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

[Spinelli]

[delete]

 

[Spinelli]

...but I worry about the image quality maybe not being adequate for sim racing, I have no idea in that regard.

How does 1440p look like on 32" in regards to sim racing?

It's fine. You could even race with a 40" monitor at 1920x1080 and it wouldn't affect racing. Sure, the image won't look as nice/clean, but in terms of pure racing, it won't have any affect. Plus, all sorts of forms of anti-aliasing, post-process anti-aliasing, DLDSR (stay away from non-DL DSR), low pixel density isn't that big of a problem. Of course, a natively, high pixel density screen is nicer but it's barely an issue during gaming / racing.

1440p on 32" 16:9 looks good. I had triple 1440p 27" prior to triple 1440p 32" (and then, after getting a Pimax VR headset, I moved to single 38" 24:10 ultrawide and now a single 45" 21:9 ultrawide), and the pixel density loss is minor. After 2 laps, you'll never think about it again.

I'd personally aim for 240 Hz. There are so many moments where framerates are well above 144 or 165 fps. Depending on amount of opponents, how many opponents are near you (like at the start of a race), different conditions, hotlapping alone (or playing online with, sometimes, very little opponents), different games altogether, different in-game gfx settings, different amounts & types of AA, etc. It all depends. Also, thanks to G-Sync / Freesync, you'll always have a nicely synced, fluid image all the way up to 240 fps/Hz regardless of whether the framerate is at, say, 90 fps, then goes up to 210 fps, then 135, then 230, etc. Rather than capping out at, say, 165 Hz. It's not a must though but, me, personally, I'd choose 240 Hz 1440p over 144 or 165 Hz 4k; the fluidity combined with the large increase in motion clarity way outweighs a slighly cleaner/sharper image which can, partially, be compensated for on the lower resolution monitor anyways with things like AA, DLDSR (I don't think DLDSR is available for triples), etc.

Well, tough decision. 4k is definitely more future proof

I'm not sure what you consider "future proof" when it comes to monitors but if you want to "future proof", you'd be looking at 240 Hz, 1440p minimum, 32", OLED, HDR. If that's the case, then I say wait a little longer as there should be quite a few awesome 32" OLED, 240 Hz monitors coming out in the next year or so.

If you don't want to wait, then Asus just released their Asus ROG Swift OLED PG32UCDM which will give you the best of everything: 32" (16:9), 4k, 240 Hz, OLED, HDR. It'll probably cost an arm and a leg though. If OLED is too expensive, then your other option is a mini-LED with lots - meaning over 1000 - dimming zones such as the Samsung Odyssey Neo G7: 32" (16:9), 4k, 240 Hz, mini-LED w/ 1200 dimming zones HDR. A sweet spot maybe is the other Samsung Odyssey Neo G7 model. It's also 32" (16:9), 4k, mini-LED w/ 1200 dimming zones, but it's 165 Hz instead of 240 Hz. That might be a great sweet spot in terms of price and future proofing.

 

[Emery]

I'd personally aim for 240 Hz. There are so many moments where framerates are well above 144 or 165 fps. Depending on amount of opponents, how many opponents are near you (like at the start of a race), different conditions, hotlapping alone (or playing online with, sometimes, very little opponents), different games altogether, different in-game gfx settings, different amounts & types of AA, etc.

I would dispute the need for 240 Hz when running triples in multiview at 4k. Most of the time you'll be happy to get 90 fps, particularly if you're trying to run ACC.
Triples at 1440p will be in the 90-120 fps range most of the time. Using weather/night will also cut fps in half if there are other cars around.

Ranking them by fps from worst to best:

1. ACC
2. rF2
3. AMS2 & PCARS2 (they both have good single monitor fps, but multiview performance is lacking)
4. Raceroom
5. AC

 

[Andics]

I had a samsung G9 Neo 49 and I was looking around for a deal to upgrade to the 57....not much in the last weeks and I ended up jumping on the alienware 34 oled deal (£660 each)....cheaper than the 57 samsung...so I went for it and ordered 3 of them.

It doesn't seem to be a crazy idea that many others have done and here none is really in favour of the triples 34 ultrawide....

I am waiting for the stand the next week to mount them and see what happens

 

[TeddyBearx]

honestly for a good setup, if you have the money, 3x pg38uq, 38" 4k 144hz gsync....

 

[victornin]

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.

I Like the LG monitors, how did you manage to connect the cables? Because the plugs seat right next to the vesa mount.

 

[Botmeister]

I Like the LG monitors, how did you manage to connect the cables? Because the plugs seat right next to the vesa mount.

Had to buy extra vesa spacers. Three on top of each other to be precise. Connection/VESA wise these monitors aren't the best to setup. But once it fits.... it sits.

Edit: I also use the VESA vario from simlab.