Ultrawides

curved monitors are fucking retarded, 16:9 despite being as shitty as it is reigns supreme and is the sole reason why other formats died off (8:5, 5:4, 4:3, 3:2) and will be why ultrawides never catch on (>hurr movies don't have black bars; yeah, netflix and youtube will do however), horizontal desk space is a precious resource as others have mentioned, monitors are better when taller than they are wider and your picture demonstrates this as people never read 3 pages side by side and it'd be better if you could fit more of a page vertically, also no amount of width will change the tiny viewbox you get on websites that cap the width and mobile phones will ensure that most websites design with verticality in mind
>On steam they are hovering around a few percent of the user base.
half way through 2017 the following cpu models represented just 5% of all of INTELs cpus: the 4790k, 6700k, 7700k, yet if you look at any benchmarks or listen to any tech enthusiast (Jow Forums especially) they'll tell you that amd are uncompetitive with ryzen because intel dominates with single core performance with high end desktop cpus, yet steam figures show that most people simply do not give a shit and will happily buy the horribly ineffective i5/i3 cpus
also steam hardware surverys aren't excellent since you'll get a lot of second and third worlders especially from places like china

So I like mine, but early on they had some shitty implementations where the format was to narrow.

Attached: IMG_7125.jpg (2016x1512, 574K)

I have an ultrawide at work with a regular monitor on either side of it
It's pretty nice.

>not using 1:1

For productivity, multiple monitors are cheaper and there is pretty much no appreciable downside to them.

Their use is pretty much limited particular genres of games and movies that were shot in panoramic.

for the same price:
>can get a 21:9 monitor
>can get 2 16:9 monitors (32:9)

>he doesn't use 16:10

>no 18" 21:9 monitor to put in portrait orientation so it matches with a 32" 16:9

Attached: (You).jpg (3264x2448, 711K)

>talks about manlet houses even though he owns a manlet desk

Ultrawide are literally cut down 4k panels. Probably the ones that had defects get cut into ultrawides and sold to the gaming retards.

If you want more space you go 4k .
Sadly there isnt 16:10 4k monitors, but a 16:9 4k panel is still bigger than any 16:10 or even 1:1 panel on the market.

My 2160p panel still has more vertical space :^)
Yes they are.
1080p is a dead legacy resolution and only a handful of expensive VA and IPS panels can go that fast.
TN shouldnt even exist
Reviewers would claim
>colors dont matter
Because its their job to pitch rgbt led garbage to retarded children

>For productivity, multiple monitors are cheaper

There are 500$ 40" 4k panels that is literally equivalent to having 4 1080p screens without any seams but cheaper

racing games are probably the one niche where ultrawides do work well

>don't buy tn panels, colours do matter
>buy this shitty consumer ips panel with ghosting, backlight bleed, and oversaturated colours instead

34" 5120x2160 or
32" 3840x2160?

Pretty similar display area but the 34" will have a higher DPI. It only costs 8% more so I'm considering it but I'm worried the higher resolution won't work with my laptop

I ordered the AW3418DW yesterday since it hit $700 which was an awesome deal. Can't wait to get it this week

Attached: 4[1].jpg (968x444, 36K)

I want my monitor to take up as much of my vision as possible without being so big that I have to move my eyes or head around too much. This means ultrawide would either be too short or too wide. I have a 27" 2560x1440 which is just about perfect.

Also has some good points.

>Why hasnt these caught on?
Because the various 43" IPS UHD screens are better in virtually every way, including lower price.

>Games literally look way better since it fills your view, movies have no black bars and productivity is increased.
eh... some games honestly do not play better in really large FOVs, since HUD layouts typically put shit along edges and corners that you just can't read/notice as easily. The central action is fine, but kill notices and chat messages get overlooked, and it can take too long to look down at the health gauge and then back up.

Ultrawide? More like ultrashort L O L

Because 16:10,4:3, and 21:10 are superior that why.

what the fuck

Why are all movies in ultrawide? Theatre is one thing, but every MKV or BluRay you get your hands on has that same resolution with the black bars on the top and bottom when *no one* owns a TV like that in the west. I've only ever seen monitors and a few projectors in that resolution.

I'm planning on getting a 34" one, but I also want to keep my 24" 16:9 despite the desk being too small to hold both.
Would it be viable to get a 3-arm desk stand and mount them on the sides?

Why do they use 16:9? Is that a retarded marketing scheme?

>On steam
why is that your measure of programmer adoption

21:9 content on a 16:9 screen actually makes sense if you consider the playback bar and subtitles

>Would it be viable to get a 3-arm desk stand and mount them on the sides?

The arms arent long enough and don't have the reach for such large panels.

So get yourself 3 separate 1-arm stands and it's gonna be good.

>So get yourself 3 separate 1-arm stands
>for 2 monitors
what

maximismo autismo

>he only uses computer for webshit

Attached: 4L_I978ASq6.jpg (575x610, 55K)

I bought a Samsung CHG90 with 25% off 5 months ago

really happy with it

You mentioned 3-arm stand so I thought you had two monitors already.

Either way I bought the biggst two-arm stand and it is too short for my 32" + 20" setup, so buy multiple 1 arm stand

>the biggst two-arm stand and it is too short
This is why I thought about using the space of 2 monitors of a 3 arm stand for the ultrawide one. I'm just unsure if there would be any drawbacks.

>implying that a boring 16:9 4K 60Hz monitor is better than a 21:9 1440p 100Hz monitor

60hz is cancer and nobody can run games at 4k and 100hz.

I do agree that ultrawides are expensive, but if you get one in 1440p and 100hz, you will never go back to 16:9. 21:9 gaming is much more versatile, you can run racing and other sim games, all major competetive fps games support real 21:9 and working on an ultrawide is better than 3 monitors that I have at work.

It is expensive, but you can snag a non gaming model for around 500$ which is 100hz.

>60hz is cancer
I mean, it's fine for smartphones but I feel like 75Hz or 85Hz should be the standard for desktop monitors.
>nobody can run games at 4k and 100hz
I know you're talking about newer AAA games but I just want to add that getting 100 FPS on older games at 3840x2160 is easy.
>never go back to 16:9
All aspect ratios are good and serve their purpose. That's like saying you can't go back to 4:3 after using 16:9. 4:3 monitors are dope for retro games.

>That's like saying you can't go back to 4:3 after using 16:9
Not him but that's exactly what I'm saying.
I'm so used to having 2+ windows side by side that using fullscreen on 4:3 just feels terrible.

Ye, 4:3 is best used with old operating systems and retro games.

My 16:10 monitor is too already too wide; I have to move my head left to right to read a Wikipedia article.

>Having anything but Vidya in fullscreen on a wide monitor

because a lot of them are pathetically lacking in vertical resolution.

>Hurr durr there is no need for [x] because of muh gayming can't use it

Because I'm all about high PPI, not retarded aspect ratios.

>dead legacy resolution

This is hot.

Why is this monitor so autistic looking? I HATE GAMER AESTHETICS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: niggy AAAAAAAAAAAA.gif (255x255, 363K)

WHY DOES IT HAVE LIGHTS ON THE BACK OF IT, YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE IT AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: 1543008692100.jpg (300x326, 47K)

Alienware is still a thing?

>implying aspect ratios are retarded

Why get an ultrashite when you can get a 40" 4k monitor?

Because its just 60hz and you cant run games in 4k?

My monitor is a 8 year old 24" LG with TN panel. I want to make the switch to IPS, I think 27" with QHD would be good, what do you recommend?

Human eye can't detect any difference above 24fps so you are objectively wrong.

This

IPS is great but consider a decent VA panel, the contrast and colours are much better on VA

>can get a 4K TV with PC mode

Are you trying to fool me?
IPS pannels have the best colours out of the three major ones. That's why monitors for graphic designers are always based on IPS. VA is kinda between TN and IPS in that regard.

Don't listen to I've heard VA panels are a blurfest. So much ghosting.

because like curved shit
its a fucking meme

Thats a lie compared to ips. Compared to TN everything is blurry.

But I'm not 14?

Because they're expensive. For the price of a 3440x1440 ultrawide you could get 2 3840x2160 monitors.

Affordable 2160p monitors are only at 60Hz. I believe there's only 2 144Hz 2160p monitors out there and they're $2000.

Then buy 1080p you oldfag, youre eyes are too far gone for 4k anyway.

>4k at 60hz

Not very many games support and benefit from >60hz. And if you wanted to run 4k at that rate anyway the price wouldn't matter since evidently you have money to burn.

>Not very many games support and benefit from >60hz.
You're a fucking brainlet.

Chubby chicks are patrician tier.

>Neither of the monitors display one page completely because they are too short.

Widescreen was a mistake.

>Locked at 30
>Locked at 60
>Minimal movement or literally turn based
90% of games right there.

If you want to do actual work, you get a 1:1 monitor, or use a 16:10 monitor in portrait orientation. Ordinary 16:9 and 16:10 monitors are specialized for consuming media, not work.

I have a 29" and it feels little short for some uses
Also no oled means your stuck with ips/va garbage

Bullshit, go play a game at 30fps and a game at 60fps, you will be able to tell the difference. You don't understand how the human eye works. The whole "can't the difference above 24 fps!" meme is completely false. In the first place, your eyes don't see in frames.

I'd love to replace my 24" 1920x1200 with a 2560x1600, but holy fuck are they expensive. For me, 16:10 is the best format.

Same, I'm probably gonna stick to using the Dell U2412M I have and buy buy more in the future.

I've recently read some kind of study about the effect of PWM backlighting, and if I recall correctly people could detect it up to 400Hz - so I assume that the barrier for not noticing a difference anymore is quite high, though practically not noticing a difference might be much lower. I can definitely tell 24fps and 60fps apart easily, as for higher than 60fps I can say that the 120Hz iPad Pro does seem noticeably smoother on linear movements.

That's bullshit. You know why? Because people make program with the standard in mind. EVERYONE has a 16:9 or 16:10 monitor so EVERY program is designed with those in mind, using as much junk space on the horizontal as possible. Look at an IDE. 100 different vertical navigation bars, designed to optimally display two files side-by-side, and only transient information like console output and build information utilizing the extra horizontal information.

Any program that NEEDs a whole screen of space is going to USE the whole screen of space expecting you to be in 16:9. While simple programs that don't need much space like Word documents or SQL explorers might work fine on a 9:16 monitor (because they are designed expecting to use half of a 16:9 monitor) NO program is designed to support 1:1.

Asus PB248Q. Awesome display for a good price back then, but I actually think that 2560x1600 might never catch on. 1920x1200 is popular for office monitors, and a higher resolution is pointless for that so far. Afaik most 2560x1600 monitors are already rather old. Sooo we'll see. Fingers crossed, though.

It doesn't matter, nearly all modern programs will scale your shit properly when you maximize the window. Even if they don't, just set your resolution to 1920x1920; as long as your horizontal resolution lines up, the vertical doesn't matter.

Because why would anyone ever need a regular screen with the bottom third just sawed off? I don't know about games and stuff, but for work it's just impractical compared to something like this.

Attached: 20150726-hachi-X4070UHS-01_480x.jpg (480x313, 23K)

4k at 40" is the same as 1080p at 24".

Scale? You're proportioning to be an aspect ratio guru and you think scale has anything to do with it? Not even going to make the "dockable" subwindows" argument, just going to say "scale"?

I use one at work. My employer bought like 3,000 of these fuckers. Yesterday I was editing a document and had 3 pages side by side just like in the OP, which was neat. I think the reason why I like it because it's big (34"), not just because it's ultrawide. A 25" one would be kinda pointless. Not sure if I'd buy one myself desu

Attached: 28809-1530016785-191e1703e5cdf7ac1b36fc10963bebd6-702x336.jpg (702x336, 32K)

Monitor setup seems to be one of those things that's particular to each user that goes beyond just buying the cheapest widescreen monitor in a single monitor solution. I use a 55 inch tv with a 24 inch monitor of to the side while hooked up to a receiver and a surround sound system and sit on a recliner or sofa for all my computer business. But I understand that's not for everyone.

I do.

Attached: 305t.jpg (2397x1600, 837K)

For productivity three 4:3 or 1:1 would be better simply for dragging windows and snapping them into place. Until winblows or any other os comes up with a way to define cells or something on a single monitor desk top, its way more efficient to drag by the title bar and snap in place full screen on a single monitor

>Until winblows or any other os comes up with a way to define cells or something on a single monitor desk top, its way more efficient to drag by the title bar and snap in place full screen on a single monitor

Attached: 9ab.png (618x618, 90K)

thats a lie, TN is better than VA due to VA actually managing to have black crush, even worse view angles.

the only reason its used for TVs is because you sit so far back that you dont notice either one.

That light looks handy.

Cascade and tile are outdated features. Windows needs a better multi window solution. All this time and they have updated everything except how to manage multiple windows on a single desktop.. which is literally why they called it windows in the first place

16:10 > everything else

Attached: 1543047937629.jpg (5248x2952, 1.27M)