34" Ultrawide - 2560x1080 vs 3440x1440 ?

Hello everyone,

I'm looking to buy a new external monitor, and have pretty much decided that I wanna give the 21:9 aspect ratio a try.
But I'm not sure which resolution is the best one for me.

It's gonna be hooked up to my Alienware 17 with an (overclocked) 880m. It runs pretty much everything perfectly on the internal 1080p display but on newer AAA titles it's having to work pretty hard.
Upping the resolution to 2560x1080 is already a rather big increase, but Im pretty sure it could handle most for quite a while.

Going to 3440x1440 however, is gonna be an issue on newer titles.
If not now, then soon, which means I will have to turn down the resolution when playing games.

Gaming however is not all, when I'll be using the monitor for anything other than gaming I realise the 3440x1440 is gonna look way better, and the text more crisp. And the PC shouldnt have any issues running that resolution for random computer usage.

So my question(s) are:

Does downscaling makes it look any worse? Assuming it's running at the same resolution as say, the 2560x1080 displays, do they look identical or will the one running at native resolution look better?

And, how bad is the 2560x1080 really when browsing the web on a massive 34" display?

Hope anyone of you have some inputs and opinions

 

Short answer: If you really want an ultrawide display, you want a 34" 3440 x 1440 display. Something like an LG 34UM95 will run you $850 on Amazon or NewEgg. If you can't afford this screen (or the necessary hardware to drive it), then dont bother with ultrawide right now. Wait for more vendors to release Ultrawide models so the price eventually drops.

Ultrawide resolutions add about 40% more pixels than the corresponding 16:9 resolution. (so 2560 x 1080 will have about 40% more pixels than 1920 x 1080. Likewise with 3440 x 1440 and 1440p). So if your current GPU is struggling at 1080p, it will struggle more with even the lowest resolution 2560 x 1080 ultrawide display. For what it's worth, a single desktop GTX 970 (or its laptop equivalent of a GeForce 980m) can handle 3440 x 1440 decently well.

>> Does downscaling makes it look any worse?
Downscaling always makes it look worse. Especially any kind of text. You always want to run at native resolution, no matter what. Worst case scenario, just let the game run at 16:9 resolution and play with black bars across the left / right sides of the screen.

>> And, how bad is the 2560x1080 really when browsing the web on a massive 34" display?
Web pages will not fill the entire horizontal space on a 21:9 ultrawide display. Most likely, you will have the web page content in the middle of the browser window, and have large expanses of empty whitespace on the left / right sides of the browser window. A 21:9 monitor is really for browsing two documents / windows side-by-side. So if you were to have a web browser occupying HALF of your screen, then web pages would look just fine.

 

Do you believe in the hype on linus tech tips saying how great ultrawide is for everything (including productivity)?

I know I am being a bit repetitive but as long as I can get a way to connect and disconnect a laptop frequently and easily to two large dual monitors, then I might not care for ultrawide.

Unfortunately, my experience with using mini HDMI and USB 3.0 displaylink connections monitors has been bad with my thinkpad yogaso I am wary. Things would constantly not work, displaylink USB monitor connections would massively slow down my already not fast computer, and the only reason I look to ultrawide at all is because well perhaps if there is only one monitor there would only be one point of failure -> perhaps less failure

 

Do all monitors come with built in options to split the screen virtually?

For example, those 27 cheap monitors you mentioned? Or the dell ultrawide ?Would you recommend doing it?

 

>> Do you believe in the hype on linus tech tips saying how great ultrawide is for everything (including productivity)?
Yes. But note that LinusTechTips also mentions that ultrawide is good because of gaming (which you aren't going to be doing), and because price isn't an issue with what he recommends. If you're on a budget and can't afford an $850 monitor, you're better off with 27" 1440p displays.

>> Unfortunately, my experience with using mini HDMI and USB 3.0 displaylink connections monitors has been bad with my thinkpad yogaso I am wary.
I think it's because you're making things too complicated between USB 3.0 adapters, miracast, etc. Just keep it simple. If you can afford to spend $850, then get a 34" 3440 x 1440 Ultrawide display, and connect it via HDMI. If you can only afford $350 - $400, then get a 27" 1440p monitor and connect it via HDMI. Keep it simple.

>> Do all monitors come with built in options to split the screen virtually?
No. Splitting screens vertically only come with ultrawide displays.
And if you buy an Ultrawide monitor, I would NOT recommend doing it. It is only intended for use if you have two separate video sources that are displaying to a single monitor. If you're connecting one Ultrawide monitor to one computer, then splitting screens is unnecessary.