3440X1440 vs 2560×1080: Reddit — Dive into anything — Mitspielen — Vampire Live in München

Is 3440×1440 4K? 4 Reasons to pick an ultrawide monitor

Home » Monitors » Is 3440×1440 4K? 4 Reasons to pick an ultrawide monitor

With nearly three times the resolution of 1080p Full HD, the 3440 x 1440 display offers a lot of desktop screen space, providing an excellent experience for watching movies or playing games.

So is 3440×1440 4k? Which one is better? If you are wondering about the above questions, this article is for you. Keep reading for more information!

Contents

Is 3440×1440 4K?

3440×1440 is not 4K

The answer is no. The 4K Ultra HD resolution features 3840×2160 pixels, over three million pixels more than the 3440×1440 resolution.

The 4K Ultra HD resolution features 3840×2160 pixels, over three million pixels more than 3440×1440 (the most popular ultrawide resolution).

The aspect ratio of The 3440 x 1440 resolution is aspect ratio 21:9, which is ultrawide. Along with the 2560 x 1080 resolution, these resolutions are the most common for a 21:9 ratio.

It is considerably more expansive than the standard 16:9 ratio, which most monitors use. 3440×1440 wider than the 2560 x 1440 resolution, about 29.3%.

You should not confuse it with 3840 × 2160, another name for 4K. They are far from the same, although it can be confusing at first glance.

3440 x 1440 resolutions contain 4,953,600 pixels, while 4K resolutions features 8,294,400 pixels. The difference between them is 3,340,800 pixels (about 50.4%). In addition, 4K resolution comes in the aspect ratio of 16:9 instead of 21:9.

If you want to buy one for gaming, it’s essential to determine if the available graphics card can handle the rise in pixels. If it does not, you will get a larger monitor but a jerky lackluster gaming experience.

4 Reasons to Buy an Ultrawide Monitor

Ultra-wide monitors are popular for many good reasons

This monitor is quite expensive, but it is still famous for many good reasons. So here are a few reasons why you might want to get one.

Perfect for Movie Experience

If your primary purpose is to watch movies, it will be worth investing in an ultra-wide monitor. Not only is it more extensive than a standard screen, but it also has a better shape.

Filmmakers make their movies in the 21:9 aspect ratio, available on any screen. Yet, the ratio needs to be adjusted, or you end up with black bars.

Thanks to an ultrawide screen, you can enjoy movies as they were originally shot. Remember, this doesn’t apply to most Netflix shows or YouTube videos that are made at 16.9.

Deliver Immersive Gaming

One of the things that makes people love super-busy screens is that they provide an excellent experience for gaming. Curved screens deliver unparalleled immersion, allowing players to feel more of what’s happening in a game.

You will clearly feel the difference when experiencing first-person shooter titles.

Most gamers believe that ultra-wide monitors allow them to increase their gaming performance. Besides, these monitors have a lower refresh rate.

If you’re willing to invest in the latest graphics card, getting an ultra-wide monitor will allow you to get the most out of it.

Great For Video And Photography Editing

Ultrawide monitors are also very popular with photographers and video editors. The reason is that a dual monitor setup is not ideal for both activities.

Most video editing programs will require you to prepare a lot of horizontal space. That’s why you should use ultra-wide monitors for this purpose. They will provide the space you need without borders.

By working on a wide screen, you can also ensure that colors are consistent.

Monitors in dual setups often focus on slight color-related differences. It shouldn’t be your problem if you’re browsing the web. Yet, it will be one of the essential problems for activities and jobs that require color accuracy.

Easier to Utilize

The ultra-wide monitors give you more ease and accessibility than a dual-monitor setup. In addition, these screens will give you a more seamless user experience overall.

Most apps are not designed for simultaneous use on two screens. Besides, pushing a program window from one screen to another is quite inconvenient.

Reasons to Do Not Purchase an Ultrawide Monitor

Dual monitor setup

Ultra-wide monitors are great, but not every user is ready to get one. The following are common reasons for that.

Big and Quite Bulky

Ultrawide monitors are significantly heavier and larger than many users expect. Also, they can be a bit difficult to install for inexperienced people.

The extra weight of the monitor means that you must prepare a larger stand.

Do Not Offer Much Added Height

Ultrawide monitors offer a significant difference in width, but the same is not true for height. As a result, you won’t get any extra space for activities like reading or editing documents.

Not Available for All Apps

Not all apps work optimally on these screens. Maybe some apps will not work correctly, or some work but won’t make efficient use of the additional space.

Pricey

Ultrawide monitors often sell for much more than standard monitors. As a result, they tend not to be suitable for those on a lower budget.

So, getting an ultra-wide monitor does not make sense if you want to save your budget and maximize what you can afford.

The Bottom Line

Ultrawide monitors have various benefits that you should consider. You can decide depending on what you want. However, these monitors are expensive, making them less than ideal for those on a tight budget.

You won’t go wrong with the ultra-wide monitors if you’re willing to spend more money to have something perfect for great experiences while watching movies or playing games. Thank you for reading!

Games, Movies and the Desktop at 3440 x 1440

Author: Adam Simmons
Last updated: January 28th 2023

Looking for specific ultrawide recommendations? Take a look at our reviews and the recommendations section.

Table of Contents

Introduction

As we explored in this article, the 21:9 aspect ratio provides a potentially very immersive viewing experience. Using the correct movie software and viewing content mastered in ultrawide aspect ratios (more for major Hollywood blockbusters than TV shows) gives a screen-filling cinematic experience that really draws you in. Most game titles, meanwhile, will offer you an expanded Field of View which really enriches the gaming experience. Despite this, some people feel that the 29” 2560 x 1080 models which that article was based around are too restrictive both in terms of physical size and resolution – particularly vertically.

The AOC u3477Pqu is one of an increasing number of monitors that maintains the 21:9 aspect ratio but offers a screen that is significantly wider and taller than previous offerings. Rather than being the same height as a 23” 16:9 monitor, it’s the same height as a 27” 16:9 monitor. The resolution has also been increased to 3440 x 1440, which provides a pixel density of 109. 68 PPI – very close to a 27” model with 2560 x 1440 resolution. Rather than being like a 23” 16:9 model with extra width and horizontal pixels, this screen is like a 27” 16:9 model with extra width and horizontal pixels.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.

Buy from Amazon

On the desktop

The large amount of physical space and nice pixel density offered by this screen size and resolution provide great potential on the desktop. The image below shows how barren that desktop can look without anything going on.

You can also see, if you have a single browser window open on the internet, that you tend to end up with a lot of empty ‘white space’ going unused. The notable exception to this is some forums which will fill more of the screen with text. Most websites, however, will look something like in the image below (except often less beautiful).

Where the screen really comes into its own is for multi-tasking, for example having two windows open side by side. The first image below shows two websites open (on two separate web browsers, just for variety). You can see that there is a great amount of usable space on each window – the browser windows don’t feel cramped. The second image shows a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and Microsoft Word document open side-by-side, again with plenty of usable space for each application.

Gaming

When it comes to gaming, the 21:9 aspect ratio offers a ‘Field Of View’ (FOV) advantage in most titles. The majority of games use Hor+ scaling, which means that the vertical component of the FOV is fixed whilst the horizontal component increases as the aspect ratio widens. Our original article on the 21:9 experience explored the sort of gains you can expect in FOV over a 16:9 monitor. Rather than repeating such an analysis, we’re going to let the pictures speak for themselves. We tested a range of game titles, including some which are shown in the glorious pictures below.

The extra FOV was in itself a very nice thing when gaming, but when combined with such a large screen it provided an exceptionally engrossing experience like no other we’ve experienced. It really drew you into the game world, engaging not only your normal visual field but also your peripheral vision. The pixel density was also pleasing – enough to give elements the sort of nice detail you’d see on a 27” WQHD or 40” UHD monitor whilst requiring a level of GPU horsepower some way between the two. We won’t turn this into a GPU review, but we were only using a single Nvidia GTX 970 on our system and found our game titles ran nicely at fairly high detail settings. By nicely we mean hitting the optimal 60fps for the monitor fairly consistently. We didn’t run everything at Ultra and stuck to using 2x MFAA mostly, but the visual experience was still very rewarding. At times we found ourselves not actually playing the game but rather simply admiring the virtual view.

It’s worth noting that support for 21:9 in games is a lot more widespread than people realise, particularly on fairly recent titles. We tested the titles mentioned above and a few extras including ArmA 3 and Warframe. Some out-of-game menu elements on Warframe appeared slightly stretched and the BF4 chat window at the end of the round was cut off, but aside from that everything worked just fine. The in-game experience was always ‘perfect’ from the perspective of 21:9 being handled correctly. That isn’t always the case, of course, and there are some titles that simply don’t work as they should when in game.

WSGF (Widescreen Gaming Forum) is a very useful resource for working out whether a game supports the ultrawide 21:9 aspect ratio correctly. There is a database there which lists tried and tested titles and whether they are known to support the ‘Ultra Wide Screen’ format correctly or any particular issues there may be. You will likely find some titles that work correctly with the 21:9 aspect ratio, but aren’t listed on that website. Elder Scrolls Online (ESO) being a prime example of a title which wasn’t ‘certified’ as working on that site when we tested it but we could confirm works perfectly. It was later added to the website and confirmed as working as intended under 21:9. It’s a great list for knowing for certain that a game will work correctly, even if it doesn’t list every compatible title.

One title that we know doesn’t work as it should is Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (CoD: AW). That is perhaps to be expected. This is a game that is primarily designed for games consoles, with PC users a mere afterthought. Perhaps more crucially it is based on an engine that hasn’t really fundamentally changed for several years and has never correctly supported the aspect ratio. There are some obvious warning signs that things aren’t working as they should when you enter the graphics menu and the resolution is listed as ‘3440×1440 [16:7]’. That is of course not the correct aspect ratio at all.

The game itself appears somewhat stretched and you don’t gain the correct Field Of View. This stretching may not be all that obvious in the first image below, if you’re not familiar with the game. You can at least see the FOV is quite restrictive compared to what it should be, if you compare it to the earlier images of games like Battlefield 4. The second image shows how the customisable player character model is displayed in this funky 16:7 aspect ratio whilst the third image shows how it should look. This final image was taken at 1920 x 1080 (16:9) on the monitor with 1:1 pixel mapping employed. As you can see there is quite a difference and obvious geometric distortion going on.

We must again reiterate that the majority of game titles work correctly in the 21:9 aspect ratio, and the experience that gives on a 34” 3440 x 1440 monitor is truly captivating. For some older titles which don’t officially support 21:9, there is a very useful utility called Flawless Widescreen. This irons out issues on some of these problematic titles so that they work correctly on these ultrawide models and indeed for Eyefinity or Surround setups. This utility hasn’t been updated since 2014, so is only designed to correct issues for older titles. Newer COD titles such as Call of Duty: Vanguard work correctly ‘out of the box’ with the 21:9 aspect ratio and doesn’t require such tweaking.

Movie watching

Movies these days are an interesting mixture of aspect ratios. The most common aspect ratios are 16:9 and something that equates to ultrawide – typically between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1. The former is more common on content that was originally shown on TV (TV series, for example). Such content fills a 16:9 screen without any sort of black border but typically has thick black bars either side on a 21:9 monitor or has to be stretched to fit. The images below show a 16:9 Blu-Ray (Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder) presented with those black bars and then stretched to fit on the 21:9 AOC u3477Pqu. Where there are black bars the image itself on a 34” 21:9 monitor is equivalent to viewing on a 27” 16:9 screen – so it isn’t like you’re staring at a tiny box or anything. It isn’t clear in the second image, but when it is stretched to fit the image becomes noticeably softer – not so bad for an animated film like this, but something that can look quite unnatural otherwise.

The ultrawide aspect ratios of 2.35:1 – 2.40 are more common on big-budget Hollywood blockbusters. Films that are originally shown in cinemas, as many cinemas now have ultrawide screens. In our article that introduces the concept of the 21:9 aspect ratio, we look at how the handling of such film content varies based on the movie software that is used. The image below shows the Blu-ray of James Bond: Skyfall on the correctly set up ArcSoft TotalMedia Theater 6 player.

It fills the screen completely without distortion. On a 34” 21:9 screen that gives an incredibly immersive cinematic feel, something you don’t often get in the comfort of your own home unless you’re heavily into VR headsets and the like. Unfortunately ArcSoft no longer supports TotalMedia Theater, so if you don’t own it then there is no way to legally obtain a license and activate it. We also tried Corel WinDVD Pro 11 and Cyberlink PowerDVD 14 Ultra, but none provided the undistorted full screen experience that ArcSoft’s solution did. This is a quite sad state of affairs, really. Plenty of speculation exists as to why support for TotalMedia Theater was dropped and that’s not something we want to add to or assess here. Having said that it is quite clear that there is a growing trend for digital rather than physical media delivery, not just for PC games but also movies. We tried a wide range of titles on Netflix and initially found that the content was always centred with a degree of black space around it. Even when we ran the u3477Pqu at 1920 x 1080 to access the ‘Image Ratio’ settings (including ‘Movie1’ and ‘Movie2’) it was not possible to get rid of this black border entirely.

Fortunately streaming media is better supported now than when we first wrote this article and it’s something we continue to assess as we test new ultrawide monitors. Microsoft’s Edge browser natively supports 21:9 for appropriate content on Netflix and so does the standalone Netflix app for Windows, giving a screen-filling experience. 16:9 content is presented undistorted, with black borders at the sides. Some content is filmed in an aspect ratio between 16:9 and 21:9 (or thereabouts) and is presented with smaller black borders at the sides. An extension for Chrome and Firefox called ‘Ultrawidify’ allows you to gain a screen-filling experience whilst keeping the monitor at its native resolution. Similar alternatives are also available, such as ‘Better Netflix’. For content that was originally designed for ultrawide viewing (and there is a lot of that on Netflix), this was done without any distortion or clear loss of the original definition. The application simply ‘zooms in’ just like ArcSoft’s TotalMedia Theatre was able to do – shown below for ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’. For content that was originally intended for 16:9 viewing (TV shows and the like) the extension automatically detected this and did not ‘zoom in’ as this would slightly crop the image – although you can manually override this if preferred. The extension also works with YouTube, although the version we tested didn’t support automatic aspect ratio detection on YouTube so you will have to determine this yourself and manually select the appropriate setting. This manual override may also be required for Netflix now, due to stricter DRM being employed. Ultrawidify has undergone many upgrades since we tested it and various alternatives are available, being able to watch movie content or TV shows in a screen-filling way shouldn’t be too difficult. Alternatives also exist that are specific to Disney+, such as ‘Disney Plus Ultrawide Fullscreen Support’ for Chrome.

Another popular way to stream or download movie or TV content is Amazon Prime Video. We tested this on Google Chrome and found that although most films seemed to be presented with black bars at the top and sides, some of the movies filled the 3440 x 1440 screen entirely without geometric distortion. This mainly applied to those mastered in ultrawide aspect ratios – big Hollywood blockbusters for example. This monitor made viewing such content a real joy (and very engrossing). This finally gave us the kick we needed to catch up on some quite enjoyable movies we never got around to watching at the cinema – The Dark Knight Rises, Non-Stop and Mud to name but a few. The image below shows one of those screen-filling movies, Cuban Fury, streamed on Amazon Prime Video.

Conclusion

Monitors have become both bigger and higher resolution, with plenty of relatively expensive but desirable options out there to tempt consumers. There are many different paths that a user can go down when it comes to a monitor – we can say with authority that no monitor is perfect. A dilemma which many users now face, if they’re after the best definition and colour quality from their experience and plenty of desktop space, is whether to go down the 34” 3440 x 1440 route or the UHD (‘4K’ or higher, 3840 x 2160+) route. With the UHD ‘4K’ or higher resolution options, you gain the advantage of a greater number of pixels. You therefore gain more ‘real estate’ on the desktop and, depending on screen size, greater pixel density and potentially better clarity and detail. The downside is that it takes more GPU power to run these higher resolutions. And depending on screen size it is more likely that a user will have to adopt scaling for a comfortable viewing experience. That’s something that is a bit hit and miss at present but will undoubtedly improve in the future.

Some users actually end up settling for monitors with the 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution, which is very understandable. That resolution offers a comfortable pixel density for many on the common 27” screen size and a decent amount of desktop space. For those who crave higher densities without the need for extra pixels there are also a number of smaller WQHD screens being introduced with 23.8” and 25” screens. What the 34” 3440 x 1440 models do is take that comfortable 27” WQHD screen and expand it horizontally. The pixel density remains very similar but you gain extra usable space and pixels. This 3440 x 1440 resolution was one that we found nice to use on the desktop. It offered a comfortable pixel density and when combined with the very light matte screen surfaces used on these sorts of monitors a good level of clarity.

For games we found support for 21:9 was very widespread, and where there were occasional gaps there were usually people busy out there finding solutions (e.g. Flawless Widescreen). On the array of games we tested the experience was exceptionally captivating in ultrawide. The Field Of View (FOV) gained over 16:9 and ‘taller’ aspect ratios was great not only from an immersion point of view but also from a competitive point of view. Now we’re not suggesting hardcore gamers who love fast-paced gaming should shun their high refresh rate 16:9 monitors for one of these, but there is definitely something to be said for the edge that the extra Field Of View provides. And since this article was first published, plenty of high refresh rate ultrawide options have been released – so you can have your cake and eat it.

These 21:9 models were first introduced to deliver a cinematic feel in movies, mimicking the sort of aspect ratios seen in ultrawide cinemas. It seems somewhat ironic, then, that movies are where support is seemingly the most mixed. We were very happy to be able to enjoy some proper screen-filling content for physical media using TotalMedia Theatre 6. Unfortunately ArcSoft has dropped support for this software, which at our time of testing was the only legal Blu-ray software that seemed to support such content correctly. We were also able to enjoy full screen ultrawide content on Amazon Prime Video. And also on Netflix when using an appropriate browser (Microsoft Edge), the app or a browser extension on Chrome or Firefox. Physical media has now fallen out of favour, so at least it’s good to see the aspect ratio better supported for streaming media. And with this said we enjoyed the movie watching experience overall – especially that screen-filling ultrawide content.

It’s important to realise that 21:9 screens are not just a passing fad, they’re a technology embraced by many users and strongly supported by monitor manufacturers. Since this article was published, the technology has expanded to encompass different panel types and higher refresh rates. These ultrawide screens also lend themselves well to being curved, for an extra dose of immersion and potential advantages in other areas including viewing comfort. We’ve now reviewed a range of 3440 x 1440 models, including those which are curved and have a high refresh rate. On all of these models, we’ve enjoyed the experience that the 3440 x 1440 resolution and 21:9 aspect ratio have provided. It has also expanded onto 38″ screens with a 3840 x 1600 resolution, offering a similar experience to that described in this article but more immersive due to the extra size. Some examples of our experiences with ultrawide screens of varying curvature are linked to below, for reference.

21:9 monitors against stable fps

Ultra-wide screens are no longer exotic: they are sold in any store, they are actively advertised, and in Steam statistics they got out of the 0.01% zone. It is not surprising, because it is more convenient to work on them, and you can watch movies without black bars. But here’s the problem: they say UltraWide displays are bad for gaming. Let’s check?

Why can games work worse?

Everything here is both simple and complex at the same time. For starters, some blockbusters don’t support ultra-wide monitors. For example, Metal Gear Solid V does not know that 3440×1440 exists, whether it is in windowed or full screen mode. No tricks in this format can not run it. A number of hits are easy to adapt to an exotic resolution thanks to custom patches (and get banned in multiplayer at the same time). Some releases without «crutches» are launched at 21:9, but with problems: the interface shifts, the menu is displayed crookedly … But there is one more nuance — performance.

If we compare 1920×1080 and 2560×1080, it’s clear to anyone: in the second case, the load on the video card increases. But what if we compare 2560×1440 and 2560×1080? It would seem that the answer is obvious: fewer pixels means higher fps. But even here everything is not so simple.

Performance depends not only on resolution, but also on engine optimization.

There is a popular myth that developers spend a lot of time and money on adapting projects to the capabilities of popular hardware. On the one hand, it is logical: if the majority of the game will «fly», then the reviews will be positive. On the other hand, without bold experiments, progress will simply stop. Therefore, there are blockbusters with ray tracing, support for fresh DirectX and ultra-wide resolutions. Of course, all this high-tech goodness may not work as fast as before. Technology needs time to settle down and get rid of “childhood diseases”, and studios need to learn how to properly apply new chips.

What impacts performance on a super wide monitor?

Assume AAA hit runs normally with an aspect ratio of 21:9. Or, at the very least, it supports rendering with minor flaws in the interface and splash screens. There are two options for displaying the image. Some games, like Overwatch, will cut off some of the objects in the frame from above and below, while maintaining the original horizontal viewing angle.

Another option — as in many shooters and racing games — is to leave the height intact, but add the missing pieces on the sides. Of course, the second scenario is an additional load on the GPU. And not only in terms of rendering additional points (relative to 16: 9 resolutionwith the same frame height), but also the resource costs for generating additional geometry and lighting calculation.

Well, is it time to test everything in practice?

Test Method

Tests will be carried out on two monitors using five screen resolutions. For 16:9, 3840×2160 (4K), 2560×1440 (WQHD), 1920×1080 (Full HD) launched on the AOC AGON ag271ug are blown away. For 21:9 — 3440×1440 (1440p UltraWide) and 2560×1080 (1080p UltraWide), test display — AOC AGON ag352ucg. Let’s take different games: fresh, old, with good optimization and not so much. Let’s make three runs of each of the tests, the median result will be entered in the table.

Since UltraWide resolutions slightly increase the viewing angle compared to standard resolutions, slightly more objects are included in the frame. However, many engines work out this stage of building an image in about the same time — regardless of the resolution or aspect ratio. It’s easy to check: you need to find out how many more points need to be calculated during rendering by dividing the corresponding image areas (2560×1080 and 1920×1080 or 3440×1440 and 2560×1440) and comparing the average frame time (number of fps / 1000). If the measurement result fits into the theory, the additional frame geometry does not affect performance in any way. Does not fit — affects.

In racing, changing the FOV has a very big effect: there are a lot of objects at the edges of the frame, to which complex effects like blur are applied.

Checking arithmetic in a different way. Theoretically, the arithmetic average of performance from 1920×1080 and 2560×1440 resolutions should be close in value to the results of 2560×1080. For obvious reasons, the super-wide resolution matches WQHD in length and Full HD in height, because the total number of displayed pixels is comparable. The reverse is also true: the arithmetic mean of 3440×1440 and 2560×1080 is close to 3000×1260 (3.78 MP). This ratio is not used in monitors, but in terms of the final area it is close to 2560×1440 (3.68 megapixels). Therefore, when comparing these results, we will understand how much more the 21:9 display loads the system..

Done with mathematics. Let’s move on to the measurement results?

What tests have shown

The average values for 9 games are as follows: when upgrading from Full HD to its super-wide version (2560×1080), performance drops by about 18±2%, switching from WQHD to UWQHD (3440×1440) eats away 15±2%. That is, when you change the monitor to the same height, you will lose about 16% fps. No one denied the influence of a larger number of pixels on the rendering time of one frame, but what does it consist of?

The arithmetic average of the frame rate from super-wide 3440×1440 and 2560×1080 for 9 games on three video cards turned out to be 25±2% less than the actual performance at 2560×1440. Taking into account the potential error of 2% due to the difference in the actual number of points — and even more: 27±2%. Similar calculations for the arithmetic mean of 1920×1080 and 2560×1440 to determine the «theoretical» performance of 2560×1080 with error correction showed only -5±2%. That is, additional objects load the video card much more than the changed aspect ratio.

It remains to be seen whether the reason for this is the «extra» triangles of the models or the lighting calculation. The deviation of the average theoretical frame time from that actually obtained in the measurements was less than 5%. This figure is far beyond the threshold of significance within the framework of the study: the geometry preparation stage is almost invisible against the background of texturing and post-processing.

Thus, the optimization myth has been dispelled in practice.

Modern blockbusters that fully support UltraWide resolutions do not have this problem. After all, the GPU still beats the picture into square fragments at the time of calculation. The additional objects in the frame and the natural increase in load due to the larger number of points on the display have a much stronger effect.

1080p, 1440p or 4K — which monitor resolution should I choose? — i2HARD

First of all, we will look at the options of monitors that can be purchased on the market today, and what are the differences in the price structure of each line. For example, how much more does a 4K monitor cost compared to a 1440p monitor, and what sacrifices are you making in doing so? What are the GPU performance hurdles when upgrading an existing one or moving to a higher resolution? We test a lot of monitors every year, but for some reason we never talked about it, so let’s try.

Contents:

When should I buy a 1080p monitor?
When to buy a 1440p monitor?
Cost:
When to buy a 4K monitor?
When to buy an Ultrawide monitor?

When to buy a 1080p monitor?

We’ll start by talking about 1080p because whenever we review these monitors, we often see comments asking why even buy a 1080p monitor these days. I think that there are still a couple of reasons why such a purchase would still be justified.

First of all, the price. These are the most affordable monitors out there, and if you don’t have a lot of money, then 1080p might be your only choice. It’s not uncommon to see some great 1080p monitors on sale for under $200, such as the AOC 24G2. So even if you only have $200, you can still buy a decent 1080p 144Hz gaming monitor. While 1440p prices start at around $250, at that price you won’t get anything other than higher resolution, which you can’t say about modern 1080p IPS panels for the same money.

For many buyers, paying an extra $50-$100 for a higher resolution monitor is not easy, especially when that money can be spent on a GPU upgrade, for example. And since the vast majority of modern GPUs support 1080p gaming at decent frame rates, choosing a 1080p monitor will ensure your PC runs any game without any hiccups or dances. Especially with a diagonal of up to 24 «- the pixel size will be acceptable. I think this is the best option for buyers with an average income.

Another good reason to opt for 1080p is for players who are primarily into competitive esports gaming. Most esports players, like the organizers of modern professional large-scale tournaments, prefer 1080p monitors. The reason for this is that 1080p monitors have a higher refresh rate than any other monitor format, and the demands of games at this resolution are low, allowing ultra-high frame rates to be achieved. The combination of a high refresh rate with a high frame rate significantly reduces latency compared to other configurations, which is extremely important for serious gamers as it gives them an advantage in the competition.

For beginner esports players, the market offers affordable 1080p monitors at 240Hz. Models like the LG 27GN750 and ASUS VG259QM, priced under $300, are great choices to start playing sports games with high refresh rates, not on an outdated TN panel, but with superb IPS image quality.

A monitor with the same refresh rate but 1440p resolution will cost at least twice as much, making these monitors out of reach for many gamers. If I were to choose between 1080p/240Hz and 1440p/144Hz at the same price — which is the case now — then for competitive gaming, I would prefer the faster 1080p.

1080p will also be of interest to eSports professionals, offering options with 360Hz refresh rates or advanced TN panels that provide the sharpest picture possible thanks to backlight strobe, such as the BenQ XL2546K. Those specs haven’t made it to 1440p monitors yet, so if that’s what you’re after, 1080p has no alternatives.

There are several other less significant points. 24-inch monitors usually only come in 1080p, so if you need something small for your desktop, 1080p is a great choice. I also think a 1080p monitor would work well as a secondary display for low-end builds, even if the main display is 1440p.

When to buy a 1440p monitor?

As we’ve said many times in our reviews, 1440p is the «tidbit» for gamers these days. The main reason for this lies in the pricing of modern monitors. Let’s take a typical monitor with an average refresh rate, something around 144 Hz, and a diagonal of 27 inches. A 1080p monitor costs between $200 and $250. A decent but still budget 1440p monitor like the Gigabyte M27Q costs between $300 and $350. Then, to jump to 4K 144Hz, it is suggested to purchase a product like the Gigabyte M28U, which is already $600 and up.

In other words, the difference in price between 1080p and 1440p is about one and a half times with identical other characteristics and quality, while a similar step from 1440p to 4K doubles the cost.

Many people (myself included) feel that the transition from 1440p to 4K is not as noticeable and significant in games at this screen size as the transition from 1080p to 1440p. Therefore, such an upgrade, costing a price increase of only 50%, can be called excellent value for money.

Cost:

1080p 144Hz — $200-$250
1440p 144Hz — $300-$350
2160p 144Hz — $600-$650$

5 You can choose from the 1080p 240Hz we talked about earlier, 1440p 170Hz, or 4K 60Hz. If you’re not into competitive gaming, a 1440p 170Hz monitor will be the most balanced, delivering both a decent resolution to keep games looking nice and crisp, and a decent refresh rate for a smooth gaming experience.

1080P 240HZ — $ 350
1440P 170HZ — $ 350
2160p — $ 350

Monitors 4K in this price category for full gaming does not get a good renewal frequency, and monitors 1080p do not have enough permits, especially if you play modern playful playful playful players AAA blockbusters. The 1440p monitor is the golden mean, optimally meeting all needs.

1440p monitors are also better value per pixel, with 78% more pixels than 1080p, but only 50% more price. Other than that, there are other factors in favor of 1440p.

1440p monitors fill the majority of the market today, so it’s much easier to choose the model that meets all your requirements among them. Prices range from $250 to $900, depending on sensor technology, refresh rate, diagonal and quality. This allows you to choose the best option according to some specific criteria, for example, you want a monitor with a VA matrix and its deep blacks, or you need a KVM switch, which is not very common on 1080p monitors (at least, the same level quality).

Often overlooked in discussions between 1080p and 1440p is the quality of the panels themselves. Although the response times of panels with the same technology at different resolutions are generally the same (for example, when comparing 1080p IPS and 1440p IPS), 1440p monitors usually have an advantage in color gamut. I have yet to see a 1080p gaming monitor with 80% Rec.2020 coverage that delivers excellent performance in DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB color spaces. While this is not uncommon among 1440p monitors, it adds versatility to a gaming monitor depending on the task at hand. However, characteristics such as brightness, contrast, and viewing angle do not differ significantly and often vary from monitor to monitor.

Also note that 1440p monitors feel more confident in a wider range of diagonals. So, 32-inch 1080p panels look like a low resolution, pixels become visible to the eye. Things are different with 1440p, and again, there is a wider range of better quality 32-inch products than in other resolution classes. This reinforces the correctness of choosing 1440p as the most versatile choice in 2022 for any kind of gamer.

We are also seeing the emergence of 1440p displays with high refresh rates — up to 240 and even 270 Hz — for competitive gaming. Although these monitors cost a lot more, they are just as versatile and I would prefer them if I want to play both competitive and AAA games.

High resolution, at the expense of some FPS stuttering, ensures sharp images when playing games like Guardians of the Galaxy and Cyberpunk 2077, but if you want to play Fortnite or Rocket League, a high refresh rate is a priority, providing a smoother work and reducing delays.

I think 1440p 240Hz monitors are very promising, perhaps even the most promising monitors available today, because their resolution and refresh rate allow them to last 5 years or more without an upgrade. While buying 1080p 240Hz, or even 4K 144Hz, you may want to consider upgrading sooner — you’ll want to up the resolution in the former case, the refresh rate in the latter. Only 1440p offers both.

If you think 1440p is right for you, the main thing to look at is your computer’s performance. According to our latest tests of modern titles, going from 1080p to 1440p is accompanied by a performance drop of 25-35% depending on the installed graphics card. The load on VRAM also increases, especially on cards with 4 and 6 GB of memory.

Just so you know, with a GPU like the RTX 2070, instead of 110 FPS at 1080p, you’ll get around 80 FPS at 1440p. It’s the same with more powerful cards like RX 6700 XT: instead of ~160 FPS — 115 FPS. Only mid-range or lower cards may have problems, since most GPUs, including the RTX 2060, can handle 1440p just fine even at maximum quality settings.

On the other hand, 1440p isn’t ideal for console gaming. While the Xbox Series X supports 1440p output and games at that resolution, the PlayStation 5 and older Sony consoles do not. Some 1440p monitors offer the ability to connect and convert a 4K signal, but this adaptation is often limited to 60 Hz, and the resulting quality may vary between models. This should be taken into account if you plan to play on both PC and console.

When to buy a 4K monitor?

Given the number of releases in this category over the last year or so, I think it makes sense in some cases to look into 4K gaming monitors. High-quality 4K monitors with high refresh rates can be purchased today for a very reasonable $650.

4K games are aimed at non-poor buyers. If you’re on a tight budget, if you’re trying to save as much as possible, or if your hardware is generally average, then 4K isn’t for you. It does deliver better image quality than 1440p, but the hefty price tag of 4K monitors hardly justifies the difference. As a rule, with similar characteristics, a 4K monitor costs as much as two 1440p monitors, or even more.

But if it’s important to you to have maximum resolution for gaming at a decent refresh rate, 4K is for you. Also, if you have a powerful graphics card, you should also consider buying a 4K monitor. While the RTX 3080 Ti or RX 6900 XT typically deliver over 150 FPS at 1440p, they are capable of reaching 100 FPS or more in many of today’s games at 4K. In the most demanding games like Cyberpunk 2077 and Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, they will also deliver decent 60+ FPS. If picture quality is more important to you than pure FPS performance, and you play a lot of single player games on a powerful GPU, then going to 4K definitely has its benefits, and in most cases the game will be very smooth.

Of course, you have to sacrifice performance, and the price is higher than when you go from 1080p to 1440p. Going from 1440p to 4K typically reduces performance by 40-45%, and cards with less than 8GB of VRAM may experience problems. Compared to 1080p, the performance drop in 4K is 60% or more. To some extent, technologies like DLSS and FSR help offset the loss in performance, but the upgrade to 4K is definitely the most expensive and demanding, and the image quality benefits are not as pronounced compared to other formats. This is why we only recommend 4K for professional gamers with GPUs like RTX 3070 or better.

The added benefit of buying a 4K monitor is its versatility. 4K monitors are generally great for work: text is very crisp, plenty of screen real estate for your applications, and most 4K monitors have great support for different color gamuts for all sorts of creativity. It’s also the ideal resolution for watching modern content, as many TV shows and movies come out in 4K. If you use your PC not only for gaming, but for all sorts of other tasks, then 4K monitors are a worthwhile upgrade worth the money. But for a purely gaming computer, it makes no sense to overpay.

The greatest benefit from 4K is achieved with a diagonal increase — from 32 inches and above. A 42-inch monitor at 1440p will look so-so, while 4K is quite usable at this screen size and even more. But unfortunately, 32-inch 4K gaming monitors are one of the most expensive categories you can find today, and some of the larger screen sizes aren’t top quality.

Among other things, 4K monitors are ideal for console gaming. Both the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 can output 4K at up to 120Hz, and to take full advantage of that, you’ll need a 4K gaming monitor. These monitors are best suited for console gaming with and without a PC, as well as for the future — if you want to add additional devices in the future. Just make sure you get a full HDMI 2.1 monitor, which isn’t every high end 4K monitor on the market.

2160p 144HZ-$ 650- $ 750
1440P 240HZ-$ 650- $ 750
1080p 360HZ-$ 650- $ 750

as for comparison 4K with other formats, 4K usually work as quickly and have the same good color characteristics and have the same good color characteristics , as well as 1440p monitors, if not better, but it depends on the specific model. Modern 32-inch (for example) 4K monitors are not as fast as similar 1440p monitors with the same refresh rate, so this should also be kept in mind. And features like backlight strobe may be less advanced than on lower resolution monitors.

Another important question — what are the alternatives to 4K monitors on the market for the same price? Based on a $700 price tag for a decent 144Hz 4K monitor, you can also get 1440p 240Hz monitors for the same price. This option provides the added versatility of a high refresh rate for competitive gaming, while 4K is better suited to high-end hardware and consoles. So you have to choose what is more important to you. Both options look very promising and designed for many years of use, just each of them is optimized for its intended purpose.

When to buy an Ultrawide monitor?

Like 1440p monitors, Ultrawids are available in a wide variety of options, ranging from $350-$400 budget monitors to $1,000+ flagships. At the same time, this is a completely different format, and not everyone understands the merits of its extra width. Personally, I appreciate the width for work and find the game on this format more exciting, but this is more my personal preference than a question of whether it is better or worse than the traditional 16:9 screen.

But let’s say you’re interested in an ultra-wide monitor. Which one to choose then?

There are decent options in the $400 to $500 range, but they are noticeably more expensive than 1440p 16:9 monitors. If you want a 3440×1440 curved VA, you’ll spend at least $400, a 60% increase over a $250 1440p monitor with the same specs. An IPS-based analog will cost you about $500, compared to $300 for a standard 16:9. And that’s typical of all ultrawide monitors: they’re priced about 60% more than a similar 16:9 display — just for the extra width.

Ultra-wide monitors typically allow for split screen when two applications run side by side, as in multi-monitor use. With a 21:9 split screen, you won’t get as much real estate as with two 16:9 monitors, but one ultrawide monitor will cost less than two standard monitors, so this factor may be decisive in favor of choosing one, but ultrawide monitor.

However, there are some limitations that you should be aware of. With the exception of super-premium and fancy monitors like the Samsung Odyssey G9, most ultra-wide monitors don’t have the high performance you can get from a 16:9 monitor. For example, there are currently many monitors with 1440p 240Hz resolution, but none of them provide such a refresh rate at an ultrawide resolution of 3440×1440. The same is true in the case of 4K class ultrawides: worthy options with a refresh rate of 144 Hz are just beginning to appear in standard 4K screens, but serious implementations of this frequency have not yet been noticed in 5120×2160 screens at all.

On 29 марта, 2023 By alexxlab

Sonstig

3440X1440 vs 2560×1080: Reddit — Dive into anything