29" ultrawide or 27" 16:9 monitor?

File: 1480010533571.jpg (65KB, 480x411px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 480x411px

>>57864511
>tfw fell for the 16:9 meme

>>57864511
get a 16:10 monitor, faggot

>>57864522
>falling for an even bigger meme

File: 1481025568150.jpg (439KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 2048x1365px

Maybe this can help you:
http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-29-inch-21x9

Just dont go below 29 if you choose utrawide, the height gets extremely low.

>>57864530
Roll

>>57864530
roll for lesbian

File: kyoko pars.jpg (122KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1280x720px

>>57864530
dumpy one

I already smell like shit, so the con will be a pro

File: 29cbce20a4c2b68356ae28a77f8db55e.jpg (51KB, 640x593px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x593px

>>57866099
>>57864530
Okay I am the "nerd" as a real gamer, rerolling for lesbian gf.

29" for 21:9 is too small. 34" or bust.

t. Owner of a 29" 21:9 monitor.

>>57864530
rolling

>>57864530
roll

>>57864530
roll

>>57864530
Consider suicide

>>57864511
Def ultrawide. Didn't believe the 'increased productivity' shit until I actually tried one, now I have a 34".

File: 1481036401230.jpg (380KB, 1280x1801px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1280x1801px

Go wide anon.

29" for 1080p
34" for 1440p

>>57866144
Post pics of your battlestation, not doubting you, just want to see.

>>57864511
ultrawide really means ultrashort, OP.

> 27" 16:9 = 23.5"x13.25" = 311 in^2
> 29" 21:9 = 26.75"x11.25" = 301 in^2

IMO, losing 2" of height is a bigger subjective loss than a gain of 3" of width as well.

>>57869526
Depends on the use. Movies and specially games benefit a lot from 21:9.

>>57869555
>games benefit a lot from 21:9
You've never played any sort of competitive, have you? Casual.

>>57864522
this. best choice of my life. ignore the meme faggots like >>57864590

>>57864511
1. Never buy an ultrawide smaller than 34"
2. Go for 16:9 if you want a smaller one

File: Capture.png (7KB, 710x454px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 710x454px

Also, using this anon's helpful link >>57865048

I keked a bit inside.

>>57869555
If you can't afford a standalone TV, you shouldn't be gimping your display's ability to deal with work for the sake of one particular type of video content.

Also, not every genre of vidya, even FPS, actually benefits from a shorter/wider FOV.
Even going from 16:10 to 16:9 on my newer UHD display feels constraining in some ways.

File: p3.jpg (94KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x800px

>>57864511
27" 1:1 monitor.

>>57869736
It's strangely satisfying. I want to hate it, but I can't.

>>57869704
>>57869723
>>57869683
OP here. If it helps, I'm coming from a 24" 1080p display. I don't do work on my computer so a 16:10 has no appeal to me.

>>57870181
FWIW, even mere shitposting benefits from more vertical space.

File: 1481057677950.png (6KB, 720x352px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 720x352px

>>57870181
It depends what you do in your computer.
Even if not all gaymen support 21:9 it still feels immersive on the gaymen that do support it (also there is a large community of people online who create fixes for games that doesn't 21:9)

I personally have two monitors, one 21:9 and another 16:9 (like pic related). I was under the impression that Utrawide was a meme until I got one.

Things to consider:
- 29 is to big for 16:9 1080p
- 29 is the sweet spot for 1080p 21:9
- 32 is the sweet spot for 1440p 21:9

>>57871550

That's very nice to hear since you own a 24" 16:9 just like me. What are the models of your monitors?

Don't want to start a new thread.

Can somebody recommend a really good ultrawide monitor, to be used for movies (and gaming too, but that comes secondary)