How Wide is too Wide?

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
12,025
The good folks over at PC Perspective have just put out a nice review of the new Samsung C49HG90 49 inch FreeSync 2 monitor and they are asking whether or not it's just too wide. The monitor sports a 32:9 aspect ratio instead of the more widely used 21:9 ratio of other UW monitors. It's curved and really is beastly with such a wide screen. Some of the good is that it has FreeSync 2 and supports it on both HDMI and DisplayPort interfaces. Some of the negatives are the cost of $1,000 and poor HDR performance. Yes, this monitor is wide, but is it too wide for you? Thanks cagey.

At just under $1000 on Amazon right now, the C49HG90 is a tough sell. With the lackluster HDR performance, it comes down to the unique aspect ratio of this display as the main standout feature. Still, combined with FreeSync 2 compatibility, the uniqueness of this display could be the perfect thing for a gamer looking to enter the Ultrawide market.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
3,824
32x9 is fine. It's the resolution that matters, in a display like that I want a side-by-side dual 4K equivalent.

There simply isn't a video card ready for that as far as I know.
 

zamardii12

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
3,359
I've used a wide range of monitors, including the one listed in this article, and I think the 34" UltraWides are just about the perfect size / shape. This one is definitely too wide (not to mention the pixels are huge haha).

Yes definitely too wide unless you are playing a simulator of some sort it's just not appealing to me. Also, the problem with these weird monitors is getting games to work with them and support their weird resolutions. The 3440 monitors are relatively well supported from what I found when I had one.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,191
I don't think the width of the monitor is a problem. However, the aspect ratio and the lack of vertical screen real estate is. I wouldn't buy this on that basis before I even took a look at the price or HDR performance and other specs. As far as I am concerned, this is another monitor that proves that monitor makers have very little idea on how to deliver what the market wants as it relates to higher end displays.
 

viper1152012

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,025
Yikes, that's just too much risk of uniforms lighting and neck turning for me.

Maybe a flight sim....
 

arnemetis

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
4,001
I prefer normal aspect ratios. I don't like having to move my head around, and my 27" is just about perfect so that I see it all, without having to move my head. It's actually a tad bit too large to do comfortably, I couldn't imagine any larger. I do have 24" screens on either side, but I actively turn to look at things there for work, and that's fine. Gaming stays on the center screen only, so I'm not looking around during that.
 

Shadowed

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
508
A lot of games support 21:9, but how many support 32:9? I know my favorite FPS does not. But it does at least support 144hz, which for $1000, it better.
 

BSmith

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,323
I find my 32" 2560x1440 resolution to be perfect, for what I do. 49" is too wide.

I though about going 4K resolution, but I would have to have a new video card and that killed that idea. The current video card works fine with the 2560x1440 resolution.

I also do not care for the curved screens. They are fine as long as you are in the correct position, all the time. Too far back or too close and they really mess with you.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,463
I recall AMD offering the ability to logically subdivide monitors into smaller virtual monitors back in the day, if they still offer that feature then breaking that into 2 logical 16:9 monitors essentially giving you two bezelless monitors for some tasks but then having the option to run it as one huge monitor could be nice. That asside I could see EvE players loving that screen.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,359
I've used a wide range of monitors, including the one listed in this article, and I think the 34" UltraWides are just about the perfect size / shape. This one is definitely too wide (not to mention the pixels are huge haha).

Want more resolution in your Ultrawide?
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/39.htm#panels_samsung

Of particular interest is a new 49" sized VA panel scheduled for production around September 2018. Samsung already have a 49" VA panel available which boasts a 3840 x 1080 resolution (DFHD = dual full HD resolution) and 144Hz refresh rate. The new panel will offer a higher 5120 x 1440 resolution (DQHD = Dual quad HD resolution) and will have the same 3-side frameless design, 1800R curvature and support for 120Hz refresh rate. Slightly lower refresh rate but a much higher resolution.

Their 43.4" segment will also feature a new VA panel that'd due to go in to production around the same time in September 2018. This will offer a 3840 x 1200 resolution (DWUXGA), have a 3-side frameless design, 1800R curvature and support 144Hz refresh rate.


I don't understand why a TV manufacturer can't take their best 4K TV, strip all the tuners and other unnecessary BS out of the thing, add a Displayport connection to it and call it a 4K monitor. I bet they could even come up with a 90Hz or 120Hz variant. I use a 49" Samsung 4K TV right now. I'd die for a monitor this size. ;)
 

Jovian

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
362
When you have to turn your head and cant see everything easily when naturally sitting, then its too wide.

I see the same issue with TV's. People go out an purchase 60" TV's for their dorm room sized setups and you actually have to turn your head to catch whats going on.

Also when it isnt a standard format width then problems happen with poorly designed applications.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,191
When you have to turn your head and cant see everything easily when naturally sitting, then its too wide.

I see the same issue with TV's. People go out an purchase 60" TV's for their dorm room sized setups and you actually have to turn your head to catch whats going on.

I don't have to do this sitting 2.5-3" away from my 49" Samsung KS8500. That said, any larger and I feel that would be necessary. Plus, the pixel pitch would be too large for desktop use in my opinion, were the display to be any larger.
 

Shadowed

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
508
I do prefer playing competitive games on a 24" so all content is paracentral to my vision. I think many of us would want to try this monitor before buying.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,012
Personally I prefer to not play my games like this:

mail-slot-peek.jpg


I'd argue that the ideal aspect ratio is 16:10.

I can live with the 16:9 that is so popular these days, but I wouldn't go wider than that, even with multiple screens.
 

BSmith

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,323
Now that is what I call forward thinking game development!

Not sure how forward it is. I recall them making that change several years ago, during Aces High II. I think it came about when the HD (1920x1080) monitors were first making their appearance.
 

xmadror

Gawd
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
845
I keep going back and forth with buying a 40-43" 4k display or keeping my 34" 3440x1440 that I've had for ~4 years (LG 34um95) until I can buy a 21:9 5120x2160 monitor.

No way would I go back to 1080. Not even if it was a curved screen so wide that it would do a 180 degree around me!
 

Shadowed

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
508
I keep going back and forth with buying a 40-43" 4k display or keeping my 34" 3440x1440 that I've had for ~4 years (LG 34um95) until I can buy a 21:9 5120x2160 monitor.

No way would I go back to 1080. Not even if it was a curved screen so wide that it would do a 180 degree around me!

4k is great, but buying a 60hz panel in 2018 is not what I recommend.
 

KarsusTG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
3,296
Personally I prefer to not play my games like this:

View attachment 74616

I'd argue that the ideal aspect ratio is 16:10.

I can live with the 16:9 that is so popular these days, but I wouldn't go wider than that, even with multiple screens.

This. 16:10 is fantastic for productivity and the shit that actually matters. 16:9 just feels limited. Ideally, you should be able to read and type a full 8.5"x11" memo in word while remaining completely viewable and comfortable to read without scrolling. 16:9 you almost always end up scrolling which is counter productive, not to mention irritating.
 

xmadror

Gawd
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
845
4k is great, but buying a 60hz panel in 2018 is not what I recommend.
yeah thats why I haven't pulled the trigger yet.
My 21:9 is 60hz and while I'm sure I'd notice the improvement of 120/144 I don't feel like I'm missing out too much given that I don't play the kind of games that really makes those refresh rate shine.
My previous Korean 2560x1440 was OC'ed to ~90hz iirc and I didnt feel it too much when I went back to 60hz with my current monitor.
I remember being limited by the video card back then so that may have something to do with how I remember the experience.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
61,191
Personally I prefer to not play my games like this:

View attachment 74616

I'd argue that the ideal aspect ratio is 16:10.

I can live with the 16:9 that is so popular these days, but I wouldn't go wider than that, even with multiple screens.

I'd agree although I can handle 16:9 in large format displays with higher resolutions. 4K displays like mine work pretty well as the vertical resolution is well beyond 1080.

This. 16:10 is fantastic for productivity and the shit that actually matters. 16:9 just feels limited. Ideally, you should be able to read and type a full 8.5"x11" memo in word while remaining completely viewable and comfortable to read without scrolling. 16:9 you almost always end up scrolling which is counter productive, not to mention irritating.

I couldn't agree more.
 

Kdawg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 12, 2017
Messages
1,116
my too-wide limit is 100"... when on-screen is larger than life.

In a shooter, I want the gun to be lifesized
 

AceGoober

Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
24,411
Appears to me the C49HG90 is a test product meant to:

1. Gauge interest

2. Refine Freesync 2

3. Refine implementation of the VESA DisplayHDR600 specification.

It'd be cool to own one but for all practical purposes, for me at least, 1080 vertical kills the deal since I need the vertical space. 1,440 vertical is a better fit for my purposes.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,012
I don't understand why a TV manufacturer can't take their best 4K TV, strip all the tuners and other unnecessary BS out of the thing, add a Displayport connection to it and call it a 4K monitor. I bet they could even come up with a 90Hz or 120Hz variant. I use a 49" Samsung 4K TV right now. I'd die for a monitor this size. ;)

Beyond that, most TV panels actually support 120hz refresh rates, they just cant negotiate that refresh rate externally. The logic on board uses the higher refresh rate to flash the same frame twice (or more times) in order to reduce ghosting.

So, in theory, you ought to be able to take a high end TV panel, pair it up to a Gsync board and go to town, but they'd have to design new boards to handle the resolution and refresh negotiation to the higher refresh, displayport standard etc. etc.

Boards are relatively cheap if you are making millions or even hundreds of thousands of them. If you are making a lot fewer than that, the combined cost of engineer development and testing, manufacturing process design, etc. etc. drives the per unit cost through the roof. PC gaming is pretty huge, but it is nowhere near as huge as TV watching, so monitor makers can't necessarily make niche products. They have to focus on what they can sell large quantities of, and unfortunately, a 120hz 43" 4k g-sync gaming monitor, I'm guessing, doesn't have enough interest out there yet, or we would be seeing them.
 

Kdawg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 12, 2017
Messages
1,116
This. 16:10 is fantastic for productivity and the shit that actually matters. 16:9 just feels limited. Ideally, you should be able to read and type a full 8.5"x11" memo in word while remaining completely viewable and comfortable to read without scrolling. 16:9 you almost always end up scrolling which is counter productive, not to mention irritating.


this is why 4k 43" is perfect. Dual portrait mode , no scrolling.
 

Seventyfive

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
1,347
Want more resolution in your Ultrawide?
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/39.htm#panels_samsung

Of particular interest is a new 49" sized VA panel scheduled for production around September 2018. Samsung already have a 49" VA panel available which boasts a 3840 x 1080 resolution (DFHD = dual full HD resolution) and 144Hz refresh rate. The new panel will offer a higher 5120 x 1440 resolution (DQHD = Dual quad HD resolution) and will have the same 3-side frameless design, 1800R curvature and support for 120Hz refresh rate. Slightly lower refresh rate but a much higher resolution.

Their 43.4" segment will also feature a new VA panel that'd due to go in to production around the same time in September 2018. This will offer a 3840 x 1200 resolution (DWUXGA), have a 3-side frameless design, 1800R curvature and support 144Hz refresh rate.


I don't understand why a TV manufacturer can't take their best 4K TV, strip all the tuners and other unnecessary BS out of the thing, add a Displayport connection to it and call it a 4K monitor. I bet they could even come up with a 90Hz or 120Hz variant. I use a 49" Samsung 4K TV right now. I'd die for a monitor this size. ;)

49" isn't too big? I have a 43" curved and I feel I'm pretty much near my visual limit. I think anything more and I'd be turning my head too much to use the computer? Would love to hear your input.
 

Kdawg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 12, 2017
Messages
1,116
some older lcd tvs had vga ports.

It's not hard to design a board with a displayport, and DP is royalty free.

But they have to protect their price gouging for pc monitors, otherwise everyone would be buying cheap TVs.... like my $250 43" 4k tv vs a $1000 samsung or philips monitor
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,359
Beyond that, most TV panels actually support 120hz refresh rates, they just cant negotiate that refresh rate externally. The logic on board uses the higher refresh rate to flash the same frame twice (or more times) in order to reduce ghosting.

So, in theory, you ought to be able to take a high end TV panel, pair it up to a Gsync board and go to town, but they'd have to design new boards to handle the resolution and refresh negotiation to the higher refresh, displayport standard etc. etc.

Boards are relatively cheap if you are making millions or even hundreds of thousands of them. If you are making a lot fewer than that, the combined cost of engineer development and testing, manufacturing process design, etc. etc. drives the per unit cost through the roof. PC gaming is pretty huge, but it is nowhere near as huge as TV watching, so monitor makers can't necessarily make niche products. They have to focus on what they can sell large quantities of, and unfortunately, a 120hz 43" 4k g-sync gaming monitor, I'm guessing, doesn't have enough interest out there yet, or we would be seeing them.

I'd take a FreeSync 2.0 version as it would work equally as well on my PC as it would a XBOX One. The new TVs coming in the Fall are supposed to have some version of VRR built into them. Also the ones from Samsung are supposed to have FreeSync straight from the factory.

Link to article about Samsung TVs with VRR and FreeSync.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/samsung-2018-qled-tvs-will-support-120hz-freesync-and-vrr.html

I would suspect that Nvidia would jump on the VRR train as that is now in the HDMI specification.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,012
This. 16:10 is fantastic for productivity and the shit that actually matters. 16:9 just feels limited. Ideally, you should be able to read and type a full 8.5"x11" memo in word while remaining completely viewable and comfortable to read without scrolling. 16:9 you almost always end up scrolling which is counter productive, not to mention irritating.

Agree entirely.

One thing I've noticed though, since I also am a casual reader of the silly "PCMR" groups on facebook is that a lot of the kids there these days they use their PC's ONLY for games. They don't even use the web browser on them. Instead of taking screenshots along with their questions they often take pictures of their screens with their phones and share them, with the explanation "i don't use facebook on my computer".

This is the mass market we are dealing with today. They don't see their computers as a great general purpose tool for everything. Heck, they don't even use email or office packages. They see it as an a very expensive xbox you assemble yourself and use for nothing but games.

As long as this is the mass market, we'll keep getting products designed for these simpletons.
 
Top