Get off the UltraWide hype train already

[sotiris.bos]

I can't fathom out why people are still buying UltraWide monitors. Why don't they get themselves a 43 inch FLAT 4K panel instead of having to deal with curve-induced distortion and websites that don't come close to using the horizontal real estate? Do they just game all day? Do they not have anything more important to do with their computers?

Also the myth that UltraWides are better for productivity drives me insane. How could 34 or 38 inches of a "spaghetti" monitor possibly be better for productivity than a huge 43 inch 16:9?? (or even 55 inch, but that is pushing the ppi).
For the price of a 1440p ultrawide you could have both a 4K IPS 43 inch AND a 1080p 144 TN. And don't tell me you need higher than 1080p or better than TN to play games that require high framerates. No one can convince me that fps titles benefit from high resolutions. Also, if you are spending $1000+ on a high res UltraWide (1080p UWs suck even worse), you can probably afford a 1080/1080ti or Vega 64 to play at 4K, or at least know how to reduce the resolution and detail in game..

What is YOUR excuse?

[gbergeron]

6 minutes ago, sotiris.bos said:

I can't fathom out why people are still buying UltraWide monitors. Why don't they get themselves a 43 inch FLAT 4K panel instead of having to deal with curve-induced distortion and websites that don't come close to using the horizontal real estate? Do they just game all day? Do they not have anything more important to do with their computers?

Also the myth that UltraWides are better for productivity drives me insane. How could 34 or 38 inches of a "spaghetti" monitor possibly be better for productivity than a huge 43 inch 16:9?? (or even 55 inch, but that is pushing the ppi).
For the price of a 1440p ultrawide you could have both a 4K IPS 43 inch AND a 1080p 144 TN. And don't tell me you need higher than 1080p or better than TN to play games that require high framerates. No one can convince me that fps titles benefit from high resolutions. Also, if you are spending $1000+ on a high res UltraWide (1080p UWs suck even worse), you can probably afford a 1080/1080ti or Vega 64 to play at 4K, or at least know how to reduce the resolution and detail in game..

What is YOUR excuse?

Sorry but this is only your opinion. It all comes to people preferences.

 

Wide screen are good for gaming, and higher resolutions offer better quality, will always be better than 1080p for any game ( but CS GO where you want to play small ass resolution )

[Swealteek]

5 minutes ago, sotiris.bos said:

I can't fathom out why people are still buying UltraWide monitors. Why don't they get themselves a 43 inch FLAT 4K panel instead of having to deal with curve-induced distortion and websites that don't come close to using the horizontal real estate? Do they just game all day? Do they not have anything more important to do with their computers?

Also the myth that UltraWides are better for productivity drives me insane. How could 34 or 38 inches of a "spaghetti" monitor possibly be better for productivity than a huge 43 inch 16:9?? (or even 55 inch, but that is pushing the ppi).
For the price of a 1440p ultrawide you could have both a 4K IPS 43 inch AND a 1080p 144 TN. And don't tell me you need higher than 1080p or better than TN to play games that require high framerates. No one can convince me that fps titles benefit from high resolutions. Also, if you are spending $1000+ on a high res UltraWide (1080p UWs suck even worse), you can probably afford a 1080/1080ti or Vega 64 to play at 4K.

What is YOUR excuse?

I mean why do like fast cars like lamborghinis and ferraris. To every one thare one

I just 1 and that it was al ride t it just gives you so mutch space to work in. editing code or watching movies is really good. but for gaming .,,,,

 

I think how ever that their is a point to make wen people think a 34inch 2560X1080. schreen looks good like WTF ?

[scighera2]

9 minutes ago, sotiris.bos said:

I can't fathom out why people are still buying UltraWide monitors. Why don't they get themselves a 43 inch FLAT 4K panel instead of having to deal with curve-induced distortion and websites that don't come close to using the horizontal real estate? Do they just game all day? Do they not have anything more important to do with their computers?

Also the myth that UltraWides are better for productivity drives me insane. How could 34 or 38 inches of a "spaghetti" monitor possibly be better for productivity than a huge 43 inch 16:9?? (or even 55 inch, but that is pushing the ppi).
For the price of a 1440p ultrawide you could have both a 4K IPS 43 inch AND a 1080p 144 TN. And don't tell me you need higher than 1080p or better than TN to play games that require high framerates. No one can convince me that fps titles benefit from high resolutions. Also, if you are spending $1000+ on a high res UltraWide (1080p UWs suck even worse), you can probably afford a 1080/1080ti or Vega 64 to play at 4K, or at least know how to reduce the resolution and detail in game..

What is YOUR excuse?

Don't forget that only a handful of games even support 21:9. So Ultrawide isn't a "gaming" resolution.

[Swealteek]

1 minute ago, gbergeron said:

offer better quality, will always be better than 1080p for any game ( but CS GO where you want to play small ass resolution )

Dude really ultra wides aren't better quality. Than just strediste out screens for a fact a 29 or 32 inc ultra wide looks a bobol.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Whoa, take a chill pill.

 

All of this is your opinion. If you can't see any benefit to it, that doesn't mean there's no benefit to it.

[gbergeron]

Just now, Swealteek said:

Dude really ultra wides aren't better quality. Than just strediste out screens for a fact a 29 or 32 inc ultra wide looks a bobol.

I said better resolution offer better quality. And ultra wide is better resolution than 1080p

[gbergeron]

I know some people who says theres no difference between 720p and 1080p. It's just them who are blind because we all knoiw there is a huge difference.

Not because someone doesn't see the benefits means there's none  

[Swealteek]

2 minutes ago, gbergeron said:

I said better resolution offer better quality. And ultra wide is better resolution than 1080p

2560x1080 .........

Na its just 1080P ?

 

Also your talking about 1080P wen op sed 1440P and 4K

[sotiris.bos]

3 minutes ago, gbergeron said:

Sorry but this is only your opinion. It all comes to people preferences.

 

Wide screen are good for gaming, and higher resolutions offer better quality, will always be better than 1080p for any game ( but CS GO where you want to play small ass resolution )

So buy a big ass 4K monitor. You can afford a 34UC99 but not a Dell P4317Q with a better GPU??

[gbergeron]

Just now, Swealteek said:

2560x1080 .........

2560 x 1080 =2 764 800 pixels

1080p : 2 073 600 pixels.

That is close to 50% more pixels... Close to 50% more quality

[gbergeron]

Just now, sotiris.bos said:

So buy a big ass 4K monitor. You can afford a 34UC99 but not a Dell P4317Q with a better GPU??

Even a 1080 ti struggle to keep 60 fps in recent games.

Some people want to have more FPS so they prefer lower resolution. I am not moving to 4K because of that, not enough GPU power yet, I  am waiting for Volta 

[Swealteek]

3 minutes ago, gbergeron said:

2560 x 1080 =2 764 800 pixels

1080p : 2 073 600 pixels.

That is close to 50% more pixels... Close to 50% more quality

soo you want: 2 073 600 pixels. over 32 inc's thats about 80~ dpi. wen a 4K screen at 40inch is about 110 and cheaper... Ye that 1080P screen looks sooo good now

 

Also just because you have more pixels <-> that das not mean it looks better its still 1080P wen it comes down to it. Becas a screen res is measured by the amount of pixels in height not length. You can have 38921921021x1080P its stil 1080P

[gbergeron]

Just now, Swealteek said:

soo you want: 2 073 600 pixels. over 32 inc's thats about 80~ dpi. wen a 4K screen at 40inch is about 110 and cheaper

I was just clarifying that it's better quality than 1080p. Thats it. I don't like ultra wide monitor and 4K (for me) is not worth it yet, not enough gpu power, or too costy, won't do sli cuz it sucks, waitin for volta for 4k

[sotiris.bos]

Just now, gbergeron said:

Even a 1080 ti struggle to keep 60 fps in recent games.

Some people want to have more FPS so they prefer lower resolution. I am not moving to 4K because of that, not enough GPU power yet, I  am waiting for Volta 

Lower resolution, detail or just play at 45 fps and turn on VSync. Is 45 fps bad for any game other than fps??

[gbergeron]

Just now, sotiris.bos said:

Lower resolution, detail or just play at 45 fps and turn on VSync. Is 45 fps bad for any game other than fps??

45 fps is really bad.

 

Anyone who tasted the 60 fps or the FPS that matches their screen refresh rate, can't go back.

 

[gbergeron]

Just now, sotiris.bos said:

Lower resolution, detail or just play at 45 fps and turn on VSync. Is 45 fps bad for any game other than fps??

If you turn on Vsync at 45 fps it actually sync at 30 FPS and you losing 15 FPS for vsync.

Vsync sync at 15-30-60-120-144

So if you have 55 fps, you are running @ 30 with vsync

[sotiris.bos]

Just now, gbergeron said:

If you turn on Vsync at 45 fps it actually sync at 30 FPS and you losing 15 FPS for vsync.

Vsync sync at 15-30-60-120-144

So if you have 55 fps, you are running @ 30 with vsync

Buy a Philips BDM4350UC and a second GPU then. There is no argument that can support the UltraWides's price over a large 16:9 panel.

[Swealteek]

1 minute ago, sotiris.bos said:

Buy a Philips BDM4350UC and a second GPU then. There is no argument that can support the UltraWides's price over a large 16:9 panel.

 

Looks good to my my R9 280X can run moste games i like to play 4K good settings mix med.high

 

GTA5 high/ultra 60FPS , CS GO 120+ , Doom (2016)med/high about 60/50

[gbergeron]

5 minutes ago, Swealteek said:

 

Looks good to my my R9 280X can run moste games i like to play 4K good settings mix med.high

 

GTA5 high/ultra 60FPS , CS GO 120+ , Doom (2016)med/high about 60/50

second gpu sucks, SLI sucks,

And can't run 4k doom with my gtx 1070, results in 50 ish fps most of the time even 40 ish

and my card is like 150% faster than ur 280x

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1070-vs-AMD-R9-280X/3609vs2192

 

 

So I call fake news here yup, confirmed unless you play at lowest settings which, at this point, might be better to run a little lower resolution and high details... I mean, resolution is nice, but facing a wall and it looks like it made with paint, not so great.

[Swealteek]

2 minutes ago, gbergeron said:

second gpu sucks, SLI sucks,

And can't run 4k doom with my gtx 1070, results in 50 ish fps most of the time even 40 ish

and my card is like 150$ faster than ur 280x

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1070-vs-AMD-R9-280X/3609vs2192

 

 

So I call fake news here yup, confirmed

Getting becmarks soon. Wel not a A10 apu on my I5 4460 yell yes. If a FFing 1050 can run gta at 4K a unluckt R9 280X sure as heck can. than again how mutch didt you pay for yours ? i pad second hand 50 euros

[Enderman]

It's actually just a lot of marketing from monitor manufacturers, making people believe they are getting more by going with ultrawide, when they are really just getting a larger 1440p or 4k panel with the top cut off.

 

The result is 21:9 content that fits perfectly but 16:9 content that is small.

People don't realize that you can have the same size 21:9 image on a larger 16:9 screen, while having 16:9 content be larger instead of smaller.

More than 99% of content is 16:9, so why would you want 99% small and 1% medium instead of 99% large and 1% medium??

 

The only real reasons for buying an ultrawide is

A) you have your monitor under a shelf/cabinet and can't fit a taller screen

or

B) you want higher refresh rates than 60Hz for gaming

[gbergeron]

1 minute ago, Swealteek said:

Getting becmarks soon. Wel not a A10 apu on my I5 4460 yell yes. If a FFing 1050 can run gta at 4K a unluckt R9 280X sure as heck can

 

 

Oh yeah, low settings 30 fps it does run 4k

[gbergeron]

Just now, Enderman said:

It's actually just a lot of marketing from monitor manufacturers, making people believe they are getting more by going with ultrawide, when they are really just getting a larger 1440p or 4k panel with the top cut off.

 

The result is 21:9 content that fits perfectly but 16:9 content that is small.

People don't realize that you can have the same size 21:9 image on a larger 16:9 screen, while having 16:9 content be larger instead of smaller.

More than 99% of content is 16:9, so why would you want 99% small and 1% medium instead of 99% large and 1% medium??

 

The only real reasons for buying an ultrawide is

A) you have your monitor under a shelf/cabinet and can't fit a taller screen

or

B) you want higher refresh rates than 60Hz for gaming

I've seen people buying it for larger view of the field on left and right

[sotiris.bos]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

It's actually just a lot of marketing from monitor manufacturers, making people believe they are getting more by going with ultrawide, when they are really just getting a larger 1440p or 4k panel with the top cut off.

 

The result is 21:9 content that fits perfectly but 16:9 content that is small.

People don't realize that you can have the same size 21:9 image on a larger 16:9 screen, while having 16:9 content be larger instead of smaller.

More than 99% of content is 16:9, so why would you want 99% small and 1% medium instead of 99% large and 1% medium??

 

The only real reasons for buying an ultrawide is

A) you have your monitor under a shelf/cabinet and can't fit a taller screen

or

B) you want higher refresh rates than 60Hz for gaming

Or C) you are on the hype train and feel like this:

UltraWides are useless and people on this forum and beyond should know..