• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

PS5/XSX 21:9 UltraWide Support Confirmed? Phillips 34” UltraWide Momentum Teases

PS9

PS9

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
5,066
72071_02_philips-teases-new-ultrawide-monitors-ready-for-next-gen-consoles.jpg


The Phillips Momentum is not positioned towards PC gamers, instead it is targeting console gamers. Specs are 3440x1440 at 140hz 4ms response.

The juicy part from Phillips:

Take your console gaming experience to the next level
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The monitor currently has no release date. With no consoles on the market currently supporting UltraWide or 144hz, this could be our first confirmation of next gen consoles supporting UltraWide.

I was already planning on picking up a Samsung G9 for PC gaming but this sweetens things up even more.
 
BigTnaples

BigTnaples

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,752
That would be amazing. As my Samnsung TV I play my X and Pro games on is nice 4K 65" Curved and I bought a One Connect box to enable HDR, it's only 400 nuts, so not ideal....

Howver my PG35VQ is 1000nits HDR, Gsync, 200hz, but ultrawide.

I'd love to be able to play console games on I too. Especially with bullshit like when I double dipped for MW2 remastered for HDR on PC, and it didn't have it, but the PS4 version I bought, did, though I couldn't experience it because of lack of 21:9 support.


Anyhoot.

Long story short it would be amazing if they supported this. But I won't put much stock in this info.


Would love to see Phill comment.
 
krae_man

krae_man

Master of Balan Wonderworld
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,608
34" is way too small for console gamers. People in the "what tv should I get to be ready for next gen?" threads think 65" is too small.
 
Qudi

Qudi

Member
Jul 26, 2018
5,329
If consoles support this feature this could be really huge news. I wanted a big ass ultrawide screen, but there are so few games that support it properly that i gave up.
 
degauss

degauss

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
4,631
Hope not.

As it would mean suddenly in multiplayer shooters you are potentially up against people with an FOV advantage.
 
Decarb

Decarb

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,646
Best part about console support would be standardization of ultra-wide across all PC games.
 
ghostcrew

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost
Administrator
Oct 27, 2017
30,385
I think they're probably just trying to cash in on the increased interest in 120Hz to be honest.

This is a 1440p monitor (PS4 didn't even support that resolution - we're still to see if PS5 will or if it'll stick to traditional TV resolutions again 1080p/4k) and super wide at 144Hz - a refresh rate that the consoles don't do. There's no way this isn't primarily aimed at the PC market.

I think it's a throwaway line aimed at getting some sales from console folk who are searching for a quick high refresh rate monitor. Like, 16:9 games work just fine on an ultra-wide. They'd just have borders.
 
Afrikan

Afrikan

Member
Oct 28, 2017
17,032
KBadOne said:
This new Samsung G9 QLED monitor looks interesting. Matches the PS5 color theme

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I keep seeing this mentioned on Era (and don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for Samsungs UltraWide Monitors) but this one doesn't have HDMI 2.1

So I don't know if it would be a good choice for PS5/SeriesX owners, compared to waiting next year for a newer version that might support HDMI 2.1
 
Shopolic

Shopolic

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
6,885
I have 2 silly questions:
1. Does playing in ultrawide need more power than normal view? It shows more details on the screen compared to 16:9, so does it need more processing?
2. Developers need to do some extra things for cut-scenes? I mean a cut-scene in 21:9 have more things on the left and right of screen than 16:9, right? Or they just make left and right black in cut-scenes?
 
8byte

8byte

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,880
Kansas
Nah. I strongly doubt it'll be system wide support for either console. *maybe* a game by game basis, but 100% not system wide.
 
EvilBoris

EvilBoris

Prophet of Truth - HDTVtest
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
16,693
Shambalakan said:
I have 2 silly questions:
1. Does playing in ultrawide need more power than normal view? It shows more details on the screen compared to 16:9, so does it need more processing?
2. Developers need to do some extra things for cut-scenes? I mean a cut-scene in 21:9 have more things on the left and right of screen than 16:9, right? Or they just make left and right black in cut-scenes?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes and Yes
 
Irrotational

Irrotational

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,182
EvilBoris said:
Yes and Yes
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sorry i'm probably being pedantic but isn't that only true if you assume the pixel height of both screens is the same?

If you assume the number of pixels wide is the same then the 21:9 has less height and less pixels in total than the 16:9 version?

I haven't looked at the monitors so maybe they're all marketed/sold as the same number of pixels high but "extra" pixels wide?...which is a good marketing tactic I guess.
 
johan

johan

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,554
Irrotational said:
Sorry i'm probably being pedantic but isn't that only true if you assume the pixel height of both screens is the same?

If you assume the number of pixels wide is the same then the 21:9 has less height and less pixels in total than the 16:9 version?

I haven't looked at the monitors so maybe they're all marketed/sold as the same number of pixels high but "extra" pixels wide?...which is a good marketing tactic I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Should take occlusion culling into account. A wider view will probably mean that more objects have to be set up for drawing, since games usually have more detail horizontally than they do vertically.

How much this actually matters varies per game most likely, and it might even be negligble. However if a console game would support this aspect ratio than they need to consider this during testing and certification. I assume that there are barely any console users that have their device hooked up to a 21:9 screen so doing the work to support it is way too much work.

For multiplats (that also release on PC) you can consider that some work transfers over easily, like UI. But for an exclusive like let's say an TLOU2 it really is going to be a lot of work. Not just because of the UI but because such a game is likely to be optimized to work with a 16:9 aspect ratio on a specific platform.
 
Powerofthecloud

Powerofthecloud

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,433
I think this is dumb.
Most people don't want this.

Just wait, no one will use this feature.
Only like .01% of people would use this.
Kind of like 3D TVs.
I don't know anyone who would use this.
None one wants this.
Going to says this isn't worth it.
 
Fisty

Fisty

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,254
No clue why Philips would have any inside scoop on the next-gen consoles that we dont, its a reach for sure
 
Pargon

Pargon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,041
johan said:
Should take occlusion culling into account. A wider view will probably mean that more objects have to be set up for drawing, since games usually have more detail horizontally than they do vertically.
How much this actually matters varies per game most likely, and it might even be negligble. However if a console game would support this aspect ratio than they need to consider this during testing and certification. I assume that there are barely any console users that have their device hooked up to a 21:9 screen so doing the work to support it is way too much work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It places a lot more work on the CPU. The question is really whether you have enough spare, or the engine can spread that workload across more cores.
I did some testing with Crysis a while back, since it still hits the CPU hard. Custom resolutions were used to keep the pixel count equivalent to 1024×768 in all aspect ratios.
It went from the 0.1% frame rate being 53 FPS over a 60 second test in 4:3, to only 37 FPS in 21:9.

cry-43-yyk57.png
cry-169-lgkvr.png

cry-4318-ojkzy.png


Super ultra-wide (32:9) would be even worse.
I think it's been the cause of a lot of my complaints about performance in games with a Ryzen 1700X.
 
johan

johan

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,554
Pargon said:
It places a lot more work on the CPU. The question is really whether you have enough spare, or the engine can spread that workload across more cores.
I did some testing with Crysis a while back, since it still hits the CPU hard. Custom resolutions were used to keep the pixel count equivalent to 1024×768 in all aspect ratios.
It went from the 0.1% frame rate being 53 FPS over a 60 second test in 4:3, to only 37 FPS in 21:9.

cry-43-yyk57.png
cry-169-lgkvr.png

cry-4318-ojkzy.png


Super ultra-wide (32:9) would be even worse.
I think it's been the cause of a lot of my complaints about performance in games with a Ryzen 1700X.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I assume most new games are developed with multicore in mind, which could help (somewhat). In any case these numbers don't lie! That's worse than I expected, haha. Thanks!!
 
orava

orava

Alt Account
Banned
Jun 10, 2019
1,316
It's most likely just the marketing guys not knowing what they are talking about and taking advantage the console hype.
 
MajesticSoup

MajesticSoup

Banned
Feb 22, 2019
1,935
johan said:
I assume most new games are developed with multicore in mind, which could help (somewhat). In any case these numbers don't lie! That's worse than I expected, haha. Thanks!!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We'll get higher framerates with ultrawide if presumably the average game is 4K(or upscaled 4k) and the standard ultrawide resolution is 1440p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.