>>54548200
I've got a 144hz 16:9 (2560x1440) monitor.
I've never tried an ultrawide but if you're interested in gaming, which I assume you are since 144hz, you'll probably end up preferring the higher refresh rates (even on desktop use) and better compatibility.
Many games don't natively support 21:9, or their support is poor as fuck. So you'll have a mainstream ratio and less issue with that.

Do you really utilise the ultrawide factor of it a lot?

>>54548390
I'd love to have some use for it but I have two other monitors and a TV connected to my PC, and even with my 34" ultrawide I prefer to just watch movies from my bed on the big screen. It's great that 21:9 movies fill the entire screen on the ultrawide but other than that I think UW is just a big meme

60hz is eye rape once you move to 144hz, just a warning.

>>54548390
What I want to know is if the TN/IPS difference is really that big. I don't see much of a difference in color quality on this shitty Dell TN from 2008 compared to my IPS ultrawide panel, but I tuned both displays and used .icc profiles so maybe I just don't know what the fuck I'm talking about

>>54548200
I had a Dell ultrawide and moved to a acer g-sync monitor, it took a bit of getting used to but it's not like a huge difference that you'll never get used to

>>54548429
It is, well, for anyone who doesn't do something like image creation/manipulation or perhaps something like writing research papers where you're doing the writing while actually looking at sources.
Ultrawide monitors are best when used for productivity or perhaps on a flight/racing sim, but useless otherwise.

>>54548464
IPS is better out of the box, but if you get a GOOD quality TN and tune it properly, its not really much different at all.
The whole viewing angles argument is a meme.
Who HONESTLY views their monitors at angles where its sub-optimal?