New monitor

By Piter ยท 10 replies
Aug 6, 2016
Post New Reply
  1. Hey, I am in need of a monitor badly, and I have been looking at some of the ultrawide 34" monitors, reading reviews, and I have come to a conlcusion that I really want to get one. But I need suggestions as to which is the most value for money. Could anyone suggest any good ultrawide monitor 2560x1440 or 3440x1440. I dont want to go above the 500 mark but if there is any really good monitor that is worth spending the extra money on I might save up and get that. I was looking at some and this is what I found:

    The second link is obviously nicer but more expensive but the first one is more affordable still nice though. But my dilema with the first one is that it has freesync and I have an nvidia card.
  2. Cycloid Torus

    Cycloid Torus Stone age computing. Posts: 3,019   +661

    Unless you are replacing your video card, perhaps you should review specifications for that first.
  3. EndlessWaves

    EndlessWaves TS Booster Posts: 191   +45

    2560x1440 is normal 16:9, not ultrawide 21:9. The latter would be 2560x1080 (it's the same width, ultra-wide refers to aspect ratio, not absolute width).

    Unless you're a serial monitor buyer than your monitor will outlast your graphics card, so buying a one that supports the DisplayPort standard rather than the nVidia-specific G-sync does have better chances of being usable with future cards. It's also cheaper for the same quality. If you do go for a freesync monitor then you ideally want one that supports LFC which requires a maximum refresh rate 2.5x that of the minimum refresh rate equivalent, such as 30-75hz.

    Bear in mind that 3440x1440 is a lot of pixels and 34" is actually a fairly small size for it (which also sounds bigger than it is, the less square a screen is the smaller it is for the same diagonal). It's the same pixel density as 1920x1080 @ 21.5" or 2560x1440@27". I don't know what you're current screen is but if you're coming from something with lower DPI you'll everything is physically smaller so text may be harder to read etc.

    2560x1080@34" is equivalent to 1920x1080@27" and 2560x1080@29" is equivalent to 1920x1080@23" (the standard 96 dpi).
  4. Piter

    Piter TS Rookie Topic Starter

    Ah yes sorry I made a mistake there 2560x1080 is what I meant. I would definitely be going for a 2560x1080 34" or a 3440x1440 34" and not 2560x1440. But my main problem is that I have an nvidia card and freesync obviously does not support it. So what I'm asking is, if theres any point of buying that or is it just not worth having freesync with my card, and off course is there any other ultrawides I can look into?
  5. EndlessWaves

    EndlessWaves TS Booster Posts: 191   +45

    It wouldn't have any benefit for your current card unless nVidia decide to support older models when they announce support, but it would benefit you in the future. Assuming you're likely to replace the card before the monitor.

    As for other options, there are some 35" 2560x1080 screens using an AU Optronics panel instead of the LG ones that almost all the 34" models use. There's also a Samsung 34" panel but I don't know if that's been used outside their own expensive monitor.

    5120x2160 screens should be coming now that we've got the DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 ports to drive them without having to use two cables, but I haven't seen any announcements after the PTitan X launch so I guess they're still waiting on the scaler manufacturers or something. I wouldn't expect to see them for another six months minimum if none are announced yet.
  6. Piter

    Piter TS Rookie Topic Starter

    35" are pretty expensive and samsungs' 34" ultrawide is also pretty expensive (around $800-$1000), and could you please tell me if getting a 25" or 29" is worth it? I have heard that 25" for ultrawides is totally out as they are smaller in height, but 29" 2560x1080 vs 34" 2560x1080 is there a big difference?

    Thanks for the reply :)
  7. EndlessWaves

    EndlessWaves TS Booster Posts: 191   +45


    It's one of those things that's not just subjective but depends on other factors like viewing distance. Different people are going to get different answers, which is why different sizes exist in the first place.

    Personally I've currently got a 1920x1200 screen and find the text a little on the small size despite it having space behind it so I'll be going for a bigger monitor next time so I can move it backwards, reclaim some of the lost space and have better readability. I plan for that to be a 34-35" model running the equivalent of 2560x1080 (it'll actually be 5120x2160 at 200% scaling because I want the improved text quality outside of games).

    The other end of the scale is great for people who want their setup to take up as little physical room as possible as you can sit much closer to a 25" and get the same apparent size as one of the larger monitors.
  8. Piter

    Piter TS Rookie Topic Starter

    I might just go with the 34" 2560x1080 then, and have you been looking at any of the 34-35" monitors yet? Would you be able to tell me which exact models you are thinking of buying?
  9. EndlessWaves

    EndlessWaves TS Booster Posts: 191   +45

    I'm waiting for the 5120x2160 models to launch. I've kind of been half keeping up with the market out of interest in case anything else pops up to improve text quality and the Acer 35" has probably been the most tempting one I've come across. I haven't looked in any detail though.
  10. Piter

    Piter TS Rookie Topic Starter

    Could anyone suggest any other ultrawide monitors?
  11. Piter

    Piter TS Rookie Topic Starter

    Went with the Lg 34um68 in the end, ordered it and waiting for it to come. Thanks for all of the replies :)

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...