21:9 or 4k

[BaneOfKnoll]

Right, so I'm preparing to build a custom desktop PC with a GTX 1070 and intel i7 6700k for university and I am trying to decide which type of monitor I will get. 

21:9 or 4K

So I'll probably be doing software engineering and sound production so a large workspace would be nice. However, I also am probably gonna be do a bit of gaming (not competitive). So yeah. 

Is it worth going for a 21:9 screen?

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

I'd go for 21:9, because a GTX 1070 won't let you play graphically-intensive games at 4K with good fps anyways, and 4K are currently pretty limited in their Hz. I think you'd miss out on more by going 4K over 21:9 right now.

[BaneOfKnoll]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I'd go for 21:9, because a GTX 1070 won't let you play graphically-intensive games at 4K with good fps anyways, and 4K are currently pretty limited in their Hz. I think you'd miss out on more by going 4K over 21:9 right now.

Thanks mate

[squirrl]

It's up to you really. You'll always be more productive with a higher resolution, but 21:9 vs 4k is comparing apples to oranges. one is a screen resolution and one is an aspect ratio. I've always found 21:9 to be very letterbox-like , especially at lower resolutions. for example, there's not much point getting a 21:9 2560x1080 monitor when you can get a 2560x1440 monitor that gives more vertical resolution. same with 3440x1440 when you can get 3840x2160, since the latter can easily fit within it. Especially when you're comparing screens with the same/similar PPI.

It all just comes down to your budget, get the biggest resolution you can afford and you will be the most productive, but it becomes harder to use anything smaller.

 

Edit:

For gaming, you can always set a lower resolution, but you can't set a higher resolution with a low resolution monitor. I've found that people seem to really overestimate what graphics card you need for each resolution. I was playing at 3240x1920 for some time with a HD6950. I had to turn off the AA and lower other settings to high/medium but it was still playable, and that's an extreme case. Currently, I have a 2560x1440 screen and i'm playing with a GTX780.  Sure, you're going to struggle at 4k with a 1070 if you want to max everything out and have playable FPS but you can make compromises by lowering some settings, often with little change in the visuals. It's a decent compromise for more productivity outside gaming. 

For software engineering, more vertical pixels is going to do you well. think of all that code you will be able to see

[Delicieuxz]

But for gaming with a 4K monitor, OP will be playing at 1440p anyways, without the added horizontal space of a 21:9, and at lower Hz than they would on a nice 21:9 monitor. So, while you can't turn up resolution beyond 1440p on a 1440p monitor, you also can't make a 4K monitor grow in width and have comparably high-Hz.

 

A GTX 1080 can't run graphically-intensive games at 4K and get 60 FPS, and needs to have settings in games like GTA V, Crysis 3 turned down to mediumish... so it'll be worse with a 1070. I'd rather play with max settings in a lower resolution than play in a higher resolution and be missing all kinds of atmospheric influences.

 

In that video, even though the narrator is saying 4K 60 FPS works after lowering the settings a little, he's overselling it a bit, as the system is still getting less than 60 at times in those games, with some occasional big dips, which I personally don't want when playing a game.

 

 

 

I also do sound production, and that benefits from both added vertical and horizontal space, due to stacking tracks, and being able to view more length of tracks. I'm unsure if there's an advantage or disadvantage between 21:9 or 4K for that.

[squirrl]

49 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

But for gaming with a 4K monitor, OP will be playing at 1440p anyways

 

You could just play at a resolution with a 21:9 aspect ratio and have black bars if you like  it's no different than having no screen in that place at all.

 

[spellmanuk]

personally id go for the 21:9 as its the best of both worlds awesome for producttiviry and slightly more "immersive" (i hate the word) for gaming as if they have good support for 21:9 you can move the HUD a bit over and have more room to focus on the actual game and like i said for productivity stuff its awesome depending on the size you get (usually 29 or 32/34) they can be equivalent of two full sized windows side by side. 

[LooniestSkillz]

4k display is as future proof as you get right now also very expensive. But if you love 21.9 then look no further then LG 36inc ultra wide Linus had on his desk pc build he posted the other day. Check it out.

[michaelocarroll007]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

But for gaming with a 4K monitor, OP will be playing at 1440p anyways, without the added horizontal space of a 21:9, and at lower Hz than they would on a nice 21:9 monitor. So, while you can't turn up resolution beyond 1440p on a 1440p monitor, you also can't make a 4K monitor grow in width and have comparably high-Hz.

 

A GTX 1080 can't run graphically-intensive games at 4K and get 60 FPS, and needs to have settings in games like GTA V, Crysis 3 turned down to mediumish... so it'll be worse with a 1070. I'd rather play with max settings in a lower resolution than play in a higher resolution and be missing all kinds of atmospheric influences.

 

In that video, even though the narrator is saying 4K 60 FPS works after lowering the settings a little, he's overselling it a bit, as the system is still getting less than 60 at times in those games, with some occasional big dips, which I personally don't want when playing a game.

 

 

I also do sound production, and that benefits from both added vertical and horizontal space, due to stacking tracks, and being able to view more length of tracks. I'm unsure if there's an advantage or disadvantage between 21:9 or 4K for that.

yeah anyone that wants higher then 60hz cant go 4k yet.

 

but for resolution Could always try running 3200x1800 on the 4k display instead of 1440 its decently easier then 4k and still a high resolution where the scale distortion doesn't look bad since the pixel density is high. thats what ive been doing on newer titles but im due for a upgrade my 290 isnt cutting it. I just played rise of the tombraider at 3200x1800 high and avg is about 45fps and a 1080 is about double the performance and 1070 not crazy far behind though there are many compromises here it still looks fantastic playing at that. and also 4k High looks better then 1440p ultra (Typically) and the 1080 can play basically every game at that 60fps Again this is my Opinion but i do have experience seeing the difference first hand 

 

As for the Last part of your advantages vs disadvantages 4k can display more content then any 21:9 But 21:9 Gives the Feeling of more content in some situations but really its just a screen size Dilemma you could technically Use a 42" 4k TV and  run it in 21:9  and it would probably come close to the 34 inch 21:9s ( I didnt do the math at all)  since 3840x2160 is much more space then 3440x1440