Pros and cons of ultra-wide screen: Why did I give up 21:9 and chose 32-inch 4K 16:9

The ultra-wide screen display provides greater screen space and visually reduces clutter. But for me, the extra setbacks in the game and the wasted screen space in many apps ended up having enough of me. After years of using the ultra-wide screen, switching to a 32-inch 4K 16:9 monitor improved my productivity.

Advantages of ultra-wide screen

I purchased my first ultra-wide screen monitor in February 2018. It completely changed my experience. I switched from two 27-inch 16:9 monitors to one 34-inch 21:9 monitor and I really liked it.

It provides almost the same screen space as two separate monitors, but without the middle border line. I really like this. It also performs well in the game.

The ultra-wide screen ratio allows me to see more content at once while video editing and playing certain games.

Using only one ultra-wide screen monitor on my desktop also reduces the clutter caused by multiple monitors. I no longer need two monitor stands, two display cables, two power cords and two huge screens to occupy my desktop. There is only one monitor, which is a good change compared to the messy settings of the previous two screens.

Disadvantages of ultra-wide screen

While I like my ultra-widescreen settings, it is not without its drawbacks.

Most applications work well at 21:9 ultra-wide screen ratio, but not all applications are. In the game, I process a lot more pixels than the standard 16:9 screen. The normal 1440p 16:9 display has 3,686,400 pixels, while the 1440p 21:9 display has 4,953,600 pixels. By comparison, the 16:9 4K display has about 8,294,400 pixels, which is equivalent to running 21:9 and 16:9 1440p displays simultaneously.

This increases the number of GPU driver pixels by approximately 50%. In normal tasks, this is not a problem. However, in games, if your GPU is not strong enough, it may cause a significant drop in frame count.

However, in the game, it's not just a performance drop that's my downside. Not all games support 21:9 aspect ratios completely natively. Some games support it, but some games simply stretch the UI and game elements to fill the screen. This does not lead to a good experience.

When I first got my ultrawide screen, it was a bigger question than today. Most games are indeed natively support a ratio of 21:9 (or even 32:9). However, not all games with official support do this well. So, keep this in mind.

Why did I choose to go back to 16:9

End of the day, I chose to go back to the 16:9 monitor on my desktop. I started using the 16:9 gaming monitor I already have, a 27-inch 1440p 240Hz screen from a Porsche design.

Using this monitor made me understand that 16:9 actually improves my productivity and is more suitable for my work tasks. On my ultra-wide screen display, the Obsidian (the writing app of my choice) is quite special, it takes up the entire 21:9 ratio while I'm just typing in the middle. There is a lot of space being wasted. I don't have this problem on the 16:9 monitor.

16:9 monitors also look better for me (if this is the correct way to express it). The game feels right again, the video editing feels right again, and the photo editing feels right again. Everything feels right again. I'm not sure how to express it, but I didn't realize how much I missed until I got back to 16:9.

End of all, switching from a single 21:9 monitor to a single 16:9 monitor, my productivity improved.

Why is a 32-inch 16:9 monitor a good alternative

While I really like the Porsche-designed monitors, the fact that I can't install the VESA bracket like my ultra-wide screen is, prompting me to look for something else. At this time, I found a 32-inch 4K 144Hz monitor on Facebook Marketplace for extremely low prices.

Once I switched to a 32-inch 4K 16:9 screen, I knew I had found my home. When I dropped from 21:9 1440p to 16:9, my overall screen space was slightly reduced, but 4K (and larger sizes) did make up for that.

After using a 32-inch 4K monitor for a few weeks, I honestly don't want to change it back. If anything, I'll buy another 32-inch 4K monitor and go back to the dual 16:9 configuration. Why? Because I can choose whether to expand my game on both monitors (which is possible), or just play the game on a 16:9 monitor and use the other for other purposes. I can choose whether or not I want to open more applications. And that's exactly what I really want: the right to choose.

If you've tried to drop from a 34-inch ultra-wide screen to a 27-inch standard monitor before and then back to an ultra-wide screen, I suggest you try a 32-inch screen. This is really a decisive factor for me and the main reason why I stick to 16:9 for the foreseeable time in the future.

##### Gigabyte M32U

Original price $730, now $500, saving $230 The Gigabyte M32U 4K 144Hz monitor is perfect for any gaming or productivity setup. The larger 32-inch size combined with 4K resolution provides plenty of screen space without looking too large. Its 144Hz refresh rate provides smooth visuals, making it especially suitable for gamers. With 10-bit color and 123% sRBG color gamut coverage, as well as VESA DIsplayHDR 400 certification, this monitor is also perfect for content creation. Add to that built-in USB-C KVM and USB 3.0 hub, along with dual HDMI 2.1 ports and DisplayPort 1.4, you'll have a powerful all-around display.

Amazon price $500

The above is the detailed content of Wider Isn't Always Better: Why I Went Back to 16:9 from Ultrawide. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!