Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Drop Refurbished
Like-new products you can trustDrop Rewards
Get $5 for every 500 points you earn! Learn more
Drop Keyboard Club
Become a member and expand your keycap collectionCollaborate With Us
For Brands & DesignersFollow Drop
Similarly I'm probably going to end up buying an ASUS PG278Q Swift for the 144 Hz and G-sync. All three of these monitors are extremely expensive, but I figure I do more gaming than editing atm. I suppose that I'll keep my Eizo FS2333 for editing (albeit at 1080p). My 780 Ti yearns for 1440p gaming.
The term "gaming monitor" is often incorrectly associated to ONLY 120-144hz monitors when in fact that's not the case. Gaming setups are either 1) triple sceens, 2) 120-144hz screen, 3) or a single high rez screen. You don't need 1-6ms input lag in order to game. Triple screen or this 21:9 screen are the best for gaming to MANY people, including me due to the immersion you get. 60hz with vsync on is plenty smooth. Driving 120-144fps for a 120-144hz screen for 1920x1080 wasn't too bad, but doing that at 2560x1440 requires serious serious vid card power. Otherwise you're running games on super low settings, and on a TN panel already......that's gotta look horrible. 34UM94 is the best collection of monitor attributes in one design while giving up the least amount of features.
You get high rez, best pixel pitch, billion colors, 21:9 immersion (triple screen feeling) and you only have to tolerate 60hz. It's the best.
Meanwhile as for this thing, good friggin luck with the aspect ratio. I can tell you right now that I don't think Ubisoft games like anything except 16:9 very much (I had trouble with just 16:10 on my older monitor). Whatever you'd get this thing for, I don't think it should be gaming. Maybe productivity? I don't know. I sure as heck would not get it for gaming, I'm definitely waiting for the ASUS ROG PG278Q, which is not only going to be cheaper, but is going to be a much more futureproof and better gaming monitor than this gimmicky, crappy aspect ratio monitor that brings almost nothing useful to the table.
And finally as the cherry on top your argument is about how much it takes to drive certain resolutions, yet you're buying an IPS that takes even more juice to drive than a 1440p monitor. Over 1.3 times as much juice in fact. So that means while someone will be sustaining 62FPS on a monitor with Gsync you're sitting here driving a blurry 46FPS, and you'll be lowering settings to get it back to 60 because otherwise it looks like trash.
Yeah it makes so much sense man. So much sense.
And for the record I'm on a Qnix at 1440p at the moment. It has plenty of screen estate. Having more to just the sides would in my opinion be quite a nuisance if anything. Oh and finally considering it's an LG I would expect the panel to be kind of meh. Or the implementation to be meh. I would look at reviews on Prad and tftcentral. I spent quite a bit of time buying various mainstream brand 1440p monitors that all had defects before I settled on the Qnix. 1440p at the time was much more expensive.
I've previously had a 5760x1080 setup with GTX 580 3GB SLI and it was the worst investment of my life. Incompatibility is abundant. Microstutter is the worst. Ubisoft games don't even like dual display let alone triple. The games I play don't like SLI or multi monitor. Single player benchmark titles are a different matter. I'll never even go back to dual monitors from the personal experience I had. I did try an ASUS PB278Q and it was horrible. I'd pick my Eizo FS2333 over it all day even with the resolution loss.
I'm shopping for me, not for you. See: "for my usage". Enjoy your buy. I'll enjoy mine. ^^
I do like the great colors and viewing angles of my Eizo FS2333 (PLS panel) as I mentioned. They're great all around displays. I would also pick the AOC u3477Pqu over the LG as I don't own any mac equipment. It's like owning a 3DTV without using 3D. It's like paying extra for a feature I can't use or don't need if that makes sense to you.
I figure I can benefit from the Asus PG278Q Swift the most as I watch movies and such on my home theatre setup which consists of a nice plasma TV and an entry Onkyo 7.1 ch HTiaB. I really only play games when I'm on the computer these days. I had no desire to pursue 120-144 Hz displays in the past as the colors are indeed still mediocre and the extremely heavy AG coatings are awful imo. I've kept up with blurbusters coverage of the lightboost in 2D and such and it was intriguing, but your colors become subject to even worse accuracy with it on. The Swift having it's 8-bit TN panel with a less grainy/heavy/dirty AG coating and G-sync at 1440p has me interested enough to give it a try. I'd love to own 2 of the 3, but alas one cannot own everything he/she wants. XD
"This is an example of a mature reply illustrating the reasons you prefer something else. Nothing wrong with that. G-sync is a good thing. I'm an immersion kind of guy, but your response was proper and great. StoleMyNipples acts 12, and angry."
Oh right because namecalling and doing your little vehement proclamations that this is the best gaming monitor (for several reasons, most of which don't make any sense) ever is totally mature. You're showing your point well by doing a "clever" twist of my name. I also love how you maturely ignore all my facts like a proper adult. After all, adults should act feelings and buyer bias, not actual facts pushed in their face. Ignoring the truth is wonderful. It's not actually a plague upon the world.
There, did I layer the sarcasm on hard enough? Supposing it's a fluid, are you moist enough from the accumulation of it in the atmosphere? Is "word play" (a bit too elegant of a way to put what you did I suppose) on other peoples' names a crafty enough sport for you, chap? Where I come from, it's a middle schooler's behavior. Not a grown adult.
I love being able to type at 110+wpm, it really helps pump out responses you know?
80-90% of games RIGHT NOW work fine for 21:9 natively. When it doesn't, 3rd party tools like flawlesswidescreen.org and .ini edits shown on WSGF.org help you to fix it. But going forth, less and less games will have an issue with 21:9. It's the future. It's a baby right and developers didn't take 21:9 seriously yet due to 2560x1080 screens not selling too much.
But now 3440x1440 is selling like hotcakes, so devs will start to follow suit. 21:9 only came out in June (for real)
For LG and Samsung, their variants are large (think huge), curved displays at 5120×2160p... which is actually the type of innovation that I predicted would be nice with this type of aspect ratio. Curved 21:9 displays are interesting. But I don't know who actually thinks that they are the future for certain. In fact if I asked my coworkers right now, the only thing I can be certain of is that likely all of them have heard of 4k but none of them have heard of 21:9.
"80-90% of games RIGHT NOW work fine for 21:9 natively. " Source?
"But now 3440x1440 is selling like hotcakes" Source?
I just know 100% that it'll never work (without being disadvantaged) on DOTA2 and it's my most played game at over 1700 hours currently. Valve is really picky about "balance" for who can see what. 16:9 has the largest amount of visible map due to it's horizontal FoV. 16:10 is actually a disadvantage on their title. It's very annoying. As I mentioned SLI isn't supported on it either. Most of my tales of bad experiences stem from specifically DOTA2 (HoN before that). In guild wars 2 you can also be banned for abusing your extra wide FoV monitor resolutions. Again, specifically on that title... it's annoying none the less. I don't like being actively penalized for having something different from the developer's baseline. I'm not 100% sure on this next bit, but I think RTS like starcraft 2 behave the same way with aspect ratio and actual vision on screen. If you play those games the most, having anything other than 16:9 is a headache.
I was initially planning on keeping my Eizo FS2333 just for games that absolutely require 16:9 to be "playable" like DOTA2. One might argue that I don't need 1440p to play DOTA2 and that's valid. The input delay will have more benefit than An above 60 Hz refresh rate as well. If anything I'd advise those who play games in that genre or sub genre to be cautious and look up any issues that may plague some of their favorite titles. I would have personally avoided spending the money on three monitors only to make them three individual displays every time I wanted to play my favorite game. The trade off wasn't worth it to me.
It should be noted that almost all of these games that suffer from this issue are indeed multiplayer and due to game balance.
Black bars are a different issue. I didn't like them on 16:10 1200p on games that only allowed 16:9 1080p. Usually these were indie or xbla ports to pc. The 21:9 monitors let you switch resolution to say 2560x1440, but it would drive my eyes nuts. That's part of my OCD. I find it to be near impossible to get over some of the smallest niggling issues that others probably don't even experience let alone have any trouble dealing with. To each their own concerning black bars.
I'm very personal when it comes to giving my opinion or advice based on my own experiences. I feel that if people can understand my point of view and why I think something because of specific reasons that they themselves may have a better understanding of the concerns I bring to light. As opposed to being vague or throwing out general information without explaining why. That last statement isn't aimed at anyone or anything to provoke a response. I'm just talking grand scale for everyday life.