Perhaps it's down to the sheer amount of 4K benchmarking we've done and the whole question of just how important resolution actually is, but recently we've been wondering - are GPU resources best deployed in ever-increasing resolutions based on the same 16:9 aspect ratio? Or should we be considering a different application for the surfeit of graphics power available to PC owners? The rising popularity of ultra-wide 21:9 aspect ratio displays provides a potential alternative to the standard presentation, and based on our initial experiences, this new approach to PC gaming has much to commend it.

Ultra-wide aspect ratios screens typically come in two flavours, running at either 2560x1080 or 3440x1440 resolutions. What we're looking at here are alternatives to the standard 1080p and 1440p displays, with a horizontal pixel count expanded out by 33.3 per cent. Our test model for this feature was supplied by LG - the 34UM67-P - and it's an interesting screen on two fronts: first of all, it's a mammoth 34-inch screen (pretty much the largest available) and secondly, it features support for AMD's FreeSync, the adaptive sync technology that promises the performance of gaming with v-sync disabled, without any of the usual tearing artefacts.

First impressions of this screen are stellar - but it's important to put the screen measurements into context. It's a 34-inch screen, but it's measured across the diagonal meaning that horizontally it's a lot wider than you might imagine, while vertically, we're looking at a height broadly equivalent with a 27-inch 16:9 screen. The 34UM67 boasts the less pixel-dense 2560x1080, but in all other areas, it ticks all the boxes for an upper-mid range display: it utilises IPS technology (with excellent coverage of the sRGB range you'll need for gaming) with decent uniformity and little to no light bleed on the edges. By default, it's rather bright, but once calibrated, image quality is excellent.

LG 34UM67-P specs It's an IPS screen so the response time isn't the greatest, but we found that the 34UM67 was perfectly viable for gaming and the wide aspect ratio and relatively vast real estate makes it great for productivity tasks, in particular video editing. The "-P" suffix ensures you get the FreeSync version of the display. Size: 34 inches

34 inches Panel Type: IPS

IPS Aspect Ratio: 21:9

21:9 Resolution: 2560x1080

2560x1080 Brightness: 300cd/m2

300cd/m2 Response Time: 14ms

14ms Viewing Angle: 178 degrees

178 degrees Pixel Pitch: 0.312x0.310

0.312x0.310 Colour Gamut: sRGB 99%

sRGB 99% Ports: DVI-D, HDMI, DisplayPort, PC Audio In, Headphones Out

DVI-D, HDMI, DisplayPort, PC Audio In, Headphones Out Power Consumption: 53W (0.5W idle)

53W (0.5W idle) Dimensions: 830x173x469mm

830x173x469mm Weight: 7.3kg

Booting into Windows, we found that the additional horizontal real estate yields immediate dividends - the sense of space is similar to a multi-screen set-up, but without the intrusive bezels getting in the way. Editing video on the Adobe Premiere Pro timeline in particular is something of a revelation - much more of the project is on-screen and scrolling is significantly reduced, improving the user experience. Another remarkable feature is the ability to split the screen in half, and run them as two independent streams: from PC you can set the screen up as two individual 1280x1080 displays, or you can choose from an array of scaling and letterboxing options for each portion.

This content is hosted on an external platform, which will only display it if you accept targeting cookies. Please enable cookies to view. Manage cookie settings A video overview of the difference that a 21:9 aspect ratio display brings to gaming, plus a look at the kind of GPU hardware you'll need to run at 2560x1080 and 3440x1440 resolutions.

Order the LG 34UM67 [?] from Amazon with free shipping.

But we're here for the gaming, and it's here that the ultra-wide aspect ratio comes into its own. In games like Project Cars with a cockpit view, the expanded field of view is superb, opening up the screen significantly. First-person shooters are more immersive, presenting more of the environment at any given point - even if the effect is mostly to expand the view into peripheral vision. Perhaps the biggest improvement comes from third person action games; the environment opens out significantly, giving a much more open, cinematic - dare we say it, epic - presentation. Suddenly, the default 16:9 field of view on titles like Assassin's Creed Unity feels somewhat constricted, returning to a standard display almost feels like downgrading back to 4:3 after your first taste of proper widescreen gaming.

So, just how much GPU power do you need to get the job done? Well, to maintain high to ultra settings on modern titles at 2560x1080, we found that AMD's Radeon R9 390 and Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 offer a good experience. These are both cards we'd recommend for traditional 1080p gameplay, and it's safe to say that in terms of scalability to the higher resolution, it's the AMD card that offers the best overall performance compared to its Nvidia rival, which relies on overclocking to claw its way back into contention.

The question is to what extent performance from both cards is impacted when the raw pixel count increases by 33 per cent. The Radeon R9 390 - already faster in most titles at full HD pulls ahead still further at ultra-wide 1080p, our six test titles averaging out at a 13 per cent hit to performance in exchange for that big boost to resolution - a fairly equitable trade. For its part, the GTX 970 fares less well, performance dropping by 19 per cent on aggregate. This works out fairly nicely for the 34UM67-P, as it's a FreeSync monitor, making it a good match for the R9 390.

This content is hosted on an external platform, which will only display it if you accept targeting cookies. Please enable cookies to view. Manage cookie settings We recommend the Radeon R9 390 and the GeForce GTX 970 for a very good ultra-wide gaming experience at 2560x1080. We typically prefer those cards for straight 1080p, and in this comparison you'll see the hit that servicing an extra 33 per cent of resolution incurs on our test system.

R9 390 1920x1080 R9 390 2560x1080 GTX 970 1920x1080 GTX 970 2560x1080 Assassin's Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA 51.6 42.5 51.7 40.1 Battlefield 4, Ultra, 4x MSAA 74.1 62.4 74.6 59.3 Crysis 3, Very High, SMAA T2x 75.1 62.1 71.4 53.7 COD Advanced Warfare, Extra, FSMAA 110.9 100.0 117.9 106.6 Far Cry 4, Ultra, SMAA 82.1 74.6 77.4 58.2 Ryse: Son of Rome, High, SMAA 76.6 70.4 65.1 56.5

FreeSync vs G-Sync So what's the difference between FreeSync and G-Sync? With the arrival of the LG 34UM67-P in the office we can finally get a measure of two different technologies fundamentally attempting the same thing. And the bottom line is this - in optimal conditions, effectively they are like-for-like. However, outside of the ideal operating range, FreeSync can fall short, the extent varying according to the spec of the individual monitor. The adaptive sync technology only works within a specified window - the spec allows for anything between 9Hz to 240Hz, but in the case of the 34UM67, FreeSync only works between 40Hz to 75Hz, meaning that the GPU has to render frames in a 13ms to 25ms time period for the monitor's adaptive refresh tech to work properly. Outside of that, FreeSync drops back to standard display options - v-sync on or v-sync off, meaning judder or tearing. This is not ideal, bearing in mind that adaptive sync is supposed to make this a thing of the past. Displays with wider variable sync windows are appearing, making FreeSync more versatile, but there's the general feeling right now that G-Sync is the more accomplished, smoother version of the tech, adjusting refresh rates dynamically to keep gameplay within the adaptive sync 'window'. In theory then, G-Sync is the better tech - but we'll mitigate that by saying this: if frame-rates drop too low, or if frame delivery is not reasonably even, even G-Sync loses a lot of its appeal. We found that some games were fine at 45fps and over, but most titles only really 'worked' for us by keeping frame-rates consistently above 50fps (first person shooters in particular). You'll note that these frame-rates are well within the constricted 'window' of the LG screen. In short, even with G-Sync's more robust implementation of the variable refresh tech, from our perspective, there's still a practical range where the effect works and where the illusion of fluidity falters. G-Sync is more adaptable when performance momentarily drops, but in practical terms for the vast majority of the run of play, both technologies require us to run at 40-45fps+ consistently to make the effect really work - and that keeps the 34UM67's FreeSync implementation in the game.

But it's the more pixel-dense 3440x1440 wide aspect ratio displays that are attracting the most attention from the enthusiast crowd, specifically because Windows' woeful DPI scaling doesn't need to be engaged on the 34-inch displays - you get a great combination of legibility, app compatibility and a big boost to productivity. On top of that, as we've often mentioned during our top-tier 'uber' GPU reviews, the likes of the R9 Fury X and the GTX 980 Ti feel like they're a generation or two away from offering an excellent experience at 4K - but with the reduced pixel-count found in ultra-wide 1440p, we feel they could be somewhat more viable.

With that in mind, we re-ran our 4K benches at 3440x1440, using our new DisplayPort 1.2 capture system to grab the necessary video data direct from the GPU's output. The results are quite remarkable - frame-rates increase by 46 per cent on aggregate on the Radeon R9 Fury X, while the GTX 980 Ti fares a touch better with a 49 per cent boost. Ultra-wide 1440p only has 60 per cent of the pixels found in a 4K display, but from our perspective, what we lose in sheer pixel density, we gain from a much wider field of view and a clearly superior improvement to frame-rates.

Our LG 34UM67-P monitor only features a 2560x1080 pixel count, but we could still get a feel for the higher-end experience by playing a range of titles with the GTX 980 Ti using its DSR super-sampling downscaling technology. To give you some idea of the power offered by the top-tier GPUs, by dropping down from the maximum very high to the less taxing high settings, we could play Crysis 3's campaign pretty much from start to finish at a locked 75fps (the 34UM67 supports both 60Hz and 75Hz refreshes, though the difference is difficult to discern).

This content is hosted on an external platform, which will only display it if you accept targeting cookies. Please enable cookies to view. Manage cookie settings At the higher 3440x1440 resolution found on the top-end 21:9 displays, we recommend a top-tier card like the GeForce GTX 980 Ti or the Radeon R9 Fury X, and some modest settings reductions. Nvidia has the advantage here overall, but both cards do well.

R9 Fury X 3440x1440 R9 Fury X 3840x2160 GTX 980 Ti 3440x1440 GTX 980 Ti 3840x2160 Assassin's Creed Unity, Very High, FXAA 39.6 25.3 40.8 26.5 Battlefield 4, High, Post-AA 74.4 51.0 91.2 61.0 Crysis 3, High, SMAA T2x 77.0 52.2 81.3 49.2 COD Advanced Warfare, Console Settings, FXAA 107.0 85.3 120.5 86.9 Far Cry 4, Very High, SMAA 68.7 47.1 67.5 50.5 Ryse: Son of Rome, Normal, SMAA 67.7 44.0 64.3 41.7

On the whole, the concept of 21:9 aspect ratio gaming is highly compelling - at 2560x1080, we have good screens like the LG 34UM67 out there, along with reasonably priced graphics cards like the R9 390 that hand in accomplished performance. Meanwhile, the more expensive 3440x1440 displays seem to bring out the best in the 'luxury' GPUs like the R9 Fury X and the GTX 980 Ti - at this resolution, the trades you need to make at 4K are greatly diminished and there's the sense that we've found the ideal sweet spot for these powerful examples of cutting-edge graphics power.

But of course, there are downsides. Shadow of Mordor runs nicely with the correct proportions with virtually any resolution, but curiously, the benchmark doesn't - and that shot highlights a problem you'll find with many games: a lack of support for the 21:9 aspect ratio. Many titles render the requisite number of pixels just fine, but fail to frame the picture correctly. Other games simply won't reveal 3440x1440 or 2560x1080 as a selectable resolution. Meanwhile, some releases fail to offer full support for 'cinematic' aspect ratios throughout the game: The Witcher 3's gameplay works with no problem, but all of the engine-driven cut-scenes only render at 16:9, leaving big black borders across the left and right of the screen.

Thankfully, some help is at hand. The Flawless Widescreen team work tirelessly in making sure that key titles are properly supported, while WSGF.org is another good resource for learning more about the format. The NeoGAF 21:9 aspect ratio thread is also recommended, not just for practical advice but also for a big bunch of excellent screenshots.

A straight head-to-head comparing 16:9 with 21:9 - it's especially useful for certain genre types, such as simulations with cockpit views, and third person action games.