I'll be pulling the trigger this friday on an Ultrawide, either the Dell U2913WM, or one of the LG models. The only thing putting me off the Dell is the 16ms+ input lag, which in addition Vsync might make gameplay that much harder as my reactions aren't what they used to be these days. I'm also wondering if they used a different anti glare coating on the panel than all the rest. I know it's less coarse than the older Dell panels. It's difficult to find any good information on the variety of LG models so I guess I'd want to go for the EA93 so long as it had been updated to at least firmware v1.25 which brings very fast response times and better colours/contrast ratio then previous revisions. I have a feeling I'll be using this monitor for a very long time so I want to get it right. Has anybody seen these side by side?
I swear by my Dell and I have had no problem in game with mine. I had the same decision to make. I wanted which would last me. Warranty with Dell is also good.
Are you absolutely set on the ultrawide scpect ratio? The screen will have a size of only 672,77 × 283,82 mm - it's not even as high as a normal sheet of paper. Are you sure that's enough? Not every game will support the ultra wide aspect ratio, for everything else you'll have to fall back to 1080p with very little vertical height. There is the 34" LG 34UM95 with a higher resolution, but I don't know if it's any good. Have you considered a 27" 1440p screen?
Yes it seems like the best option for me right now, at the moment I have a 1680x1050 TN display which is the same size, if not smaller, and I'm more concerned with the width as I'll be able to fit 2 documents side by side without having to switch between them, something I find difficult with my current aspect ratio. Even if the game doesn't support the ultrawide, I'll still have the option to play at 1080p, at the same vertical height and aspect ratio of a 1080p screen. The 34UM95 looks great but I'm sure I won't have the graphical grunt to support it yet. 2560x1080p seems like the best balance without having to go SLI for Ultra settings. I've thought about a 27" inch screen but again I'd need to upgrade my GPU and power supply and keep it in the more expensive tier in the future. Also the 21:9 will be better for movies shot near that aspect ratio as the 21:9 screen is much wider than a 16:9 monitor. I'm not too bothered about 16:9 movies as they are easy enough to see at that screen size as it is. If I was already used to 1440p then I might have something to complain about but as it is it will offer more vertical pixels than my current monitor.
What you should not forget is that while the aspect ratio remains the same you will have a much larger resolution and physical screen space to work with. You can fit two documents side by side with no problem because every document will still have 1280 pixel each. See, I am not saying 2560x1440 is the only option. But when all the 21:9 screens came out I decided to try it for myself incase I ever need a replacement: I forced the 2560x1080 resultion in my driver. Only for gaming I have to admit: -In older games or games with a set FOV the resoltion did not work: In Bioshock the vertical FOV was tiny for example. -Strategy or RPG gaming was a mixed bag: In CIV V it was great: I could see a greater area. Path of Exile or Diablo 3 was awful though, because the horizontal FOV is set and top and bottom was cut off. -Borderlands 2 on the other hand was epic: the game seemed to recognize and utilise this aspect ratio, the game became more movie like. I did not do any benchmarking but performance wise the two felt awfully similar on my then 670GTX iwht a 3770k: No game that could not handle AA at 2560x1440 could handle it at 2560x1080. All in all it was rather underwhelming at that resolution. There were not enough advantages for me, so I will stay at 16:9 in the future. The 34UM95 I would consider however due to its bigger screen size. However I feel we are talking high end here: The prices are about equal and both screens are big so the differences will not be quite like going from 5:4 to 16:10 for example. It boils down to what games you play and if you like the aspect ratio. Can you try to set your resoltution to 1680x720 in your driver control panel just to get a feel for the different aspect ratio?
Had to set it to 1600x675 to get the 64:27 aspect ratio and all the games I have installed at the moment will run it at that, with the exception of Rome II which I know will support 2560x1080. and in most cases, yes that is exactly what I want, only i want it much bigger. Even if I can't play them at the highest res, I still have the 1080p option. What I was trying to get from this thread was more for the 16ms input lag of the dell vs the LG and whether it is worth me going through the hassle of ordering an LG with a dead pixel check from aria, only to find it's not v1.25+ so I'd have to send it to LG for a firmware update, only to find they send me a new monitor which then might have dead pixels.
If you did do benchmarking you would see that your games were running around 38% slower with the 2560*1400 display vs the 2560*1080 display. This numbers is based on the relative number of pixels your GPU is required to display. AA doesn't usually have a 38% effect on fps (for lets say 2x or 4x), so I'm surprised to see you state that.
My GPU could not run a game like Bioshock Infinite with added AA by dropping down to 2560x1080. There was no noticable difference in game, certainly not by 38%. As stated above I did run no benchmarks as I as only interested in the general experience, but if there was an FPS drop it did occur on both resolutions. Again, I am not stating 1440p is better in general. I was just suggesting Deders might want to consider the logical alternatives - just as I did btw. Good for him that he did. --- What about the ASUS MX299Q? The response time seems to be quite good. Can't vouch for the quality though as I have never used them. After dealing with the Dell customer support I would only get another dell.
Yes I saw the Asus, for a while I was considering the PB298Q because of the zero dead pixel policy on their PB range which unfortunately doesn't cover the MX range, I decided against the PB because the contract ratio wasn't anywhere near as wide. My only Qualms with Asus would be their aftermarket care. Lg for instance picked up my current monitor, replaced the circuitry and dropped it back at my address after the screen refused to turn on, I believe dell offer a similar service. If I were to get an Asus with dead pixels I'd have to send it back under distance selling regulations which would be a pain in the bum and would add restocking fees to an already slightly more expensive option. I can get an LG with the pixel check from Aria, but like you say Dell seems like the safest option. Is 16ms acceptable for gameplay? I know you can overdrive these panels to 75Hz so that should alleviate it a bit.
Depends on the games you play tbh. I game on a U2711 and game mode deactivated so the input lag is quite high. Also I do use Vsync as I hate tearing. Never had any problems beating people in Civ V, Diablo or Dark Souls though. I don't play shooters against anyone but my friends, and we all s*ck so I dunnow. Remember though: The competition probably has a worse screen.
Deders I play two games on a regular basis and sometimes in matches and I over the last couple of days have played and found no problems in Call of Duty spec ops II or Joint Operations. I bought this monitor know that I do not want to get another for at least 3 years (famous last words). But only want to upgrade the system from now on, not the monitor
Depends on the games you play, the kind of framerate you have, and of course you To some people it won't be a problem at all, to some it probably would. I'd guess that it will be fine though
I suspect they are all the same panel, in which case its the same as mine, and you'll not notice any ghosting at all.
