21:9 vs 32:9 performance hit?

[Witski]

Hi there, im tempted to buy the samsung g9 49" 32:9, how hard my performance tanks with it passing from a 21:9 3440x,1440 to a 5120x1440?
And usually games that supports or half supports 21:9 are ok with 32:9?
Im not afraid of modding games to make them work with ultrawide tho, but usually i don't buy such games unless im super interested and probably all of them natively half supports ultrawide.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

personally I think ultrawide sucks.

the human vision is already closer to the old 3:4 than the current winder 16:9
to go even wider is stupid... to keep things within your vision you need to out your screen further and furhter away,... and if it was to be bend it should bend away from you at the corners not towards you.. that only makes that out of perifial vieuw issue worse...

ok perhaps for racing or flying it is less an issue than for the stategy games I play but still..

it would be smartker to just go larger screen..
like a nice 44 inch 3840x2160. that does satisfie the desire for larger.. while still fitting nicely in your field of vision..

as for game support.. -> games generally support a very wide range of resolutions.. and nvidea game ready drivers often add more if needed.. my bet is most games will have those resolutions you consider natively..

as for performance losses... well now..
your current screen has 4953600 pixels
that larger screen has 7372800 pixels
-> thats about 1.5 times the number of pixels.. so you expect to loose 33% of your current fps..
**howver scaling is not fully linear (like the same gpu generally gives closer to halve the fps at 4k vs 1440pp despite haviing 4 times as many pixels)
with that in mind I'd expect you to get about 80% of the fps on that resolution vs what you get now..

but again why ultrawide.. it sucks?

[Witski]

De Hollandse Ezel님이 먼저 게시:

personally I think ultrawide sucks.

the human vision is already closer to the old 3:4 than the current winder 16:9
to go even wider is stupid... to keep things within your vision you need to out your screen further and furhter away,... and if it was to be bend it should bend away from you at the corners not towards you.. that only makes that out of perifial vieuw issue worse...

ok perhaps for racing or flying it is less an issue than for the stategy games I play but still..

it would be smartker to just go larger screen..
like a nice 44 inch 3840x2160. that does satisfie the desire for larger.. while still fitting nicely in your field of vision..

as for game support.. -> games generally support a very wide range of resolutions.. and nvidea game ready drivers often add more if needed.. my bet is most games will have those resolutions you consider natively..

as for performance losses... well now..
your current screen has 4953600 pixels
that larger screen has 7372800 pixels
-> thats about 1.5 times the number of pixels.. so you expect to loose 33% of your current fps..
**howver scaling is not fully linear (like the same gpu generally gives closer to halve the fps at 4k vs 1440pp despite haviing 4 times as many pixels)
with that in mind I'd expect you to get about 80% of the fps on that resolution vs what you get now..

but again why ultrawide.. it sucks?

Well, for me ultrawide is the way to go, i love it and 4k is way to demanding for no real gains, best of both worlds, performance and crispiness.
For strategy games ultrawide is a godsend imo, games i play, ad example i can controll and see twice the amount of units in total war games and have more views for flanking units, just one example.
I just prefer it over 16:9.

[Schrute_Farms_B&B]

If your setup cant handle 4K @16:9, dont even think about switching to 1440p @32:9. I know, aprox. one million pixels less to to utilize, but the total GPU utilization is about the same.

It totally depends on the games you want to play, but if youre aiming for AAA titles, I wouldnt bother with anything less than a 4080S/7900XTX. And even then, 30 to 60 FPS are as good as it gets. Given you want to play on native resolution without upscaling features.

Regarding your question about the support, most games support 21:9 and 32:9 resolutions. If not, there are enough mods out there to help you running it on ultrawide and also tutorials how to mod your games to ultrawide yourself.

32:9 is very immersive but I consider 21:9 being the sweetspot. If I had a job in IT, Id probably switch back to 32:9.
Having said that, ulrawide is and was a gamechanger for me and many other folks, who actually did the step. Youll find many non-believers, but thats the case with almost everything. ^^
I guess there are still folks out there who would assure you, that 60FPS isnt any different to 144FPS or that 1080p is the same as 4K.
You know how it goes. ^^

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Schrute_Farms_B&B님이 먼저 게시:

If your setup cant handle 4K @16:9, dont even think about switching to 1440p @32:9. I know, aprox. one million pixels less to to utilize, but the total GPU utilization is about the same.

It totally depends on the games you want to play, but if youre aiming for AAA titles, I wouldnt bother with anything less than a 4080S/7900XTX. And even then, 30 to 60 FPS are as good as it gets. Given you want to play on native resolution without upscaling features.

Regarding your question about the support, most games support 21:9 and 32:9 resolutions. If not, there are enough mods out there to help you running it on ultrawide and also tutorials how to mod your games to ultrawide yourself.

32:9 is very immersive but I consider 21:9 being the sweetspot. If I had a job in IT, Id probably switch back to 32:9.
Having said that, ulrawide is and was a gamechanger for me and many other folks, who actually did the step. Youll find many non-believers, but thats the case with almost everything. ^^
I guess there are still folks out there who would assure you, that 60FPS isnt any different to 144FPS or that 1080p is the same as 4K.
You know how it goes. ^^

I am one of those who state.. anything below 60fps = an unplayable mess
basicly all humans can see improvement upto 80fps.
and depending on the individual.. the best optically giften can see upto 120fps.
for me I prefer to have games over 100fps.. and I tend to not be able to see much more difference beyond that..
so 60-> 120ffps HUGE difference..
but 120->240fps (or hz screens) utter useless.. let alone higher than that.

same with pixel density.. screens always have sticked to about the same pixel density.. as 1440p 27 inch had.. (when our resolutions were still 1080p, 1200x1600, 768x1024 600x800, 640x480, 400x300 and yes even 320x240... we always had screen sizes that kept pixels per cm2 always in the same range)

to have a to large screen for your resolution like when you go 32 inch 1440.. you get pixelated mess..
but to small screen for your resoilution like 4k 32 inch.. you waste frames for nothing + in stratehgy games things get to small to quickly see.. having a lot in vieuw is useless if the time to spot it gets increased by it being to small..

so for 4k you want about a 40 to 44 inch screen..

I also really hate that upscaling nonsense and turn it always off.


but yeah widescreen not works for me.. heck if they sold them.. I buy a screen that went back to 4:3 but than with 4000x3000 pixels and large enough...
so I deem 16:9 "already a bit wider than I like"

my aim is to completely fill my vieuw.... and that means horizontally as well as vertically...

now if they did a screen that placed 2 regulair screens in portait mode together (without the bezzle)

(to create a 2560x2880 screen) THAT would be a nice screen to have..
that would solve the "it's to wide" thissue and make it again more square..

[Witski]

Schrute_Farms_B&B님이 먼저 게시:

If your setup cant handle 4K @16:9, dont even think about switching to 1440p @32:9. I know, aprox. one million pixels less to to utilize, but the total GPU utilization is about the same.

It totally depends on the games you want to play, but if youre aiming for AAA titles, I wouldnt bother with anything less than a 4080S/7900XTX. And even then, 30 to 60 FPS are as good as it gets. Given you want to play on native resolution without upscaling features.

Regarding your question about the support, most games support 21:9 and 32:9 resolutions. If not, there are enough mods out there to help you running it on ultrawide and also tutorials how to mod your games to ultrawide yourself.

32:9 is very immersive but I consider 21:9 being the sweetspot. If I had a job in IT, Id probably switch back to 32:9.
Having said that, ulrawide is and was a gamechanger for me and many other folks, who actually did the step. Youll find many non-believers, but thats the case with almost everything. ^^
I guess there are still folks out there who would assure you, that 60FPS isnt any different to 144FPS or that 1080p is the same as 4K.
You know how it goes. ^^

I have a 7900 xtx and Ryzen 7 5800x and i plan to go am5 with the new 3dx someday.

[Witski]

in reality im more concerned in the pixel burn in "problem" of oleds, are those true? Super rare that happens? Knowing me it will happen the day after the purchase lol
I don't really know what it is tho and how frequent/fixable it is this thing or if they fixed the problem since the new g9 is fairly new.

[Schrute_Farms_B&B]

De Hollandse Ezel님이 먼저 게시:

Schrute_Farms_B&B님이 먼저 게시:

If your setup cant handle 4K @16:9, dont even think about switching to 1440p @32:9. I know, aprox. one million pixels less to to utilize, but the total GPU utilization is about the same.

It totally depends on the games you want to play, but if youre aiming for AAA titles, I wouldnt bother with anything less than a 4080S/7900XTX. And even then, 30 to 60 FPS are as good as it gets. Given you want to play on native resolution without upscaling features.

Regarding your question about the support, most games support 21:9 and 32:9 resolutions. If not, there are enough mods out there to help you running it on ultrawide and also tutorials how to mod your games to ultrawide yourself.

32:9 is very immersive but I consider 21:9 being the sweetspot. If I had a job in IT, Id probably switch back to 32:9.
Having said that, ulrawide is and was a gamechanger for me and many other folks, who actually did the step. Youll find many non-believers, but thats the case with almost everything. ^^
I guess there are still folks out there who would assure you, that 60FPS isnt any different to 144FPS or that 1080p is the same as 4K.
You know how it goes. ^^

I am one of those who state.. anything below 60fps = an unplayable mess
basicly all humans can see improvement upto 80fps.
and depending on the individual.. the best optically giften can see upto 120fps.
for me I prefer to have games over 100fps.. and I tend to not be able to see much more difference beyond that..
so 60-> 120ffps HUGE difference..
but 120->240fps (or hz screens) utter useless.. let alone higher than that.

same with pixel density.. screens always have sticked to about the same pixel density.. as 1440p 27 inch had.. (when our resolutions were still 1080p, 1200x1600, 768x1024 600x800, 640x480, 400x300 and yes even 320x240... we always had screen sizes that kept pixels per cm2 always in the same range)

to have a to large screen for your resolution like when you go 32 inch 1440.. you get pixelated mess..
but to small screen for your resoilution like 4k 32 inch.. you waste frames for nothing + in stratehgy games things get to small to quickly see.. having a lot in vieuw is useless if the time to spot it gets increased by it being to small..

so for 4k you want about a 40 to 44 inch screen..

I also really hate that upscaling nonsense and turn it always off.


but yeah widescreen not works for me.. heck if they sold them.. I buy a screen that went back to 4:3 but than with 4000x3000 pixels and large enough...
so I deem 16:9 "already a bit wider than I like"

my aim is to completely fill my vieuw.... and that means horizontally as well as vertically...

now if they did a screen that placed 2 regulair screens in portait mode together (without the bezzle)

(to create a 2560x2880 screen) THAT would be a nice screen to have..
that would solve the "it's to wide" thissue and make it again more square..

I agree.....with almost everything. ^^
Except the part about the ratio, which is totally a matter of taste. Ive jumped ships a few years ago and cant imagine to go back. I mean, how can I refuse more native FOV and more immersion? And one could always switch back to 16:9 with black bars. But like I said, totally subjective.

Witski님이 먼저 게시:

Schrute_Farms_B&B님이 먼저 게시:

If your setup cant handle 4K @16:9, dont even think about switching to 1440p @32:9. I know, aprox. one million pixels less to to utilize, but the total GPU utilization is about the same.

It totally depends on the games you want to play, but if youre aiming for AAA titles, I wouldnt bother with anything less than a 4080S/7900XTX. And even then, 30 to 60 FPS are as good as it gets. Given you want to play on native resolution without upscaling features.

Regarding your question about the support, most games support 21:9 and 32:9 resolutions. If not, there are enough mods out there to help you running it on ultrawide and also tutorials how to mod your games to ultrawide yourself.

32:9 is very immersive but I consider 21:9 being the sweetspot. If I had a job in IT, Id probably switch back to 32:9.
Having said that, ulrawide is and was a gamechanger for me and many other folks, who actually did the step. Youll find many non-believers, but thats the case with almost everything. ^^
I guess there are still folks out there who would assure you, that 60FPS isnt any different to 144FPS or that 1080p is the same as 4K.
You know how it goes. ^^

I have a 7900 xtx and Ryzen 7 5800x and i plan to go am5 with the new 3dx someday.

Well, go for it then if you want to.Your rig wont be an issue.

[Tiberius]

Your gpu definitely can handle 5120*1440p monitor. For the 32:9 support, i can only tell you games that usually dont have uw support:

- jrpg and games made by japanese devs in general: capcom, squenix, fromsoftware games usually require external patch for uw support. Only nihon falcom games usually great uw support.
- sidescroller & shmup
- visual novel
- fighting games
- port of old console games (ps3 and older era)
- competitive fps

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Schrute_Farms_B&B님이 먼저 게시:

De Hollandse Ezel님이 먼저 게시:

I am one of those who state.. anything below 60fps = an unplayable mess
basicly all humans can see improvement upto 80fps.
and depending on the individual.. the best optically giften can see upto 120fps.
for me I prefer to have games over 100fps.. and I tend to not be able to see much more difference beyond that..
so 60-> 120ffps HUGE difference..
but 120->240fps (or hz screens) utter useless.. let alone higher than that.

same with pixel density.. screens always have sticked to about the same pixel density.. as 1440p 27 inch had.. (when our resolutions were still 1080p, 1200x1600, 768x1024 600x800, 640x480, 400x300 and yes even 320x240... we always had screen sizes that kept pixels per cm2 always in the same range)

to have a to large screen for your resolution like when you go 32 inch 1440.. you get pixelated mess..
but to small screen for your resoilution like 4k 32 inch.. you waste frames for nothing + in stratehgy games things get to small to quickly see.. having a lot in vieuw is useless if the time to spot it gets increased by it being to small..

so for 4k you want about a 40 to 44 inch screen..

I also really hate that upscaling nonsense and turn it always off.


but yeah widescreen not works for me.. heck if they sold them.. I buy a screen that went back to 4:3 but than with 4000x3000 pixels and large enough...
so I deem 16:9 "already a bit wider than I like"

my aim is to completely fill my vieuw.... and that means horizontally as well as vertically...

now if they did a screen that placed 2 regulair screens in portait mode together (without the bezzle)

(to create a 2560x2880 screen) THAT would be a nice screen to have..
that would solve the "it's to wide" thissue and make it again more square..

I agree.....with almost everything. ^^
Except the part about the ratio, which is totally a matter of taste. Ive jumped ships a few years ago and cant imagine to go back. I mean, how can I refuse more native FOV and more immersion? And one could always switch back to 16:9 with black bars. But like I said, totally subjective.

Witski님이 먼저 게시:

I have a 7900 xtx and Ryzen 7 5800x and i plan to go am5 with the new 3dx someday.

Well, go for it then if you want to.Your rig wont be an issue.

I must say.. I have once used (not owned.. I could use the mount and the screens.. play with them before installing them at my school in more humble setups..

but I found that the most optimal... layout I found to be :

7200x5120

10 panels.. 2 rows of 5.. all in portrait mode.

only ofcourse those horrible bezzles looked terrible.. sadly there are no firms that basicly create the casing..and install 10 panels (just the panels itself) borderless side by side...

but size, resolution and propertion of close to 4:3 wise it was ideal..

ofcourse 10 screens + that custom mount to fit so many cost an absolute fortune;))

that custom mount was like 3000 euro +900 euro shippijng (as it's only made in usa.. by a small firm.. and all steel so it is very heavy and shipping to eu so heavy aint cheap..

10 panels of that quality back than were 800 euro each.. today maybe 300 euro each...

still an expensive setup;) + so many ugly bezzles...

I settle for an 1800 euro oled 44k inch 4k instead;) without having to deal with bezzles..

and while I agree subjective.. but fact remains.. that humans have a certain field of vision.. (horizontally and digitally)..outside that we cannot see things.. it is like if you look to one finger.. and focus on that finger.. when will you not see the other finger moving to the side.. up or down..

that field of view has a shape far closer to 4:3..

[Witski]

Tiberius님이 먼저 게시:

Your gpu definitely can handle 5120*1440p monitor. For the 32:9 support, i can only tell you games that usually dont have uw support:

- jrpg and games made by japanese devs in general: capcom, squenix, fromsoftware games usually require external patch for uw support. Only nihon falcom games usually great uw support.
- sidescroller & shmup
- visual novel
- fighting games
- port of old console games (ps3 and older era)
- competitive fps

I know that but what i really meant is if a game supports 21:9 automatically supports 32:9 or is on it's own?

[Tiberius]

Witski님이 먼저 게시:

Tiberius님이 먼저 게시:

Your gpu definitely can handle 5120*1440p monitor. For the 32:9 support, i can only tell you games that usually dont have uw support:

- jrpg and games made by japanese devs in general: capcom, squenix, fromsoftware games usually require external patch for uw support. Only nihon falcom games usually great uw support.
- sidescroller & shmup
- visual novel
- fighting games
- port of old console games (ps3 and older era)
- competitive fps

I know that but what i really meant is if a game supports 21:9 automatically supports 32:9 or is on it's own?

No it doesnt. Some games only support 21:9, but not 32:9

[Witski]

Tiberius님이 먼저 게시:

Witski님이 먼저 게시:

I know that but what i really meant is if a game supports 21:9 automatically supports 32:9 or is on it's own?

No it doesnt. Some games only support 21:9, but not 32:9

okay, thanks for the heads up.

[Witski]

And those burn stuff are rarely happening?

[Pocahawtness]

Witski님이 먼저 게시:

Hi there, im tempted to buy the samsung g9 49" 32:9, how hard my performance tanks with it passing from a 21:9 3440x,1440 to a 5120x1440?
And usually games that supports or half supports 21:9 are ok with 32:9?
Im not afraid of modding games to make them work with ultrawide tho, but usually i don't buy such games unless im super interested and probably all of them natively half supports ultrawide.

I tend to find its approximately the ratio of the number of pixels. In other words 4.9:7.3 so frame rates would be about 0.67. 60fps would reduce to 40fps

The rule isn't exact because it just doesn't scale like that, but you should be expecting a pretty large hit.

[Che]

Witski님이 먼저 게시:

And those burn stuff are rarely happening?

Sadly, yeah.
You gotta jump trough hoops these days, if you want to use OLED for gaming.
Image quality is chioce, but everything else.......

OLED is like plastic surgery. Where aren't there yet.