Screen Real Estate Showdown: Ultra Wide Monitors Vs. 4K Monitors
If you want the maximum screen real estate on your desktop, you have two options: get a larger monitor or a 4K monitor. Both offer more room to sit and work, and more pixels to squeeze windows into, but today many monitor buyers are focusing on two: ultra-wide and 4K. Let’s see how they stack up in practice.
Applicants
This dissection is somewhat strange, because the answer already depends on how you work and what you need from the display. We ran into a similar conundrum when we compared ultra-wide displays to dual displays for improved performance . However, if you are thinking of replacing your display with an ultra-wide or 4K monitor, there are a few things to consider that will influence your decision. Let’s take a look at our rivals first:
- Ultra-wide display, if you remember, I have for some time been testing ultra-wide display, and I liked to use them. LG sent me their 34UC98 34-inch ultra-wide curved LED and there were fewer pixels when going from my previous multi-monitor setup, but I got a new wide workspace that was more immersive. I also tried the non-curved version, the LG 34UM88 34-inch ultra-wide LED screen , for a better comparison. I quickly mastered the art of tiling and arranging windows around the screen so that I could track multiple objects at the same time without overlapping windows. From a performance standpoint, I felt like I had more room to work with than having multiple displays on my desk, but logically knew that there was actually less screen space. It’s immersive, though, I loved using it, and it’s a pleasure to behold in games and movies that maintain an aspect ratio of 21: 9.
- 4K Displays : We’ve discussed now is a great time to buy a 4K TV , and computer displays are in a similar boat. There have always been 4K displays available, but they are more common now and there are more size options available than ever. To compare apples and apples, LG sent me its 27 “ 4K display with a 27″ diagonal and 4K resolution, albeit in a smaller size. This was a huge improvement in the number of pixels used (and for me a PC for power), and I found that 4K has a ton of advantages, but also a few disadvantages. Even so, from a performance standpoint, the added space was great, especially for working across multiple applications, or for writing and researching, or just focusing on one while keeping others in sight if I wanted to take a look at them. I really felt that 4K would be better on a slightly larger panel. However, when it came to videos and games, when it worked and when there was 4K content to watch, it was incredible to watch and I wished I had a 4K TV.
Fortunately, I had the opportunity to spend some time with these monitors for leisure time (namely playing games, watching movies and videos) as well as for everyday work (mainly on the Internet and in office applications). This is where everyone succeeded and fell.
Ultra-wide displays dominate desktops, but 4K resolution fits more pixels in a smaller area
Part of the appeal of ultra-wide displays is their physical size and the fact that many of them give you the same or more space to play as two displays side by side on your desk. You also get the benefit of a wide, single peripheral that makes it easy to customize your desktop. If you’ve seen any of our recently introduced ultra-wide screen workspaces , you’ll see that they look and perform even better.
However, as I mentioned in my own ultra-wide test drive , whether or not you get the benefits you want from ultra-wide depends on how you work. I’m one of those people who constantly have several windows open, which look out of each other or are tiled on top of each other, so that I can work in one and follow what is happening in others: whether it be Slack for work, Twitter to see what everyone is talking about is my email for new messages. If you’re a person working in only one window, ultra-wide displays can be a huge waste of space, especially horizontally since many web tools and utilities (and websites like this one) are stacked vertically.
On the other hand, 4K displays tend to take up less space, more like a traditional 16: 9 panel. So instead of a wide 32 “or 34” diagonal, you get the more familiar 27 or 24 “display (although 30” panels are certainly available 4K). Despite their size, it also means that it has a lot of pixels. in that trail, so much that it can be disorienting. There is so much real estate out there that it can be hard to get used to, especially the native permits. you will have so much space that you have to keep windows and applications positioned This way you have many possibilities at the same time, even if you decide to focus on something specific.
Also, you will probably need to scale the text and image a bit to make sure everything is readable. Which brings us to the downside of 4K displays of this size: all that screen real estate is great, but on smaller panels, if you scale all your apps just to read them, it might be a waste. The key is to find a sweet spot that gives you space and usability . You don’t want to wipe out all those extra pixels by just making everything big and fuzzy.
For general use, ask yourself: How good is my vision?
So how good is your vision? The nice thing about the ultra-wide screen is that the display can ultimately give you 3440 pixels or more horizontally, but still 1440 pixels vertically. You don’t need to zoom to window or text to read web pages, write documents, or navigate menus. On a 4K display, however, you are packing 4096 pixels by 2160 pixels into a display of the size you probably already have. In my case, it was a 27 “panel that actually sat less on my desk than the 34” ultra wide panel that I have used up to that point.
The end result was the feeling that I could keep everything open on my desktop at the same time without overlapping windows or minimizing or hiding anything, which was great. The only problem was that I really couldn’t read everything that well – and, for the record, I don’t wear glasses. Of course, some minor scaling tweaks got me to a place where I could work. There were only a few cases where it didn’t look very good, so it’s easy to deal with, but still a lot to think about.
This is not an area where one display type wins. Ultrawides felt a little more natural to me , but there is no dispute about the actual workspace a 4K display gives you, and that space is really nice to have. You may just need to adjust your text a bit, sit a little closer to the screen, or invest in a large 4K panel to get the benefits without any scaling compromises.
4K is now more economical
There are ultra-wide and 4K displays in all price categories, but you should expect to spend more than a good budget 1080p or 1440p monitor . For example, the 34-inch LG ultra-wide that I mentioned above is currently selling for $ 950 on Amazon for the Thunderbolt model and $ 840 without it . The non-curved model, as stunning 34UM88 retails for $ 720 for the Thunderbolt model and $ 600 for the Thunderbolt model.On the other hand, the 27-inch 4K panel I tested costs $ 600 .
It’s technically a smaller display, so you pay less and it doesn’t have options like Thunderbolt, but you actually get more usable screen real estate. This is an interesting contradiction that holds true for a number of other display manufacturers as well. Ultra-wide panels are often considered luxury items with fancy features like USB hubs and multiple inputs, while 4K displays span the gamut from simple single-input monitors to high-end versions with the same hubs and options. For example, the LG I tested supports USB-C and fast charging. Some 4K displays even support AMD FreeSync. Likewise, when we looked at the best 4K computer displays last year , we saw some great models such as the crowd favorite ( and now half its original price of $ 500 ) 40-inch Seiki 4K panel , all the way down to this commonly used one – sale at Kinja Deals Dell 24 “, which usually costs around $ 380 , and is a popular buy despite the screen size.
If you are looking to compare ultra-wide and 4K displays for price, you will almost certainly find 4K cheaper than ultra-wide, and if your math is purely on price per pixel, then 4K panels are the best buy. However, consider how you work, the optimal screen size for you, and whether you need display features such as Thunderbolt support, multiple inputs, USB ports or device charging, SD card readers, etc. This can make a big difference. …
Beware Gamers: Ultra-Wide Displays Come With Pillarboxing, But 4K Needs Updates
So productivity is good, but what about gaming? Well, the good news is that if you can handle 1080p or 1440p games on your current PC, you can probably handle ultra-wide space games without having to buy a new graphics card or upgrade your entire rig.
Of course, there are nuances. Just because your graphics card natively supports 21: 9 doesn’t mean your favorite games do. (You can check the widescreen gaming forum to see if you have one.) If they don’t, you’re stuck in a 16: 9 format with vertical black bars on either side of the screen. This is called pillarboxing , and while some people get used to it, it can drive others crazy. On one of my test PCs with the R9 280X and the (old) i7 under the hood, Overwatch does a great job at 21: 9 @ 60fps (with some issues, that’s another story). On the other, the slightly slower (but same generation) i7 and older Radeon 6970 can play Overwatch in a 21: 9 aspect ratio, but not without significant tearing and low frame rates. Switch to 16: 9 and the tearing will disappear and the frame rate will increase. However, these systems are older, and if you have a modern PC you should be fine with widescreen gaming without having to create a new rig for good performance.
When it comes to 4K gaming, things are different. It may be necessary to build a new computer if you do not have the latest components. Collecting 4K, doing anything on a desktop was tricky when we did, and while prices have come down since then and components have become more powerful, relatively few games do 4K really well even today. If you don’t have a graphics card to push through those pixels (as well as CPU and RAM to avoid creating GPU bottlenecks), you’re essentially looking at building a new 4K capable computer. 4K users should also be prepared for games that simply don’t support 4K resolution. It will be a while before you can’t go back to 1080p resolution on your 4K display just to play your favorite games, especially if they’re older. My test machines did a great job with overall 4K performance. Games? Never. When I was able to test the 27-inch 4K display in 4K games it was great, no doubt about it, but it took some horsepower.
Verdict: Ultrawide and 4K are suitable for a wide variety of users
If you’re looking for productivity and looking for a place to work, 4K is your choice. You can read some of the first-hand reviews in Brian Hauer’s classic blog entry ” 4K for Programmers ” or in developer John Somnez’s review of one of the first available Seiki displays. Remember, however, that more pixels does not automatically mean better performance .
If you’re shopping for games and are willing to buy a fresh install and settle for games that do indeed support 4K right now , it might be worth it. But between the panel and the PC, you have to spend a lot just to protect yourself in the future, especially when we are not sure when that future will come. Likewise, while living room 4K is definitely mature , we’re only now seeing consoles supporting 4K , which means developers won’t be too far behind, but it will still be a while.
If you want a simpler and more streamlined version with more than one display on your desk, ultra-wide displays are for you. It’s kind of a step away from a single 1080p or 1440p display and all the pixels that 4K offers. While 21: 9 media is probably harder to find than 4K media, finding games that support that aspect ratio (or that can be tuned to support it) is definitely easier.
However, ultra-wide monitors are definitely “luxury” peripherals with corresponding price tags. You should expect to pay for them, and there aren’t as many budget options as there are for 4K or even larger 1440p displays. For your money, you will get several useful functions, but it is up to you to use them or not. Thankfully, you don’t need a new computer to power them, which can make up for the difference when it comes to cheaper 4K displays.
Personally, I would go both ways. An affordable 4K display for work where I can use every available pixel. However, when it comes to gaming and gaming, I would go with an ultra-wide or, apart from the price tag, a large display with a resolution of 1440 pixels ( or even several, mounted next to each other ). Which one you choose should depend on what you are doing. your PC first, and what your monitor upgrade budget looks like.