This is a 49 inch super ultra wide monitor and this thing is massive. Physically it's
equivalent to having two 27 inch monitors side by side, which I also have here. We'll compare
these two setups to see which one's better for gaming, productivity, and ultimately for you.
I purchased all three of these monitors myself so all opinions are my own. But first let's get into
the specs. The 49-inch monitor has a 1800R curve, but isn't fully uniform. The ruler test shows that
the sides are not as curved as the middle, but it's gentle enough that I don't notice it at all.
I mean normally you'd angle dual monitors anyways, so this parallels that effect. Depending on how
you position them the ultra wide covers the same footprint as the dual monitor setup. The
resolution for the ultra wide is 3840 1080. With a 144hz refresh rate and the dual displays are both
27 inches combined they have a total resolution of 5120 by 1440 with a 144hz refresh rate. Now you
might be wondering why I didn't choose to get a 5120 by 1440p resolution for the ultrawide-
and it really comes down to this: I bought this monitor for gaming and my graphics card simply
can't handle the higher resolution. Now that we know what we're working with let's jump right in.
All right so this is horizon 4. I don't think anyone plays this game with a dual monitor setup
yeah the middle bezel is just too annoying. so I swapped over to the ultrawide and this is a
lot better. Wow it's actually really really nice. You can see a lot more of the world
and your peripherals are just covered. So just to compare to what 16 by 9 would look like here
is 16 by 9, and here we are back to the ultra wide. It's pretty significant difference. You
definitely get a lot more horizontal viewing with this. The good thing is you can change the UI so
that the speedometer and the mini map are a lot closer to the center. Otherwise, you're going to
be shaking your head like this all the time. Yeah definitely the ultra wide is the way to go here.
This is Call of Duty and wow it is nice. Like my entire peripherals is just screen okay.
I could see more of the world for sure. Like I don't know if the 32x9 gives you more of an
advantage. Just looking around the edges you have a lot more stretching. The mouse feels like you're
on a lower sensitivity but that might be one of those things that you have to get used to.
Alright, this is Flight Simulator and it feels like you're inside the cockpit just because the
peripherals again the peripherals are just covered all the time. Yeah it's it's no comparison, no
doubt this is way better than a 16x9 setup, just because you could see more of the world. And it's
better than a dual monitor setup because there's also no border in the middle just like horizon.
I could see how some people could get a bit of motion sickness. I mean if if that happens you
can just use third-person view. Yeah I don't know how this would compare to a triple monitor setup
because with that you still have bezels. I think it might be a toss-up. I would have to test that
This is Age of Empires 4 and I can already tell that the ultra wide gives a better field of view.
I mean it just looks a lot more cinematic. Like you can see more troops horizontally and
you can just tell by the mini map. So one thing I noticed is that the game doesn't support changing
UI positioning. So the minimap and toolbars -they're all in the corners. Now this is
good if you're playing through campaign but the moment you hit multiplayer or anything competitive
that'll put you at a disadvantage. Until they fix this I feel I'm more of a fan of the 16x9
Alright, so this is the League. You can see more of the battlefield. But like there's no way to
change the minimap in this game so you'll have to move your head around a lot. I think just
like AOE, I think this game is better in 16x9 than 32x9 just because you can't change the UI.
Alright, next let's move on to productivity so this is coding and if you're used to portrait
orientation for one of the monitors well you're stuck in the landscape. I'm going to install this
program called Display Fusion so I can divide my windows into 2/3 block and a 1/3 block and
it's actually pretty nice. I have my code in the larger section and stack overflow off to the side.
I can see why a lot of people hype this up now and it's really quite something. In this case there's
no real advantage to having two screens. With the ultra wide you can move it in 2/3s block or even
you can have it like a 16x9 in the middle with two like half screens along the side, just because you
don't have that bezel in the middle. So for productivity the ultrawide has an advantage.
Alright, this is Youtube and content consumption. I can get Youtube and
two other browsers going on at the same time and if I wanted to view a video in full screen it's
in the middle. So you do get some black borders around with the full screen
but it's not super distracting because this is a VA panel. Also has disadvantages like if you
wanted to browse internet while watching a full screen movie then you can't really do that but
it's like I don't have to turn my head to see the movie kind of thing.
So this next one is cad design and I'm using inventor. Like this jet engine for example
you can just make it stretch the entire screen. Yeah this is this is something else. But I mean if
you're working on small components it probably won't work as well but for large things like
this jet engine yeah it works really really well. If you have clients or something over
and you wanted to show them like your project this is hands down the best way to do it.
So after going through all these performance tests there's a few minor details that I want
to mention. Unlike a dual monitor setup there's no need to align anything but the trade-off is
a lack of upgrade paths. If something breaks then you'll have to replace the entire display.
With dual monitors you don't have to replace the entire setup. Finally the price right now this
is going for $1250CAD, but it can also be found for $1000US dollars. The dual monitors that I
used costed $380 dollars for the LG and 300 US for the HP. Added together that's $680 total for both.
This is over $300 cheaper than the super ultra wide, which is enough to buy another HP display,
Alright that was a lot of information so let's recap.
The super ultra wide sets a new bar for immersive gaming
especially if the game supports adjustable UI.
In general it's more flexible because there's more freedom to reorganize windows.
Black borders around full screen movies are not distracting at all because of the VA panel.
There's also no need to align the monitors. And cad design looks amazing.
As for downsides the super ultrawide is physically very large and heavy.
If something breaks then you'll have to replace the entire thing.
And finally it's more expensive.
If you're thinking of getting a super ultra wide I think the advantages are worth the trade-offs.
Not having a bezel in the middle makes everything a lot more flexible.
That said it really comes down to budget and when you're planning to get your next upgrade.
If you already have a dual monitor setup, I don't think it's worth it unless you really
want to play Horizon or Flight Sim. If you are in the market
consider getting a 48 inch OLED panel. Those are like the super ultra wide, but taller.
Alright that was a lot of information
and it's pretty easy to miss something. I recommend rewinding and watching this again.
Trust me, it's better the second time. Thanks for watching and subscribe.