- Increase ultrawide resolution switchresx 3440x1440 1080p#
- Increase ultrawide resolution switchresx 3440x1440 driver#
- Increase ultrawide resolution switchresx 3440x1440 software#
- Increase ultrawide resolution switchresx 3440x1440 tv#
Increase ultrawide resolution switchresx 3440x1440 software#
flaky software support) but you can easily switch back to 16:9 for games that work better at that ratio. In term of comparing to ultra-wides, well you have the same cons (i.e. This virtual 21:9 trick seems like a more economical choice, and maybe better quality as well.
Increase ultrawide resolution switchresx 3440x1440 tv#
And, finally, the cost of 3 high-res monitors will likely be more than 1 TV (I paid $500 for the Samsung KU6300 I'm using). And 3 monitors is *way* more intensive graphically, meaning you either have to buy better hardware, turn settings down, or both. While you get more pixels with Surround, and a wider FOV, a lot of those pixels are wasted as you can barely see the outer limits. But this honestly may be the better choice over a Surround setup. I kind of like 16:9, and one of the reasons I even bought a 4K TV to use as a monitor was to avoid all the multi-monitor software glitches on Nvidia Surround.
I'm not sure I would play every game like this. Honestly 50Hz looks fine to me, and maybe even smoother than 60Hz but that might just be placebo on my part. Finally I tried a 4K res at 50Hz and that worked (specifically 3840x1640 50Hz) on my Samsung KU6300. Did try 1920x820 60Hz, and that worked fine, so I knew I could do custom resolutions, but they weren't working higher. Tried a bunch of different resolutions around 4K, but none of them were giving me anything but a black screen. It also took me a while to get a custom resolution to work. The down-side is that you then have to deal with ultra widescreen compatibility issues like you would with Surround/Eyefinity or Ultra-Wide monitors (stretched HUDs, UI glitches, incorrect FOV or aspect ratio, etc.). 4K is nowhere near as hard to run as people freak out over, and quit overhyping the 3440x1440 as the better solutionģ440x1440 panels should not cost as much as they do (though they're finally coming down), but customers just seem to blindly follow the hype train, driving prices up.
Increase ultrawide resolution switchresx 3440x1440 driver#
Very far from the most ideal or most optimized setup, but BF4 multiplayer (my most played game), they still hit ~85fps with GPU#1 downclocking to ~900mhz (I'm assuming the driver sees no reason to push power consumption and keeps downclocking them no matter what I try) and GPU2 and 3 at 1202mhz. I'm still running 3x GTX Titans - the original GTX Titans. You just simply open the game, turn off AA (maybe 2x depending on how picky you are), and then play without worrying if it will look satisfying. I've lived with both surround and 21:9 for a year or longer, and while the occasional annoyances of having to fix non-native support games doesn't seem too bad - once you go back to a normal 4K at 16:9, you question why you ever bothered. 16:9 gets a bit too restrictive for my taste, so I made a custom resolution of 1920x810 and, while not losing any of the vertical space advantage for productivity, I still gained the ultrawide FOV for gaming that I prefer:īecause everyone overhypes 21:9 (both flavors - I think 2560x1080 is completely stupid) and everyone over-worries about the requirements to run 4KĤK is just flat out better than 21:9.
Increase ultrawide resolution switchresx 3440x1440 1080p#
I'll give you a quick example: I was playing Arkham Knight yesterday on my 1080p 40" TV. What's the point of an ultrawide, then? It seems it would hurt productivity by eliminating the vertical space option, whereas with a 40" 4K 16:9 display gives you the best of both worlds: ultrawide FOV for games and 4K+vertical space for productivity. Unless you want adaptive sync or the 20ms of lag terribly bother you (I hear your complaints, competitive gamers, but not everybody plays twitch-reflex games), the panels in TVs like the K6300 have excellent color and contrast (just check the reviews). So, why get an actual ultrawide for not much less money (or actually more money if we compare ultrawides to 4K 40" monitors instead of 40" 4K TVs) when you can just set a custom resolution at 2560x1080, 3440x1440 or even 3840x1620 that is greater than what WQHD ultrawides offer and would still fit in a 4K 16:9 panel? You get the same or better resolution at a bigger size and less price (the most comparable size would be LG's new 38UC99 and that costs $1499!! you can buy 3 KU6300s for that amount). Doing some measurements I realized that a 40" TV (or any 4K 40" monitor for that matter) would actually give me a bigger diagonal than any 34" monitor - 37" of ultrawide aspect ratio to be exact. I was considering buying an ultrawide monitor a couple months ago, but lately I've been much more attracted to affordable 4K TVs like the Samsung KU6300 that goes for ~$450. Genuine question here, not trying to start some war.
0 kommentar(er)
