[SOLVED] 34" QLED wide curved vs. 32" QLED 4k

[Portalo]

Hi there,

so I have ordered a Samsung 32" QLED 4k https://www.samsung.com/uk/monitors/led-uh850u/ and the shop where I ordered it have contacted me 5 days after ordering the display that this model is currently out of stock and they don't know when they will get it, but they offered me an alternative monitor Samsung 34" QLED Full HD Curved Wide screen https://www.samsung.com/ch/monitors/curved-cj791/ for the same price as the 32" model I wanted.

So the main thing is, that they are offering me this 34" Widescreen for the same price as I agreed to pay for the 32" 4k, for which I paid 570 Eur. Now this exact 34" Wide screen display is selling everywhere around for 800-900 Eur, which means I get quite a huge discount if I choose to take it for only 570 Eur. The only issue is that I wanted a 4k display and I wasn't looking for wide screen nor curved screen display, but I'm still strongly considering about taking the offer due to a really good discount.

So I would like to kindly ask all of you what do you think about this offer and that curved monitor?

I need to point out that I'm less than occasional gamer and my computer can run 4k content with no problem. I'm mostly producing music and getting some extra display space would help me squeeze more stuff in when working. The only reason I'm buying a new monitor is because I wanted to change my xx years old 24" Samsung monitor which is still working perfectly fine, .but I wanted to upgrade to a 4k monitor to watch some 4k video content and play a few games here and there in 4k.

Thank you very much for your future answers.

 

[jeremyj_83]

I have the CF791 which is the same specs as that mine just has USB3 in the back instead of Thunderbolt. I can tell you from experience that it is amazing. Gaming on the monitor is a dream with the extra field of view. The added width makes it such that I have dual monitors without the bezel for when I need to do work. If you can get it for the same price as the other it is worth it.

 

[King_V]

Hmm, if you were gaming, I would say that the 34" would be the better monitor - I personally think the extra field of view from the 21:9 aspect ratio is much better than 16:9 aspect ratio. Further, that it is lower resolution than full 4K means that it would be less demanding on the video card while gaming. Ultra-wide (21:9) tends to be more expensive, though.

HOWEVER - you are not getting this for gaming. The 3440x1440 means that any 4K video/content has to be rendered down to a lower resolution.

YET - the ultra-wide aspect ratio might make it easier to, when doing music production, almost treating the screen like two screens, left-half and right-half. This is something I do with my own monitor (the Acer 38" in my sig) when I'm working from home.

BUT - going with the 34" ultrawide means you're not getting the full 4K resolution, which will mean that your 4k video will not only be rendered down to a lower resolution, but you'll get black bars on the left and right, because the 4K aspect ratio is 16:9.

It's a little hard to say. I would strongly recommend, if at all possible, to see both a 32" 4K monitor (even if a different model than what you wanted) and the 34" ultrawide, in person. If any shop has them hooked up to PCs, and you can try browsing the web, moving around multiple windows here and there, it's possible the ultrawide aspect ratio might actually be beneficial. Maybe you will feel that the ultrawide is better for organizing things you work on, and worth the tradeoff, or maybe you'll like the 4K better. What my eyes find appealing, your eyes may not.

 

[Portalo]

Hmm, if you were gaming, I would say that the 34" would be the better monitor - I personally think the extra field of view from the 21:9 aspect ratio is much better than 16:9 aspect ratio. Further, that it is lower resolution than full 4K means that it would be less demanding on the video card while gaming. Ultra-wide (21:9) tends to be more expensive, though.

HOWEVER - you are not getting this for gaming. The 3440x1440 means that any 4K video/content has to be rendered down to a lower resolution.

YET - the ultra-wide aspect ratio might make it easier to, when doing music production, almost treating the screen like two screens, left-half and right-half. This is something I do with my own monitor (the Acer 38" in my sig) when I'm working from home.

BUT - going with the 34" ultrawide means you're not getting the full 4K resolution, which will mean that your 4k video will not only be rendered down to a lower resolution, but you'll get black bars on the left and right, because the 4K aspect ratio is 16:9.

It's a little hard to say. I would strongly recommend, if at all possible, to see both a 32" 4K monitor (even if a different model than what you wanted) and the 34" ultrawide, in person. If any shop has them hooked up to PCs, and you can try browsing the web, moving around multiple windows here and there, it's possible the ultrawide aspect ratio might actually be beneficial. Maybe you will feel that the ultrawide is better for organizing things you work on, and worth the tradeoff, or maybe you'll like the 4K better. What my eyes find appealing, your eyes may not.

Thank you very much for your insightful answer King_V. What do you think about the discount, 570 eur for this specific wide screen model? Because this is actually the only thing that is tempting for me to even get this wide screen monitor (which I know I would get used to working on a wide screen very soon), but to get a 30% off of this kind of monitor seems a really good deal to me, even for the lack of ability to do 4k? Two of my colleagues have already said "yes do it" as soon as they heard the offer, but as you mentioned, I also didn't want to get a wide screen due to lack of that aspect ratio support on a lot of youtube/games and some other apps...

 

[Portalo]

I have the CF791 which is the same specs as that mine just has USB3 in the back instead of Thunderbolt. I can tell you from experience that it is amazing. Gaming on the monitor is a dream with the extra field of view. The added width makes it such that I have dual monitors without the bezel for when I need to do work. If you can get it for the same price as the other it is worth it.

Thank you very much man. Appreciate the answer a lot. I've seen nothing but the positive comments about this screen, I guess I need to try, grab that offer and introduce myself into widescreen world

 

[jeremyj_83]

Thank you very much man. Appreciate the answer a lot. I've seen nothing but the positive comments about this screen, I guess I need to try, grab that offer and introduce myself into widescreen world

While 4k video won't be in native resolution, the picture quality on the monitor is great. I've yet to hear someone who went ultrawide ever say they would go back to a regular widescreen.

 

[King_V]

Thank you very much for your insightful answer King_V. What do you think about the discount, 570 eur for this specific wide screen model? Because this is actually the only thing that is tempting for me to even get this wide screen monitor (which I know I would get used to working on a wide screen very soon), but to get a 30% off of this kind of monitor seems a really good deal to me, even for the lack of ability to do 4k? Two of my colleagues have already said "yes do it" as soon as they heard the offer, but as you mentioned, I also didn't want to get a wide screen due to lack of that aspect ratio support on a lot of youtube/games and some other apps...

Well, I do think ultrawides tend to be more expensive than they should be - that said, given that it's known to be a high quality monitor, and has FreeSync, whereas the 4K monitor doesn't (though FreeSync is typically more important to gamers) . . and I am kind of biased in favor of ultra-wide, I'd say go for it.

My only hesitation, and this is why I would say see if you can view it in person, is in whether it will affect your enjoyment of anything else, particularly 4K video. That's not an issue for me as I tend not to watch 4K content, and my eyes aren't really good enough to be able to see things in that detail (ie: my monitor is a 38", and it's effectively 75% of 4K, given the 3840x1600 resolution, and my TV in the living room is a 60" 1080p screen, but frankly, I can't see any pixelation at all in it).

However, I'd strongly recommend the ultra-wide.