27" vs 34" ultrawide, aspect ratio?

[kol12]

Quite like the look of the Utrawide's. Will a 27" have a higher vertical viewing area compared to a 34" ultrawide? Is this referred to as the aspect ratio? Does this differ from make/brand?

I currently have a Dell U2412M 24" 1920x1200. This has more vertical viewing distance than a 1080 24" monitor. What is that referred to?

 

[Lucky_SLS]

a typical FHD is 1920X1080(16:9). 1080 being the vertical component. so yes, ur dell with 1200 has more vertical viewing distance.
but the ultra wides are 21:9 . they typically have the resolution of 2550X1080 and upwards. which means u have more horizontal viewing space.
25,27,29 inches fall into FHD ultrawide category usually and anything above 29 like the 34" will have 2k res n more. so is the price.

 

[kol12]

What would the aspect ratio of my Dell U2412M be? As an example I'm looking at the Acer Predator X34 which has a 3440x1440 resolution. How would the vertical viewing distance on that compare to my Dell?

 

[Lucky_SLS]

ur dell looks more square kinda like. and the x34 is more rectangular. ur dell is 16:10 n x34 is 21:9

 

[kol12]

Uh, how can the 16:9 be wider than 16:10, is that for 27" rather than 24"? I thought the Dell U2412M had a higher vertical view distance than most 1080p 24" monitors?

 

[Lucky_SLS]

those r just the aspect ratios. the same size monitors will look different

remember that the monitors r measured diagonally.

 

[Lucky_SLS]

tell me one more thing, what cpu n gpu do u have for ur cpmputer to power it with the acer predator? or do u intend to use it for ur console?

 

[kol12]

Thanks. I just want to know how to compare the vertical view distance of my Dell to the 34" Ultrawide's. I know this monitor stuff can get confusing!

 

[Solandri]

Quite like the look of the Utrawide's. Will a 27" have a higher vertical viewing area compared to a 34" ultrawide? Is this referred to as the aspect ratio? Does this differ from make/brand?

I currently have a Dell U2412M 24" 1920x1200. This has more vertical viewing distance than a 1080 24" monitor. What is that referred to?

Brand is irrelevant. All that matters is aspect ratio (or the number of horizontal and vertical pixels), and the screen size (diagonal length). The math is pretty straightforward. But for the math disinclined, just use a screen size and aspect ratio calculator. That'll tell you the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the screen.

http://screen-size.info/

 

[kol12]

tell me one more thing, what cpu n gpu do u have for ur cpmputer to power it with the acer predator? or do u intend to use it for ur console?

I'm just looking at a future upgrade consideration. 4690k 4.3GHz and GTX 1070. A monitor upgrade may or may not come before a system upgrade. Besides, the 1070 probably isn't strong enough for the X34.

I initially wanted 27" but it seems the Ultrawide's are popular and I do quite like the look of them. Just wondering how much vertical viewing I'd lose going from Dell to Ultrawide, or maybe there are some Utrawides's that have the same vertical view distance as the Dell?

 

[Lucky_SLS]

thank god. ur rig wont push the limits on the x34, but should do fine since x34 has g sync and gtx 1070 is a 2k GPU for now. ur cpu is no slouch either, has a healthy 2 years top before becoming obsolete. if ur mobo is a z series mobo, i would recommend getting a proper cooler for ur cpu n overclocking ur cpu to help things out. also make sure u have a good enough psu.

P.S.: just saw ur signature, u have a good rig, oc it to crank the limits 😉

 

[kol12]

thank god. ur rig wont push the limits on the x34, but should do fine since x34 has g sync and gtx 1070 is a 2k GPU for now. ur cpu is no slouch either, has a healthy 2 years top before becoming obsolete. if ur mobo is a z series mobo, i would recommend getting a proper cooler for ur cpu n overclocking ur cpu to help things out. also make sure u have a good enough psu.

P.S.: just saw ur signature, u have a good rig, oc it to crank the limits 😉

Are you saying the x34 would be an easy/suitable pair for my rig? Wasn't sure the 1070 could handle that res 3440x1440 and wasn't sure the 4690k + 1070 would be able to do 100hz gaming, maybe in some games it will...

Yes, I think I will sit on this rig a while longer, when gaming becomes much more multi threaded might be the time to upgrade...

I think 4.5GHz is pretty a common max oc for the 4690k? I may be able to obtain that with reasonable temps with he H80i v2. Current game temps are 40-47C with 50-55C absolute peaks. Maybe I should have went for the H110i. Should still be good for now. Not sure how much I'd currently benefit from 4.5GHz over 4.3GHz, much do you think?

 

[kol12]

Quite like the look of the Utrawide's. Will a 27" have a higher vertical viewing area compared to a 34" ultrawide? Is this referred to as the aspect ratio? Does this differ from make/brand?

I currently have a Dell U2412M 24" 1920x1200. This has more vertical viewing distance than a 1080 24" monitor. What is that referred to?

Brand is irrelevant. All that matters is aspect ratio (or the number of horizontal and vertical pixels), and the screen size (diagonal length). The math is pretty straightforward. But for the math disinclined, just use a screen size and aspect ratio calculator. That'll tell you the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the screen.

http://screen-size.info/

This is handy. But what exactly determines the screen size vs aspect ratio? Could manufactures not make the screen any size they wanted to with any aspect ratio?

If my calculations are correct the Acer x34 has a very similar vertical height to my Dell, is this right?

Dell U2412M

Acer X34

 

[Lucky_SLS]

thank god. ur rig wont push the limits on the x34, but should do fine since x34 has g sync and gtx 1070 is a 2k GPU for now. ur cpu is no slouch either, has a healthy 2 years top before becoming obsolete. if ur mobo is a z series mobo, i would recommend getting a proper cooler for ur cpu n overclocking ur cpu to help things out. also make sure u have a good enough psu.

P.S.: just saw ur signature, u have a good rig, oc it to crank the limits 😉

Are you saying the x34 would be an easy/suitable pair for my rig? Wasn't sure the 1070 could handle that res 3440x1440 and wasn't sure the 4690k + 1070 would be able to do 100hz gaming, maybe in some games it will...

Yes, I think I will sit on this rig a while longer, when gaming becomes much more multi threaded might be the time to upgrade...

I think 4.5GHz is pretty a common max oc for the 4690k? I may be able to obtain that with reasonable temps with he H80i v2. Current game temps are 40-47C with 50-55C absolute peaks. Maybe I should have went for the H110i. Should still be good for now. Not sure how much I'd currently benefit from 4.5GHz over 4.3GHz, much do you think?

yeah, the 4690k wont bottleneck ur gtx1070. and the 1070 is good for 60+ fps in even the most demanding games @ 2k in maxed out settings. with g sync, it will smoothen out the gameplay too. wait for next year n decide on intel cannonlake or ryzen 😉

u can go upto 1.25-1.3 vcore voltage. so i think stable 4.5 ghz is possible. and that h80i should keep it safe even at that oc. 50-55 is pretty good temps. if u want more headroom, go for thermal compounds like kryonaut grizzly etc.


ask ur oc question in overclocking tag forum. i am not the expert in that sadly 🙁

 

[kol12]

yeah, the 4690k wont bottleneck ur gtx1070. and the 1070 is good for 60+ fps in even the most demanding games @ 2k in maxed out settings. with g sync, it will smoothen out the gameplay too. wait for next year n decide on intel cannonlake or ryzen 😉

u can go upto 1.25-1.3 vcore voltage. so i think stable 4.5 ghz is possible. and that h80i should keep it safe even at that oc. 50-55 is pretty good temps. if u want more headroom, go for thermal compounds like kryonaut grizzly etc.


ask ur oc question in overclocking tag forum. i am not the expert in that sadly 🙁

Is the Acer x34 a 3k monitor?

Yeah, apparently Intel will be doing mainstream 6 core i7's which could prove useful for gaming?

50-55C are absolute peaks, average is more 40-45C. It's a replacement cooler I've only had 2-3 months so using Corsair's applied paste. I've got some unused Noctua NT-H1 I brought that might be better. Guess I'll head over to an overclocking forum to see what more I can get from the 4690k with this cooler.

 

[tvhse_123]

This is your answer.

 

[kol12]

@tvhse

Wow so the 34" has even more vertical view distance than a 16x10 display. Those screens must be amazing... Do you mind me asking what the source for that is?

 

[tvhse_123]

@tvhse

Wow so the 34" has even more vertical view distance than a 16x10 display. Those screens must be amazing... Do you mind me asking what the source for that is?

Here you go: http://www.displaywars.com/

The 34" 21:9 will have vertical view of a 27" 16:9 screen.

 

[kol12]

@tvhse

Wow so the 34" has even more vertical view distance than a 16x10 display. Those screens must be amazing... Do you mind me asking what the source for that is?

Here you go: http://www.displaywars.com/

The 34" 21:9 will have vertical view of a 27" 16:9 screen.

Thanks a lot, that's great. Does the 34" have to have a larger height to maintain size accuracy?

The 34" comes in with almost 2" more height than a standard 16:9 24" and about 1" more height than than my dell. Wouldn't be missing out on height view distance with the 34".

 

[Solandri]

This is handy. But what exactly determines the screen size vs aspect ratio? Could manufactures not make the screen any size they wanted to with any aspect ratio?

Since pixels are square, the resolution determines the aspect ratio.

For a given resolution, if the manufacturer wants to make the monitor bigger, they make the pixels bigger.

 

[kol12]

Since pixels are square, the resolution determines the aspect ratio.

For a given resolution, if the manufacturer wants to make the monitor bigger, they make the pixels bigger.

So is it the resolution and aspect ratio that ultimately determine the physical screen size?

 

[Solandri]

So is it the resolution and aspect ratio that ultimately determine the physical screen size?

No, the resolution determines the aspect ratio. 1920x1080 is 16:9. 1024x768 is 4:3. 2560x1440 is also 16:9.

For a given resolution, the manufacturer can make the screen any size they want. They just need to make the pixels bigger or smaller.

Put another way, the resolution fixes the ratio of the horizontal to vertical size. That ratio is the aspect ratio. But you can make the monitor bigger or smaller using the same aspect ratio. So you could make a 1920x1080 screen that's 27", 24", 21" or 3.14159265" diagonally. The aspect ratio doesn't put any restrictions on the overall size of the monitor. It only restricts the ratio of the horizontal to vertical size.

 

[kol12]

@Solandri Thanks, I think I understand that.

Does anyone know what's known about the 2560x1080 resolution on ultrawide monitors, do they tend to suffer from the graininess that 1920x1080 does on 27" screens? 2560x1080 would be full HD resolution right? Is 2560x1440 2K resolution?

I'm starting to think that I would require some pretty powerful gear to drive a 3440x1440 ultrawide and that a slightly lower res might be more suitable...

 

[Solandri]

The "graininess" is a result of having pixels which are too large. You can determine this with a PPI (pixels per inch) calculator.

https://www.sven.de/dpi/

The general rule of thumb (from way back in the print photography days) is that 100 PPI is the minimum acceptable resolution for viewing from a handheld distance. A 27" 1080p monitor is only 85 PPI. A 24" is 92 PPI, so below the standard but close enough that most people don't mind (and we tend to sit a bit further than handheld distance from the monitor). A 27" 2560x1440 is 109 PPI

150 PPI is considered adequate resolution. 300 PPI is considered the limit the human eye can see (at hand-held distances). That's why most printers target 300 PPI as a minimum. (Higher PPI printers exist to make half-toning less noticeable. Toner and ink is either on or off, there is no in-between. So a 600 PPI printer can use half-toning to make 4 greyscales at 300 PPI. A 1200 PPI printer can make 16 greyscales at 300 PPI.)

The names for the different resolutions are pretty stupid, and I've stopped trying to learn them except the most common ones. FHD (full high definition) is the most important one today - 1920x1080. In the old days, VGA (640x480) was the important ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution

 

[kol12]

@Solandri

The 2560x1080 35" Ultrawide's have a PPI of 79.39, that's worse than a 27" 1080p monitor. Do you think a 27" 2560x1440 of 109 PPI would be the better buy?

I'd love a 3440x1440 Ultrawide but they are very currently very expensive. Perhaps they could be an option later as price comes down?