Only a matter of time before this comes in Gsync. How are they achieving 144hz on IPS at this resolution? Is Polaris a Minimum Requirement due to the connectors?
At this point I want either 4k@120 or 5k@60 and either Gsync or Freesync before I pull the trigger on a new display. I go back and forth between the two since the former is the better option for gaming while the latter would be better for everything else.
I've never understood the appeal of ultra-shot displays either. It's not very practical for desktop tasks and you miss out on a lot of visual data in games. Not even all movies are available in 21:9.
For gaming it depends if the game scales wider by holding the vertical or horizontal aspect fixed. Anything that holds the vertical scale fixed and shows more to either side will give more displayed on an ultra-widescreen display. They're not my thing; but driving/racing games are supposed to be among the most ultrawide friendly titles since they use the space to give more visibility out your notional side windows.
Depending on the type of game, ultra wide can be helpful. I have a bog-standard 2560x1440 27"er and I sometimes run certain games windowed in near-2560x1080 to get extra fov (and see my taskbar at all times). There are tradeoffs, but it's not useless.
Just about all AAA titles produced in the last 10 years. The problem isn't stretching, but some cut the FoV in the vertical instead of extending in the horizontal, and that's a bit useless.
Are you kidding me? It's incredibly practical for desktop tasks. What the hell are you talking about? It's basically having a dual-monitor setup in one.
Of course, I have one that's at 3440x1440. I wouldn't get anything less than that. But seriously, it's not very practical? What an insane statement. It has more pixels than any resolution short of 4K.
@Jax Omen - For some other people though, they want ultrawide. I've been using a 16:0 or 16:10 monitor for many years, and last year got an ultrawide to try it out, and I can tell you without a doubt, I don't want to go back ever again. I thought 16:9 or 16:10 was enough too, but after owning an ultrawide now, there's no way I can say that anymore. If you personally have used an ultrawide for a good amount of time and still didn't like it, that's fine. But if you've never used one, or used one very briefly, you may change your mind if you have a chance to use it more.
A higher resolution of 3440x1440 at lower 90hz refresh would be a better trade off for me since more game's fps spread around 60-100hz at max settings.
And I believe freesync still has that limitation where the max refresh is 2.5x the min refresh, so a max of 90hz allows you to cover a more realistic range for most GPUs.
It's simply not worth the cash. No, sorry, bit it isn't at least to me. Each time new tech arrives they don't throw away any time in pushing the price forward. Curved screen? Pointless. Resolution? Fine but not really required just yet unless you need it for x or y. Refresh rate? Cool but only for specific x or y reasons.
Actually, IPS ultrawide monitors are one of the few instances where the curve makes sense. You're close enough to the screen that the far sides of the display are at an appreciably different angle that the center of the screen. This leads to the "IPS glow" effect in the corners (which many people mistake for backlightbleed
"LG positions its 34UC79G as an “ultimate” solution for gamers" Apart from milking the gaming market, any reason for not using OLED? LG has the tech, no? Any disadvantage to OLED?
- Cost - Color burn : same picture for a long time is not good ( remember screen savers for CRT ?, something like it ) - Age : Colors will change with time ( Remember Plazma ? )
Personally, I don't think current OLED technology is good for a screen other than a smartphone or a tablet where the max age for these devices in most peoples upgrade cycle is like 2-3 years...
Quantum Dot is better I guess for Computer/TV purpose...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
Back to Article
Morawka - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
Only a matter of time before this comes in Gsync. How are they achieving 144hz on IPS at this resolution? Is Polaris a Minimum Requirement due to the connectors?saratoga4 - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
I don't think you need Polaris. Its DP 1.2, which has been out for ~6 years, so any modern AMD card should do freesync to it at full refresh rate.Not sure about gsync, I don't think LG is supporting it. Asus in the past as resold LG ultrawide panels with added Gsync support though.
yannigr2 - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
G-Sync = add $100 to the price, maybe more.dsumanik - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
I wonder if my head could turn far enough to have 3 of these side by side lol...or would I pull a beetlejuice and go all the way around??? lolslumberlust - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
I know, and then no one would want it...AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
It's only 10Gbps; standard DP1.2 or HDMI2 can do it.When will nvidia start to support the VESA sync standard...
Jax Omen - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
Ultrawide = no deal. 16:9 is plenty wide.Give me a 2560x1440 144hz IPS and we'll talk gaming.
DanNeely - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
At this point I want either 4k@120 or 5k@60 and either Gsync or Freesync before I pull the trigger on a new display. I go back and forth between the two since the former is the better option for gaming while the latter would be better for everything else.Flunk - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
I've never understood the appeal of ultra-shot displays either. It's not very practical for desktop tasks and you miss out on a lot of visual data in games. Not even all movies are available in 21:9.DanNeely - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
For gaming it depends if the game scales wider by holding the vertical or horizontal aspect fixed. Anything that holds the vertical scale fixed and shows more to either side will give more displayed on an ultra-widescreen display. They're not my thing; but driving/racing games are supposed to be among the most ultrawide friendly titles since they use the space to give more visibility out your notional side windows.ImSpartacus - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Depending on the type of game, ultra wide can be helpful. I have a bog-standard 2560x1440 27"er and I sometimes run certain games windowed in near-2560x1080 to get extra fov (and see my taskbar at all times). There are tradeoffs, but it's not useless.dakishimesan - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
how many games actually support 21:9 fullscreen without stretching?ShieTar - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Just about all AAA titles produced in the last 10 years. The problem isn't stretching, but some cut the FoV in the vertical instead of extending in the horizontal, and that's a bit useless.Impulses - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
Like Overwatch, they claim giving you the wider FoV is unfair, unlike the twenty other ways you can get an advantage with better hardware. :pSolidstate89 - Thursday, September 15, 2016 - link
Are you kidding me? It's incredibly practical for desktop tasks. What the hell are you talking about? It's basically having a dual-monitor setup in one.Of course, I have one that's at 3440x1440. I wouldn't get anything less than that. But seriously, it's not very practical? What an insane statement. It has more pixels than any resolution short of 4K.
FlyBri - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
@Jax Omen - For some other people though, they want ultrawide. I've been using a 16:0 or 16:10 monitor for many years, and last year got an ultrawide to try it out, and I can tell you without a doubt, I don't want to go back ever again. I thought 16:9 or 16:10 was enough too, but after owning an ultrawide now, there's no way I can say that anymore. If you personally have used an ultrawide for a good amount of time and still didn't like it, that's fine. But if you've never used one, or used one very briefly, you may change your mind if you have a chance to use it more.zodiacfml - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
latest ports pleaseDanNeely - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
You can fill in the price section of the table from the article title.uefi - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
A higher resolution of 3440x1440 at lower 90hz refresh would be a better trade off for me since more game's fps spread around 60-100hz at max settings.ImSpartacus - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
So much this.And I believe freesync still has that limitation where the max refresh is 2.5x the min refresh, so a max of 90hz allows you to cover a more realistic range for most GPUs.
piroroadkill - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
No, there's no such limitation, that's just the bare minimum required for Low Framerate Compensation to function.Impulses - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
Agreed.damianrobertjones - Friday, September 9, 2016 - link
It's simply not worth the cash. No, sorry, bit it isn't at least to me. Each time new tech arrives they don't throw away any time in pushing the price forward. Curved screen? Pointless. Resolution? Fine but not really required just yet unless you need it for x or y. Refresh rate? Cool but only for specific x or y reasons.Still no reason, at all, to cost $700.
madwolfa - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Please make it not curved please.anomalydesign - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Actually, IPS ultrawide monitors are one of the few instances where the curve makes sense. You're close enough to the screen that the far sides of the display are at an appreciably different angle that the center of the screen. This leads to the "IPS glow" effect in the corners (which many people mistake for backlightbleedanomalydesign - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
). The best way to avoid this is to bend the edges in toward yourself.Impulses - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
I'd take the IPS glow over the inherent distortion when doing photo/design work, but I recognize I'm probably like a sub niche.GhostOfAnand - Saturday, September 10, 2016 - link
Any news on when Intel integrated graphics will support adaptive-sync? Does Krabby Lake have it?Xajel - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
So when will I get a 3840x1440 21:9 HDR enabled, AdobeRGB colors should be as close as 100%... 144Hz or 120Hz are okay....That's the minimum thing... the best thing will be the same just with higher resolution of 5120x2160
Gadgety - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
"LG positions its 34UC79G as an “ultimate” solution for gamers" Apart from milking the gaming market, any reason for not using OLED? LG has the tech, no? Any disadvantage to OLED?frostyfiredude - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
Cost, it would be a lot higher with OLED over IPS.Morawka - Sunday, September 11, 2016 - link
this.. much higher.. we are talking like $3KXajel - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link
- Cost- Color burn : same picture for a long time is not good ( remember screen savers for CRT ?, something like it )
- Age : Colors will change with time ( Remember Plazma ? )
Personally, I don't think current OLED technology is good for a screen other than a smartphone or a tablet where the max age for these devices in most peoples upgrade cycle is like 2-3 years...
Quantum Dot is better I guess for Computer/TV purpose...