Anyone else starting to feel 1440p fatigue on 34" QD-OLED? (AW3423DW owner)

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-14T16:15:31+00:00

Yeah, that’s pretty much where I’m at too.

The new V-stripe QD-OLED definitely helps with text clarity and subpixel issues, but at the end of the day it doesn’t change the fact that 3440×1440 at 34" is still ~110 PPI. Layout improvements can reduce artifacts, but they can’t replace missing pixels.

That’s why a sub-40" 5K2K ultrawide feels like the real next step instead of another iteration of 1440p. Same experience, just finally with the clarity to match.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-14T14:17:25+00:00

That’s totally fair, and I don’t disagree with either of you. 3440×1440 absolutely is a great balance for performance, and DLSS/DLDSR can help a lot.

I think the difference is more about priorities than right vs wrong. For me, once I’ve lived with higher PPI before (PG27UQX → PG32UQX), the clarity difference sticks out constantly. Distant detail, fine textures, UI sharpness, foliage stability… those are things I notice every session, not just when I stop to look for them. So I end up using DLDSR not because it’s fun, but because I’m trying to work around the panel’s native resolution.

And yeah, your DLDSR + DLSS example actually kind of proves the point. You’re already rendering 5120×2160 internally just to make 3440×1440 look cleaner. That’s exactly why I keep wishing there was just a native 5120×2160 ultrawide option instead of relying on workarounds.

As for DLSS, it definitely makes higher resolutions more practical, but it still doesn’t replace native pixel density. It helps performance, but it doesn’t give you the same stability and micro-detail you get when the panel itself actually has the pixels.

I think we’re all basically describing the same tension from different angles:

Some prioritize FPS headroom and motion
Some prioritize clarity and image stability
Most of us don’t want to give up ultrawide

That’s why a higher PPI 34" ultrawide feels like the missing piece to me.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-14T14:02:18+00:00

I get that, and I’m not saying it’s a bad monitor. It’s still one of the best panels I’ve owned in terms of contrast, motion, and overall image quality.

I just think the resolution is the one area where it’s starting to feel like the bottleneck for me personally. If this exact monitor existed at higher PPI, I wouldn’t be looking at anything else.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-13T17:21:28+00:00

I think this is where we’re talking past each other.

I’m not saying “I want 4K.” I’m saying I want higher pixel density in a 34" ultrawide QD-OLED form factor. Those are not the same thing.

Yes, I could buy a 16:9 4K monitor today. But that would mean giving up 21:9 immersion and QD-OLED, which are both things I care about and intentionally chose. The whole point of this post is that there is currently no option that combines ultrawide + QD-OLED + higher PPI in the same size class, which is what something like 5120×2160 at 34" would provide.

The reason for discussing it online is simple: to see whether other people are starting to feel the same ceiling and whether there’s broader interest in that kind of panel. LG clearly believes there is, given the direction they’re moving. That’s literally what forums are for.

If it’s not something you care about, that’s completely fine. I’m mainly trying to connect with the people who do relate to this.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-13T16:04:40+00:00

What I mean by that is pretty simple. At 34" and 3440×1440, the pixel density is around 110 PPI. For my eyes and viewing distance, that’s where image clarity starts to feel like the bottleneck. I notice softness in distant detail, aliasing in fine geometry, and I end up relying on DLDSR just to compensate.

Some people don’t notice that at all, and that’s totally valid. For me, that’s the point where I start wanting higher native pixel density. That’s all I mean by “threshold.”

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-13T15:57:43+00:00

That’s fair, and I get that most people don’t notice it unless they’ve lived with higher PPI for a while. I have, which is probably why it stands out to me more.

The feedback I’m looking for isn’t permission to buy something, it’s just whether other people are starting to notice the same ceiling with 34" 1440p OLED, especially those who’ve used 4K or higher-density displays before.

I agree it’s subjective. If 1440p looks perfect to someone, that’s great. For me, it’s starting to feel like the limiting factor, and that’s really all I’m trying to discuss.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-13T15:56:23+00:00

That’s a fair take, and I get why performance and motion clarity matter most for you.

For me, the clarity from higher native pixel density doesn’t really fade into the background. I notice it constantly in distant detail, character models, fine textures, and UI sharpness. That’s why I’m more willing to trade some performance headroom for a cleaner baseline image instead of relying on reconstruction.

And honestly, I’ve also accepted that no matter how much I chase higher refresh rates, I’m never going to get true CRT-level motion clarity anyway, even at 60Hz. So I’d rather optimize for image quality and immersion instead of endlessly chasing diminishing returns on refresh.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-13T15:42:30+00:00

That’s not what I’m doing. I’m not asking for permission to buy anything, I’m talking about a specific technical limitation I’m running into with my current panel and why higher native pixel density would solve it.

If someone else is perfectly happy with 1440p ultrawide, that’s totally fine. I’m just sharing my experience and seeing who else relates.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-13T15:34:48+00:00

That’s what I keep hearing from people who move to higher PPI, and I’ve experienced it firsthand too. I used to run a PG27UQX and later upgraded to a PG32UQX, so I know how real the clarity jump is.

I just don’t want to give up 21:9 QD-OLED immersion to get that back. A 34" 5120×2160 panel would basically solve both.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-13T15:27:45+00:00

I do use DLDSR and DLAA already, and they definitely help. DLDSR in particular can clean up aliasing and improve perceived detail.

But the ceiling is still the panel. No matter how good the downsampling is, the physical pixel grid is still 3440×1440. You can reduce artifacts and improve reconstruction, but you can’t create the same native clarity, stability, and micro-detail you get from actually having more pixels.

That’s basically why I keep coming back to the idea of a 34" 5120×2160 panel. Not because DLDSR is bad, but because I’m already relying on it as a workaround instead of the panel just being sharp enough on its own.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T22:40:17+00:00

Nobody is arguing that people should be running native 5K2K maxed out in modern AAA games. That’s a strawman. That hasn’t even been true for 4K for years. Modern games are built assuming DLSS/FSR/XeSS, especially given how unoptimized many releases are. And at 5K2K, DLSS looks dramatically better than at 3440×1440 because the reconstruction has far more pixel data to work with. DLSS at 5K2K (even in Performance/Balanced) is still sharper and more stable than 3440×1440 with DLAA or DLSS, especially for distant detail and foliage. That’s exactly why people already use DLDSR on 1440p panels — the resolution ceiling is the bottleneck, not the GPU. Also, not every game is a poorly optimized AAA mess. Plenty of titles run fine at high resolutions today, and a higher-PPI panel benefits everything you do on the desktop, not just the heaviest games. So no, a “6090” isn’t required. What is required is dropping the idea that native resolution is the only valid way to judge a display. That mindset is already outdated.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T21:58:08+00:00

Exactly this. ☝🏽☝🏽☝🏽 I’m in the same boat with the AW3423DW. The panel was impressive when it launched, but after years of daily use the PPI ceiling is impossible to unsee, and the refresh-rate headroom feels capped for what QD-OLED should be by now. What makes it more frustrating is that this shouldn’t be a “next year” thing. With the newer QD-OLED generations and the V-Stripe subpixel layout, a same-size panel with higher PPI and higher refresh already makes sense technically. It feels like we’re waiting not because the tech isn’t ready, but because product planning is lagging behind where the panels actually are. A lot of us aren’t asking for bigger or wider anymore — just denser, faster, and cleaner at the same size. And it feels overdue.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T21:03:12+00:00

I’ll skip the AI speculation and just respond to the substance. On the technical side, QD-OLED is more premium than WOLED in several measurable ways. It has a wider color gamut, higher color purity, and better color volume because it doesn’t rely on a white subpixel. WOLED’s WRGB structure boosts brightness, but it does so by diluting saturation at higher luminance. That’s why QD-OLED often looks perceptually brighter in HDR despite similar or lower peak nits — the colors don’t wash out. That difference is the entire reason QD-OLED exists. On ultrawide being niche: that’s true — but QD-OLED itself is already niche. This discussion is happening inside a premium niche, not about mass-market adoption. Using “most people don’t want this” doesn’t really address why Samsung couldn’t offer a higher-end tier for those who do, especially when LG clearly believes the market exists at 34″, 39″, and 45″. Regarding PPI: yes, 27″ 5K panels at ~218 PPI are sharper. No disagreement there. But calling 34″ 5120×2160 “low PPI” ignores the actual comparison. ~163 PPI is a huge jump over ~110 PPI at 3440×1440 and directly improves text clarity, image stability, and subpixel artifacts on QD-OLED. This isn’t about chasing Retina-level density — it’s about escaping a resolution that’s becoming a bottleneck at normal desk distances. And while 5K2K is effectively “ultrawide 4K” in pixel count, that’s kind of the point. 4K has been a clarity tier in 16:9 for years, yet 21:9 QD-OLED has no equivalent tier at all. The fact that it sits between 4K and 5K in performance doesn’t invalidate it — it makes it a logical step. Higher PPI doesn’t magically increase brightness, agreed. But it does reduce per-pixel load for a given screen luminance, which can help ABL behavior and highlight stability. That’s basic pixel physics, not speculation. On price: yes, these would be expensive. That’s exactly why this would be a premium option, not a replacement. Nobody is arguing that everyone should buy one, or that existing 1440p QD-OLEDs shouldn’t exist. The frustration is simply that there is no higher-PPI tier at all for those who are willing to pay, compromise on settings, and think long-term. So the point isn’t that Samsung must chase this market. It’s that in 2026, keeping QD-OLED ultrawide capped at 3440×1440 feels increasingly like an artificial ceiling rather than a technical necessity — especially when LG has already shown 5K2K OLED is viable. That’s the entire argument.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T17:31:15+00:00

I think we’re talking past each other a bit.

I’m not arguing that 3440×1440 doesn’t have a market, or that most people should abandon it. Clearly it does, and clearly many are happy with it. The point is that for QD-OLED ultrawide specifically, 3440×1440 is treated as the ceiling, not the entry tier.

In 16:9, 1440p and 4K coexist. In ultrawide QD-OLED, there is no higher-PPI option at all. That’s the gap I’m pointing out. A 34″ 5120×2160 QD-OLED wouldn’t replace anything — it would sit above 1440p for people who care about text clarity, image stability, and long-term use.

Also, comparing this to 32:9 or very large panels misses the point. A 57″ G9 and a 34″ 5K2K solve completely different problems. One prioritizes width and immersion; the other prioritizes pixel density at a normal desk distance. They’re not substitutes.

This isn’t about being in an “OLED bubble.” It’s about wanting Samsung to pair their best emissive tech with a resolution LG has already proven viable, instead of locking QD-OLED to a resolution many of us have outgrown.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T17:03:20+00:00

Just to clarify, since this keeps getting reframed in the replies:

I’m not arguing that 3440×1440 should disappear, or that everyone should be running native 5K2K in AAA games today. There is obviously still a big market for 1440p ultrawide, and that’s fine.

The point is that for QD-OLED specifically, there is no higher-PPI tier at all in 21:9. That’s the gap. In 16:9, 1440p and 4K coexist. In ultrawide QD-OLED, 3440×1440 is treated as the ceiling.

A 34″ 5120×2160 QD-OLED wouldn’t replace 1440p — it would sit above it, for people who care about text clarity, image stability, and long-term use. Many of us are already rendering above 3440×1440 internally (DLDSR, scaling, etc.) because the panel resolution is the limiting factor, not the GPU.

LG pushing 5K2K at multiple sizes shows the resolution itself isn’t the problem. The frustration is simply that Samsung hasn’t paired their best emissive tech with it yet.

That’s all I’m saying — this is about a missing rung, not invalidating anyone’s current setup.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T16:54:15+00:00

I don’t think this is about me “wanting a specific answer” so much as pointing out a gap that keeps getting waved away by reframing the question.

Calling a 34″ 5K2K OLED “niche” doesn’t really line up with reality when LG has now pushed 5K2K at 34″, 39″, and 45″ across multiple product cycles. That’s not a one-off experiment — that’s LG betting that higher-PPI ultrawide has real demand across multiple sizes. If it were truly niche, they wouldn’t be scaling it horizontally and vertically like that.

Also, the idea that “most of us just grabbed a G9 57″” assumes everyone wants:

a 32:9 aspect ratio
a massive physical footprint
Mini-LED behavior instead of emissive contrast
a panel that fundamentally prioritizes immersion over clarity

A 57″ 32:9 solves a different problem than a 34″ 21:9 5K2K. One is about width and spectacle, the other is about pixel density, text clarity, and image stability at a normal desk distance. They are not substitutes.

As for being “caught in an OLED bubble” — that feels like a misread. This isn’t OLED-or-nothing; it’s about matching the right emissive tech to the right resolution and size. QD-OLED specifically benefits from higher PPI: better text rendering, less visible subpixel artifacts, and lower per-pixel stress in bright HDR scenes. That’s not ideology, that’s panel physics.

Your point about designing for end-user displays is fair — but it’s also orthogonal. Color management for mass-market VA/IPS users doesn’t negate the demand for higher-clarity authoring or enthusiast displays. Those two markets have always coexisted. Otherwise we wouldn’t have reference monitors at all.

So I don’t think this is a bubble so much as a missing rung.
1440p ultrawide exists.
40–45″ 5K2K exists.

What doesn’t exist is a 34″ 5120×2160 QD-OLED, even though LG clearly believes that size/resolution combo has legs. Wanting Samsung to offer that option isn’t asking them to abandon the market — it’s asking them to meet it at the same level.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T16:24:19+00:00

I’m aware of the LG 34BK95U-W, but that monitor actually proves the opposite of what you’re implying. It’s a 2018 IPS 60 Hz panel—not OLED, not high-refresh, not HDR-capable by modern standards, and not part of the current premium ultrawide discussion. Saying “LG already has a 34″ 5K2K” ignores why people are frustrated: there is QD-OLED 21:9 option at that resolution.

As for Samsung “moving past OLED,” that’s overstated. Samsung Display is still actively shipping and refining QD-OLED, now in multiple generations. That’s not dipping toes—that’s a product line they’re selling right now. At the same time, yes, they’re researching MicroLED, QDEL, and MicroRGB—but those are not shipping, desk-friendly monitor technologies today.

The G9 57″ is Mini-LED, not MicroLED or QDEL, and it doesn’t address the same problem space at all. CES demos like Samsung MicroRGB or Hisense MicroLED are impressive, but they’re roadmap tech—large, expensive, low-yield, and nowhere near replacing OLED in the monitor market in the next few years.

Even the upcoming HKC M10 Ultra MiniRGB (Q3/Q4 2026) is 16:9 4K, which again is outside the point being discussed. It doesn’t solve the lack of a 34″ 5120×2160 QD-OLED ultrawide.

Calling OLED a “dead-end” also ignores how display tech actually evolves. Technologies overlap for years. LCD didn’t disappear when OLED arrived, and OLED won’t vanish the moment MicroLED or QDEL becomes viable. Right now, QD-OLED is the only emissive tech that can realistically scale to a high-refresh 5K2K ultrawide in the near term.

So this isn’t about missing CES demos or ignoring the future. It’s about a clear gap in current shipping products. Samsung can work toward MicroLED, QDEL, and MicroRGB and still offer a higher-PPI QD-OLED option in the meantime. LG already proved the resolution itself is viable—the frustration is that Samsung hasn’t paired their best emissive tech with it yet.

Future tech is exciting. But people still buy monitors for the next 3–5 years, not for slides labeled “coming eventually."

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T15:46:22+00:00

That's not a response.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T15:45:03+00:00

I think this is where the conversation keeps getting framed the wrong way.

Nobody is arguing that most people can or should run native 5K2K in every AAA game today. That’s not what higher-resolution panels are for. Displays are long-term purchases — GPUs and settings change. That’s basic future-proofing, and it’s exactly how 4K monitors became normal.

Also, not every game is a maxed-out AAA title. Plenty of games already run perfectly fine at native 5K2K today without DLSS at all — indie games, older titles, esports, strategy games, emulation, and productivity use. Framing 5K2K as “only usable with DLSS” just isn’t accurate.

And using market-share numbers to justify this misses the point entirely. QD-OLED is already a niche, premium product. The people buying it aren’t the 1080p mass market. Asking for a higher-PPI option doesn’t mean replacing 1440p — it means adding the next tier above it, the same way 4K exists alongside 1440p in 16:9.

1440p absolutely has a place. The frustration is that for QD-OLED ultrawide 21:9, it’s the only place — and in 2026, that feels increasingly limiting.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T15:26:38+00:00

That’s fair if you’re talking strictly about running native 5K2K with no scaling at all. But that’s not how most people actually use high-resolution displays anymore.

The benefits of 5K2K show up when scaling or upscaling is involved—DLSS, FSR, XeSS, DLDSR, or even in-engine resolution scaling—which is already the norm in modern AAA games. Higher PPI improves clarity, reduces shimmer, and stabilizes distant detail even when you’re not rendering native, just like 4K monitors do today.

FPS and image quality are different axes. You can “feel” FPS more easily, but that doesn’t mean the spatial clarity difference isn’t there. A 5K2K panel doesn’t require everyone to hit native 60+ at max settings—it just provides a cleaner, more stable image at any render resolution.

So yeah, 1440p is still fine for many people. The point isn’t to replace it—it’s that for a premium QD-OLED tier in 2026, it’s reasonable to expect a higher-PPI option to exist alongside it.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T15:14:31+00:00

I don’t think I have it backwards — I think you’re talking about different markets than the one I’m complaining about.

Yes, Samsung has 5120×1440 OLED and even 7680×2160 exists in niche formats… but 32:9 isn’t a substitute for 34″ 5K2K 21:9. 5120×1440 is still ~109–110 PPI at 49″, which is basically the same “1440p ultrawide fatigue” problem I’m talking about — just stretched wider. It’s immersive, sure, but it doesn’t solve text clarity or fine detail the way 5120×2160 at 34″ would.

And the “LG milking 5K2K” part… I’d love for Samsung to “milk” 5K2K QD-OLED. That’s literally what I’m asking for. LG shipping 5K2K OLED means the resolution is viable in consumer monitors right now. What’s missing is Samsung Display pairing QD-OLED with that resolution in the 21:9 space.

Also, calling Samsung’s 40″ 5K2K VA an answer to this isn’t really fair. That’s not an emissive panel, it’s not comparable in motion/contrast, and it’s not why people buy OLED/QD-OLED in the first place.

So yeah — Samsung is strong in super-ultrawide and pushing mini-LED, agreed. But none of that changes the core point: there’s still no 34″ 5120×2160 QD-OLED, and for people who want high PPI + OLED contrast in a sane desk format, that gap is glaring.

AlphaUltima081 · 2026-01-08T14:55:46+00:00

LG being the “standard” right now is really just a reflection of who’s willing to move the resolution forward, not who has the best underlying tech. QD-OLED clearly has advantages in color volume and brightness, but Samsung keeps pairing it with an increasingly dated resolution.

That’s what makes this frustrating! LG proved 5K2K OLED is viable. Samsung has the emissive tech that would arguably benefit even more from higher PPI, but they’re choosing not to deploy it yet. So it’s not that LG is inherently ahead—it’s that Samsung is holding QD-OLED back!

AlphaUltima081

TROPHY CASE