Return to

Need a Monitor suggestion


you can go with one gaming type and one reading / productivity type that way whatever content you run your always happy.



Couple problems. 2 monitors is usually no the most aesthetic or even ergonomic. Especially if they aren’t identical.

I’m not doing anything hardcore productive. I just end up with a few folders and windows open at certain times transferring music, movies, game mods, adjusting settings/configs, and watching a video about all the latter 3 “at the same time” ((I admit, 2 screens would still probably do this better, but, onto my next point.))

I really think I’d enjoy having identical vertical height regardless of width for any sort of cinematic/entertainment content. Anything available in 21:9? Great. 16:9, just narrower. I think it would really bring movies to another level for me, and even games, too(the ones I could run full res, anyway).

IDK, I could go for 2, but then I almost definitely need an arm system to make it work, and MOST CERTAINLY would have to get a new desk first. (even just ONE 34" UW would dominate my desk at basically 3 feet wide. That would cover my modem, and likely touch my old PC, which is still sitting on my desk for a couple reasons.)

Lastly, would buying 2 ultrawides really make much sense? Hello bankruptcy, y’know? But it could actually look cool with a smaller cheaper one on top, and then the baller one as the main screen. Or a smaller one that’s easier to drive (2560x1080), and then the baller one up top at a high tilt for movies/easier to run games. Again, IDK, but after feeling the limitations in front of me today, and seeing them every time I load up a 2.35/2.39:1 movie, I’m solidly leaning 21:9 at this point.



Okay then 1 x 32" 1440p and 1 x 29" 21:9 1080p above ? Same width and PPi on Both. 29" LG is freesync and 75HZ and IPS



You mean this?

Not quite the same. But very close. I’ll clarify that by ‘identical’ I also meant in the physical design elements of the monitors, not necessarily the width and PPI.

And I also stated I was looking for an upgrade in PPI to my 1440x900 19 inch. Your suggestion would be about the same.

I hate that this shit is so complicated. Fricken industry. We should just us the Gold, Silver, and Bronze ratios, with maybe an in between of the Gold and Silver ratios for all-round use. And multiples of 30 for all content standards.

If that were the case, I’d be ordering a 49" bronze ratio 1600p 90hz freesync with HDR. And either an IPS, PLS, or AHVA panel. Maybe some type of OLED if they can solve the burn in problems they’re supposedly having. I’d spend a solid $2k and never need anything else. I could run most games in the middle ratio, and some in the silver ratio. Or, if I were to stream, I could run them in the gold ratio and have shit tones of room on either side for stream settings, chat, etc.

Oh, wait, they make this. Only it’s super low res and VA.

Le sigh Sorry for sounding like a stubborn ass, but damn. Maybe it’ll be like when i needed a new chair and I’ll have to have this stuff in front of me to be able to truly decide.



Maybe your focusing too much on the specs. There is no perfect monitor.
For one, LCD technology is flawed and on top of that the manufacturing quality tolerance of panels has dropped considerably over the years.Finding that perfect monitor IS impossible. Not to mention deliberate market segmentation so as to not give you the exacting product you need… after all why would you ever upgrade again :wink:



Finding the perfect monitor wont happen as budget / required specs will rarely align (I would have loved 32" 4k 120hz panels yet they wont exist at the price fair for some time)



You buy 16:10 'nd newer turn back.



I have 16:10. It sucks.



Yeah, I see what you guys are saying. I kinda can’t get much more generalized, though. I know I want significantly more pixel density than what I have (about 90 ppi), and I want to be able to watch movies without downsizing them to fit or cropping them so they fill height. I want the screen to look accurate, but also run faster than industry standards.

I also know I want a large screen, too. And, due to two monitors never having the same styling, and likely never the same PPI and other specs as well as styling, I really think I want just the one monitor. If I got a second, it would have to look the same and have the same pixel density and colors, and at LEAST the same color bezel, otherwise my OCD would be driven insane.



Your link is incorrect. The size of the 32" monitor is wrong. Try 31.5" (and of course it is much more granular like 31.453 etc… ) the 29" is basically the 32" with the top lopped off.

The ideal PPI of a monitor is between 96 and 102PPI based on correct seating distance. When you go higher you introduce the need for scaling. Id say go larger and push the screen a bit further back.

How can more vertical real estate suck ? You have the same width as a 16:9.



Technically, I’d have more width using 16:9. I see it as hor+ rather than vert-. If you want to make them scale properly, a 16:9 is more or less about an 18:10, so yeah. How can more horizontal real estate suck? It looks better, multitasks better, and it doesn’t shrink the height of wider aspect ratio content. My current screen shrinks even STANDARD 16:9 content, and throwing cinemascope content on there? Might as well have a phablet.

As far as your comparison, it’d be 30.5, not even 31.5.,5-inch-16x9-vs-29-inch-21x9 But, once again, the way I see it is that it’s a 23.5 inch 16x9 with extra width. same goes for a 25" ultra compared to my current monitor.

Correct seating distance is pretty much a mixture of preference and desk size along with the way the screen is mounted. I could lengthen my current viewing distance by 2.5 inches just from wall mounting my monitor.

If we account for the larger desk I want (30" deep, currently 20") and moving my chair forward to touch the desk with the arm rests (can’t now because seat pan is too wide for the leg opening) AND go with wall mounting the monitor or similar, I’d be about at a 34" viewing distance.

The big reason for high PPI is to reduce the need for AA in games. And just because It looks very crisp. Even if I had to go to 125% scaling or get a program to do it, or use ‘large icons’ mode on the taskbar, I think that’d be okay with me.



but isn’t that because the 29" is 29.5" ? either way they are very similar but that’s not what you want.

Couldn’t you downsample the image using something like DSR or AMD’s VSR ?



Yeah, but my points still stand. I don’t want the image shrinking, overall.

I could, but that’s basically rendering a higher resolution, causing more load on the GPU, when I could just get a tighter display and run higher frames.



For what it’s worth, I tried some gaming yesterday at some custom resolutions on a uhd:

Too wide and short for me, maybe if the display was huge, this would work. Mine is only 27" normally so not great at this aspect ratio.

Really nice experience, actually. Didn’t shrink the viewable area so much that I couldn’t see everything and enjoy the extra width at the same time.

Same as the above, except no benefit to squeezing it down more. since it’s obviously faux-ultrawide, might as well keep a little extra height.

Just thought I’d mention that, in case anyone was wondering.



The technical proper size would’ve been 3440x1440 for the 34" ultrawide equivalent. 3840x1600 is on my radar ATM. It’s kinda a toss up between that and 3440x1440. MAYBE 2560x1080, but IDK if the 29" UW’s will be large enough, especially for 34"-ish viewing distances as opposed to my current 24"-ish.

What physical size was your UHD? a 40" would be equivalent to the 3840x1600 38" ultrawides.



Mine is only 27", which is why I was surprised that the latter two worked out so well. I imagine a 40ish" Korean uhd would work well for that



Yeah, that would be a little bigger than a 25" ultrawide. Which would have the same equivalent height as my current monitor.

Dude, imagine your monitor’s current height, but with the same shape as 3840x1600. That’s what you’re missing, dude! Plus, no scaling!



that has a :10 vertical aspect.



Yeah, 24:10. But it’s close enough to 21:9 that it’s negligible, and the same for most people. the 38" part is what makes the real difference, as well as the 3840 resolution width that allows for basically perfect scaling on most websites since everything is designed for/based around 1080p and 16x9 these days.

This is why 3840x1600 38" ultrawides are on my radar. Largest physical size and pixel density without scaling or viewing distance problems. I can run a 16x9 game centered to save GPU power, and view 2.4, 2.39, and 2.35 movies with literally zero shrinking. I could also slap 3 windows side by side, or even 4 if I had too.

Another thing on my radar I heard about? 3840x1200 super ultrawide. Basically, a double 16x10 1200p. Even better on GPU power, everything else still stands, up to FIVE windows side by side, AND it would legitimately be wide enough to run a standard width game in the middle, social media on one side, and stream settings and whatnot on the other side.

Defo gonna wait this year out a bit and see what the industry brings to the monitor table.



I agree that 1440p is best option. I have only seen ultra wide monitors in passing at microcenter. 32inch sounds about right for 1440p or 2160p.

Here is a good one imo.