3:2 is great for productivity on a smaller screen for sure.
But I gotta hard disagree on ultrawide. It sure looks pretty but unless you play simulation games exclusively I find that they make the experience worse. Their main benefit is that they’re more cost effective (both the screen itself and that it’s easier to drive) than a triple monitor setup while satisfying to a decent degree all use cases were a triple monitor setup excels.
Watching movies is way more fun than on a TV.
Working on it is very cool. Research is very good with it like browser on the left and Visual Studio on the right.
Sure, I came at it from a pure gaming angle. From a productivity angle it’s almost as good as multi monitor setup but generally cheaper. And for Movies it can be better than multi monitor setups and for sure better than non-ultrawide (for the right movies of course) but for me movies are a social thing and I can’t stand watching something alone on the computer, generally.
Gonna agree or disagree with both of you - I think gaming is worse most of the time on an ultra wide but doing productivity side by side is really cool, and like you mentioned watching movies works very well with 2.4:1 or similar aspect ratios
I’ve had my ultrawide for about 4 years and games that support it look amazing, not had an issue. Games that don’t. I just play in 16:9, the black bars arnt much of an issue given that its no real loss as the alternative is either a stretched out image or use a 16:9 monitor.
Same, ultrawide is only awesome if you do everything in windows and arrange things. Which in turn brings up the question, why not just put 3 monitors side-by-side, play on the middle one in 16:9 and avoid all the software issues, then still have that huge horizontal space for multitasking?
Sure it’s not a big downside, but I also just don’t see the upside of it. Plus I can always soft-connect the 3 screens to show one game across all three of them.
Ultrawides generally have a 21:9 aspect ratio and are curved. I use a “super ultrawide” monitor (the Samsung Odyssey CTG9) that has a 32:9 aspect ratio, and even it is only as wide as two widescreen monitors.
I’ve used a three-wide setup and it isn’t as ergonomic for productivity purposes or as immersive for gaming purposes:
I often want windows to be wider than a single 27” monitor permits, and stretching windows across monitors doesn’t look great (when the OS even allows it).
I have to stretch my neck more to see the sides
When gaming with all three, I personally ran into issues getting it configured due to gpu/driver/OS support, as well as a requirement to have multiples of the same exact monitor. I tried this on Windows 10 with Nvidia Surround on a 2080 back in 2020 - maybe it’s easier now or in Windows 11 (unlikely), but I doubt it’s any better on Mac or Linux. Is multi-monitor even an option for someone trying to game on such a system?
The gap in the monitors and the abrupt angle changes is pretty distracting for me. I’d much rather just pull the super ultrawide closer to get the same sense of coverage.
From a compatibility perspective I highly doubt 3-wide is going to have as good of support as an ultrawide or even super-ultrawide. There are nearly twice as many games with ultrawide support according to wsgf.org. They list 4 pages of games that have an “A” rating for multi-monitor support and 7 pages for games with an “A” rating for ultrawide support (compared to 21 pages for widescreen support and 50 pages total). I found a spreadsheet with a list of games that had been tested and confirmed to have super ultrawide support and it was around 1500 games long.
Because I personally often need more screen space for productivity purposes, I have two widescreen monitors mounted above my super-ultrawide, angled down. If I’m gaming I either turn them off or use them for something else. This gives me an overall 16:9 aspect ratio on what would be a 55” screen if it were all merged, but my setup is much more flexible and ergonomic.
Unlike on a single gigantic monitor, treating sections of my screen as individual monitors (for the purposes of fullscreen videos, games, and apps) is not well supported. FancyZones, BetterTouchTool, Divvy… none of them do that. PIP with the monitor is your best bet and IME that results in reduced performance (like capping at 60 Hz on a 240 Hz display). Maybe the Samsung Ark has a better hardware solution, but even if so, it still costs more than all of my monitors combined.
My setup isn’t perfect. There are times when I’d like to have a taller single screen, for example. A 38” 21:9 or curved 32” with portrait 32” 16:9s on the sides would help with that (but would be awkward when playing videos fullscreen on secondary monitors). 1 portrait to the side and one centered above would work fine but I think the asymmetry would bother me (and I think 4 monitors would limit it to just being usable with my desktop).
Not a fair comparison at all though. A 34” 1440p UW is basically like taking a 27” 1440p and adding another ~66% to the original width. It’s physically smaller than two 16:9 monitors of comparable density.
3 monitors side by side takes up a lot more space. The 2x23” I have stacked on top of my 34” ultrawide are already much wider than the UW. I couldn’t fit three monitors on my larger than average desk made out of an IKEA tabletop, without removing my speakers and having the side monitors overhang.
Fair, and of course that’s the ultimate consideration in the end, since any monitor choice has to fit into where you put it. I went to a 32" 1440p center + 2x 22" 1080p sides (pixel size is identical, hence that specific setup) which works better for me due to the versatility, and it just perfectly fits the Ikea desk I have. 😅 But I can understand why someone especially limited in stand-space would go for a single monitor.
I do think multi-setups are inherently more versatile, plus they avoid the built-in occassional software issues with ultrawide-incompatibility.
I’ve yet to hit that second issue about compatibility in 4 years using mine with a combination of Mac, Windows 10/11 and Linux machines. But yes, agreed about that first point. It’s easier to rearrange a couple of physical screens than mess around with software.
3:2 is great for productivity on a smaller screen for sure.
But I gotta hard disagree on ultrawide. It sure looks pretty but unless you play simulation games exclusively I find that they make the experience worse. Their main benefit is that they’re more cost effective (both the screen itself and that it’s easier to drive) than a triple monitor setup while satisfying to a decent degree all use cases were a triple monitor setup excels.
Gotta disagree with you as an ultrawide user.
Watching movies is way more fun than on a TV.
Working on it is very cool. Research is very good with it like browser on the left and Visual Studio on the right.
Sure, I came at it from a pure gaming angle. From a productivity angle it’s almost as good as multi monitor setup but generally cheaper. And for Movies it can be better than multi monitor setups and for sure better than non-ultrawide (for the right movies of course) but for me movies are a social thing and I can’t stand watching something alone on the computer, generally.
Totally.
I still prefer movies on the tv because it’s more comfortable there compared to my desk chair.
Gonna agree or disagree with both of you - I think gaming is worse most of the time on an ultra wide but doing productivity side by side is really cool, and like you mentioned watching movies works very well with 2.4:1 or similar aspect ratios
One time I didnt notice the filled in aspect of the movie (16:9 with bars and zoomed) and at one time wondered why the movie is so immersive :D
I’ve had my ultrawide for about 4 years and games that support it look amazing, not had an issue. Games that don’t. I just play in 16:9, the black bars arnt much of an issue given that its no real loss as the alternative is either a stretched out image or use a 16:9 monitor.
Same, ultrawide is only awesome if you do everything in windows and arrange things. Which in turn brings up the question, why not just put 3 monitors side-by-side, play on the middle one in 16:9 and avoid all the software issues, then still have that huge horizontal space for multitasking?
Sure it’s not a big downside, but I also just don’t see the upside of it. Plus I can always soft-connect the 3 screens to show one game across all three of them.
Ultrawides generally have a 21:9 aspect ratio and are curved. I use a “super ultrawide” monitor (the Samsung Odyssey CTG9) that has a 32:9 aspect ratio, and even it is only as wide as two widescreen monitors.
I’ve used a three-wide setup and it isn’t as ergonomic for productivity purposes or as immersive for gaming purposes:
From a compatibility perspective I highly doubt 3-wide is going to have as good of support as an ultrawide or even super-ultrawide. There are nearly twice as many games with ultrawide support according to wsgf.org. They list 4 pages of games that have an “A” rating for multi-monitor support and 7 pages for games with an “A” rating for ultrawide support (compared to 21 pages for widescreen support and 50 pages total). I found a spreadsheet with a list of games that had been tested and confirmed to have super ultrawide support and it was around 1500 games long.
Because I personally often need more screen space for productivity purposes, I have two widescreen monitors mounted above my super-ultrawide, angled down. If I’m gaming I either turn them off or use them for something else. This gives me an overall 16:9 aspect ratio on what would be a 55” screen if it were all merged, but my setup is much more flexible and ergonomic.
Unlike on a single gigantic monitor, treating sections of my screen as individual monitors (for the purposes of fullscreen videos, games, and apps) is not well supported. FancyZones, BetterTouchTool, Divvy… none of them do that. PIP with the monitor is your best bet and IME that results in reduced performance (like capping at 60 Hz on a 240 Hz display). Maybe the Samsung Ark has a better hardware solution, but even if so, it still costs more than all of my monitors combined.
My setup isn’t perfect. There are times when I’d like to have a taller single screen, for example. A 38” 21:9 or curved 32” with portrait 32” 16:9s on the sides would help with that (but would be awkward when playing videos fullscreen on secondary monitors). 1 portrait to the side and one centered above would work fine but I think the asymmetry would bother me (and I think 4 monitors would limit it to just being usable with my desktop).
Not a fair comparison at all though. A 34” 1440p UW is basically like taking a 27” 1440p and adding another ~66% to the original width. It’s physically smaller than two 16:9 monitors of comparable density.
3 monitors side by side takes up a lot more space. The 2x23” I have stacked on top of my 34” ultrawide are already much wider than the UW. I couldn’t fit three monitors on my larger than average desk made out of an IKEA tabletop, without removing my speakers and having the side monitors overhang.
Fair, and of course that’s the ultimate consideration in the end, since any monitor choice has to fit into where you put it. I went to a 32" 1440p center + 2x 22" 1080p sides (pixel size is identical, hence that specific setup) which works better for me due to the versatility, and it just perfectly fits the Ikea desk I have. 😅 But I can understand why someone especially limited in stand-space would go for a single monitor.
I do think multi-setups are inherently more versatile, plus they avoid the built-in occassional software issues with ultrawide-incompatibility.
I’ve yet to hit that second issue about compatibility in 4 years using mine with a combination of Mac, Windows 10/11 and Linux machines. But yes, agreed about that first point. It’s easier to rearrange a couple of physical screens than mess around with software.