Gigabyte M34WQ Monitor

[TheUn4seen]

The allure is really simple.

For gaming, you have a filled peripheral vision, which is massive boost to immersion. When I first started on an UW at home, I was actually flabbergasted of the effect. And then you 'unnotice' the fact and gaming just got a whole lot better, especially first person and third person. But it doesn't stop there - think DOTA 2 and having 50% extra real estate towards the edges. You have a competitive advantage. Shooters: your FOV is a lot wider without looking through a fishbowl. With a curved UW, you can even get FOV sweet spots that just match perfectly with the curve. What do you mean 'dude you hit enemies offscreen'? I can see them fine (People have said this to me online in games )

But here's the allure for productivity. I mean, what do you mean less working area?

And this is with 133% scaling in the browser, but Windows is still at 100%. Its nearly like having 2x 1440p on your desk - with no bezel. WIN+directional keys are my big friends now.

You don't really need more height than 1440; the extra horizontal you get, is literally extra real estate that 16:9 won't offer because you'll want scaling at 4K and 34 inch, for example. But at 3440x1440 you still have the ergonomics in place for desktop at 34 inch and a pixel density that is enough to never see pixels anyway. You're still effectively looking at a 27 inch 1440p, except a bit wider.

I'm really not sure I can or will go back to 16:9.

Here's the thing: how can you possibly fit more content on less pixels? 16:9, 3840x2160 has 8.3 million pixels. 3840x1440 only has 5.5 million. Given the same scaling you can only fit two thirds of information on the ultrawide.

As for gaming, well, I can set widescreen resolution on my screen to lower the load on a GPU, set it to 1:1 (no display scaling) and still retain the ability to do actual work with more vertical real estate once I finish playing a game. Or just enjoy more pixels showing me more game and filling my peripheral vision better vertically. Widescreen monitors seem like just a way to sell less for more - which makes sense in the context of how LCDs are manufactured - they are cut from standardized sizes of glass, so the more screens a manufacturer is able to get from a single pane the more they can optimize yield. The rest is just clever marketing.

 

[Vayra86]

Here's the thing: how can you possibly fit more content on less pixels? 16:9, 3840x2160 has 8.3 million pixels. 3840x1440 only has 5.5 million. Given the same scaling you can only fit two thirds of information on the ultrawide.

As for gaming, well, I can set widescreen resolution on my screen to lower the load on a GPU, set it to 1:1 (no display scaling) and still retain the ability to do actual work with more vertical real estate once I finish playing a game. Or just enjoy more pixels showing me more game and filling my peripheral vision better vertically. Widescreen monitors seem like just a way to sell less for more - which makes sense in the context of how LCDs are manufactured - they are cut from standardized sizes of glass, so the more screens a manufacturer is able to get from a single pane the more they can optimize yield. The rest is just clever marketing.

Pixel density and ergonomy are a thing. Comparing a resolution without a display diagonal / PPI alongside it, is folly.

I've mentioned those aspects in my post. Are you saying you use 1:1 scaling on a 4K 16:9? And what display diagonal is that, then? If we would be using the same diagonals (34in), you'll be at nearly 130 PPI, that's pretty small print To read that proper, the result is usually you'll sit much closer to the screen, and at that point, your vertical real estate is harder to use because you are going to have to keep looking up and down. That's where the ergonomy comes into play. In a bad way. A proper desktop setting is having the top of the panel at about eye height, so you're looking slightly downwards.

For gaming, vertical 'peripheral' vision barely exists. Your eyes aren't on top of one another, but side by side, and most (camera) movement in games is on the horizontal axis. If you're questioning the idea about why widescreens exist, that's exactly it. 16:9 over 4:3 was the same move, and as diagonals of panels increase overall, ultrawide became feasible over time as a further development as even at 16:9, many people would still happily use 2-3 16:9 panels side by side. Hell, even many productivity oriented offices offer such setups. It just makes sense to remove the bezel and release a single wider panel.

 

[arni-gx]

wow, this LCD monitor which i have looking so far..... 34 inch real flat, IPS, 3440x1440 144hz, 1MS..... i hope this will coming into my country..... ASAP......

 

[Mussels]

I agree about the "too big to be flat" comments.

I used to use a 32" flat panel and at normal viewing distances, the change in viewing angle between the center and the corners was ridiculous. I personally don't have the issue, but many suffer from eye fatigue caused by constant focal depth changes when viewing a flat panel up close for this reason.

27-30" is about as big as I think is reasonable for a flat panel, and the 30.5" models are already sub-optimal unless you sit back a bit further than usual.

I'm currently working on a 40" flat ultrawide (review coming soon). I'm loving the screen size but the flatness is... challenging. It still bothers me after two full weeks of using it as my daily driver. At this point I wonder if I'll ever get used to it.

I came here to see why this comment section was so popular and i gotta join in to agree here - i've got four 32" monitors (3x 1440p, 1x 4K) - and the one flat one of the bunch really does mess with my eyes. I was thinking it was just me being used to the curve, but your comments make me think otherwise (It's my eyes turning into squares from being too close to the screen, like mum always warned me about in the 90's)

 

[Chrispy_]

I came here to see why this comment section was so popular and i gotta join in to agree here - i've got four 32" monitors (3x 1440p, 1x 4K) - and the one flat one of the bunch really does mess with my eyes. I was thinking it was just me being used to the curve, but your comments make me think otherwise (It's my eyes turning into squares from being too close to the screen, like mum always warned me about in the 90's)

Any optician worth their salt will tell you about the focal depth fatigue from sitting too close to a screen. The size of the screen and the distance from the screen are independently irrelevant, it's the ratio of one to the other, especially if you are reading text across the whole width of the screen and going from max focal depth to min focal depth every single line you read.

Opticians are industry-certified experts on focal depth with a few centuries of validated proof and trillions of dollars of cumulative research and empirical data behind them. It's not something you have to ponder for yourself or take from an anonymous person like me on the internet.