ultrawide or 4k

[DiamondShark286]

I am looking to get a new monitor for my computer and i am trying to decide between getting a 4k monitor or an ultrawide. 4k monitors seem to be more expensive and i would have to save longer to get one I was wondering if it would be worth it i currently have about $200 to spend on a new monitor if anyone knows of a "good" 4k or ultrawide monitor for that price please reply with a link

 

EDIT: the monitor will be used for mostly gaming

[Guest]

Just now, Tb428 said:

I am looking to get a new monitor for my computer and i am trying to decide between getting a 4k monitor or an ultrawide. 4k monitors seem to be more expensive and i would have to save longer to get one I was wondering if it would be worth it i currently have about $200 to spend on a new monitor if anyone knows of a "good" 4k or ultrawide monitor for that price please reply with a link

Specify the use please

[DiamondShark286]

Just now, Zackbare said:

Specify the use please

mostly gaming and some light coding

[DnFx91]

1 minute ago, Tb428 said:

mostly gaming and some light coding

sounds like u need real estate more than pixel density, go ultrawide

[manikyath]

if you're going between a 2160p 16:9 screen (what most people mean when they say 4k) or a 1440p ultrawide, with otherwise comparable specs, the 4k panel will be better in any situation, because the ultrawide will quite literally be the same experience with a piece cut off the top.

 

if you so insist to have an ultrawide, get a 4k panel and put a big black bar over the top 30% of your display and do your stuff on the rest. it'll quite quickly make you realise the sillyness of an ultrawide.

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, DnFx91 said:

sounds like u need real estate more than pixel density, go ultrawide

but.. 4k has more screen realestate than an ultrawide, given the ultrawide is most likely 1440p or less...

[Guest]

Just now, Tb428 said:

mostly gaming and some light coding

Can your hardware support 4k pretty well, assuming yes, go 4K as because of scaling, you can have good field of view. Ultrawide kinda helps in video editing. But if you want a 3-monitor type setup and don't care about the resolution much, go ultrawide

[DnFx91]

2 minutes ago, manikyath said:

but.. 4k has more screen realestate than an ultrawide, given the ultrawide is most likely 1440p or less...

depends on scaling, having extra width will give you more physical space for windows, sure you can cram a bunch of stuff on a 4k monitor but it all ends up tiny, and if you turn scaling up, it ends up looking like a 1080p. i think aspect ratio is more important to productivity than resolution. 

 

Not biased either  i game on a 4k monitor

[DiamondShark286]

5 minutes ago, Zackbare said:

Can your hardware support 4k pretty well, assuming yes, go 4K as because of scaling, you can have good field of view. Ultrawide kinda helps in video editing. But if you want a 3-monitor type setup and don't care about the resolution much, go ultrawide

i have a pretty shit cpu paired with a oc rx 480 so graphics i am pretty good on

[manikyath]

Just now, DnFx91 said:

depends on scaling, having extra width will give you more physical space for windows, sure you can cram a bunch of stuff on a 4k monitor but it all ends up tiny, and if you turn scaling up, it ends up looking like a 1080p. i think aspect ratio is more important to productivity than resolution. 

 

Not biased either  i game on a 4k monitor

thats why you dont use scaling (because it still sucks anyways...), and if you get a 4k panel that's big enogh, and then slide it a bit closer than the other side of the room, and you have a pretty nice experience. when i was painting my room i had a temporary setup with only a 4k panel (which, at 27 inch was a bit at the small side, but given it's close enough it was a pretty nice experience) and it was freaking amazing monitor space wise. it's essentially 4 1080p panels in a single package, or 6 of the spaces some people like to divide their 1080p ultrawide into.

[Guest]

Just now, Tb428 said:

i have a pretty shit cpu paired with a oc rx 480 so graphics i am pretty good on

See above 1080p, the load shifts to GPU also for rx480, 4k is not a good option it'll not take you more that 60fps. So better do ultrawide setup.

[DiamondShark286]

2 minutes ago, DnFx91 said:

depends on scaling, having extra width will give you more physical space for windows, sure you can cram a bunch of stuff on a 4k monitor but it all ends up tiny, and if you turn scaling up, it ends up looking like a 1080p. i think aspect ratio is more important to productivity than resolution. 

 

Not biased either  i game on a 4k monitor

this is what i was thinking because assuming i can even find a 4k monitor on my budget it will probably be same size if not smaller than my current 24 inch 1080p monitor 

[DnFx91]

Just now, manikyath said:

thats why you dont use scaling (because it still sucks anyways...), and if you get a 4k panel that's big enogh, and then slide it a bit closer than the other side of the room, and you have a pretty nice experience. when i was painting my room i had a temporary setup with only a 4k panel (which, at 27 inch was a bit at the small side, but given it's close enough it was a pretty nice experience) and it was freaking amazing monitor space wise. it's essentially 4 1080p panels in a single package, or 6 of the spaces some people like to divide their 1080p ultrawide into.

yeah its a tough one really, i do hear you man, the number of benchmark windows i can have open all at once on my 4k is insane, but i have long told myself that there MUST be a use case for an ultrawide, surely right ? Im thinking ultrawide because you can have more tall windows side by side, which makes sense for productivity, stacking 2 or 3 full height windows next to eachother on a 4k monitor is a bit crap, not wide enough.

[manikyath]

Just now, DnFx91 said:

yeah its a tough one really, i do hear you man, the number of benchmark windows i can have open all at once on my 4k is insane, but i have long told myself that there MUST be a use case for an ultrawide, surely right ? Im thinking ultrawide because you can have more tall windows side by side, which makes sense for productivity, stacking 2 or 3 full height windows next to eachother on a 4k monitor is a bit crap, not wide enough.

i honest to god think that ultrawide is a marketing thing, because it's a nice bling word for what is essentially less pixels, which in turn is easier to produce because less pixels means less chance for a defect.

[manikyath]

Just now, Tb428 said:

this is what i was thinking because assuming i can even find a 4k monitor on my budget it will probably be same size if not smaller than my current 24 inch 1080p monitor 

if you can find something bigger than 27 inch, the experience is pretty amazing, you get used to the size difference pretty quickly, and the amount of screen realestate within periperal vision is simply mindblowing.

i essentially had one panel replace what was once this:

[DnFx91]

1 minute ago, DnFx91 said:

yeah its a tough one really, i do hear you man, the number of benchmark windows i can have open all at once on my 4k is insane, but i have long told myself that there MUST be a use case for an ultrawide, surely right ? Im thinking ultrawide because you can have more tall windows side by side, which makes sense for productivity, stacking 2 or 3 full height windows next to eachother on a 4k monitor is a bit crap, not wide enough.

sorry i should say "next to eachother on a 16:9 monitor is a bit crap"

[DnFx91]

Just now, manikyath said:

if you can find something bigger than 27 inch, the experience is pretty amazing, you get used to the size difference pretty quickly, and the amount of screen realestate within periperal vision is simply mindblowing.

i essentially had one panel replace what was once this:

you know, PB287Q from about 1.5 feet away is a glorious thing. 28" 4K pretty much fills your vision with razor sharp display at that distance

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, DnFx91 said:

you know, PB287Q from about 1.5 feet away is a glorious thing. 28" 4K pretty much fills your vision with razor sharp display at that distance

i have a dell UP2714Q, i got it when my display setup was as displayed before, i could live with just the dell instead of all that junk

[The_Denks]

26 minutes ago, Tb428 said:

mostly gaming and some light coding

Gaming, well the difference between 1440p and 4k isnt that noticeable, and since ur also doing coding, id go with a 1440p ultrawide

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, UberGamerKing said:

Gaming, well the difference between 1440p and 4k isnt that noticeable, and since ur also doing coding, id go with a 1440p ultrawide

except there's A LOT of games that dont like ultrawide, and that if you so dearly want to game on ultrawide, just black bar your 4k panel...

[thenastyjbenny]

25 minutes ago, manikyath said:

if you're going between a 2160p 16:9 screen (what most people mean when they say 4k) or a 1440p ultrawide, with otherwise comparable specs, the 4k panel will be better in any situation, because the ultrawide will quite literally be the same experience with a piece cut off the top.

 

if you so insist to have an ultrawide, get a 4k panel and put a big black bar over the top 30% of your display and do your stuff on the rest. it'll quite quickly make you realise the sillyness of an ultrawide.

I agree with @UberGamerKing. Ultrawide is the way to go for gaming and most content creation purposes. Ultrawide paired with a 1440p or 4k display on the side to preview 16:9 content is the best case scenario, but I think a 34 inch ultrawide aught to work really well.

 

And to you @manikyath I could say to him to cover up 30% of both sides of his ultrawide, comparably giving himself on albiet shorter, but accurate 16:9  1440p experience.

[The_Denks]

Just now, manikyath said:

except there's A LOT of games that dont like ultrawide, and that if you so dearly want to game on ultrawide, just black bar your 4k panel...

Most of those are small indie/non AAA games.

Ive ever had a single AAA game except BF4 (we all know it was a buggy piece of sh*t at launch) not work at 1440p ultra-wide at launch

[manikyath]

Just now, JR8 said:

 

And to you @manikyath I could say to him to cover up 30% of both sides of his ultrawide, comparably giving himself on albiet shorter, but accurate 16:9  1440p experience.

but at that point.. why not just get the 4K panel? i mean... i'm trying to argue to get more pixels, and the more universally compatible display, and you're trying to use my argument against myself?

[thenastyjbenny]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

except there's A LOT of games that dont like ultrawide, and that if you so dearly want to game on ultrawide, just black bar your 4k panel...

I tend to disagree. Games are more and more coming out with with ultrawide support already built in, as well as many able to be INI file tweaked to work, or have private parties fix them as well, such as the flawless widescreen program.

[manikyath]

Just now, UberGamerKing said:

Most of those are small indie/non AAA games.

Ive ever had a single AAA game except BF4 (we all know it was a buggy piece of sh*t at launch) not work at 1440p ultra-wide at launch

you'd be surprised how many games do weird shit, especially once you delve into the realm of older games, or the stuff between indie or big AAA titles. you know, the stuff made by a sizable company, but on a smaller budget.

 

an amazing example of unexpected results was sims 2, out of all things. it runs perfectly on pretty much any resolution or apseci ratio you throw at it, except in create a sim, anything but 4:3, or a very close call on 16:10, puts the sim you're creating behind the UI.