29in or 34in ultrawide

[Mun0425]

Hi, i currently have a nice 27 inch monitor, but even that is becoming cramped feeling in gaming.

I do know that 29 inch ultra wides have the same surface area of 27 inch monitors so they are about 2 inches shorter but 2 inches wider.
Would 29 inches be much of an upgrade from 27 inches since it is shorter and only slightly wider?

Or should i go with a 34 inch. Which is slightly more exensive but still within my budget. At least the 2k ones are(2560x1080). I feel like i should go with a 34 inch but i also feel like the pixel density of 2560x1080 wouldnt look very sharp on a 34 inch mucch like 1080p doesnt look very sharp on 27 inches.

I only have a gtx 1070, which runs all games i have just fine at 1440p (like bf1, doom, mass effect, ect.), but i dont think it would be enough for a 3440x1440p monitor which is substantially more than 2k 34 inch panels.

Can someone give me a good opinion on this choice? Also, if i have a 100hz monitor, will it studder like a 60hz monitor if the fram rate drops below 100fps?

 

[kol12]

You'll actually lose vertical height with a 29" ultrawide vs your 27", have a look here: http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-29-inch-21x9

Your right, 2560x1080 won't be 2K over 34" and you may be disappointed if your already coming from 2560x1440?

A 1070 would probably get by for 60 fps 3440x1440p but not really 100 fps, what monitors are you looking at? If you have a G-Sync monitor you shouldn't get any stutter but you may need a stronger GPU to stay closer to 100 fps...

I'd recommend 34" over 29" and 3440x1440 over 2560x1080 Ultrawide and 100hz G-Sync if it fit's your budget...

 

[1LiquidPC]

I would go with the 3440 x 1440 34" if you consider ultrawide. Like you, I was using a 27" 2560 x 1440, then went to the 34". A sharp image given the resolution. Depending on the game(W3, FO4, ect), I was getting avg. of around 70 FPS with my OC'd 1080. Picture was fantastic for what it was. It's a very immersive experience. A downside was games without Ultrawide support. There are some freeware programs to fix this in certain games. Most will have black bars on the sides in cutscenes. Even games like W3 seem to stretch the sides to a degree to fill the screen. However, mine was a 60Hz standard screen (Dell U3415W). I've recently switched back to a 27, though 4K G-Sync this time. I would highly recommend a G-SYNC monitor given you already are running an Nvidia card. I wouldn't want to go back now after having it.

 

[Mun0425]

You'll actually lose vertical height with a 29" ultrawide vs your 27", have a look here: http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-29-inch-21x9

Your right, 2560x1080 won't be 2K over 34" and you may be disappointed if your already coming from 2560x1440?

A 1070 would probably get by for 60 fps 3440x1440p but not really 100 fps, what monitors are you looking at? If you have a G-Sync monitor you shouldn't get any stutter but you may need a stronger GPU to stay closer to 100 fps...

I'd recommend 34" over 29" and 3440x1440 over 2560x1080 Ultrawide and 100hz G-Sync if it fit's your budget...

Do you recommend any particular monitors? I want to stay below 500 bucks. im not coming from 1440p, im coming from a 27 inch 1080p. I just used nvidia dsr to render in 1440p to see what kind of performance i would get. And all games run fine except a few which im afraid if i go to a higher res than 2560x1440p i wont be able to maintain above 60 in all games.

 

[1LiquidPC]

2560 x 1440p is about the highest resolution I'd recommend for your 1070 if you want to stay at 60 with high/maxed settings.

 

[kol12]

Do you recommend any particular monitors? I want to stay below 500 bucks. im not coming from 1440p, im coming from a 27 inch 1080p. I just used nvidia dsr to render in 1440p to see what kind of performance i would get. And all games run fine except a few which im afraid if i go to a higher res than 2560x1440p i wont be able to maintain above 60 in all games.

Well it sounds like your quite interested in the ultrawide? You could move up to 2560x1440 on another 27" and have more screen real estate due to the higher resolution but the physical size will be the same...

Lowest price for Ultrawide 3440x1440 there are LG monitors, look here: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100160979%20601294991%20600554755&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36

If you could make the stretch the ASUS Designo Curved MX34VQ 34" UQHD 100 Hz would be nice, 100hz and G-Sync I think:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236803

For 2560x1080 you've got something like the Acer XZ350CU Black 35" 21:9 Ultra-wide: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009847

I would aim for the 3440x1440 ultrawide if I could, I feel it would be the better investment. If your strictly into gaming and not worried about image quality the 2560x1080 ultrawide would be ok.


Edit: Sorry I made mistakes, here are ultradwide 3440x1440 from low to high: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100160979%204814%20601294991%20600554755&IsNodeId=1

Unfortunately most are Freesync, you could get by without v-sync with the 1070 to enjoy 75hz...

The ASUS Designo Curved MX34VQ 34" UQHD 100 Hz is also Freesync

Things start getting pretty pricey when your looking for 34" 3440x1440 100hz G-Sync...

 

[Mun0425]

Do you recommend any particular monitors? I want to stay below 500 bucks. im not coming from 1440p, im coming from a 27 inch 1080p. I just used nvidia dsr to render in 1440p to see what kind of performance i would get. And all games run fine except a few which im afraid if i go to a higher res than 2560x1440p i wont be able to maintain above 60 in all games.

Well it sounds like your quite interested in the ultrawide? You could move up to 2560x1440 on another 27" and have more screen real estate due to the higher resolution but the physical size will be the same...

Lowest price for Ultrawide 3440x1440 there are LG monitors, look here: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100160979%20601294991%20600554755&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36

If you could make the stretch the ASUS Designo Curved MX34VQ 34" UQHD 100 Hz would be nice, 100hz and G-Sync I think:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236803

For 2560x1080 you've got something like the Acer XZ350CU Black 35" 21:9 Ultra-wide: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009847

I would aim for the 3440x1440 ultrawide if I could, I feel it would be the better investment. If your strictly into gaming and not worried about image quality the 2560x1080 ultrawide would be ok.

I am real interested in them because i want the most immersive gaming experience possible. Isnt the pixel density of 34 inch 2560x1080p about the same at 27inch 1080p? If so i can deal with that since im already pretty much used to the lower pixel density on my current monitor.

 

[Mun0425]

2560 x 1440p is about the highest resolution I'd recommend for your 1070 if you want to stay at 60 with high/maxed settings.

do you think 29 inch would be much of an upgrade to 27 inch or should i go with the 34 inch option.

 

[kol12]

2560 x 1440p is about the highest resolution I'd recommend for your 1070 if you want to stay at 60 with high/maxed settings.

do you think 29 inch would be much of an upgrade to 27 inch or should i go with the 34 inch option.

Remember that 29" will have less vertical viewing distance than your current 27", is that something your willing to sacrifice? The 34" will have more width and the same vertical view distance as you have now, unless you go 3440x1440 will result in even more screen real estate. I don't think 29" would be the right direction...

Yes PPI is about the same for 2560x1080 over both 27" and 34", see this calculator: https://www.sven.de/dpi/

If you choose 3440x1440 your getting two upgrades rather than one with 2560x1080 on a 34"...

 

[Karadjgne]

The 29" UW is roughly the same height as a 24" 16x9, just wider. The 34" UW is roughly the same height as your current 27". If you are already feeling cramped for real estate on the 27", then dropping to the smaller 29" would be a step backwards to a smaller, but wider screen. I'd think you'd be better off at least staying at the same height, 34-35"UW, with a 2560x1440 / 60-100Hz or staying with a 1920x1080, but moving to 144Hz. Most of that will depend on your gaming style. If you prefer fast paced, racing/first person shooters etc, then the higher refresh will be better. If you prefer dungeon crawls or Sims or mmorpg's then the higher resolution monitor would be better.

 

[Mun0425]

2560 x 1440p is about the highest resolution I'd recommend for your 1070 if you want to stay at 60 with high/maxed settings.

do you think 29 inch would be much of an upgrade to 27 inch or should i go with the 34 inch option.

Remember that 29" will have less vertical viewing distance than your current 27", is that something your willing to sacrifice? The 34" will have more width and the same vertical view distance as you have now, unless you go 3440x1440 will result in even more screen real estate. I don't think 29" would be the right direction...

Yes PPI is about the same for 2560x1080 over both 27" and 34", see this calculator: https://www.sven.de/dpi/

If you choose 3440x1440 your getting two upgrades rather than one with 2560x1080 on a 34"...

I do have one more question though. Does curve matter? Would it be better to get a curved monitor over a flat panel? because i know with some monitors that dont have great viewing angles can look weird if they arent curved.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

I have both GTX 1070 and 34" 3440@1440p@100Hz monitor.
so pixel density is fine, but not amazing. with 2560x1080 it will be crap.
I can play most of the games at ~100FPS though not with max settings (usually reducing shadows quality).
anyway, for gaming, you must treat yourself with at least 100Hz - those are not cheap. since monitors are long term investment, I'd recommend to wait for monitors with HDMI 2.1. those will be higher refresh rate and with variable refresh rate regardless of the cards vendor (no more G-Sync/FreeSync dilemma). those should appear later this year or earlier next year.

 

[Mun0425]

I have both GTX 1070 and 34" 3440@1440p@100Hz monitor.
so pixel density is fine, but not amazing. with 2560x1080 it will be crap.
I can play most of the games at ~100FPS though not with max settings (usually reducing shadows quality).
anyway, for gaming, you must treat yourself with at least 100Hz - those are not cheap. since monitors are long term investment, I'd recommend to wait for monitors with HDMI 2.1. those will be higher refresh rate and with variable refresh rate regardless of the cards vendor (no more G-Sync/FreeSync dilemma). those should appear later this year or earlier next year.

The pixel density of a 34inch 1080p is slightly higher than 1080p at 27 inches and i dont mind the pixel density on my current monitor. As for refresh rates, im not really a competitive gamer so i personally wouldnt benefit from 100hz. Im just interested in a highly immersive game experience.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

100Hz is not for competitive gamers. it's for everyone that likes the smooth/fluid image. it just looks great.
about the pixel density, you are correct that 34" 2560x1080 and 27 1080p monitors are about the same. the thing is that anyone can see individual pixels on them from ~1m. a 20/20 vision means you can distinguish about 60pixels per degree (angular resolution). here you will have about 53-54ppd from ~90cm. average person can see 80ppd. on 34" 3440x1440 it's ~74ppd from the same 90cm. So while movies and games will look fine on any of those, anything with fine details or text will look bad - really bad on 1080 variant. you should try the 100Hz and high pixel density display for a day or two, it's really hurts to go back.

 

[kol12]

I do have one more question though. Does curve matter? Would it be better to get a curved monitor over a flat panel? because i know with some monitors that dont have great viewing angles can look weird if they arent curved.

I'm about to be the new owner of an ultrawide curved 34" myself so I can't comment directly on the curve but I would imagine it adds to immersion, reduces the need to scan left to right as much and is just generally nicer looking than flat.

Obviously the 34" 100hz G-Sync monitors are very pricey but if you are prepared to aim towards one I'm sure it would be well worth it. 100hz does not just benefit competitive gaming, I was once under that belief too, I'm yet to experience it myself but the more I read and talk to people about it it will change your whole computing experience, your gaming will be more realistic. Unfortunately G-Sync doesn't have a lot of offerings compared to FreeSync. If you decide to pass on G-Sync 100hz I would at least consider the higher resolution 3440x1440 as that is quite an upgrade in itself. If your truly not concerned about resolution you could consider one of the 2560x1080 34-35" G-Sync/Free Sync monitors, I think Acer has the Z35. And if your still not bothered about any of those things a standard 34" 60hz would be fine, but I would seriously consider it in 3440x1440.

 

[Mun0425]

100Hz is not for competitive gamers. it's for everyone that likes the smooth/fluid image. it just looks great.
about the pixel density, you are correct that 34" 2560x1080 and 27 1080p monitors are about the same. the thing is that anyone can see individual pixels on them from ~1m. a 20/20 vision means you can distinguish about 60pixels per degree (angular resolution). here you will have about 53-54ppd from ~90cm. average person can see 80ppd. on 34" 3440x1440 it's ~74ppd from the same 90cm. So while movies and games will look fine on any of those, anything with fine details or text will look bad - really bad on 1080 variant. you should try the 100Hz and high pixel density display for a day or two, it's really hurts to go back.

Do you really thing its worth the performance loss? I mean i dont really want to sacrifice framerate for pixel density

 

[Karadjgne]

The larger the monitor, the further away you'll need it. Especially when going above 24" on 1080p. It's no different than sitting too close to a big-screen TV, all you get is pixelated and you loose any image quality. The only cure is to move back or get a higher resolution. Most ppl sitting at a desk @ arms length from a monitor will see best picture on 23.6-24" 1080p, 27-28" 1440p. That translates to 29"UW 1080p or 34-35"UW 1440p.

 

[Mun0425]

The larger the monitor, the further away you'll need it. Especially when going above 24" on 1080p. It's no different than sitting too close to a big-screen TV, all you get is pixelated and you loose any image quality. The only cure is to move back or get a higher resolution. Most ppl sitting at a desk @ arms length from a monitor will see best picture on 23.6-24" 1080p, 27-28" 1440p. That translates to 29"UW 1080p or 34-35"UW 1440p.

As i said before, i currently dont mind the pixel density on my 1080p 27 inch so i shouldnt have a problem with a 1080p 34 inch which would be sitting even further away from me since i am gonna mount it on my wall most likely.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

Do you really thing its worth the performance loss? I mean i dont really want to sacrifice framerate for pixel density

there is no performance loss
As i already mentioned, you can play many games like doom, BF1, overwatch at around 100FPS with only few settings lowered a bit. also, yo can always set the in game resolution to 2560x1080. Your next graphics card will be able to push that many pixels very soon. and from my experience, you don't upgrade monitors as frequently as your GPU. I just needed second monitor (my 10 years old 24" Dell 2407WPF is perfectly fine), otherwise I'd wait for what i recommended in a first post 34" or larger, 3440x1440p or higher at 144Hz at least over HDMI 2.1. I know that such monitor will shine only with next GPU.
And i do not suggest to look at those over 1000USD monitors. there ,are quite a few decent 3440x1440p@100Hz monitors at ~700-800USD like mine.

 

[Mun0425]

Do you really thing its worth the performance loss? I mean i dont really want to sacrifice framerate for pixel density

there is no performance loss
As i already mentioned, you can play many games like doom, BF1, overwatch at around 100FPS with only few settings lowered a bit. also, yo can always set the in game resolution to 2560x1080. Your next graphics card will be able to push that many pixels very soon. and from my experience, you don't upgrade monitors as frequently as your GPU. I just needed second monitor (my 10 years old 24" Dell 2407WPF is perfectly fine), otherwise I'd wait for what i recommended in a first post 34" or larger, 3440x1440p or higher at 144Hz at least over HDMI 2.1. I know that such monitor will shine only with next GPU.
And i do not suggest to look at those over 1000USD monitors. there ,are quite a few decent 3440x1440p@100Hz monitors at ~700-800USD like mine.

Should i buy a 3440x1440p and just render my games at 2560x1080 that way i wont have to lower settings? Or will it not really make a difference and make all my games look blurry and my in game gui distorted? Games like mirrors edge catalyst, mass effect, and ghost recon wildlands will not run very well at 3440x1440p. I know since i rendered them at the res. Is it all that better to have 1440 vs 1080 ultrawide? Note that i am sitting about 2 and a half feet away or so (maybe 2) from my monitor.

 

[kaiteck]

Do you really thing its worth the performance loss? I mean i dont really want to sacrifice framerate for pixel density

there is no performance loss
As i already mentioned, you can play many games like doom, BF1, overwatch at around 100FPS with only few settings lowered a bit. also, yo can always set the in game resolution to 2560x1080. Your next graphics card will be able to push that many pixels very soon. and from my experience, you don't upgrade monitors as frequently as your GPU. I just needed second monitor (my 10 years old 24" Dell 2407WPF is perfectly fine), otherwise I'd wait for what i recommended in a first post 34" or larger, 3440x1440p or higher at 144Hz at least over HDMI 2.1. I know that such monitor will shine only with next GPU.
And i do not suggest to look at those over 1000USD monitors. there ,are quite a few decent 3440x1440p@100Hz monitors at ~700-800USD like mine.

Should i buy a 3440x1440p and just render my games at 2560x1080 that way i wont have to lower settings? Or will it not really make a difference and make all my games look blurry and my in game gui distorted? Games like mirrors edge catalyst, mass effect, and ghost recon wildlands will not run very well at 3440x1440p. I know since i rendered them at the res. Is it all that better to have 1440 vs 1080 ultrawide? Note that i am sitting about 2 and a half feet away or so (maybe 2) from my monitor.

Usually you would prefer to run games in native resolution no matter what settings.

 

[kol12]

I just brought the Asus ROG PG348Q and the 3440x1440 resolution is amazing, you can fit so much on the screen and it is so nice and sharp. Think of 3440x1440 as a long term investment, you may have to lower some settings now with the 1070 but later you might be in a position to upgrade the GPU.

I'm curious, what sort of FPS are you seeing with the rendered 3440x1440? As n0ns3ns3 said, he's playing games at 3440x1440 at around 100FPS with only few settings lowered, i'd be happy with that considering your monitor is going to a longer term investment than your GPU.

 

[Mun0425]

Do you really thing its worth the performance loss? I mean i dont really want to sacrifice framerate for pixel density

there is no performance loss
As i already mentioned, you can play many games like doom, BF1, overwatch at around 100FPS with only few settings lowered a bit. also, yo can always set the in game resolution to 2560x1080. Your next graphics card will be able to push that many pixels very soon. and from my experience, you don't upgrade monitors as frequently as your GPU. I just needed second monitor (my 10 years old 24" Dell 2407WPF is perfectly fine), otherwise I'd wait for what i recommended in a first post 34" or larger, 3440x1440p or higher at 144Hz at least over HDMI 2.1. I know that such monitor will shine only with next GPU.
And i do not suggest to look at those over 1000USD monitors. there ,are quite a few decent 3440x1440p@100Hz monitors at ~700-800USD like mine.

Should i buy a 3440x1440p and just render my games at 2560x1080 that way i wont have to lower settings? Or will it not really make a difference and make all my games look blurry and my in game gui distorted? Games like mirrors edge catalyst, mass effect, and ghost recon wildlands will not run very well at 3440x1440p. I know since i rendered them at the res. Is it all that better to have 1440 vs 1080 ultrawide? Note that i am sitting about 2 and a half feet away or so (maybe 2) from my monitor.

Usually you would prefer to run games in native resolution no matter what settings.

Does curve matter at 34 inches?

 

[kaiteck]

Do you really thing its worth the performance loss? I mean i dont really want to sacrifice framerate for pixel density

there is no performance loss
As i already mentioned, you can play many games like doom, BF1, overwatch at around 100FPS with only few settings lowered a bit. also, yo can always set the in game resolution to 2560x1080. Your next graphics card will be able to push that many pixels very soon. and from my experience, you don't upgrade monitors as frequently as your GPU. I just needed second monitor (my 10 years old 24" Dell 2407WPF is perfectly fine), otherwise I'd wait for what i recommended in a first post 34" or larger, 3440x1440p or higher at 144Hz at least over HDMI 2.1. I know that such monitor will shine only with next GPU.
And i do not suggest to look at those over 1000USD monitors. there ,are quite a few decent 3440x1440p@100Hz monitors at ~700-800USD like mine.

Should i buy a 3440x1440p and just render my games at 2560x1080 that way i wont have to lower settings? Or will it not really make a difference and make all my games look blurry and my in game gui distorted? Games like mirrors edge catalyst, mass effect, and ghost recon wildlands will not run very well at 3440x1440p. I know since i rendered them at the res. Is it all that better to have 1440 vs 1080 ultrawide? Note that i am sitting about 2 and a half feet away or so (maybe 2) from my monitor.

Usually you would prefer to run games in native resolution no matter what settings.

Does curve matter at 34 inches?

Curve some say improves immersion as it covers wider area of visual.

There are of coz consequences of having a curve screen.

The viewing angle is terrible.
Some graphic designers claimed You will have difficulty in drawing a straight line.
Watching/editing 2D content can be extremely weird on curve screen.
Glossy reflection tend to be more intense but less area on curve screen.

I personally will only get curve if immersion is the only thing that matters. I will not get it for productivity as it is inappropriate for certain usage.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

curve is cancer - should be treated like one.
every image and movie made with flat sensors on flat monitors. so you get some awkward picture with no horizontal straight lines.
unfortunately, there are no flat monitors with high refresh rate.