1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Displays 40" 4K Monitor or 34" UHD 21:9 Monitor - Which one would you pick and why?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Guest-44432, 25 Feb 2015.

?

Which one? And then leave a comment why... Please :)

  1. Philips BDM4065UC 40" 4K Monitor

    36.4%
  2. LG Flatron 34UM95 34" UHD Monitor

    43.2%
  3. Other?

    20.5%
  1. Guest-44432

    Guest-44432 Guest

    I'm looking at monitors that I will be buying in the next coming weeks.

    Monitor 1:

    Philips BDM4065UC 40" 4K 60Hz Widescreen LED Monitor

    Review: tftcentral

    [​IMG]



    This monitor looks to be a monster on the desk with no need to adjust the DPI scaling in windows, as it has the same DPI as that of a 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

    Although it has 8.3million pixels, gaming will be taxing, but downscaling to 1080p, or sending a 1080p signal to the monitor to be upscaled to 4k will still look good, but it's not desired.

    Either way, you will need at least an SLI or CFX setup to game at max settings with this monitor.

    Monitor 2:

    LG Flatron 34UM95-P 34" WideScreen Super-Wide LED Monitor

    Review: tftcentral

    [​IMG]



    21:9 monitors are starting to look more appealing with the UHD resolution, and the sheer size at 34" with a length of 83.1cm, it's going to be very immersive like a triple monitor setup but without the bezels.

    With only 5 million pixels, it's easier to drive than 3x full HD panels of which has a total pixel count of 6.2 million pixels. With 3.3 millions pixels less than 4k, gaming should be a lot less taxing, meaning you will be able to game at max settings with a single flagship GPU, but SLI or CFX would see you running 60fps all day long.

    Decision making...

    Although both monitors are going to give an immersive feeling, I'm still left undecided what to go for... So please leave your thoughts. :thumb:

    Cheers,

    Simon.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: 25 Feb 2015
  2. andrew8200m

    andrew8200m Modder

    Joined:
    4 May 2009
    Posts:
    2,414
    Likes Received:
    213
    The widescreen. Given the res you wont really notice much of a difference and that widescreen brings a whole new level to how immersive the game is. + its less stressful on the hardware.

    My only grip is games res support could be out with scaling etc but FPS games do offer some well needed extra width which certainly helps with seeing whats going on
     
  3. Guest-44432

    Guest-44432 Guest

    Yeah, I can see that being the case as the LG monitor will be less taxing.

    And as you stated, game hubs will be set for a 16:9 ratio, unless they fully support 21:9...

    The Philips is just a monster! :)
     
  4. Waynio

    Waynio Relaxing

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    5,712
    Likes Received:
    211
    If I had the money I'd go with 40" 4k & SLI 970. :D

    Because, awesome huge gaming screen plus it's 16:9 AR. :D
     
  5. Guest-44432

    Guest-44432 Guest

    Fair enough mate. I think it does look awesome, and doesn't suffer with backlight bleed like the LG.
    But the LG does look awesome! :D
     
  6. wolfticket

    wolfticket Downwind from the bloodhounds

    Joined:
    19 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    3,343
    Likes Received:
    476
    Form factor and resolution wise (not looked at other specs or reviews, and to be used primarily as a monitor for work, browsing, gaming and such, not so much dual use as a TV:

    At the moment I'd go for the 21:9.

    Less pixels to push, looks neater and less imposing, maybe a more natural aspect ratio for multitasking (ymmv).
     
  7. Bhuvsta

    Bhuvsta Minimodder

    Joined:
    1 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    110
    Likes Received:
    3
    As someone who owns that 4K 40" monitor, get the 4K 40" monitor. It's quite pleasant.
     
  8. phinix

    phinix RIP Waynio...

    Joined:
    28 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    6,000
    Likes Received:
    97
    40".
    I don't dig that super wide screens to be honest.
    I love a big screen right at my face:)
    No resolution issues etc.
    If I wasn't moving I would buy this Philips screen right away.
    And I will as soon as I move to new house:D
     
  9. bawjaws

    bawjaws Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,155
    Likes Received:
    756
    I guess it depends partly on how long you see yourself keeping the monitor... I know that for most normal people, a monitor is probably the longest-lived part of any setup, but you've always broken the mold when it comes to hardware, t_g :D

    If you're planning on holding onto the monitor for a good few years, I'd go 4k. Current GPUs might toil to run 4k at max settings now, but give it a couple of years and it'll be less of an issue.

    Might be a silly question, but what are you thinking in terms of GPU(s) to drive either of these monitors just now?
     
  10. edzieba

    edzieba Virtual Realist

    Joined:
    14 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    591
    I just a few minutes ago unboxed a U3415W (another curved 3440x1440 ultrawide). As a dedicated fullscreener, it's almost too wide. this thing is ludicrous in it's wideness.

    Make sure you have a decent DP cable if the included 1.7m mini-DP -> DP cable is not long enough. I had a nasty fright when it would only detect as 2560x1080 until I swapped to another cable.
     
  11. Kovoet

    Kovoet What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    26 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    7,128
    Likes Received:
    348
    Think my U2913WM will have to do till it's dying days before I go that wide
     
  12. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    177
    The 40" is wider than the super wide screen and it also has more vertical pixels. More is always better. 40" would be my choice.

    Its also possible the super wide may have the occasional compatibility issue with games. Although I haven't looked into that aspect as they don't interest me as a monitor type. Really those super wide screens would only interest me if they came in a horizontal resolution that is greater than the most widely available highest resolution (UHD in this case).
     
  13. heir flick

    heir flick Minimodder

    Joined:
    2 Feb 2007
    Posts:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    14
    i had the philips 40" on pre order but changed my mind as i felt it was just too big and didnt fancy powering 4k so went with the 34" samsung curved, im pleased so far and enjoying 21.9 gaming
     
  14. Guest-44432

    Guest-44432 Guest

    Yeah, that's my thoughts exactly. :)

    That's good to know, I've sat in front of my 42" TV and it was immersive, but the pixels were too big and made every thing look zig zaggy. So it wasn't ideal.

    I think the Philips is winning me over. :)

    Fair enough. So do I. Nope, as the PPI will still be ultra sharpe like that of a 1440 27" monitor.
    Yeah, I think I'm going to go with the Philips. :)

    Lol, I think this time around the monitor will be here for a few yrs. (LTD to a Desk in a recess with 127cm wall to wall.) So the Philips will fit nicely on my desk there with my TV wall mounted above it.

    Yes, I do plan to keep it for a few years. So like you said, 4K will get easier to drive with newer cards.

    For the time being, just a pair of R9 280X DirectCU ii - Which should be fine to play some games maxed out at 4K. But I'm waiting for the GTX 980TI or Titan II - whatever they're going to call it...:thumb:

    Fair enough mate. :)

    Yes that is true, by 3" wider and 400 pixels more. Yeah, I'm getting the hint to go with the 40" :)

    That's true, but as always, games developers will include 21:9 aspect ratios in newer games.
    I know exactly what you mean, but then you woul be looking at a monitor inbetween a 16:9 and 21:9 monitor - Ideally 3840x1600 which is a 12:5 or 3840x1920 for a 2:1 aspect ratio. :)

    Oh right, what makes the decision so hard, is the fact that these monitors are so closely priced...
    Nice monitor BTW. ;)

    I think I know what I'm going to go for. 40" Philips. :)
     
  15. heir flick

    heir flick Minimodder

    Joined:
    2 Feb 2007
    Posts:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    14
    with the philips you can still force 21.9 and will give you about a 38" picture
     
  16. dipzy

    dipzy Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jan 2013
    Posts:
    495
    Likes Received:
    53
    I'd go for the LG 34", currently have a Asus 29" and i now cannot go back to any other screen other than a 21:9 one :D
     
  17. Guest-44432

    Guest-44432 Guest

    That's what I was thinking, and I'm sure I could make a custom res of 3840x1600 to give me an aspect ratio of 12:5. So you get the height and width. So best of both worlds. :)

    Yep, think I'm sold on the Philips. :)

    Fair enough mate. But as heir flick has pointed out, you can force 21:9 ratio on the Philips monitor. :)
     
  18. d_stilgar

    d_stilgar Old School Modder

    Joined:
    11 Feb 2010
    Posts:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    93
    I say go with the LG.

    The thing for me is just that 40" at 16:9 is too big for a monitor on a desk. If it were some other 4k monitor I might have answered differently.

    The thing is, I'd much rather have 21:9, but I'm waiting (hoping) for 5040x2160, a true 21:9 variant of 4K. I'd probably be okay if it were ~40" too since the height would be ~16 inches and the width would be 3 feet. It would be big, but not as big as even a dual screen setup, which is pretty standard for a most creative professionals anymore.

    And it would be really immersive for gaming. Although, we're still ignoring VR in the gaming sphere . . .
     
  19. Guest-44432

    Guest-44432 Guest

    Fair enough. I've had a wide selection of monitors over the past few yrs. From 20" triple monitors right up to triple 27" monitors. To the Dell 30" to a 42" TV. So I've tried all sorts of setups.

    My biggest problem is jumping back and forth from a big single monitor to a triple monitor setup.
    This is where the idea of going for the LG 34" UHD comes into play, as you're now getting the height of a 27" monitor, but gaining a lot more width...

    God, this is now making me think what to go for...

    I don't think we will be seeing a 5040x2160 monitor anytime soon, as DP 1.2 can't output that res.
    But anything is possible in this industry... But if such a monitor was to exist, then I would jump straight on it as long as the PPI stayed the same. But then we would be looking at;

    ~44 pixel per CM across approx.

    44 x 115cm = 5060 pixels Width is 115cm

    44 x 49cm = 2156 Pixels Height is 49cm

    D = (L2 + W2) = 49" monitor

    Now that monitor would cover all fields of view and be very immersive. :)

    Problem with VR is it is limited at this stage... Long await the day that I can jump into a nano suit, and get sucked into a fully interactive VR world... (Lawnmower man) :)
     
  20. sandys

    sandys Multimodder

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2006
    Posts:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    351
    I am going for the 40 even though I don't believe this Phillips 40" to be perfect.

    I don't think there is really a wrong choice here, but curved at this size on a desk might make some sense.
     

Share This Page