Monitor choices - Ultrawide 144hz vs 1440p 144hz

[peterson]

So with a choice between this Dell 144hz TN panel
[url]https://www.amazon.co.jp/Dell-%E3%83%87%E3%82%A3%E3%82%B9%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%82%A4-S2716DG-G-Sync%E5%AF%BE%E5%BF%9C-144Hz%E9%A7%86%E5%8B%95/dp/B014IKZN0O/ref=sr_1_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1486200169&sr=1-1&keywords=dell+144hz[/url]

or

[url]https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B01LY1A3ER/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=10SBC8NWBHTGD&coliid=I1SXWBNKHAVL2G&psc=1[/url]

What would be the way to go?

I have a 1070 graphics card and I don't play as many games as I used to be I still play occasionally.

Which do you prefer?

[Big D Duchovny]

Personally I prefer having vertical space over more horizontal, but I suppose you could argue that you could have a better workspace when running two applications on the ultrawide.

I've never used a 144Hz monitor, so I can't really tell you how much that's worth compared to, say, IPS, on a monitor, if you don't game much.

[Mynameislol]

I'd go for the LG, if you've been used to 1080p at 27", you should be fine with the LG.

Also, the LG is IPS, and i'd go for lower resolution, better panel over higher resolution, worse panel anyday.

[redBadger]

I'd honestly get the 1440p. If you're looking to have more space for better workflow, you'll get more with the 1440p.

[Levelog]

1440p over 2560x1080 any day. Plus 2560x1080@34" is pretty bad. While the Dell may be TN it's a pretty solid TN panel and despite what the internet may tell you in places TN isn't inherently bad, especially for gaming.
But yeah, better DPI and adaptive sync take the win without a doubt.

[peterson]

Thanks everyone. I'll be going with the 27' Dell panel. Thanks for the suggestions.

[The Baconator]

Wider aspect ratios are worse for work. Heck 3:2 is becoming a thing (on Surface for example) because 16:9 is too wide.

[Levelog]

[QUOTE=The Baconator;51778604]Wider aspect ratios are worse for work. Heck 3:2 is becoming a thing (on Surface for example) because 16:9 is too wide.[/QUOTE]

Really depends on the work

[editline]5th February 2017[/editline]

Speaking as someone who owns and regularly uses screens in 21:9, 16:9, 16:10, and 3:2 they all have merits and work types that they're better than the rest at. 21:9 probably has the least though.

[Mynameislol]

I've never understood why people have issues with lower resolution screens

I mean, at home i'm using a CRT monitor with the resolution of 800x600, and i'm perfectly fine with it!

[VikeeVeekie]

For some applications it's really crammed, a perfect example would be running VMware with the guest machine on 1024x768.
[T]https://f.lewd.se/Aqs8qA_2017-02-06_13-58-12.png[/T]

[Mynameislol]

[QUOTE=Lolkork;51784047]because they look bad[/QUOTE]

Then why isn't everybody using 4k monitors?