>>53876903
why would you get 21:9? I'm genuinely curious. what use case does it fit?

> I want to see things side by side
get another monitor

> I want more screen real estate
so why would you go wider? that makes no sense. go 16:10

>>53876953
>why would you get 21:9?
Having more tabs next to each other.
Also I like non-mainstream (consumer) tech. Obviously if you have a good argument why 21:9 is worthless please say it and it'll save me a lot of money.

>>53876903
My size? 7inch dick, bitch

>>53877004
I knew this one was coming.

>>53876968
I have no argument why it's worthless, just an argument on why it's not better. For what it's worth I've sorta been a 16:10 purist for many years, so my opinion here doesn't matter much.

>>53876968
...More tabs?
You mean you're going to fullscreen a web browser on an ultrawide just so you can have more tabs open?
It's time you learned about vertical tabs.

>>53877012
I was also looking into 16:10, but altough I've used 16:10 screens and they are far superior to 16:9, the difference isn't THAT big.
>>53877070
No I ment that I run windows next to each other, watching series while browsing etc. This obviously works better on 21:9 than 16:9

File: Screen Shot.png (2 MB, 2560x1080) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 2560x1080

I have some LG 25um55. Cheapest 21:9 I could find.

It's not the best because of its resolution and obviously 60hz is shit for games. But after this I cannot go back to 16:10. This is too comfortable.

I have a 16:10 120hz monitor collecting dust. Its resolution is low and I could not consider using it right now, if only because I care about electricity

Where can I even find a monitor that is less than 12 inches?

>>53876903

Uh, do you not have a Fry's or Microcenter to go see one near you? I think 21:9 monitors look fantastic and are, imo, a better upgrade from 1920x1080 than 2560x1440 because they have a bit less pixels thus will run better on games.

21:9 hate is mostly autism, once you see on in person and game/split screen on it you'll definitely like it. Keep in mind some of the autists on /g/ would unironically prefer 4:3 to 16:9 or even 16:10. Aesthetically and in terms of best value and experience for general viewing and gaming 21:9 is pretty sweet.

>>53878093

I have to say as a 21:9 monitor owner that while it's worth it, there's definitely more content for normal aspect ratios. Many games on PC are stretched, have a shitty FoV, black bars or require some modding to get them to work on that. Movies benefit from this, but TV shows definitely don't. I think that the issue here is that it's not that popular really.

>>53878257

I was thinking/expecting that games would scale fine for 21:9 considering I think they scale fine for 16:10 and a ton of different 16:9 resolutions.

That's kind of disappointing, I wanted to upgrade from 1920x1080 but didn't want the shit game performance of 1440p.

>>53878334
You'll get better performance under 2560x1080 than 2560x1440, that's for sure. It's just not half the games out there support this aspect ratio. I like how in some reviews people are all like "oh hey, source games are perfect on this" but they do not take in account the fact that if you play online you're locked down at a certain FoV and everything is kinda stretched in any case. Many games recognize the resolution but will do their own thing (putting all the HUD at the center or being sort of glitchy, putting black bars, etc). Steam on big picture, if you ever use that, will only accept 1080p as the highest resolution available.

This is like the early days of 120hz. There were maybe 3 or 4 in stores, everyone thought their only purpose was to watch shit in 3D. Many games were locked down at 60fps and all. It was still fucking sweet but not standard, and standard is what often works.

Regardless, if it's not about games, I think it's hella good. I would have a hard time to adapt to a 1080p monitor now and the only reason I'd get a normal ratio monitor is if had a really high resolution. Nowadays I read and design more than play games so fucking retina displays would be nice.

>>53878093
Human field of view is approximately 180 degrees horizontal, and 135 degrees vertical.

If you actually wanted a screen that was "best" for games, you would be using a 18:13.5 ratio. 18:13.5 is much closer to 16:12 (4:3) than it is to 16:9 or 16:10 or 21:9.

Scientific proof that widescreen is for memesters.

>>53878513
18:13.5 is actually 4:3 * 4.5, therefore 4:3 is actually exactly the same as human fov.

>>53878513

Is this some "humans can only see 24fps" bullshit? I can open my eyes like a maniac and have a different field of view.

>>53878334

I don't play many games (none online currently) but if it scales right with AAA titles like Xcom 2, Fallout 4, Far Cry 4, EU4 and shit like that I can deal. I bought a 27" 1080 Asus monitor a couple weeks ago and aside from the picture being fucking awful, the pixels are too big on a 27" display. I'm seriously considering 1440 but I only have a EVGA 970 which is barely enough for lowly 1080 at highish settings. Dunno, maybe I'll find a decent price on a 21:9 but Micro Center didn't have much options in them.

>>53878546
Can you open your eyes like a maniac and see 360 degrees?

Are you retarded?

>>53878568
No, I can reach my limit. Doesn't mean 100% of the time I would have a field of view of 135 degrees vertical as you claim. It could be lower.

I don't know how the fuck did you even come to that conclusion.

>>53878547
meant for
>>53878419

>>53878595
Are you actually saying that because you have obstructed part of your field of view it no longer exists?

When you close your eyes, do you see nothing, or do you see your eyelids?

>>53878547
Keep in mind that ultrawide 25'' is not that big. If you had a 22'' 16:10 monitor it'd be taller than that. You want something big ultrawide you have to go with ultrawide 29'' and believe me, pixels get ugly there.

>>53878634
What I'm saying is that unless you're fucking James Holmes, you're obstructing part of that view pretty much most of the time. Unless you actually mean that's the "average" field of view. There's no two states, no "close eyelid" "open eyelid".

Do I have to draw a goddamn picture?