A 49" 32:9 monitor from Philips? Why not.

[Hayabusa1989]

5 hours ago, Matu20 said:

This should be exactly the same as two 24,5 inch 1080p monitors stuck together. And as I have used 1080p, 1440p and 1440p ultrawide and 4K very extensively, 1080p on a 24 inch screen is not awful, neither is VA rubbish. Maybe you have bad experiences, but VA panels are generally good and pixelation on 24 inch 1080p monitors are not that bad.

 

I've had VA panels aswell, I didn't have any problems with it at all.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-Ultra-Wide-Monitor-Speakers-C3583FQ/dp/B01BG24KOW

is the pile of crap i had, the price is wrong their but its like $660 or £500 ish

Yes i 100% admit it might be bad experiences (for a sports game or something with lots of smallish people moving that monitor above is un-usable) 

 

IPS and TN destroy VA from every VA panel i have seen and used, VA is the weakest of the lot IMO. I just can't get excited about that monitor. The monitor i have destroy's that thing (Acer Predator 35 inch 3440x1440 100hz Gsync which is $1000-1200 But i got it for £500 or $664) and i don't mean to be all like Brag Brag Brag because i got so lucky and got it super cheap i'm not some spend loads dude.

But sorry for a $1100 Monitor that thing is awful and I actually could not care less if that thing went 500hz even at that res ; it will not be IPS or even TN quality and the Ghosting will be frigging awful. 

in fact sorry but i would 100% rather someone go out and by a 42inch 4k TV and use that, because on game mode that thing will be smoother and feel nicer than any VA Panel. 
I really hope i am proved from and their is some AMAZING VA Panel that doesn't Casper shit up 1000% of the time ; But i honestly doubt it. 

Again hope I am wrong and 100% believe you had good experiences with VA panels and that my mileage may not be the same for everyone....... but if that $1100 ghosts even a quarter of what ive experience then honestly it's the biggest waste of money ever.

[Memories4K]

7 hours ago, anthonyjc2010 said:

VA. 1080P. Come back when you have 2160P IPS (or better yet, OLED) display, then we'll talk about you taking my money.

Doesn't OLED still have burn-in problems?

[vanished]

tbh, the price seems reasonable.  For one thing, we're up into TV territory in terms of size, but few TVs are really any good for gaming so this could be a nice alternative, and second, where else are you gonna get a display this size?  It's unique, and with that generally comes an inflated price, but this isn't unreasonable imo.  

[Jito463]

12 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Sooner or later we are going to have a doughnut shape monitor

Mmm, donuts.

 

[themctipers]

12 hours ago, Maslofski said:

this is even a massive size upgrade for a  34" 21:9 owner. the resolution is shit thought, its like two 1080p 27" screens. 5120x1600 would make more sense

 

bring back my 16:10  

[Enderman]

9 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

Its has a purpose in the work space. But not for gaming with the weird resolution

Even for productivity, it would cost less to buy a 4k tv and get twice the vertical room so you can fit 4 full size 27" windows instead of just two.

This monitor is literally just "pay the same price for half as much!!"

[Bananasplit_00]

No. Just no. 

[Senzelian]

Two full HD displays glued together. 

Now make two QHD displays glued together and I'll buy one

[Sauron]

23 hours ago, RotoCoreOne said:

basically take a 4k monitor and cut it in half vertically?

Yes.

[Sauron]

13 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

tbh, the price seems reasonable.  For one thing, we're up into TV territory in terms of size, but few TVs are really any good for gaming so this could be a nice alternative, and second, where else are you gonna get a display this size?  It's unique, and with that generally comes an inflated price, but this isn't unreasonable imo.  

I mean, you could just buy 2 27" 4k monitors and have the same surface area with twice the pixel density. It would also be less expensive.

[vanished]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

I mean, you could just buy 2 27" 4k monitors and have the same surface area with twice the pixel density. It would also be less expensive.

But you'd also have a bezel in the middle, which for productivity doesn't matter, but for gaming is a complete deal breaker.

 

I'm not saying it's the best product in the world or anything, just that I'm genuinely surprised they didn't try to charge even more, and we should be greatful I guess  

[lvh1]

On 9/12/2017 at 9:37 PM, goodtofufriday said:

Its has a purpose in the work space. But not for gaming with the weird resolution

For that price you might as well go for 3x 1440p monitors, it'll  be cheaper too.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

But you'd also have a bezel in the middle, which for productivity doesn't matter, but for gaming is a complete deal breaker.

 

I'm not saying it's the best product in the world or anything, just that I'm genuinely surprised they didn't try to charge even more, and we should be greatful I guess  

Honestly, coming from someone who uses 3 monitors, the bezel isn't a problem once you're playing - and outside of racing games, the 16:9 4k monitor in the middle is plenty. Of course you may notice it more if it's in the middle in the case of 2 monitors, but if you buy 1 4k monitor and 2 1080p ones you spend less and get a larger surround setup.

 

This is a golden hammer, a great solution to the wrong problem - it's expensive, but it doesn't deliver what it needs to justify it.

[Misanthrope]

On 9/12/2017 at 9:41 AM, RotoCoreOne said:

basically take a 4k monitor and cut it in half vertically?

No actually this is closer to triple 1080p monitors but without bezels

[Hayabusa1989]

3 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

But you'd also have a bezel in the middle, which for productivity doesn't matter, but for gaming is a complete deal breaker.

 

I'm not saying it's the best product in the world or anything, just that I'm genuinely surprised they didn't try to charge even more, and we should be greatful I guess  

Sorry i have to disagree, its a VA panel and its got a rubbishy resolution. It should be price at like $750 IMO. It's just not near monitors in its class. 

[Jito463]

52 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

No actually this is closer to triple 1080p monitors but without bezels

Actually, it would be 2 x 1080p (1920+1920 = 3840, this monitor is 3840x1080).

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Actually, it would be 2 x 1080p (1920+1920 = 3840, this monitor is 3840x1080).

You stop that, pyo. You stop with that basic math right now, pyo.

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

Actually, it would be 2 x 1080p (1920+1920 = 3840, this monitor is 3840x1080).

I stand corrected but yes that's kind of the idea they're going for.

[Northstorm]

On 13/09/2017 at 9:50 AM, Senzelian said:

Two full HD displays glued together. 

Now make two QHD displays glued together and I'll buy one

Aye, I feel QHD would have made more sense