Wonder if Linus went back to a 4k monitor...

[Merranza]

So, do you think Linus is still sold on 21:9 3440x1440 or he went back to 4k?

 

Currently waiting on a PG348Q to ship to my place. I need to get used to it. I hesitated between this and the Philips BDM4065UC quite a lot and the "4k is dead to me" video of Linus played a part in that decision.

 

Everytime I look at a 21:9 monitor in store, I also get that feeling it's missing some height. It all comes down to vertical estate vs everything else. I'm coming from a 16:10 22 inches 1680x1050 monitor so the jump to 3440x1440 will be as amazing as the jump to 4k in terms of resolution. So it's 6 inches more vertical estate vs 100hz, GSYNC and all the other features the PG348Q brings to the table. For sure I would have preferred the height of a 32-34 inches 16:9 monitor on that 21:9 one but it doesn't exist unfortunately and PPI would have been affected.

I need to try it. If I don't, I know I'll always ask myself what a 21:9 monitor feels like  If I like it, so be it and I'll enjoy my new PG348Q. If I don't, I'll ask for a refund and change for another model or wait for the next gen of 4k monitors with refresh rates higher than 60hz... no monitor is perfect after all heh.

[shadowbyte]

I love 21:9.

Great for regular web browsing since two windows fit side by side perfectly.

Gaming is also amazing, especially in games with adjustable FOV's. 

Around 100 is amazing, especially in Mirror's Edge, Refunct, and Crysis 3. I'd get one, try it out for a while, and if you don't like it, bring it back.

[Merranza]

1 minute ago, shadowbyte said:

I love 21:9.

Great for regular web browsing since two windows fit side by side perfectly.

Gaming is also amazing, especially in games with adjustable FOV's. 

Around 100 is amazing, especially in Mirror's Edge, Refunct, and Crysis 3. I'd get one, try it out for a while, and if you don't like it, bring it back.

Yup, that's what I'm gonna do. Got a full 30 days to try it out.

 

Some 4k lovers would answer to your first sentence by saying you could fit 4 windows on your screen for regular web browsing and that same 34 inches 3440x1440 would fit entirely inside that 40 inches 4k

 

And I can't contradict them arggh

[shadowbyte]

1 minute ago, Merranza said:

Some 4k lovers would answer to your first sentence by saying you could fit 4 windows on your screen for regular web browsing and that same 34 inches 3440x1440 would fit entirely inside that 40 inches 4k

but the windows be so small

and ultrawide is easier to run, especially 2560x1080, which is what I have

[RyanMacRocks]

I suppose my largest concern if I were to go to 21:9 would be watching video (cuz i watch a lot of YouTube lol) but other than that games on 21:9 look amazing, and you shouldn't be able to notice much pixel loss between 21:9 monitors and 4k monitors unless you have your face against the screen.

[Merranza]

2 minutes ago, shadowbyte said:

but the windows be so small

and ultrawide is easier to run, especially 2560x1080, which is what I have

Yeah that's true. Anyway, tabs exist so what's the need to have 4 windows opened at the same time

 

I know for me it will really come down to missing that vertical height or not. For all the rest, the PG348Q is a superior monitor to that Philips one I was checking (aesthetics, the adjustable stand, GSYNC (though this can now be found on some 4k monitors), the higher refresh rate (important to me as I am a gamer), etc.).

[Weak1ings]

It's personal preference, I find myself dreaming of 4:3 and square panels myself at really high res.  (like 3240x3240 for a 1:1) because that vertical height is something I find myself wanting consistently on the desktop.  For gaming, more in every direction is nice.

[Merranza]

2 minutes ago, RyanMacRocks said:

I suppose my largest concern if I were to go to 21:9 would be watching video (cuz i watch a lot of YouTube lol) but other than that games on 21:9 look amazing, and you shouldn't be able to notice much pixel loss between 21:9 monitors and 4k monitors unless you have your face against the screen.

To be honest, seeing how fast 21:9 monitors are becoming more and more popular, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more 21:9 content on youtube. Probably not content coming from users as most of us have 16:9 camera but other created content will be.

 

I'm not concerned about pixel density. I'm coming from a 22 inches 1680x1050 so the jump will be massive for either the 3440x1440 or the 4k. It's more about the height. I need to get used to the form factor of a 21:9. It feels so narrow when you look at it.

[VZX]

1 hour ago, Merranza said:

I'm not concerned about pixel density. I'm coming from a 22 inches 1680x1050 so the jump will be massive for either the 3440x1440 or the 4k. It's more about the height. I need to get used to the form factor of a 21:9. It feels so narrow when you look at it.

You would worry on pixel density when it comes to 4k. The density jumps from your 1680x1050@22" is about 50%~75% higher on the 28~32" 4k monitor we see right now.

 

The 4k pixel density is about the same or higher than a 1920x1080 @15.6" laptop.

 

If you place your that big screen on desktop as close as you are using a 15.6" laptop, then sure.

But fi it were me, I'd put some more distance to the display, and consequently the text would be tad too small to read

 

Meanwhile, 3440x1440@34" is still comfortable to read. It's the same pixel density with 2560x1440 @27" 

[Merranza]

1 hour ago, VZX said:

You would worry on pixel density when it comes to 4k. The density jumps from your 1680x1050@22" is about 50%~75% higher on the 28~32" 4k monitor we see right now.

 

The 4k pixel density is about the same or higher than a 1920x1080 @15.6" laptop.

 

If you place your that big screen on desktop as close as you are using a 15.6" laptop, then sure.

But fi it were me, I'd put some more distance to the display, and consequently the text would be tad too small to read

 

Meanwhile, 3440x1440@34" is still comfortable to read. It's the same pixel density with 2560x1440 @27" 

I was more looking at a 40 inches 4k. I thought the pixel density of 3840x2160@40 inches was similar to 3440x1440@34 inches. But for sure, 4k at 28-32 would be a lot smaller.

 

Thanks for your input