9 but wider.

- Good for movies because the black bars are gone (after setting it up right) effectively giving you a much larger image than 27" 16:9.

- Movies wont be running at native resolution but that's not a big deal for movies (matters more for desktop/games).

- Games look a little sharper but not drastically so however the wider screen makes it more immersive.

- 2.38x more pixels than 1080p so more processing power required.

- A lot more desktop space than 1080p.

40" 4K 16:9

- Roughly the same width as 34" 21:9 but taller.

- Good for movies because 1080p and 720p scale natively (2x/3x) and the image will be roughly the same size as on a 34" 21:9 but with black bars above and below.

- Games look a little sharper than the 1440p and the large screen makes it even more immersive.

- 4x more pixels than 1080p requiring a lot more processing power (1080p scales nicely though so that's an option but 1440p doesn't).

- Tons of desktop space.

- The size makes it comfortable to use on the desktop without scaling.

The IRL downsides of 40" 4K are the image quality generally isn't as good as what you can get from the other two sizes in the market today (that'll change in time), 4K is basically limited to 60Hz for the moment and obviously price is a lot higher which leaves me thinking 1440p 21:9 is the sweet spot at the moment, you get some nice improvements in games, you can get some nice IPS and now/soon high refresh rate panels with G/free-sync and its a nice pixel density for desktop/productivity. Only thing I don't like about a lot of the 1440p 21:9 monitors ATM is the curve, its not bad but a flat screen is better IMO. The 4K option will be the top dog when the panels and I/O interfaces have had a bit more time to evolve IMO.

P.S. Its a 27" 21:9 monitor that is roughly the height of a 23" 16:9 not a 34"

 

Thanks Grrizz, that's the information I was looking for. 

 

One question though, you said that 21:9 is the same height as a 16:9 but wider. I recently saw a comparison between two such monitors and the 21:9 appeared to be slightly lower in height too and that was what put me off in the first place.

[Grrizz]

Thanks Grrizz, that's the information I was looking for. 

 

One question though, you said that 21:9 is the same height as a 16:9 but wider. I recently saw a comparison between two such monitors and the 21:9 appeared to be slightly lower in height too and that was what put me off in the first place.

34" 21:9 is pretty much the same height as 27" 16:9, the 28" 21:9 monitors are smaller than the 27" 16:9's, that's closer to a 23" 16:9.

[Nasty Pirate]

34" 21:9 is pretty much the same height as 27" 16:9, the 28" 21:9 monitors are smaller than the 27" 16:9's, that's closer to a 23" 16:9.

 

Right, I wouldn't go to such small size screens for 21:9 or 4K for that matter anyway. That settles it, I will wait for reviews on the new Asus ROG 34" 21:9 and then I will probably get it.

 

Thanks everyone for the replies.