why do so few PC gamers use ultra wide?

[Cooke 2,029]

according to steam less than 5% use 2560x1080 or 3440x1440

nearly 65% still use regular 16:9 1080p. and 1440p is only 12%

 

its much more immersive and id never go back to 16:9

[Twinblade★ 3,922]

idk. Its great when games properly support it.

 

But im surprised that so many people are still gaming at 1080p.

[Remij 4,680]

5 minutes ago, Cooke said:

according to steam less than 5% use 2560x1080 or 3440x1440

nearly 65% still use regular 16:9 1080p. and 1440p is only 12%

 

its much more immersive and id never go back to 16:9

5% of ~140M users = ~7M

 

But yes, once you switch, you're not going to want to go back.

[Remij 4,680]

7 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

idk. Its great when games properly support it.

 

But im surprised that so many people are still gaming at 1080p.

 

Yea, it's getting better and better all the time with more support, but you still get games like Diablo 4 for example which support it during gameplay but not in cutscenes.

 

If you have an Ultrawide monitor though, "Flawless Widescreen" is your friend.  So simple to use and adds support for tons of games.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Remij

[jehurey 3,231]

i wouldn't use it because the FOV geometry looks stupid.

 

And once you notice it, you'll always notice it.

 

Let's say you're walking down a hallway, and there's a door about 10-15 feet away from you, on the left or right side. The width of the door looks like the way you would expect it in real life.

 

And as you are continuing to walk down the hallway and walk past that door, the door is now stupidly wide and stretched.

 

Kind of reminds me of what realtors do when they post new house listings and they employ screen stretch trick to make the rooms look bigger.

 

 

Nice kitche......what the hell is going on with that microwave door?

 

Its an inherent shortcoming of the geometry and that fact that the game will ONLY render and base all geometry angles from one focal point.

 

It would almost require a wider curved monitor, and the game would need to know the curvature to somehow stitch together multiple focal points at this different angles and put it together as one wrap around image.

 

But no one will ever attempt that for a ultra niche group that's already satisfied with the way it is.

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by jehurey

[Remij 4,680]

1 hour ago, jehurey said:

i wouldn't use it because the FOV geometry looks stupid.

 

And once you notice it, you'll always notice it.

 

Let's say you're walking down a hallway, and there's a door about 10-15 feet away from you, on the left or right side. The width of the door looks like the way you would expect it in real life.

 

And as you are continuing to walk down the hallway and walk past that door, the door is now stupidly wide and stretched.

 

Kind of reminds me of what realtors do when they post new house listings and they employ screen stretch trick to make the rooms look bigger.

 

 

Nice kitche......what the hell is going on with that microwave door?

 

Its an inherent shortcoming of the geometry and that fact that the game will ONLY render and base all geometry angles from one focal point.

 

It would almost require a wider curved monitor, and the game would need to know the curvature to somehow stitch together multiple focal points at this different angles and put it together as one wrap around image.

 

But no one will ever attempt that for a ultra niche group that's already satisfied with the way it is.

 

That only happens when you have games which don't properly set the FOV and camera distance.  That certainly was a problem in the past with UW modes either being hacked in without proper FOV adjustment and camera placement adjustment, but now the games which support UW natively typically have the appropriate adjustments so that there is no warping. 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Remij

[sugarhigh 519]

I'm still adjusting to monitor prices practically doubling in the last couple years. I previously spent at most 300 for a monitor. Now Samsung wants 800+ for their midrange OLED.

[Twinblade★ 3,922]

Speaking of Ultrawides, looks like Samsung might have just dethroned Alienware. This monitor seems really good

 

https://www.ign.com/articles/samsung-odyssey-oled-g8-review

[The Mother Fucker 26]

On 2023-06-06 at 11:50 PM, Cooke said:

according to steam less than 5% use 2560x1080 or 3440x1440

nearly 65% still use regular 16:9 1080p. and 1440p is only 12%

 

its much more immersive and id never go back to 16:9

For once, 2560x1080 is a very weird resolution.   Two, at 3440x1440 resolution you might as well just go 4K since your GPU is going to be working just as hard.

 

I have a couple displays that are 2560x1440

[Cooke 2,029]

4 hours ago, The Mother Fucker said:

For once, 2560x1080 is a very weird resolution.   Two, at 3440x1440 resolution you might as well just go 4K since your GPU is going to be working just as hard.

 

I have a couple displays that are 2560x1440

It's not a weird resolution. That's just ultra wide 1080p. 2560x1440 is just 16:9. 1440p. 

[lostfool 680]

Because it sucks just like all of pee shit gaming

[Twinblade★ 3,922]

5 hours ago, The Mother Fucker said:

For once, 2560x1080 is a very weird resolution.   Two, at 3440x1440 resolution you might as well just go 4K since your GPU is going to be working just as hard.

 

I have a couple displays that are 2560x1440

 
3440 x 1440 is still quite a ways away from 4K.

[Cooke 2,029]

[Remij 4,680]

3 hours ago, Twinblade said:

 
3440 x 1440 is still quite a ways away from 4K.

Mine is 3840x1600 and it's essentially what you'd get running ultrawide on a 4K monitor.  Looks awesome.. perfect middle ground imo.  I always downsample from a higher res too.

[-GD-X★ 7,740]

this reminds me of when i started editing films. i had 16:9 in my head, due to it being the tv news standard. however, everything i cut now is at completely different aspect ratios, ranging from 1.85:1 (3996x2160) to 2.39:1 (4096x1716).

[TLHBO 2,162]

Why are you surprised 1080p is the standard? Some people buy cheap prebuilt PCs, some dont upgrade, some run on cheap laptops. The 4k crowd with the most powerful GPU is a minority.

 

5 hours ago, Twinblade said:

 
3440 x 1440 is still quite a ways away from 4K.

I've seen a figure of roughly 25% being thrown around, as a very rough performance difference. Not sure how true it is.

 

1 hour ago, Remij said:

Mine is 3840x1600 and it's essentially what you'd get running ultrawide on a 4K monitor.  Looks awesome.. perfect middle ground imo.  I always downsample from a higher res too.

4k ultrawide is something like 5040 x 2160.

 

Iirc monitors are 3440 x 1440 up to about 34 inch, above ~34 inches they become 3840 x 1600 to keep the sharpness and pixel density but it's about the same sharpness as 1440p.

[Remij 4,680]

2 hours ago, TLHBO said:

4k ultrawide is something like 5040 x 2160.

 

Iirc monitors are 3440 x 1440 up to about 34 inch, above ~34 inches they become 3840 x 1600 to keep the sharpness and pixel density but it's about the same sharpness as 1440p.

Read what I said again.  If you take a 3840x2160 4K monitor, and run it in Ultrawide, you'll essentially have 3840 vertical pixels, and 1600 horizontal pixels.  It's essentially taking the 4K monitor and chopping off the top and bottom.

 

And yes, it's about the same pixel density for the size of the monitor, that said, from where I sit, it definitely looks sharper than my 2560x1440 ROG display as I'm a bit further back.

 

3440x1440 is about 40% of the pixels of 4K. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Remij

[jehurey 3,231]

4 hours ago, -GD-X said:

this reminds me of when i started editing films. i had 16:9 in my head, due to it being the tv news standard. however, everything i cut now is at completely different aspect ratios, ranging from 1.85:1 (3996x2160) to 2.39:1 (4096x1716).

This is why the only type of Ultrawide that I would consider getting would be if a real monitor manufacturer would make a REAL monitor for PC users who perform a multitude of tasks and finally make a genuine 24:10 ultrawide.

 

Because it logically widens it from a genuine PC aspect ratio of 16:10.

 

8x10 being the standard for many web page ratios and useful for workstation apps, and can put them side by side by side.

 

Yet it almost perfect fits the anamorphic widescreen ratio used in classic movies, 2.39:1 and also CinemaScope.

[The Mother Fucker 26]

12 hours ago, Cooke said:

It's not a weird resolution. That's just ultra wide 1080p. 2560x1440 is just 16:9. 1440p. 

Right just buy a 1440p display.

[Cooke 2,029]

1 hour ago, The Mother Fucker said:

Right just buy a 1440p display.

Why? It's hardly noticeable and the performance is worse.