4K or 1440p Ultrawide for OLED?

[Atriox]

I'm on the fence over what next monitor I should buy.

On one hand, there are 34 & 39 inch Ultrawide monitors which sound great, but I am put off by FOV stretching in games.

The other option is 4K at 32 inches which uses a normal 16:9 aspect ratio, however I'm not sure it's worth swapping to and if 4K really is much of a jump in quality from 1440p.

I could also just go for a 27 inch 1440p display, but I prefer to have at least a 32 inch size both for immersion and so that I can see better whilst playing shooter games.

Anyone have any advice?

[PopinFRESH]

引用自 De Hollandse Ezel：

引用自 PopinFRESH：

There are tradeoffs with any display panel tech, however, many new OLED panels have significantly improved upon the limitations / shortcomings with OLED.

In regards to the original question; 21:9 / 21:10 @ 3440x1440 resolution still looks great and the ultrawide fov is one of those things that is hard to switch back from after using it for a bit. I would personally much rather go with a 3440x1440p100/120/144 21:9 ultrawide over a 3840x2160p120/144/165 16:9 display.

Many modern games natively support 21:9. Some still don't do super ultrawide 32:9 well / natively and to me those are great for productivity use but lose most benefit for a gaming application as 21:9 is already extending the fov to your periphery. For older games they will also work perfectly fine as 16:9 with pillarboxing; and with an OLED panel this works great as those pillarbox edges are completely black / off.

The Wide Screen Gaming Forum[www.wsgf.org] is a great community with loads of knowledge and resources for getting things working well on ultrawide displays.

They have a Games DB Master List[www.wsgf.org] that provides a great amount of details in to how well nearly any game supports ultrawide/super ultrawide displays and what options if any for mitigating issues in games that doesn't natively support them.

as a strategy gamer : higher resolution gives more of the map in battlefield oversight which is a tactical edge.
but if the screen is to small ala to high pixels per square cm surface.. it will be more difficult to notify things.

so the perfect monitor fills your entire field of vieuw while keeping "zoom" such that things remain larhe enough that no time is lost in identification...

Irrelevant nonsense. No one cares about your opinion on your personal preferences for your use case; because you aren't the OP. The OP stated they were looking between a 32" 4K display and a 39" 21:9 ultrawide 3440x1440 display. Those are the same size at 16:9 aspect. The OP can also use DLDSR and DLAA to render at 4K and down-sample to 3440x1440p in games where they can still get satisfactory frame rates at the higher resolution; such as the non-graphically-intensive strategy games they didn't mention.

[Pocahawtness]

引用自 Atriox：

I'm on the fence over what next monitor I should buy.

On one hand, there are 34 & 39 inch Ultrawide monitors which sound great, but I am put off by FOV stretching in games.

The other option is 4K at 32 inches which uses a normal 16:9 aspect ratio, however I'm not sure it's worth swapping to and if 4K really is much of a jump in quality from 1440p.

I could also just go for a 27 inch 1440p display, but I prefer to have at least a 32 inch size both for immersion and so that I can see better whilst playing shooter games.

Anyone have any advice?

Personally I love UW. I have a 34" QLED 3440x1440 and it's awesome. I also have a 4K monitor but prefer that for browsing and work. It's way more difficult to drive than the other monitor although DLSS and so on does help. I can understand your concern about FOV but 90% of games support a higher FOV and those that don't, well, there is no real harm playing with black stripes down the side, it's still the same as a 2560x1440 screen.

[Atriox]

引用自 Pirate☠️Pocah：

引用自 Atriox：

I'm on the fence over what next monitor I should buy.

On one hand, there are 34 & 39 inch Ultrawide monitors which sound great, but I am put off by FOV stretching in games.

The other option is 4K at 32 inches which uses a normal 16:9 aspect ratio, however I'm not sure it's worth swapping to and if 4K really is much of a jump in quality from 1440p.

I could also just go for a 27 inch 1440p display, but I prefer to have at least a 32 inch size both for immersion and so that I can see better whilst playing shooter games.

Anyone have any advice?

Personally I love UW. I have a 34" QLED 3440x1440 and it's awesome. I also have a 4K monitor but prefer that for browsing and work. It's way more difficult to drive than the other monitor although DLSS and so on does help. I can understand your concern about FOV but 90% of games support a higher FOV and those that don't, well, there is no real harm playing with black stripes down the side, it's still the same as a 2560x1440 screen.

I don’t think the black bars would bother me at all as long as the screen is the same space being used is roughly the same as what I’m currently using. It’s just like watching old movies and TV shows on a 16:9 display.

[Andrius227]

I don’t understand why people buy ultrawide monitors, or as i call them “ultra short”. I like wide and tall monitors which is 16:9 but big.

[Atriox]

引用自 Andrius227：

I don’t understand why people buy ultrawide monitors, or as i call them “ultra short”. I like wide and tall monitors which is 16:9 but big.

You can get 39 inch ones which are also tall, but otherwise I agree with what you're saying.

[PopinFRESH]

引用自 Andrius227：

I don’t understand why people buy ultrawide monitors, or as i call them “ultra short”. I like wide and tall monitors which is 16:9 but big.

I don’t understand why people buy widescreen monitors, or as i call them “ultra short”. I like wide and tall monitors which is 4:3 but big.....

[skOsH♥]

I love 34" ultrawide 1440p

It's a perfect resolution and you get better fps

I'll definitely upgrade to an oled with a 240hz refresh rate, maybe 36" screen

[De Hollandse Ezel]

引用自 PopinFRESH：

引用自 Andrius227：

I don’t understand why people buy ultrawide monitors, or as i call them “ultra short”. I like wide and tall monitors which is 16:9 but big.

I don’t understand why people buy widescreen monitors, or as i call them “ultra short”. I like wide and tall monitors which is 4:3 but big.....

my point exactly.

[PopinFRESH]

引用自 De Hollandse Ezel：

引用自 PopinFRESH：

I don’t understand why people buy widescreen monitors, or as i call them “ultra short”. I like wide and tall monitors which is 4:3 but big.....

my point exactly.

That was sarcasm... I guess you need the /s

[Karumati]

引用自 d¢：

I love 34" ultrawide 1440p

It's a perfect resolution and you get better fps

I'll definitely upgrade to an oled with a 240hz refresh rate, maybe 36" screen

It’s great, but after 4 years of use I’m starting to feel i want bigger screen with 21:9, 34 starting to feel small

[Guydodge]

引用自 Atriox：

引用自 De Hollandse Ezel：

OK..
ANY monitor you select should have at least
-freesync as well as gsync
-a responcetime of 1ms or less
-100mhz or more

as for pixels...
***you always want to stay around the 1800 pixels per cm2 surface.
-> having many pixels on a to small screen aka 2000+ density.. is useless things either get to small to notice, lowering your responcetime in games negating any advantage of having more in sight.. or you run your games/icons in an enlarged size anyway.. meaning you lower your fps signigficantly for no reason.

this means every resolution has it's optimal size
for 4k optimal is 42inch
for 1440p optimal is 29 inch

ultrawide is a thing you want to stay away from.
humans field of vision is wider than it is high.. it is much closer to the old 4:3 standard than the current 16:9 standard.
so basicly 16:9 IS already wider than you should want.. and the LAST thing you should do is make it even wider by going 21:9 or 24:9

all you do by going wider is forcing yourself to have a smaller size screen to still keep everything within vision.. meaning you are left with vast slabs of non use eyesight on top of bottom.. or things rendered that you cannot possibly even look at

Also quality wise.. you always want either an IPS or an OLED panel.


Now if you want to go 4k OLED
there are basicly only 2 options :

LG UltraGear 48GQ900
ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG48UQ

both are 48 inch
both around 1800 euro.. if you cannot afford that..

If you want to go 4K IPS
there is basicly only 1 option

ASUS ROG Swift PG38UQ

it is 38 inch
it is around 1100 euro.

-If you cannot afford to spend over 1k on a monitor.. 4k is out of your budget.

================================================
if you want 1440P OLED
there aree 4 options all 27 inch.. no 32 inch models 1440p oled exist with the right specs.

2 are around 1000 euro :
ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG27AQDM
Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240

1 is around 900 euro :
LG UltraGear OLED 27GR95QE-B

1 is around 700 euro :
AOC Agon Pro AG276QZD

****cannot afford to spend 700 euro either?

than 1440P IPS it is.

the cheapest 1440p IPS screen 27 inch is 200 euro :
AOC Gaming Q24G2A/BK

if thats not the one you want..
under 250 euro there are 3 alternative models...
AOC Q27G2S/EU
LG UltraGear 27GR75Q-B
LG 27GN800P-B

Theres many many more models that qualify.. you won't find it hard to find something you like..... but these are the cheapest ones... that tick all the boxes of what you want in a monitor.

32 inch 1440 IPS
there are 6 models that qualify

1 is around 1000 euro :
Corsair Xeneon 32QHD165
-> insanely priced... for what you get..

2 are around 600 euro
ASUS ROG Strix XG32AQ
ASUS ROG Swift PG329Q

3 are 400 euro :
Samsung Odyssey G5A 32'"
Samsung G50A 32" (AG500PP)
ViewSonic XG320Q

A whole bunch of new OLED monitors got announced at CES 2024 so there will be more options soon, but still no 32 inch 1440p. I'm not sure that any manufacturers will actually make them because people complain about PPI, though I've never had a problem with 1440p at that size.

Right now I am most likely going to go for the PG32UCDM.

straight up that is a horrible choice youll never even come close to 240hz its 100%
a sales gimmick stick to 1440 res..4k is not a reality even with a 4090 i own one and
wouldnt even consider 4k you'll sacrifice effects ray tracing high fps you'll be left with
60fps if your lucky in many AAA games and all you'll get in return is subpar shading efffects fps
pretty much everything across the board.

[Atriox]

引用自 Guydodge：

引用自 Atriox：

A whole bunch of new OLED monitors got announced at CES 2024 so there will be more options soon, but still no 32 inch 1440p. I'm not sure that any manufacturers will actually make them because people complain about PPI, though I've never had a problem with 1440p at that size.

Right now I am most likely going to go for the PG32UCDM.

straight up that is a horrible choice youll never even come close to 240hz its 100%
a sales gimmick stick to 1440 res..4k is not a reality even with a 4090 i own one and
wouldnt even consider 4k you'll sacrifice effects ray tracing high fps you'll be left with
60fps if your lucky in many AAA games and all you'll get in return is subpar shading efffects fps
pretty much everything across the board.

I do agree yeah, FPS is the most important thing. You can drive some games in 4K at that refreshrate, like CS2, Rainbow Six etc. but you won’t come close in single player games.

FPS matters for quality just as much as resolution.