More workspace without extremely small pixels: that is what UWQHD-monitors promise. You pay a hefty price, but the nine models that we will cover throughout this article are all premium quality. Even so there are huge differences and not just in price. Which one is the best option for your desk?
Previously we already covered Ultra HD-monitors, this time we cover the ones with somewhat fewer pixels. Even so, these UWQHD-monitors are extremely interesting. With 3440x1440, or nearly 5 million pixels, they offer significantly more workspace than 'regular' WQHD-models with 2560x1440 pixels (which adds up to 3.7 million pixels). Because of the wide dimensions these pixels are not smaller than they would be with a 27-inch WQHD-monitor, the pixel density comes to 110 pixels per inch. In practice this means that, in contrast to Ultra HD, you do not need software scaling. This means you can use the full resolution with programs looking exactly the same as they would normally.
A 24-inch 16:9-monitor in front of a 34-inch 43:18-monitor
These monitors have a 43:18 ratio, although manufacturers usually talk about 21:9. This ratio means that, size-wise, the screen is no taller than a 27-inch monitor. However it is visibly wider: about 33 inches in most instances. Combined with the high resolution this means plenty of useful applications. People who type a lot will be happy with the ability to display four full A4 pages next to each other, photographers have all the space they need for their pictures and tools, video editors can easily display the needed timelines, tools and windows. Gamers have a phenomenally wide field of view in FPS games and a massive overview in strategy games, provided the game supports the resolution. The amount of pixels that has to be calculated is a lot easier on the video card than the 8 million pixels of an UHD-monitor. Lastly, all the models in this test feature picture-by-picture functionality. In short, a monitor with this resolution is extremely interesting; in our opinion more so than the in 2013 introduced Full-HD variant with 2560x1080 pixels.
Not everything shines...
Even so not everything shines. For starters, these monitors are without exception not exactly cheap. Even the 'cheapest' models in this test cost more than 500 pounds and prizes of about 700 pounds, or 750 dollars and 1000 dollars, are not exceptional. With that, these monitors cost as much as high-end 27- and 32-inch Ultra HD-monitors, which clearly offer more pixels for the same price (3840x2160). Moreover, the monitors are not really more economic when it comes to power usage than the previously mentioned competitors, so the consumption-per-pixel is more.
Add to that that not every game can handle this resolution and aspect ratio, while most monitors in our test showed some input lag. Not an awful lot, but enough to deter people that like lightning fast FPS games. The response times are not that great either. Keep in mind that you can still game using these monitors, but for those of you that want the fastest images without ghosting or overdrive artifacting it is still better go with a fast TN-monitor. One that has a WQHD-resolution and 144Hz refresh rate costs about as much as the cheapest models in this test. Either way, if you have this much money to spend there are more choices than ever before...