Jump to content

Ultra-Wide Monitors 21:9


25 replies to this topic

#1 Grimm Peaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 175 posts
  • LocationEnjoys long walks with Assault mechs

Posted 20 August 2014 - 06:17 AM

Has anyone used one for mwo yet? One like this:

Posted Image

http://www.newegg.co...5-634-_-Product


They seem like a much better alternative to eyefinity/surround because of:

1) no seams
2) better compatibility as you don't need eyefinity support
3) no microstutter
4) Costs about the same as 3 monitors

What kind of graphics card would be needed to run it smoothly on high v-high settings? Do these types of monitors work well for mwo?

Edited by Grimm Peaper, 20 August 2014 - 06:19 AM.


#2 Raidflex

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 63 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 20 August 2014 - 07:39 AM

View PostGrimm Peaper, on 20 August 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

Has anyone used one for mwo yet? One like this:

Posted Image

http://www.newegg.co...5-634-_-Product


They seem like a much better alternative to eyefinity/surround because of:

1) no seams
2) better compatibility as you don't need eyefinity support
3) no microstutter
4) Costs about the same as 3 monitors

What kind of graphics card would be needed to run it smoothly on high v-high settings? Do these types of monitors work well for mwo?


I do have the LG 34UM95 and it is an awesome monitor for gaming. Unfortunately with MWO and no SLI support, even with a GTX 780 Ti using very high settings results in dips into the low 30's or even 20's. Average FPS barley hits 60 FPS, depending on the map. I have SLI GTX 780 Ti's and after trying the work around to get SLI support in MWO, when it did work I was seeing over 100 FPS on average. But the game was unplayable due to ghost images being displayed every second.

#3 Alreech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 1,649 posts

Posted 20 August 2014 - 10:59 AM

View PostRaidflex, on 20 August 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

Unfortunately with MWO and no SLI support, even with a GTX 780 Ti using very high settings results in dips into the low 30's or even 20's. Average FPS barley hits 60 FPS, depending on the map.

Just out of curiosity... what's your CPU ?

I'm thinking of building a new PC in Fall / Winter and still not sure if I should choose an overclocked I5 (Devils Canyon of course) or an i7 (or it's Xeon Variant).

#4 Raidflex

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 63 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 20 August 2014 - 12:05 PM

View PostAlreech, on 20 August 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

Just out of curiosity... what's your CPU ?

I'm thinking of building a new PC in Fall / Winter and still not sure if I should choose an overclocked I5 (Devils Canyon of course) or an i7 (or it's Xeon Variant).


Still on i7 920@ 4.2GHz. My next upgrade is either x99 or Z97 system.

#5 POOTYTANGASAUR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 595 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:25 PM

The non-sli support isnt why your frames are low. I have a 290 windforce and get 60 fps on my 1080p, 1600p monitors. This puppy even gets 45 fps on my smexy 4k asus blah blah (the cheaper one). I would assume a 780Ti should be getting that easily. Maybe your old i7 is being a *****. I have an i5-3570k @ 4.5Ghz and do just fine. 60 fps locked at 1080p. 60 fps with drops to 45 at 1440p. 50 fps avg and drops to 25ish at 4k (but single GPU for 4k isnt really viable quite yet. unless you run a 290x with watercooling and OC that ****)

#6 Barbaric Soul

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 887 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 04:33 AM

View PostRaidflex, on 20 August 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:


I do have the LG 34UM95 and it is an awesome monitor for gaming. Unfortunately with MWO and no SLI support, even with a GTX 780 Ti using very high settings results in dips into the low 30's or even 20's. Average FPS barley hits 60 FPS, depending on the map. I have SLI GTX 780 Ti's and after trying the work around to get SLI support in MWO, when it did work I was seeing over 100 FPS on average. But the game was unplayable due to ghost images being displayed every second.

View PostAlreech, on 20 August 2014 - 10:59 AM, said:

Just out of curiosity... what's your CPU ?

I'm thinking of building a new PC in Fall / Winter and still not sure if I should choose an overclocked I5 (Devils Canyon of course) or an i7 (or it's Xeon Variant).

View PostRaidflex, on 20 August 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

Still on i7 920@ 4.2GHz. My next upgrade is either x99 or Z97 system.


Hmm, my 780ti, which boosts up to 1.27GHz, does not seem to have a problem maintaining a minimum 45 fps at 2560*1600 IIRC, but that is with it paired with either a 2600k OC'ed to 4.5GHz or a 3930k OC'ed to 4.3GHz. I don't play MW:O much, so I'll go play a game or two and see if I do in fact stay above 45 fps to make sure what I'm saying is correct.

#7 J0N3S

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 52 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 05:00 AM

I got an LG 29EB93-P.

Bought it especially for MWO.
I prefer more horizontal Vision.

i5@4,5 + GTX760OC does the Job. Sometimes Game goes down to 30-45 FPS but i think its the poor CryEngine Optimiziaton itself in MWO.

21:9 gives you a small tactical Advance in detecting Enemies on your peripherial Vison. Most Games i got provide excellent Support for the Resolution @2560x1080.

Most Modells of the LG can be tuned up to 75-90 Hz. So the Disadvantage in comparing it to an 120/144Hz Monitor isn't soo big.

#8 Barbaric Soul

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 887 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 06:12 AM

View PostBarbaric Soul, on 22 August 2014 - 04:33 AM, said:


Hmm, my 780ti, which boosts up to 1.27GHz, does not seem to have a problem maintaining a minimum 45 fps at 2560*1600 IIRC, but that is with it paired with either a 2600k OC'ed to 4.5GHz or a 3930k OC'ed to 4.3GHz. I don't play MW:O much, so I'll go play a game or two and see if I do in fact stay above 45 fps to make sure what I'm saying is correct.


Confirmed, two games played,tourmaline and river city, never saw lower than 50 FPS with rig listed out in my sig, all setting very high, motion blur turned off, 2560*1600 resolution.

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 22 August 2014 - 06:26 AM.


#9 Modo44

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 3,559 posts

Posted 22 August 2014 - 06:19 AM

With 4K/UltraHD coming in, you can buy really good and pretty cheap 27" and 30" high resolution IPS monitors now. This 21:9 thing is a gimmick. The issue with MWO specifically is, it forces a limited set of resolutions, so the silly monitor format may be required to get that widescreen experience. I have a 2560x1600 monitor (16:10 30 inch), but MWO will not let me use many widescreen resolutions that would fit.

#10 NoSkillRush

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 1,202 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 11 December 2016 - 11:36 PM

Anyone else running 21:9 with solid FPS?

#11 Kai Allard-Liao

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 67 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, TX

Posted 12 December 2016 - 01:36 AM

I am, I'll check my FPS next game.

#12 Kai Allard-Liao

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 67 posts
  • LocationSan Antonio, TX

Posted 12 December 2016 - 01:52 AM

Averaged 81 FPS, bounced up to 120, and low of 70. Using 1070 with LG 34UM58-P as my main and my 27" Samsung as my second monitor. Second monitor was just running windows, not MWO.

#13 NoSkillRush

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 1,202 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 12 December 2016 - 09:10 AM

View PostKai Allard-Liao, on 12 December 2016 - 01:52 AM, said:

Averaged 81 FPS, bounced up to 120, and low of 70. Using 1070 with LG 34UM58-P as my main and my 27" Samsung as my second monitor. Second monitor was just running windows, not MWO.


Thanks for the feedback buddy. How are you liking the 2560 x 1080 res?

Edited by FileTitan, 12 December 2016 - 09:11 AM.


#14 Flapdrol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,986 posts

Posted 12 December 2016 - 01:06 PM

View PostFileTitan, on 11 December 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

Anyone else running 21:9 with solid FPS?

I'm running an LG29UM68 with an r9 290 (needed an amd card for freesync), have fps capped at 70 with a user.cfg file, I call it solid, not sure if you would :). Runs great, but when a round starts I have to alt-enter twice to get mechwarrior to set the screen to 75hz, for some reason it defaults to 60, very annoying.

Oh, and long time no see :)

I guess you should be looking at those 3440x1440 gsync screens, afaik there are only 4 of them, so you won't have to do a lot of research. Posted Image

#15 NoSkillRush

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 1,202 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 12 December 2016 - 01:20 PM

View PostFlapdrol, on 12 December 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

I'm running an LG29UM68 with an r9 290 (needed an amd card for freesync), have fps capped at 70 with a user.cfg file, I call it solid, not sure if you would Posted Image. Runs great, but when a round starts I have to alt-enter twice to get mechwarrior to set the screen to 75hz, for some reason it defaults to 60, very annoying.

Oh, and long time no see Posted Image

I guess you should be looking at those 3440x1440 gsync screens, afaik there are only 4 of them, so you won't have to do a lot of research. Posted Image


Flapppp!!!!!!!! haha good to hear from you buddy! Hope all is well =) thanks thanks for the feedback as always!

#16 Flapdrol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,986 posts

Posted 12 December 2016 - 01:50 PM

Likewise.

Impressive thread necromancy btw.

#17 Bill Lumbar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • 2,073 posts

Posted 16 December 2016 - 06:52 PM

I looked into getting the 29" and the 34" version of these monitors, in the end, I went with a 32" BenQ 1440P monitor and haven't regretted my choice. They look nice, but I have heard you run into issues with MWO with these monitors. I love my BenQ, it has been a great monitor for this game.

#18 Flapdrol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,986 posts

Posted 18 December 2016 - 01:48 AM

View PostBill Lumbar, on 16 December 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

I have heard you run into issues with MWO with these monitors.

What kind of issues?

#19 Peter2k

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,032 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 18 December 2016 - 04:30 AM

View PostBill Lumbar, on 16 December 2016 - 06:52 PM, said:

I looked into getting the 29" and the 34" version of these monitors, in the end, I went with a 32" BenQ 1440P monitor and haven't regretted my choice. They look nice, but I have heard you run into issues with MWO with these monitors. I love my BenQ, it has been a great monitor for this game.


4k yes, as the UI doesn't scale up, making everything tiny

21:9
No problem, rather more to see in matches, and in the mechlab

If anything it needs better support in other games
In skyrim you need a mod for the UI or you can't see all things for instance
The only upside of Cryengine, it scales naturally to all resolution available to you're system
UE needs specific support for more exotic resolutions me thinks

Really nice big 21:9 monitors, maybe with a curve, can cover most of you're vision, without a bezel somewhere
Nice to have
But not perfect
Mass effect 3 you can play only with black borders on the sides for instance
Except you use a tool to change VoF

#20 Galaxie 500

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 35 posts

Posted 17 January 2017 - 09:51 PM

Bonus question: Those of you with 21:9 monitors, what do you set your in-game "First-person Field of Vision" (FOV) to? I'm hoping the additional monitor width makes sense with raising your FOV to much wider than the default 60 degrees?

At 16:9 you can go to about 80 before things start to look really distorted like viewing the battlefield through a wide-angle lens. I have wondered, but haven't really figured out yet, whether I do better with a wider field of vision, or if that's only an illusion and I actually aim and fire better with a narrower FOV so that I focus on what I need to focus on. I mean, since I'd better be torso twisting anyway. Noob question that I will continue to work out.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users