Triple 34" 3440x1440 vs triple 32" 2560x1440/3840x2160

[jameslj]

Hello,

I have a triple 27" 1440p setup and want to upgrade to some larger screens. I'm struggling to decide between a triple ultrawide 34" 3440x1440 and a triple 32" 2560x1440 (or 3840x2160) monitor setup. I find the extreme FOV in a triple ultrawide setup interesting but I don't know if it's practical and if the additional horizontal FOV is wasted because of not looking to the far right or the far left. What is concerning to me is the lack of vertical resolution in the ultrawide setup but is that even a problem?

So my questions are the following:
1. Is the additional FOV from the triple ultrawides beneficial?
2. Is the lack of vertical resolution a problem with triple ultrawides?
3. Is the FOV on triple 32" 16:9 monitors sufficient?

Thank you for reading and I appreciate your input.

 

[stigs2cousin]

My thoughts (from driving 27" triples for 3 years)

I don´t need more vertical FOW for GT3s and prototypes because they have these small "view slits"
I have a dashboard mounted on my wheelbase so no need to see the cars interior.

On classics with "normal greenhouses" like the E36 320i I can´t see the interior mirror, a bigger screen would be great.

My wheelbase is comparatively low, so no issues fitting 32s (other than cost)

I won´t do ultrawides because I don´t need more horizontal FOV I can see both door mirrors and every apex/track out.

Also my 3080 wouldn´t achieve satisfying FPS with that amount of pixels.

 

[Spinelli]

Triple 32" 16:9, EASILY.

 

[jameslj]

Triple 32" 16:9, EASILY.

Why do you think so?

 

[Emery]

1. Is the additional FOV from the triple ultrawides beneficial?

No.

2. Is the lack of vertical resolution a problem with triple ultrawides?

1440p is adequate at these monitor sizes, but not at the 40" or more size. The extra fps you get from pushing fewer pixels is more important than having 2160p for these smaller monitors. To use triple 4k monitors, unless you're okay with turning down the eye candy, you need at least 3090 performance and preferably a 3090ti or better; weather and night can still be problematic with triple 4k monitors, too. Of course I'm mostly talking about that first lap performance, but it really sucks when you get 40-50 fps on that first lap!

3. Is the FOV on triple 32" 16:9 monitors sufficient?

Maybe, maybe not. Depends if you can get the central monitor close enough to your face. 27" monitors (and the ultrawides) can usually sit above the steering shaft, but the steering wheel might end up too low if trying to do that with 32" monitors. See @stigs2cousin for other reasons.

Make a cardboard mockup of the center monitor using the manufacturer's dimensions and see how it fits your rig compared to your current monitors.

It is for this reason I ended up getting triple 43" monitors, but that brings about a whole new set of expenses regarding monitor stands. TVs are definitely a better deal in this size, but they don't have Displayport connectors.

 

[jameslj]

No.


1440p is adequate at these monitor sizes, but not at the 40" or more size. The extra fps you get from pushing fewer pixels is more important than having 2160p for these smaller monitors. To use triple 4k monitors, unless you're okay with turning down the eye candy, you need at least 3090 performance and preferably a 3090ti or better; weather and night can still be problematic with triple 4k monitors, too. Of course I'm mostly talking about that first lap performance, but it really sucks when you get 40-50 fps on that first lap!

View attachment 688804


Maybe, maybe not. Depends if you can get the central monitor close enough to your face. 27" monitors (and the ultrawides) can usually sit above the steering shaft, but the steering wheel might end up too low if trying to do that with 32" monitors. See @stigs2cousin for other reasons.

Make a cardboard mockup of the center monitor using the manufacturer's dimensions and see how it fits your rig compared to your current monitors.

It is for this reason I ended up getting triple 43" monitors, but that brings about a whole new set of expenses regarding monitor stands. TVs are definitely a better deal in this size, but they don't have Displayport connectors.

Thank you for this!

So triple ultrawides aren't beneficial in terms of FOV which means I'm probably leaning more towards triple 32s. Do you think triple ultrawides would be to narrow vertically and therefore lack vertical height in comparison to 32s? Your point that 4k makes more sense at 40" or more is understandable but I love high pixel density and since I will be doing programming work on all 3 monitors and playing shooters on my center monitor I can't give up pixel density by sticking to larger screens. I also need to think about budget. Right now I'm willing to pay 650€ per 4k 144 Hz 32" monitor so I'm a bit limited there.

Also in regards to triple 4k, I can lower the render resolution to something in between 4k and 1440p which would reduce strain on the GPU, is that correct?

 

[Emery]

Also in regards to triple 4k, I can lower the render resolution to something in between 4k and 1440p which would reduce strain on the GPU, is that correct?

There aren't really any resolutions between 2160p (4k) and 1440p that will have the correct aspect ratio. To make matters worse, to avoid half pixels, you really need to drop to 1080p resolution.

The ultrawides are really just stretched 27" monitors, so you already know what the vertical height is like.

 

[Botmeister]

I own triple LG 32 inch 850b. I first bought the triple 21:9 version of this LG monitor, but decided to withdraw the purchase and went for regular, flat, 16:9. Not a regret ever since.

• 16:9 is better because the physical height of the monitor is larger (vFOV). 16:10 could be even more ideal I guess, but there aren't many monitors with gaming specs in this size.
• When going triple ultrawide, the far end of the monitors can get less sharp because of viewing angle and angle of your eyes.

• IPS panels have a large viewing angle. Which basically means the image is crisp on the sides of the monitors, even when viewed from an angle.
• VA panels tend to have a little worse viewing angle which could make the side image a little blurry, because it's less colorful and/or has distorted contrast (black/white/grey).
• VA and IPS have some pros and cons, I would advice to read on that subject first. Colors and contrast can be quite different. VA used to be the better option for gaming, but IPS has improved over the years and lag and refresh rates are better now. Contrast ratio is worse than VA.
• TN panels are not even an option when going triples.

• Curved or not. I would always advice to go non-curved. I consider curved monitors to have distorted images out-of-box. They look fine when using one monitor right on front of you. But in a triple setup you're losing too much viewing angle on the far ends of the side monitors. IPS could be an option, though, I don't know.
• Stepping in and out of the simulator is most likely easier with non-ultrawides. Also one of the reasons why I don't regret going 16:9 at 32".

TLDR; Panel type is also very important with triples. There is no perfect panel.

 

[jameslj]

There aren't really any resolutions between 2160p (4k) and 1440p that will have the correct aspect ratio. To make matters worse, to avoid half pixels, you really need to drop to 1080p resolution.

The ultrawides are really just stretched 27" monitors, so you already know what the vertical height is like.
View attachment 688832

From the picture I can see the 32" being noticeably larger in height. It seems like it's not that much but it is. Is vertical space beneficial?

 

[jameslj]

I own triple LG 32 inch 850b. I first bought the triple 21:9 version of this LG monitor, but decided to withdraw the purchase and went for regular, flat, 16:9. Not a regret ever since.

• 16:9 is better because the physical height of the monitor is larger (vFOV). 16:10 could be even more ideal I guess, but there aren't many monitors with gaming specs in this size.
• When going triple ultrawide, the far end of the monitors can get less sharp because of viewing angle and angle of your eyes.

• IPS panels have a large viewing angle. Which basically means the image is crisp on the sides of the monitors, even when viewed from an angle.
• VA panels tend to have a little worse viewing angle which could make the side image a little blurry, because it's less colorful and/or has distorted contrast (black/white/grey).
• VA and IPS have some pros and cons, I would advice to read on that subject first. Colors and contrast can be quite different. VA used to be the better option for gaming, but IPS has improved over the years and lag and refresh rates are better now. Contrast ratio is worse than VA.
• TN panels are not even an option when going triples.

• Curved or not. I would always advice to go non-curved. I consider curved monitors to have distorted images out-of-box. They look fine when using one monitor right on front of you. But in a triple setup you're losing too much viewing angle on the far ends of the side monitors. IPS could be an option, though, I don't know.
• Stepping in and out of the simulator is most likely easier with non-ultrawides. Also one of the reasons why I don't regret going 16:9 at 32".

TLDR; Panel type is also very important with triples. There is no perfect panel.

Thank you for this detailed response!
I'll definitely get a high refresh rate IPS monitor. I can't stand VA as the viewing angles are terrible and because I use my monitors for work as well the viewing angles have to be very good. Right now I'm leaning towards the LG 32GR93 32" 4k 144 Hz IPS monitor for my triple setup. I'm also considering 1440p 32" triples. I don't know still but triple ultrawides might be out.

 

[Emery]

Is vertical space beneficial?

I find it is, but I also try not to use virtual mirrors or HUDs. Triples provide plenty of horizontal fov without going to ultrawides, though the width of an ultrawide center monitor helps make the rig easier to enter. Since I'm using 43" monitors, these things are no longer an issue for me.

 

[Botmeister]

Thank you for this detailed response!
I'll definitely get a high refresh rate IPS monitor. I can't stand VA as the viewing angles are terrible and because I use my monitors for work as well the viewing angles have to be very good. Right now I'm leaning towards the LG 32GR93 32" 4k 144 Hz IPS monitor for my triple setup. I'm also considering 1440p 32" triples. I don't know still but triple ultrawides might be out.

Good luck with that. One last thing I want to share with you. My LG's have similarities with the ones you're looking at. And there is one little detail that I don't like about it.

When adjusting three monitors to get them as close to each other as possible, the lower part of the bezel -which sticks out a few millimeters- is actually in the way. You can make it quite good though, I used the VESA vario set by Sim-Lab. And have zero complains about how it turned out. But if you're looking for an absolute 100% closed gap, you might want to double check if LG is the brand for you

 

[Botmeister]

There aren't really any resolutions between 2160p (4k) and 1440p that will have the correct aspect ratio. To make matters worse, to avoid half pixels, you really need to drop to 1080p resolution.

I think this is about rendering resolution. With NVIDIA scaling methods you can let the GPU render the game's image on a lower resolution. And then the GPU upscales that rendered image, to fit your 4k resolution when displayed.

Yes, this reduces strain on the GPU. Check the table in this article.

 

[Emery]

With NVIDIA scaling methods you can let the GPU render the game's image on a lower resolution. And then the GPU upscales that rendered image, to fit your 4k resolution when displayed.

Yes, this reduces strain on the GPU. Check the table in this article.

Does the scaling work with triples? When I tried it back in my initial days of triples (circa 2015), I recall it wasn't compatible with triples. But I was also tinkering with using higher resolution instead of antialiasing at that time, so ???

Looks like it'd be a hassle to configure each time you wanted to race and then revert the configuration for other activities so you're not otherwise wasting the 4k resolution. If you use many desktop icons, they're going to be rearranged.

Edit: Hmm, I may have misread how to use image scaling. It's use might be more transparent than I think, so I'll have to tinker, but I still have doubts about using it with triples.

 

[Emery]

With NVIDIA scaling methods you can let the GPU render the game's image on a lower resolution. And then the GPU upscales that rendered image, to fit your 4k resolution when displayed.

Confirmed this doesn't work with Surround enabled. When you're in Surround, then the scaled resolution is always applied, so you'd have to turn on/off scaling depending on your needs.

It works as described, applying the scaled resolution when in a game, if you have Surround turned off and play games on only a single monitor. Another restriction is the game must be played full screen (no windowing).

 

[jameslj]

Confirmed this doesn't work with Surround enabled. When you're in Surround, then the scaled resolution is always applied, so you'd have to turn on/off scaling depending on your needs.

It works as described, applying the scaled resolution when in a game, if you have Surround turned off and play games on only a single monitor. Another restriction is the game must be played full screen (no windowing).

It's always possible to lower the render resolution in the game settings menu if it's implemented and nearly every game has it.

 

[metalnwood]

triple screens are great for sim racing but darn, that would kill my neck using them for programming all day!

 

[Spinelli]

Why do you think so?

Because 34" ultrawides are tiny. They're just extra wide 27" monitors. The triple 32" 16:9 will give you all the horizontal FOV you need while giving you better vertical FOV which isn't vital but definitely helps with immersion/enjoyment and with certain buttons, gauges, dashboards, etc. that aren't as visible (or not visible at all) with a 27" 16:9 / 34" ultrawide.

Your point that 4k makes more sense at 40" or more is understandable but I love high pixel density and since I will be doing programming work on all 3 monitors and playing shooters on my center monitor I can't give up pixel density by sticking to larger screens. I also need to think about budget. Right now I'm willing to pay 650€ per 4k 144 Hz 32" monitor so I'm a bit limited there.

There are quite a few awesome 32 (or, rather, usually 31.5") monitors for gaming. I'd personally lean towards 240 Hz as the blur at anything under 200-ish Hz (regardless whether IPS, VA, TN, or even OLED) drives me insane but that's just me.

Based on your budget, I'd look into something like the Samsung Odyssey non-Neo G8 31.5". The non-Neo G8 is 1440p and a year or 2 older than the 4K Neo model and it's way, way cheaper. Is like only 30-40 % the price of the Neo.

The curve, even with triples, barely distorts the image compared to an identical setup but without the curve. The image distortion due to the curve on ultrawides is more noticeable but, having said that, image distortion is much more noticeable on ultrawides in general due to a higher horizontal FOV meaning more stretching the more you get to the edges (regardless of curve or no curve).

I never even noticed much of the bad viewing angles of my triple TN panels - and certainly didn't notice it when playing/racing - let alone with triple VA panels which have much better viewing angles than TN.

If you really, really only want IPS and non-curve no matter what, then there are still many good 31.5" / 32" 16:9 ones to choose from which are suited for racing / gaming so you shouldn't have a problem getting a good one.

Also in regards to triple 4k, I can lower the render resolution to something in between 4k and 1440p which would reduce strain on the GPU, is that correct?

It's always possible to lower the render resolution in the game settings menu if it's implemented and nearly every game has it.

You don't want to do this. Unless you're using an old-school CRT screen or a VR headset, the picture will look terrible at anything other than the native resolution. The only time you ever want scaling is with internal scaling - scaling before the image is gets the final render and sent to the monitor - that would be things like DLSS, DLDSR, etc. So, no, lowering the resolution is not a good option. It also adds input lag; bad enough to affect you? I don't know but I'd just generally stay away from scaling with non-CRT screens.

 

[jameslj]

Because 34" ultrawides are tiny. They're just extra wide 27" monitors. The triple 32" 16:9 will give you all the horizontal FOV you need while giving you better vertical FOV which isn't vital but definitely helps with immersion/enjoyment and with certain buttons, gauges, dashboards, etc. that aren't as visible (or not visible at all) with a 27" 16:9 / 34" ultrawide.

There are quite a few awesome 32 (or, rather, usually 31.5") monitors for gaming. I'd personally lean towards 240 Hz as the blur at anything under 200-ish Hz (regardless whether IPS, VA, TN, or even OLED) drives me insane but that's just me.

Based on your budget, I'd look into something like the Samsung Odyssey non-Neo G8 31.5". The non-Neo G8 is 1440p and a year or 2 older than the 4K Neo model and it's way, way cheaper. Is like only 30-40 % the price of the Neo.

The curve, even with triples, barely distorts the image compared to an identical setup but without the curve. The image distortion due to the curve on ultrawides is more noticeable but, having said that, image distortion is much more noticeable on ultrawides in general due to a higher horizontal FOV meaning more stretching the more you get to the edges (regardless of curve or no curve).

I never even noticed much of the bad viewing angles of my triple TN panels - and certainly didn't notice it when playing/racing - let alone with triple VA panels which have much better viewing angles than TN.

If you really, really only want IPS and non-curve no matter what, then there are still many good 31.5" / 32" 16:9 ones to choose from which are suited for racing / gaming so you shouldn't have a problem getting a good one.



You don't want to do this. Unless you're using an old-school CRT screen or a VR headset, the picture will look terrible at anything other than the native resolution. The only time you ever want scaling is with internal scaling - scaling before the image is gets the final render and sent to the monitor - that would be things like DLSS, DLDSR, etc. So, no, lowering the resolution is not a good option. It also adds input lag; bad enough to affect you? I don't know but I'd just generally stay away from scaling with non-CRT screens.

It's unfortunate that scaling ends up making the quality worse than a equivalent display that has that resolution by default meaning native resolution (setting 1440p on a 4k monitor compared to having a native 1440p monitor). I certainly haven't noticed the quality to be that bad when doing this on my present monitors but I don't have a comparison to what it should look like so I have no idea. But it definitely makes sense that it should look worse than a panel that runs that resolution natively.

Basically regarding choosing a monitor I'm definitely set on IPS and 32". It all comes down to resolution (4k vs 1440p). Right now I have 27" 1440p monitors and I do like the pixel density but would make like something more dense. 32" at 1440p is roughly equal to 24" 1080p so it's not that bad but I worry about the image quality maybe not being adequate for sim racing, I have no idea in that regard. I'd imagine it's okay considering many see 32" 1440p as the present gold standard or sweet spot for sim racing. However I'm a bit more drawn to 4k, though it will be a lot harder to run at high frame rates which is the only meaningful problem unfortunately. I'm willing to upgrade to a 5090 in the future so there should be enough horsepower for triple 4k (obviously all speculation). From a cost perspective triple 4k 144 Hz IPS 32" would cost me around 1800€ on a good discount. Triple 1440p 165 Hz IPS 32" would cost me around 900-1000€ on a discount and triple 1440p 240 Hz IPS 32" would cost me around 1600€. I feel like I will never really run games at above 165 fps in triple 1440p so I think there's no point in going 240 Hz if I choose the 1440p route, or am I wrong?

Well, tough decision. 4k is definitely more future proof but requires more gpu power and maybe regular gpu upgrades (every generation). How does 1440p look like on 32" in regards to sim racing?

 

[metalnwood]

In sim racing i think you would be happy enough for 1440p but your balancing act of using it for a productivity monitor may be a problem if you have been using 4k.
I either do development on a 14" 1080p laptop which as about the same as a 27" 4k in pixel density. I used a 27" 4k for development. widescreens dont really work for me so I went with a lg dualup and I was worried about being used to 4k. Its a 28" but its an aspect ratio of 16:18 and 2560x2880. I was first worried about pixel density which is 139ppi, lower than i was used to and I wasnt sure how low it would look.
It looks great but when I look at a 27" 1440p its really on the edge for me because thats where I start to see the pixel makeup of text. Scale that up to 32" and you are at 91ppi which I am not sure you will be happy with as I assume its a productivity machine a lot more often than it is a sim rig.

I don't know how flexible your setup can be, can another monitor be placed next to your triples for productivity? Its is a hard compromise because whats good for one and really be a strain on the other, i.e. driving 3x4k monitors as well as the cost. All i can say is what I would do if it was me based on where I have been and that may not work for you. I would go 32x3x1440p at a framerate that makes sense for what you can actually drive them - i.e. dont pay more than you need to. I would add to that a good productivity monitor you can connect to the same machine when you are working. I used to be a fan of many wides for work but I have ended up really optimising my workflow and could never think about going back to that again as I am now much faster working with multiple windows on one screen and its a lot more confortable. ymmv of course but my main take away is that it may be cheaper and better if you can separate the two tasks.