UltraWide 21:9 vs UHD 4K | Which is for you?

Which format would you choose? Both 21:9 and UHD offer their unique characteristics but is one better than the other? Yes... but that depends on usage.

Buy items in this video from Amazon at the links below:

Review unit provided free of charge by LG. This video is sponsored by NZXT. As per Hardware Canucks guidelines, no video direction was received from manufacturer. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Gear list (Available on Amazon):

----------------------------------------­--------------------

Follow us for more updates!
----------------------------------------­---------------

[seulgibear]

whenever I watch these "which one is for you" videos I wind up more confused than before

[kylehartzenberg]

Dimitri... everytime I watch one of your videos I can't stop smiling at how damn good the video quality is. From the audio to colour correction to shot perspectives its just utterly enjoyable. Keep up the great work my man!

[ACTlVISION]

I have the 29" LG ultrawide and it's amazing for multitasking. As for black bars, if media doesn't support the 21:9 aspect I'll just keep it windowed and the rest of the real estate might as well be a second monitor since the video is definitely large enough for me and there's plenty of space left

[CharmanderTheAndy]

Your video is so white I paused it and used it to clean out the dusty spots on my monitor

[winkipinky]

I still like my 17" CRT monitor... plus it keeps my room warm as it puts out so much heat. lol

[Outland]

My head says go 4k, my heart says go 21:9.

[catluvr]

21:9 for sure. love it so much. I found 4k resolution a bit useless as lots of applications don't have a nice way to scale the UI for it so things were too small

[sloanstudios]

For actual every day use, ultra wide. Even for video or photo editing. For porn, 4k.

[Mildly_Amused]

After comparing 21:9 and 4K monitors, I went with the 21:9 34" Asus PG348Q for several reasons:
First, the PG348Q offers 100 Hz refresh rates and G-Sync for gaming.
Second, 3440x1440 is a lot less pixels for the graphics card to push, so you get a higher refresh rate.
Third, even the GTX 1080 can't get maintain a minimum of 60 FPS in most newer games at 4K, however the GTX 1080 and other GPUs can can manage over 60 FPS in most newer games at 3440x1440.
Fourth, the 34" curved monitor is an amazing gaming experience. You get better immersion in the games.
Fifth, the current 4K monitors can't do over 60 Hz even if you include the adaptive refresh rate monitors(unless you count thee Dell OLED monitor that cost several thousand dollars). When faster GPUs come out, I'll be limited to 60 Hz at 4K if I were to buy a 4K monitor now.
Sixth, most newer movies are 21:9 and look amazing on the 21:9 monitor. You don't get the black bars at the top and bottom.
Seventh, at 30-34", the distance the screen is away form my eyes on my desk, both the 4K and 3440x1440 monitor have a pixel pitch that's smaller than what I, and most other people, can see at that distance. So, going with 4K really doesn't offer a huge improvement in detail for me at that distance.

[dopespillcomics]

You don't need a flat monitor to do 3D.. your not supposed to draw lines in a perspective view ( only top, or side)

[RobertDemery]

I ended up switching from an ASUS 1440p 34" ultra wide to an LG 2160p 32 inch and haven't looked back. My use case is mostly work (no video editing, I mostly monitor a very large network) and very mild gaming. Some of my more intense games I run at 1440p and the loss is nominal. It usually is used for content consumption which it does without breaking a sweat.

[Poofu]

please start making your videos in 21:9 as a 21:9 UHD monitor owner <3 the video

[merlinklink]

I'd go with 21:9, I wouldn't have to use 2 seperate monitors so I won't have a bezel in the way. 4k is cool and all but I'd much rather have a curved 21:9 screen.

[thelastoneDS]

I went with the 34" LG 21:9 ultra wide screen, and on some game you can expand your field of view giving you an advantage. Love this thing!

[geekgeneration]

love my 34inch curved LG ultrawide. woudnt wanna go back to 16:9

[MaZEEZaM]

I feel like I want BOTH, Ultrawide for gaming and movies and the option of the 4K when you want greater colour and image accuracy.

[factsseeker]

I've been reading since a long time and I don’t recall any website talking about this and apparently 99% of people don’t know the fact that the actual size of the display changes with the aspect ratio, so for example 34 inch 21:9 ultra wide display equals 31.5 16:9, we are using the diagonal length as the size of the display which is accurate in the old days when there was only one aspect ratio which was 4:3 or when you're comparing displays of the same aspect ratio, I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible so I decided to explain this by taking rectangles all of them have the same actual size so when you multiply the length and the width you're gonna get 8, and each one have different aspect ratio (dimensions), and you're gonna notice the wider the rectangle the longer the diameter of the rectangle gets.
Aspect ratio 1:1 Length:2.82 Width:2.82 Diameter:4
AR 5:4 L:3.16 W:2.53 D:4.048
AR 4:3 L:3.266 W2.45 D:4.0825
AR 16:10 L:3.577 W:2.236 D:4.219
AR 16:9 L:3.26 W2.121 D:4.326
AR 18:9 L:4 W:2 D:4.5
AR 21:9 L:4.3205 W1.85 D:4.7
AR 32:9 L:5.333 W:1.5 D:5.54
Like I said all these rectangles got the same exact size if you multiply length and width you're gonna get 8, which is the accurate way to measure the size of rectangles(displays), but as you could notice the diameter which is used to indicate the size of the display changes with aspect ratio. So a 4:3 display with 4.1 inch size display equals 4.7 inch 21:9, I'll mention few more realistic examples, 5:4 19" display with resolution 1280X1024 equals 20.3 16:9 display, 29" old CRT TV equals 30.73 16:9 TV, and 27" 16:9 equals 29.3 21:9, 31.5 display 16:9 equals 34.2, 21:9, 35" 16:9 equals 38" 21:9, 6.2 inch phone 18.5:9 equals 5.95 inch 16:9, 6" 18:9 equals 16:9 5.8 so these phones looks smaller not just because they are bezel less but because the actual size of the display is smaller as well, and finally double full HD 49" 32:9 equals 38" 16:9 displays.
I also want to mention since the size of the display is measured by the diameter of the display that when you double the size of the display the actual size double 4 times for example 8" display is actually 4 times bigger than 4" display, the same goes for the way we measures pixel density which measured by pixel per inch AKA PPI so 200 PPI display has 4 times more pixels than 100 PPI display, How do we calculate PPI? We use Pythagorean equation of triangles which is length^2+width^2=diameter^2
So for example if you want to measure the pixel density of display FHD 27" 1920^2+1080^2=4852800 then you get the root of that number to get the diameter pixels 4852800^0.5=2202.9 then divide that number to the diameter of the display which is in this case is 27 so 2202.9/27=81.5 PPI, a 4k 27" which got 4 times more pixels has 163 PPI.
Displays is the only thing in our life if measured by the diameter size, everything else is measured my multiplying length by width.

[unnaturalone]

Until LG offers a 120hz + 21:9, Ill save my money.

[heffyg]

I've had my 34" LG 34UM67 Ultrawide 2560x1080 monitor for a year now. Never going back to 16:9 monitors. Racing and open world games look amazing and FPS titles are more immersive. 2560x1080 is NOT much more demanding than standard 1080p so most graphics cards can play high settings at full res. You won't be dissapointed if you go 21:9 ultrawide.

[brainny]

Good point on the curvature of a straight line and the scaling issue of UHD.