Has anyone made the plunge to ultrawide from 2 monitors and regretted it? I've never used one so would really be interested in your opinions/critique.
Ultrawide as is 21:9 or 32:9? 21:9 is the land of milk and honey compared to a single narrow vision monitor, but nowhere near wide enough for those coming from two or more monitors. On the other hand: A 49" 32:9 5120x1440 screen is quite literally 2x 27" 16:9 2560x1440 screens next to each other without any of that bezel nonsense... (and depending on model you can do Picture by Picture from two inputs, which is handy for the work laptop when working from home during a pandemic).
Sorry, I probably should have been a bit more specific - 21:9. To be more specific - I' currently have a laptop (15.6 screen, hate it) but have an external 1920x1200 screen plugged into it. At work (in the office) I have 2x 1920x1080 screens. Do you think I'm likely to be disappointed with a single 34" 3440x1440 monitor? I mainly use my computer to design/video/games if that helps. I know it's all subjective, but I've never used one and a single monitor is going to be easier on my wallet that two new monitors!
You will unlikely be disappointed but there are somethings where multiple screens work well, I prefer once screen, it works well with every application, removing the borders etc. with two screens you get some enforced segmentation so can work well if you have say schematics on one side and simulation output or layouts on the other but it is nice to have one screen for me to give me a massive uninterrupted canvas. The downside, the higher resolution for gaming whilst awesome requires significant GPU grunt to run native. 3440 is a drop down in width but 1440 is an increase in depth, for my tools more depth is preferable and I can loose the width, what about your setup. If you need two 1920s there are also 3840x1600 screens which are lovely and not as hardcore as 4k for gaming GPU grunt. Obviously none 16:9 is not ideal for media playback and non PC gaming like consoles which expect 16:9, so 4k may be preferable.
The problem is that giving up any space on your monitor(s) is hard But if you can do with a bit less width compared to your current setup then certainly go for 21:9 but I'd still have a good long look at the 43" 32:10 & 49" 32:9 options as those offer the best of both worlds. Or maybe as an early adopter of ultrawides I'm too far down the rabbit hole
To me it's something I'd want to try for a little bit before committing, I've often considered getting a superwide of some sort to replace the U2711 I've got but can't really justify until it dies! Wouldn't want to replace both of my monitors with one ultrawide since I feel multiple monitors are more flexible, at the moment I have the smaller 1080p screen vertically, and in general I've used that monitor elsewhere at times when going to a LAN or visiting somewhere for example. Can't you get a single new monitor so then have two at home as well as the laptop?
Sheeeeeeeit, how have I managed to remain unware of the existence of this resolution thus far? That is very, very appealing indeed (without looking at prices, of course!)
Yes I have one in my office, its 38 inch and awesome, mine is a slow first gen LG does a 75Hz and 144Hz model, pretty sure true gamer sold one on here. Asus also does one 120Hz
Aye, to be honest I'd not be looking for mega refresh rates but the idea of 1600p vertical goodness, near-21:9 widescreen and 75% of the pixels of 4K is very nice indeed. Have just seen that Dell do a 38" curved model (60Hz only) that looks pretty tasty, although it does cost a grand!
That's what I use in the office, I haven't gamed extensively on it though so can't comment on suitability but its a nice non glossy screen. Only bought it because there was a shortage of 40-43inch 4k screens so thought it was a good compromise giving me some depth and good pixel pitch for usable non scaled real estate. there are some a couple of hundred quid cheaper at the same res more gamer centric.
