
Ask HN: New Monitor: Ultrawide or 4K? - p_o_t_a_t_o
Monitors that are both cost a lot, so which would you prioritise?
======
pornel
• 1440p (typical for ultrawide) for is a sweet spot for gaming. It's the
highest resolution that works well with current generation of GPUs. In 4K
gaming is hard, because most 4K monitors don't support high or variable
refresh rates, so if the GPU isn't strong enough to consistently hit 60fps at
4K, it'll have to drop all the way to choppy 30hz.

• 4K for text. It really makes a huge difference. If you work with code, and
don't care about color reproduction and black levels, then there are very
cheap 4K monitors.

~~~
ryanmccullagh
I wasn't able to find the specs, but do you know if the MacBook Pro is a 4K
monitor? Reason I ask is, I notice how amazing the text is on this laptop.

~~~
Matthias247
You can find the resolution online. It depends on whether it's a 13" or 15"
model. It is less than 4k, but has a higher DPI then 4k desktop screens. The
only thing which gets as sharp are the 5k 27" screens - that's likely why
Apple decided to make them.

------
nkrisc
I've had a 34" curved ultrawide (3440x1440) for about a month now, and I love
it. For gaming, it's great because my GTX 1080 has no issues with it with the
games I play. For design work, having all that extra horizontal real estate is
great to tuck away palettes and other extras. And for coding I can have an IDE
in 2/3s of the screen and a browser for stupid CSS questions in the other 1/3,
and still have that browser at a width that doesn't trigger mobile media
queries.

~~~
unwiredben
Yes! I've got the Dell Ultrasharp 38 on my desk and it's been wonderful. It
runs at 3840 x 1600 and gives me lots of room for text editor, terminals, and
web browser, filling my line of sight while I'm working.

~~~
ProZsolt
this monitor with double pixel density (7680x3200) would be my dream monitor

------
benologist
I find my 32" 4K scales poorly in macOS, basically I can have everything tiny
or everything massive and the scaling options make no sense there's only 720p,
1080p, 1600x900 or 4K.... there is no option between 1920x1080 and 3840x2160.

In Ubuntu it is more flexible but I think the sweet spot is going to be a 6K
for scaling the UI at 3K but those might be a year or two away from existing
and affordable. At below 30" 5K would be fine, I have a 25" 2.5K monitor that
is very comfortable to use.

~~~
OldSchool
If you're not using a discrete GPU, that addition very possible will open up
some more HiDPI resolutions for you. With a modest RX-460 (recognized in
10.13+) I get a variety of formats starting from a 2560x1440 layout over
3840x2160 pixels, and incrementally more spacious, all still over 3840x2160 on
the wire, all with excellent HiDPI rendering. My intel graphics iGPU delivers
just the limitations you described.

------
p1esk
I thought about monitors quite a bit over the years:

1\. Don't be cheap. You look at the damn thing 1/3 of your waking time.
Monitor is like a mattress - buy the best for what you want to do on it (be it
text, or gaming, or colors, etc). No compromises.

2\. Refresh rate is just as important as resolution. I can feel my eyes
physically hurting as I'm looking at text while I'm scrolling it up or down on
a 60Hz monitor.

3\. Go with dual monitors instead of a single ultrawide. For me it's just
easier to organize files on two smaller screens than on one large one. And I
can have steeper "curvature".

4\. 27" is the ideal size for me. Tried 32" it was too large vertically to
look up and down. Tried 25" it's a bit too small to fit multiple windows.

5\. The ideal setup would be two 27" 5k @ 120Hz, unfortunately they don't
exists yet.

~~~
phonon
> 2\. Refresh rate is just as important as resolution. I can feel my eyes
> physically hurting as I'm looking at text while I'm scrolling it up or down
> on a 60Hz monitor.

LCDs don't actually "refresh" at 60Hz like CRTs do. (The screen is not
"flickering" in a LCD.) Not sure what you are actually reacting to. A faster
refresh rate with a panel type that has lower persistence make look smoother
when scrolling perhaps.

~~~
munmaek
> make look smoother when scrolling

All motion/rendering looks smoother. When I used a 240Hz monitor for the first
time, I literally dragged windows back and forth for a while because the
motion looked so good. Going back to 60Hz now is like nails on chalkboard,
particularly for gaming.

------
Matthias247
High DPI. It makes text so more easy to read. For me personally I also
wouldn't have too much use for ultrawide, since I run most apps in fullscreen
mode and don't like turning my head while working.

High quality 4k/27" are most likely the sweet spot right now and works good
with 175-200% scaling (on MacOS I use 200% and decrease font sizes in some
apps - on Windows 175% works ok). 5k/27" would be the ideal thing, but there
are barely models available, and the requirements for Thunderbolt 3 makes them
less interoperable. I'm waiting for higher resolution screens to show up with
new Displayport and HDMI revisions and would upgrade then.

------
ponyous
I picked 34" Ultrawide. It works just fine for everything. Easy to read,
almost two "regular" monitors worth of screen space. Gaming on 3440x1440 is
hard to max out (but easier than 4k), but you barely notice the difference
between 3440x1440 and 2560x1080 in most games.

I actually quite like the aspect ratio - it means I can have 2 windows in
normal proportions (IDE for example) and another one on the side (terminal for
example)

1 thing to note; I thought 34" Ultrawide will be bigger screen than it turned
out to be.

~~~
matt_the_bass
Me too. I use a windows manager and generally work with 3 windows across.
Middle window is 50%, each side is 25%. This gives me a “full size” main
window (like browser, 2 column ide, etc). One side is “monitoring” for things
like cmd, git bash, slack, etc. other side is “reference” For things like
PDFs, spec sheets, etc. this works great for me. One full size window gives me
4 large ide columns. I also often use 25%/75% for “monitoring”/“ide”.
Occasionally I use 50%/50% for comparisons.

I like it a lot. Sometimes I wish it was 200px taller but not often.

Some of my colleagues have 42” 4ks. They are also great but I find my head
needs to move up and down. With my 34” ultra wide, only my eyes move up ab
down.

I think 1 large monitor is way better than 2 monitors nearly all the time.
True for either 4K or Ultra wise.

Also get one that is curved.

~~~
steev
Do you have any thoughts on a 32" 4k? I am struggling to decide if I should go
with an ultrawide or just a standard 32"

~~~
matt_the_bass
I’ve only used 42 4K. And 34 ultra wide. But I feel like 32 4K would be too
small

------
darkteflon
I’m on a 40” 4k, have been for a couple of years. It’s generally fantastic and
a huge leap up from either a 32” 4k panel Or two 27” 1440p panels. No
comparison. However, I do often find myself thinking that I would give up some
of the vertical real estate for extra space on either side; you can run a
three (even) column setup but it feels just that little bit too tight. If
you’ve an IDE up covering 2/3 of the horizontal space and 1/3 of the screen as
a browser or terminal, there’s no room for anything else. My next monitor will
be ultrawide.

------
SomeHacker44
I use a 27" 4k at work and a 38" ultrawide (3840x1600) at home. The 38" is too
big frankly; maybe some of the mentioned 34" are better. I do like having
Rider and Unity open in full size windows with room for terminal windows and
other stuff on the ultrawide but for longer use I prefer the higher DPI of the
4k.

------
buboard
My pet peeve with ultrawide is the wobbling. I suggest one that has two legs
(are there any?)

~~~
matt_the_bass
Invest in a good vesa mount

~~~
buboard
i just place some toy to support the ends. I wish manufacturers cared for
wobbling more. Those tiny vibrations under heavy eye fixation for hours a day
are tiring.

------
muzani
I picked a 4K. It works just fine for everything. Easy to read, more than two
"regular" monitors worth of screen space.

The only downside was that games couldn't max out on it, even with good specs
and Gsync. That might be where ultrawide does better.

------
zamubafoo
I had a Dell 4K USB-C 32" 2019 model and then got an Alienware Ultrawide 34"
2018 (1440p) when a friend was moving and didn't have space for it.

Unless you need the smaller resolution for gaming performance, I'd go 4K
everytime. You probably won't get anything above 60Hz refresh rate for a
reasonable price. But, if all you are doing is programming, consuming content,
and browsing the internet, it is more than sufficient.

If you do any color specific work, you can get some pretty good panels in the
4K display range.

------
jpeloquin
If you spend a lot of time reading and writing, a 4K monitor with a diagonal ≤
28" is a good pick. The switch from ~ 100 ppi to ~ 160 ppi feels like a vision
correction akin to new glasses or contacts.

With the aim of filling both central and peripheral vision with screen space,
I use 3 × 28" 4K monitors on a triple VESA mount (EasyMountLCD EZM 002-0020).
Having sufficient screen space for /everything/ related to my current task
feels like it reduces pressure on my short-term memory.

------
ebiester
I think it's very personal. I prefer ultrawide because my eyes are a little
older at this point and 34 inches has the best compromise for me. 42 inches
would have me moving my head around too much. (that said, I have a smaller 15
inch laptop monitor on the side that I use for status windows, and that does
have me swivel my head.)

For younger people, I might suggest the 4k. However, I'd go into a best buy
and spend some time looking at them and imagining your daily activities.

~~~
Matthias247
Get the 4k, set scaling to 200%, and be amazed on how much easier things are
to read on it. That will come with a loss in screen estate, but I rarely need
it. For applications where you want more text you can still decrease the font
size and have far more readable text than on a screen with lower resolution.

------
KingMachiavelli
Depends on your use case and operating systems. Are either/both of the
monitors high DPI? Do you want thinks to look 'sharper' or do you want more
screen real estate.

It also depends on which operating system you are using. Scaling on Linux is
pretty terrible so I wanted a monitor that had ~100dpi so that no special
scaling would be required. I also wanted the screen real estate of 4 ~22"
monitors, so a 43" 4k monitor was perfect for my use case.

------
felipebrnd
Ultrawide experience has been great, I use it at my home office and 2 screens
at the company office and the ultrawide offers much more readability and
productivity.

------
yodi
I have made long research and comparison about this. My budget was $1200 usd.
My need basically browsing, sending email, write docs and coding. Nothing
fancy and i have small working room.

Finally, i bought 38inch curve ultrawide (was huge 25% discount). I found it
amazing and been using it for 1 year now. I have 34inch flat screen at office,
but i prefer 38inch.

I tried more than 40 inch screen at office but i got neck problem for that.

------
timmaxw
I went for a 4k 28" monitor because it has the same DPI as my 1080p 14" laptop
screen, which is convenient when using them together.

------
cweagans
I really like the new super ultrawides (32:9 instead of 21:9). I picked up one
of these earlier this year and have not been disappointed:
[https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-49WL95C-W-ultrawide-
monito...](https://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-49WL95C-W-ultrawide-monitor)

------
hashberry
The priority depends on your usage of vertical space vs horizontal space.
Ultrawide is great for spreadsheets, music/video/timeline editing, etc. For
coding, ultrawide is nice for splitting your IDE into 3-4 sections, however
there is more vertical scrolling vs 4K.

------
LeonM
I'm on a 42" 4K at work (software developement).

In my experience 42" is too big to be ergonomic. Width is not the issue but
height is: it takes too much strain on your eyes to look up to the top of the
screen.

If I were to buy a new work monitor I would probably go for ultiwide.

------
nik736
For a long time I was using a 27" 4k screen. I recently upgraded to a 32" 4k
screen and tried ultra wides before buying. For me, nothing beats a single 32"
4k screen. Sadly there are no 32" 5k screens, otherwise I would have bought
one.

------
diweirich
I have a 4k monitor and a 2k monitor. If I could go back and do it over, I'd
just get a 2k ultra-wide. The 4k monitor has caused me a lot of headaches
trying to get hardware / software to support it with dual displays.

------
ijustwanttovote
I made the mistake of getting an ultrawide that is not curved. Been getting
some neck and trap issues from it. Doesn't matter which one, but just make
sure it's curved if you get an ultrawide.

------
AzzieElbab
Depends on your eyes. Mine(I wear glasses) prefer 4k for text/code. Will try
4k curved at some point to avoid unnecessary neck movements

------
jryan49
I love my new 34 inch 1440p ultrawide. I used to have two monitors. The
ultrawide experience is just so good.

------
aswinkarthik93
I am still at 24" 1080p and i like it the most for gaming and working. Overall
works best for me.

------
turbo_fart_box
Had both. Now have a 32in 4k. Go with the 4k but 32in. 28 is too small and
over 32 is too bog

------
equalunique
Whatever route you go, make sure the monitor you get is a curved one.

------
ta0xdeadbeef
How is 4k on Ubuntu these days?

------
karmakaze
Wide and tall, 43" 4k

------
villgax
Go wide or go home

------
righteous
I just picked up the lg 5k2k 34 inch ultra wide. I’m very happy with it.
Before this, I ran two 3440x1440 displays but got tired of how pixelated
everything looked.

If you’re ok windows or Linux, dell makes an 8k 32” display that you might
enjoy. It’s fallen to just a couple thousand dollars now on amazon. Sadly
incompatible with the Mac.

------
faissaloo
I don't see why you wouldn't just get a 1080p monitor

