3 New Notifications

New Badge Earned
Get 1K upvotes on your post
Life choices of my cat
Earned 210

Drag Images here or Browse from your computer.

Trending Posts
Sorted by Newest First
P
Protocol10 21.12.19 07:25 am

What better 3440x1440 (21:9) or 3840x2160 (16:9) ?

What format would you prefer? Ultra wide or 4K?
28 Comments
Sort by:
Z
Zlonchello 21.12.19

FullHD Monitor LCD DELL E5515H 55, black [515h-1859] 69 490rub.

T
T.T.G 21.12.19

Both are good. 21:9 plate obviously displays more information horizontally. Consequently much better for FPS anyway.

P
Protocol10 21.12.19

Zlonchello
The question was put or this or that. Fullhd legacy format and gives it good definition image to buy this monitor in 2016, the year for gaming is idiotic, especially since I have now so there is a fullhd monitor 27 inch 120 Hz.

G
GeRR_Praetorian 21.12.19

Protocol10
The future for huge resolutions! Well, that and a good GPU should be that way))))

P
Protocol10 21.12.19

Stiff Of Macivor
Well, it's itself that you need the proper video card. At least gtx 1070 to high +40 fps. But first I would like to define the format of the monitor.

T
T.T.G 21.12.19

Protocol10
Obsolete is not necessarily the worst. For example, a new pixel density gives a distinct difference in the derivation of the far objects and high quality made of teksturkami with good detail. The rest of the difference is not critical. Preferable is the Golden mean - 2k, which would alleviate the load on the video card and get a frame rate above 60.

C
Computer-MAN 21.12.19

Protocol10
A small argument in favor of 16:9, there are a few games that either do not support or conflict with the resolution of 21:9.

P
Protocol10 21.12.19

Twisted Tesla Gigafactory
On the one hand logic is. On the other hand technology is not standing still. The monitor takes 6-8 years at least, and new cards will come out every two years and their performance will only grow with the change in architecture and process technology.

T
T.T.G 21.12.19

Computer-MAN wrote:
there are a few games that either do not support or conflict with the resolution of 21:9.
You can play with cut sides after the 21:9 is the same 16:9, only much wider.
And Egorov was full without the support of simmered my 16:9 FHD. In the end, 95% were run in native resolution after simple manipulations.

T
T.T.G 21.12.19

Protocol10
Heh, so the meaning is not in the pursuit of technology, and for their visual benefit.
4k was still available with the advent of the last generation of GeForce, if you do not consider 60 fps as the mast HEV, which is not able to provide absolutely everywhere even overclocked tops. By the way there is already a home build under 8k. But good? Senseless and ruthless pursuit of numbers)

P
Protocol10 21.12.19

Twisted Tesla Gigafactory
Understood.

P
Porsche911GT3RS 21.12.19

depends on why you need a monitor. For games and movies better than 16:9. For working with graphics 21:9

P
Protocol10 21.12.19

Porsche911GT3RS
For games and movies. Sometimes working with photos.

Why only 16-by-9 is best for movies I do not understand? Kind of like the opposite better 21 on the 9th, so more panoramic picture, and even without the bands.

P
Porsche911GT3RS 21.12.19

Protocol10
games advise. A large screen means a wide FOV in games that loads the graphics card. Often on consoles make the angle of 55-75 degrees, blunt cut sides, because the more objects simultaneously displayed on the screen, the lower the fps. And not all games allow to play normally in full 21:9. You can see on the horizon, but to see something near the top and bottom, will have to look around. 21;9 easy to separate into 2 zones working under Windows, here and all the convenience of this form factor.

P
Protocol10 21.12.19

Porsche911GT3RS
Clear. Thanks for the advice, I will consider this point.

T
T.T.G 21.12.19

Porsche911GT3RS
To adjust fov (if necessary) and all.

w
warp 37 21.12.19

I for 16:9, for game under this format made.

W
WWQ 21.12.19

Protocol10
vopros of the discharge , which is better sedan or wagon... standard 16/9, 21/9 for more on the parties see , if you're playing shooters and racing then thanks.Even old games run at this resolution without problems, yesterday at 21/9 started dark Messiah... But I would not advise to take such high resolution , they first need a powerful system, secondly, the fonts are not readable even by 34 inches and will have crap scaling.
2560/1440 and 2560/1080 optimally , in a pinch you can always enable dsr x4 and make yourself 5K in games.
1440 for need 27+' for 21/9 - 34'+ to the norms of readability.

M
MunchkiN 616 21.12.19

4K cinematic resolution
at the moment it is a standard console ratio at sleight of hand there it is possible to hammer and ultra wide horizontal stripes. and the screen ratio I itself is paying much attention to pitch.
regarding the load on the 4K then the situation is basically the same if in 2009 some to buy a full CD you will begin with the fact that no graphics cards meet these permissions and performance but pitch the strength of a phenomenon coming.
I, too, sooner or later the question arises about buying another monitor since my I do not like technically already. and voschem I peck fantasized about pukatea from curved to any others. full BH no sense to buy not see. buy custom permissions different from 16к9 just do not see sense. maybe someday BH ultra wide resolution and will come but it will not so soon and that 2K will have 720p

C
Cpl.Hicks 21.12.19

Protocol10
I stumbled now to your question...you can ask what it chose?
My choice in favor 21:9.