Dell is about to release a new monitor (3440*1440, curved)

Source, source 2

I know some here likes the 21:9 format, which up until recently has had a 2560*1080 resolution. LG has released one (or two) 3440*1440 monitors this year, AOC another one, and now it is close to Dell to release one as well.

The monitor has a 34” panel, which provides a resolution of 3440 by 1440 pixels. While Dell did not reveal to us the panel type, the company did reveal some details. For starters, the panel covers 99 percent of the sRGB color space, with a Delta-E of <3. It can display up to 1.074 billion colors, and viewing angles are 178°/ 172°. The monitor also comes with an adjustable stand that you can tilt, swivel, and adjust in height with a range of 115 mm. Considering the aspect ratio of the monitor, let’s not blame Dell for not having the stand support rotating the monitor to a portrait orientation....

Display inputs include HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.2, Mini DisplayPort and an MHL interface. The refresh rate is 60 Hz, with 8 ms gray-to-gray response times. The monitor will also have a pair of built-in 9-watt speakers.

Personally I don't see the need for speakers in it, but otherwise I really like the look of it. Here to hoping it won't cost to much =/

What do you guys think?

Change the topic title to include "curved" its far more appealing that its curved but not sure how that translates to a portrait view.

I've been waiting for this... I have the 29" Dell 21:9 monitor.

Was about to pull the trigger on the LG but the ergonomics of the stand and the quality control of LG put me off at that price.

2015 will be the exciting for upgrades :D. 390X and a 34" ultra wide IPS. Wooooop.

Also what do I think?... I think 21:9 is the best thing to happen to monitors in a long time. Would take a 34" 21:9 IPS monitor over any other monitor available. I love my 29" dell... Best purchase I have ever made when it comes to PC's.

21:9 is absolutely stunning for gaming. It gives every game a cinematic feel. With the curved screen, even more now. It's also IPS so the color will be phenomenal. I have the Dell U27 (1440p IPS) and I use it for every game now, I even ditched my 120hz monitor.

This thing will be expensive...probably 1k or more lol.

I originally was going to get a 21-9 but everything I read told me to stay away. Games old and new don't support the format that well. UI's almost never scale and often you can get issues with certain games textures looking stretched or ballooned. Want one but not when most game companies are barely putting time or investment into making their games run properly on the various options available.

Any game that supports multimonitors should support it. Less older games support that I know.

Good idea. Will do.

I hope it isn't much over 1000$... Hopefully it will come down a bit in price before my birthday next year. I really want one of these.

When it comes to support its a bit of a b**** to be honest.

There is a program called Flawless Widescreen that fixes what developer don't seem to think needs fixing.

Its really the only downside to 21:9.

For the most part new games are no problem unless its a Japanese developer then you are stuck with 16:9. with black bars either side.

if I get one of these I think I am stuck with 16:9 at 2560*1440 until I get a new GPU. Do believe my GTX 680 doesn't support over 2560*1600... At least I think the box said so.

Maximum digital resolution is 4096x2160... So you are good to go running a 3440x1440 monitor with Display Port.

All these wide-aspect ratio monitors seem cool for workstation type stuff but for gaming I think I'd definitely avoid these. Actually, I think I'd just avoid these in general - there's really no content to properly take advantage of such an aspect ratio or resolution - seems much more detrimental to the grand scheme of things than helpful. Honestly - I prefer 16:10 to 16:9 as is, 16:10 does a much better job at filling my vision than 16:9, and anything thinner than that wouldn't even have a chance. Practicality is always #1 with me, seeking to make everything more "cinema-like" is very far down on my list. It's cool that the option will be available to people who want it though. I like the idea of having options when it comes to viewing shtuff.

Where's your proof that its IPS?

What I though as well, but the retailer's site said 2560*1600. MSI own page about the card doesn't list anything. Anway jumping up to 2560*1440 will be a big jump for me. Atm I use 1920*1200.

Isn't every Ultrasharp series monitor from Dell IPS? Also it uses the same panel as LG 34UM95 which is IPS...

i love the idea of 21:9 size for gaming, i never got a monitor yet that has it... i was looking around for one but there were none that were pure gaming ones so i'm kinda just waiting to see what will come. I'm glad they are developing more 21:9 monitors, this is gonna be pretty sweet.

I think the monitor will be good, but it lacks G-Sync and would be tough to hold 60 fps at that resolution. Also, you are limiting yourself to 60 fps.

I disagree with the no content mumbo jumbo..

Things suited for 21:9... Especially the higher resolution ones like this.

• Movies - Movies run at 21:9
• Games - 90% of my steam library that consists of 100+ games supports 21:9
• Video editing and programming - Have a ultra wide screen monitor lets you run two pages simultaneously or in lightroom and sony vegas you just get more horizontal space witch is FAR more important than vertical pixels.

People on-line tend to have opinions on things without using them and its a little annoying. Stop it.

Running Adobe Lightroom on my 21:9 monitor is a f***ing delight.

Practicality?... I don't even.

Gaming is a not even up for debate if I'm honest... What would you rather play:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@KHAndAnime said:

All these wide-aspect ratio monitors seem cool for workstation type stuff but for gaming I think I'd definitely avoid these. Actually, I think I'd just avoid these in general - there's really no content to properly take advantage of such an aspect ratio or resolution - seems much more detrimental to the grand scheme of things than helpful. Honestly - I prefer 16:10 to 16:9 as is, 16:10 does a much better job at filling my vision than 16:9, and anything thinner than that wouldn't even have a chance. Practicality is always #1 with me, seeking to make everything more "cinema-like" is very far down on my list. It's cool that the option will be available to people who want it though. I like the idea of having options when it comes to viewing shtuff.

I disagree with the no content mumbo jumbo..

Things suited for 21:9... Especially the higher resolution ones like this.

• Movies - Movies run at 21:9
• Games - 90% of my steam library that consists of 100+ games supports 21:9
• Video editing and programming - Have a ultra wide screen monitor lets you run two pages simultaneously or in lightroom and sony vegas you just get more horizontal space witch is FAR more important than vertical pixels.

People on-line tend to have opinions on things without using them and its a little annoying. Stop it.

Running Adobe Lightroom on my 21:9 monitor is a f***ing delight.

Practicality?... I don't even.

Gaming is a not even up for debate if I'm honest... What would you rather play:

I'd pick the top one, first off because the interface typically wouldn't be crappily fitted on the screen like you have there. Second, it fills more of my eyesight. I don't have slit-eyelids, I can see above and below the image - there's zero good reason to sacrifice height for width.

It's great that 90% of your Steam library supports it. Mine definitely doesn't. At least not natively. Your interface in the middle of the screen is ugly and I wouldn't put up with it, sorry. Nor am I sure if I'd want to exchange the performance hit of having a cranked up FoV just so I can have that extra width. Seems unnecessary and I'd rather have that extra performance when need it. I don't watch movies on my monitor, I have a home theater setup for that. I do watch HBO and TV shows on my monitor though - and they're much more acaccommodating towards 16:10 than 21:9 (they aren't nearly as wide as movies).

In the end, it just doesn't benefit me in any way, but it definitely detriments me. It just doesn't make sense to get. For the extra potential headache and performance cost - I'm not particularly wishing I had a wider screen. If I did, I'd have 16:9 instead of 16:10. But like I said - I think 16:10 fills more of my eyesight. Feels more efficient in a workspace environment too. The worst thing about it is it being curved. It limits the optimum viewing angle a ton and isn't very conducive to having multiple people watching the same screen.

Like I said, not too practical.

See that's the thing that perplexed me, you cant bend IPS. It doesn't flex that way.

Source

@KHAndAnime You keep saying "productive" but list not one one pro or con other than "I prefer"... Personally I think its great that you don't want a ultra-wide monitor, but I have to add my two cents to counter that whole productive road your taking. As a photographer I have a 30" 16:10 Nec at work which is superb but using my 21:9 at home is far more productive for my needs as I can view two 5:4 shots side by side in when processing images in light-room, a higher resolution and bigger version of my 21:9 would be a INSTANT replacement at the end of the tax year for my work monitor.

I get that you don't want one. Its fine.

As a user of one for professional use and for games I have to say that apart from the occasional missing support from some games the aspect ratio is far superior to 16:9 and very much NEEDED in PRODUCTIVE professional environments since most people have been using two monitors to replicate what can now be done on one.

Opinions are one thing but horizontal space is far superior in almost every program I have ever used. A 4/5K version would make everything in a working environment absolutely redundant.

But but but

I'm still waiting for a price drop on the LG 34UM95 which still costs way over $1000 here in Australia.

In Norway it costs 7299 at the cheapest store, which is 1100$ with todays exchange rate I believe. It did cost 9999 before though.

I'm still waiting for 21:9 (2560x1080 is fine for me) IPS @120-144Hz. If Korean IPS monitors can push 120Hz on 2560x1440 by overclocking them, I'm sure with a bit of effort, major companies can push it on mainstream monitors. G-Sync is a bonus.

I personally think 1 of 2 things, LG are lying and its not IPS or the other option, its not simple IPS to begin with. Maybe its some new tech and the specifications don't disclose that.

We have S-IPS and H-IPS already, maybe this is something like B-IPS (the B stands for bendable). I cant find the in-depth technical specs anywhere, if you can find it, please share.

I agree with you the extra horizontal space defiantly makes a difference for productivity beyond just the extra resolution space in windows to fit things on the desktop there's a reason when people go for multi monitor you will almost always see them stacked side by side not it just makes sense people eye are horizontal not vertical its the way where naturally meant to view things are horizontal fov is much wider then our vertical even our peripheral vision works like this. Its no wonder 16:9 monitors and T.V have been pretty much completely replaced 4:3 monitors wider is better fills more of a our fov. Now a 16:9 screen might already be good enough for most buts its hard to deny the benefits a wider aspect ratio screen offers for productivity on the computer and for gaming.

Personally I'll be sticking with 1080p 16:9 screens though as I don't like not being able to clone my desktop display with T.V and seamlessly switch between using either or for games having the same resolution is essential for this so no monitor only resolutions or aspect ratio for me. When 4K drops in price and becomes more cost effective to buy monitors and T.V/Projectors that support it along with the graphics card muscle needed to run games at those high resolution at 60fps with all the bells and whistles turned up I'll move onto that but I'm fine with 1080p for now. If I really need more desktop real estate I'll look into buying adding a secondary monitor at my desktop setup just for that would be nice to have.

?

I never said "productive" once lol. I simply said that I believe in my personal scenario, 16:10 is more productive (if you're referring to how I said it's a more efficient workspace). It differs from person to person on what they do, but nothing I do requires a super wide window to work in. Unless you mistyped and meant "practical". In which case: what? Didn't list any reasons why? As I said, one huge reason is that having a big curved screen has a smaller viewing angle than a non-curved screen. It's not that hard to understand, really. If you like having guests over, like I do, it's completely impractical.

@GTR12: didn't find anything yet however we will knows once the 34UC97 is out for sale.

I don't find "curved" monitors/TVs attractive at all..

Maybe not as a TV, but as a monitor that will primarily be used by me, one person only, I like the idea of it. Haven't tried it yet though.

It might take a few weeks then, until proper reviewers get it.