Why no large 3440x1440 monitors? And also running 21:9 on a 4k TV?

[Ripp_]

I'm in the begining stages of setting up a sim racing rig (currently I'm desk mounted) but really struggling to find the right monitor. What I really want is a 38" minimum (bigger the better) 3440x1440 Ultrawide monitor but the closest ones I can find are:

38" 3840x1600 (Ultrawide+)
49" 5120x1440 (Super Ultrawide)

I currently have a 34" 3440x1440 on a desk which I use for everything including sim racing and FPS type gaming currently and the 21:9 aspect ratio (yes I know it's not exactly 21:9 but that's what we are calling it) is perfect for everything I do but it's just too small to mount on a sim racing rig IMO.

3440x1440 = 4,953,600 pixels which is perfect for my 3090 because I can run everything at Ultra graphics settings at 100Hz on all games I've tried so far. The two monitor options above are 6,144,000 pixles and 7,372,800 pixels respectively which to run at decent graphics settings I'd have to dial some graphics settings back and probably drop down to 75Hz or something which isn't exactly what I want.

I don't want triples and I don't want a single 16:9 monitor (aka large TV), so why isn't there any large 3440x1440 monitors out there? I've been waiting for years but no one ever makes one so there must be a good reason.

My other slightly out of the box option is a big 4K TV setup with a custom resolution set in Nvidia Control Panel to achieve the 21:9 aspect ratio that suits sim racing, yes I'd have black bars top and bottom but I race in total darkness anyway so that wouldn't be an issue, is that even possibe with a TV? If so, would I still end up having to render the black bars so essentially running 4k with its 8,294,400 pixels? Because again that wouln't be ideal for me to have to run that.

From a quick Google search on the topic of running 21:9 on a 4K TV lots of people post in threads saying "whats the point, why cut off the top and bottom" but they clearly don't get how 21:9 works and that it's scaled from the vertical size of the screen so you are not cutting off the top and bottom, instead you are actually gaining more on each side. I obviously don't have to tell you lot that but I wanted to "In before" those types of comments start appearing

 

[Viper_Polo]

To have 'correct' fov, having 21:9 on a TV you'd just be sacrificing vertical view. If you don't care about correct fov then knock yourself out, but you may aswell go with one of the monitors you listed. Also, unless you go with an OLED, the black bars will be quite noticable imo.

 

[Ripp_]

To have 'correct' fov, having 21:9 on a TV you'd just be sacrificing vertical view. If you don't care about correct fov then knock yourself out, but you may aswell go with one of the monitors you listed. Also, unless you go with an OLED, the black bars will be quite noticable imo.

Interesting point about the black bars actually being bright, they could be covered up though if that was an issue. I just tried 2560x1440 on my 3440x1440 monitor to create black bars and they weren't too bright but like you say, a new TV would probably be brighter.

I don't see how I'd lose any vertical view of the game:

Game at 3440x1440 on a 3440x1440 monitor:

Game at 3440x1440 on a 4K TV:

See how nothing is lost between the two?

But after overlaying it I realise in order to eliminate black bars on the sides when using a 4k TV I'd need to match the full width of a 3840 so I'd have to run 3840x1600 anyway so like you say I may as well go for a native 3840x1600 monitor anyway as I'd still have to drive the same amount of pixels. Yes 3840x1600 on a 4k TV would be a much cheaper option as you can pickup 4K TV's for cheap nowadays but a proper 3840x1600 monitor would be a more elegant solution, have higher Hz and probably look better.

Game at 3840x1600 on a 4k TV

Such a shame no one makes large 3440x1440 monitors because they would offer 1440p resolution which still looks awesome with Ultra game settings but wouldn't be as hard to drive as a 4K, Ultrawide+ or Super Ultrawide monitor.

So I guess I'll be dropping some in-game graphics settings and/or lowering the refresh rate a little in order to drive the extra pixels of the 3840x1600 resolution over my current 3440x1440 resolution and also having to settle for a 38" monitor which I still think is a but small for a sim rig.

 

[Samir Kilachand]

Hey,

I'm a bit late so what did you end going with? I run a triple 34” 21:9 setup powered by a 3090 and I get 100fps (mostly) with iracing and 60ish with ACC. The bezels are annoying, and I would like to get the ASUS bezel free kit if they will make them again. Other than that, I love it. Lots of immersion and better than VR (for me).

 

[jameslj]

Hey,

I'm a bit late so what did you end going with? I run a triple 34” 21:9 setup powered by a 3090 and I get 100fps (mostly) with iracing and 60ish with ACC. The bezels are annoying, and I would like to get the ASUS bezel free kit if they will make them again. Other than that, I love it. Lots of immersion and better than VR (for me).

How do like your triple 34 ultrawide setup? Any problems with horizontal fov? Do you think the vertical height is sufficient?

 

[Ripp_]

Hey,

I'm a bit late so what did you end going with? I run a triple 34” 21:9 setup powered by a 3090 and I get 100fps (mostly) with iracing and 60ish with ACC. The bezels are annoying, and I would like to get the ASUS bezel free kit if they will make them again. Other than that, I love it. Lots of immersion and better than VR (for me).

I ended up sticking with the single 34" Ultrawide in the absence of a better solution. If I had a dedicated driving rig I'd probably get a super ultrawide but I use the same space for racing and other types of games so I don't think a super ultrawide would be good for FPS games. So basically I'm stuck in limbo at the moment. If a suitable larger 21:9 1440p was available I'd almost certainly buy one because 21:9 seems to be the sweet spot for racing and other types games.

The other option is build a racing rig and a second PC and buy a super ultrawide but tbf as I haven't really found anywhere suitable yet where I can hang out and do casual multiplayer organised racing in AC (had enough of ACC for now) then I'd essentially be buying all that just to do single player hot laps or race against AI and all the expense simply isn't worth it just for that. LFM on ACC was almost perfect for me as I could race any hour I wanted throughout the day but the rules all changed a while back and also people on there really started to try-hard and the racing became less clean to the point where people were willing to take the rating loss and ram you off intentionally. The final straw was after I had a race where the guy in front of me span of his own accord about 40m in front of me, I passed him and then he caught up and intentionally rammed me off to get his place back, I reported it and LFM ruled in his favour, it was clear that no one actually watched the replay properly or took the report seriously so I stopped racing there.

I've hopped in and out of a few AC discord servers since then but the racing is always like Saturday or Sunday evenings which I can't attend so currently I'm in a bit of a racing lull unfortunately. If I had a regular casual place to race then I wouldn't at all mind spending out on what I'd need.

 

[Spinelli]

I ended up sticking with the single 34" Ultrawide in the absence of a better solution. If I had a dedicated driving rig I'd probably get a super ultrawide but I use the same space for racing and other types of games so I don't think a super ultrawide would be good for FPS games. So basically I'm stuck in limbo at the moment. If a suitable larger 21:9 1440p was available I'd almost certainly buy one because 21:9 seems to be the sweet spot for racing and other types games.

If you're sticking with one screen, and have the budget, I'd highly recommend the LG 45GR95QE-B. In my opinion, it's the best overall gaming monitor on the market. 45", 3440x1440, 240 Hz, OLED, 800R curve, HDR, ultra low motion blur (compared to any non-strobing LCD monitor), ultra low input lag.

In terms of vertical size, 45" 21:9 means it's vertical height is about 18" which means it's the same vertical height as a standard 16:9 36" or 37" monitor (which don't exist). Also, because it's 21:9 instead of 32:9, you don't get all the ludicrous horizontal stretching you'd get on something like a 49" 32:9. Not to mention, a 49" 32:9 is tiny. It's height is the same as a standard 16:9 27" monitor at around 13.25".

The pixel density is obviously low but, trust me, it's barely noticed especially with anti-aliasing. Also, you can use DLDSR which absolutely, 10000% removes any doubts of pixel density. DLDSR is magic and this monitor showcases DLDSR's magic like no other. I often use mine with DLDSR set to 2.25x (1.78x is good too). It makes games look like you're using full-screen supersampling AA. It's incredible!

HDR is also stunning. Even SDR is stunning due to OLED having basically "local dimming" for every single pixel which often gives SDR content an HDR-like image quality - and even more so if you apply some extra settings tips I can give you (just requires a $7 LG service remote, easily purchasable from Amazon).

Another plus regarding HDR is that OLED screens are the only screens which don't add input lag when used in HDR mode. This is not a huge deal for simracing as I'm pretty sure only IR and ACC use HDR (and possibly the more recent F1 games?) but it's nice to know. Plus, for non-HDR games, you can always inject HDR using Special K or via Windows 11's auto-HDR.

Brightness is awesome. The reviews which state brightness as low are deceiving. They usually measure the brightness in lower brightness modes and in unrealistic scenarios you'll never see when actually using the monitor. Not to mention, they don't have the monitor's settings (including service menu settings via the service remote) set optimally. My screen can get eye-searing bright at times.

 

[Ripp_]

Oh nice thanks I'll check it out, I wasn't familiar with that model. And yes I agree 32:9 or whatever definitely doesn't seem to have enough vertical space, 21:9 is the sweet spot for me.

 

[Ripp_]

Just a had a look and that looks like it fits the bill, my only concern is that the curve is too small of a radius? I don't like too much of a curve.

 

[Spinelli]

Just a had a look and that looks like it fits the bill, my only concern is that the curve is too small of a radius? I don't like too much of a curve.

When looking at the screen, I barely even notice a curve. The curve looks really aggressive if, say, you are to stand above the whole monitor and look down on it. When actually sitting in front of the monitor and looking at the screen, I barely notice any curve.

 

[Ripp_]

When looking at the screen, I barely even notice a curve. The curve looks really aggressive if, say, you are to stand above the whole monitor and look down on it. When actually sitting in front of the monitor and looking at the screen, I barely notice any curve.

Interesting, I'll see if I can find somewhere that has some on display so I can take a look. Thanks for sharing because that could well be what I'm after!

 

[Mr Latte]

The LG does look like a sweet screen option and brings that OLED quality but surely, 21:9 if being used to multiple screens, isn't quite enough for the additional immersion experienced before?

Each possible option has its own benefits, drawbacks and compromises. You can find YT videos with sim setups using the LG as triples. Stretching is an annoying eyesore and seems the industry is not that interested in sorting it with gaming.

Own trials:
Using different displays like 16:9 / 32:9 / 16:9 is only possible with specific software and lots of configuring. I tried that with G9/G7 and then abandoned the idea.

As a G9 owner, I agree that a (27" based monitor) vertical presence is a bit shallow but on the other hand, I would say the LG 45" is too big for the resolution it offers and would kinda be like in some ways, 2 steps forward and 1 step back.

It's possible to buy an 8K TV in 55" or much larger, which might then offer a more impressive "scale/immersion" at higher resolution, but with its own drawbacks.

These being, limited refresh rate, no curve and without the OLED image quality.
Applying 21:9 and 32:9 on a 75" 8K TV would be interesting to see though and enjoy super high res, 8K gaming...

So the user has to determine what for them are the more desired factors? Screen size, screen res, screen refresh, or screen technology / image quality.

Samsung 57" G9 looks to improve on the 49" model giving us that increased size of scale. I think that's the upgrade I will seek next year as its price drops. Why, because a single screen that can act as dual 4K screens is a nice option for my use case. With the previous G9 and LG, you cant fully experience 4K gaming content/video. To me, this kind of defeats part of the purpose of buying using high-end PC hardware most users of such a screen may own?

Compared to the LG the 57" G9 will be better in multitasking with much greater resolution/desktop, Can offer dual 4K sources, can offer a more immersive 32:9 when needed, enables the user to apply lower 32:9 screen resolutions, if seeking to increase framerates and supports upto 240Hz with its 1000R curve.

The 57" G9 will still offer a nice size (approx 39") for displaying 21:9 / 2:35 content but with increased resolution (5120x2160) over what the LG can muster. So again we find, size Vs resolution and pros/cons of each technology.

Certainly, as a display, the 57" G9 will also improve over the previous 49" models in image quality/zones as well as multi-tasking being the first ever display to support dual 4K sources. It's likely each if used with individual source inputs will be restricted to 120Hz. So still excellent for console connection or secondary PC.

I see lots of versatility in reasons for the new 57" G9 but....... the drawbacks, yes certainly. It won't be the best in OLED visual quality, so it's really down to what the user preferences and use cases are as to what works out as the overall best option.