3x24" 1080p or single 27in 1440p display? **NON-GAMER**

[jtaylor991]

Hey guys! I'm new here, this is my first post. Jtaylor991 is my name

I'm asking the age-old question of going with a single big high-res monitor or three smaller ones. BUT: I'm not a gamer. Well, every once in a while I'll flip on a game, but I'm mainly doing this for more screen space. I'm a computer power user and I feel like I'm screwing myself over with this seemingly teeny tiny 24" 1080p monitor. The sharpness and everything is great, but I'm on a mission to upgrade my peripherals. My computer is out of date but still plenty functional, so I thought I'd breathe some new life into it with an upgrade on everything else instead. I mean, what's the use of a workhorse computer without a solid way of interacting with it?

Anyway: Filling my field of vision would be nice. A 27 inch 2560x1440 would have the highest PPI (over 24in 1920x1080 or 30in 2560x1600), right? I could use one of those, and then keep my current monitor to use on the side. I also have a 19-incher to the right of me that was lying around that I've been using.

I am just looking for other people's experiences. Right now I'm leaning the 27in 1440p way. Maybe two if I can afford it (doubtful!), maybe by going the used route. I don't want to spend more than about $600 on this, including possibly buying a VESA mount, which might be ~$100. But still, throw stuff at me, maybe I'll be won over

 

[bystander36]

Let me ask you this. Do you wish to have multiple programs/windows open at once, are do you tend to use 1 window at a time? A single large display would be nicer if you only work with a single window, but if you utilize multiple windows at a time, 3 displays would be handy.

 

[Headfoot]

For pure productivity its really hard to beat 3x1920x1200 (1080p worse but still good) in portrait mode. This is great if you do things needing lots of vertical space like coding, word editing, some types of spreadsheet work.

The other thing you could do is get the 2560x1600 screen, leaving it horizontal and take your existing 1080p screen and running it alongside in portrait mode. You get the best of both worlds like this. Used to code on 2x1280x1024 el-cheapos and a 1920x1080 portrait running alongside. Worked nicely enough

 

[jtaylor991]

I'd lean towards multiple windows for sure. I mostly focus on one but I find many, many situations where I'd like even more than two open at once.

I figured with the one big screen I could get used to re-sizing them, although now that I think about it, that does kinda stink :/ Just wouldn't be the same. Like, I'd use Firefox in one window, Rdio desktop in another, and then something on the third occasionally. Soon I'd like to be a programmer, so maybe multiple screens might be even more suitable then! But then I'd have to try out triple vertical monitors, to fill in that top view as well. Hmm..

 

[jackstar7]

I'd lean towards multiple windows for sure. I mostly focus on one but I find many, many situations where I'd like even more than two open at once.

I figured with the one big screen I could get used to re-sizing them, although now that I think about it, that does kinda stink :/ Just wouldn't be the same. Like, I'd use Firefox in one window, Rdio desktop in another, and then something on the third occasionally. Soon I'd like to be a programmer, so maybe multiple screens might be even more suitable then! But then I'd have to try out triple vertical monitors, to fill in that top view as well. Hmm..

If you're not using them in a Surround/Eyefinity, but just multiple displays then you don't have to make them all vertical/portrait. My buddy finds it most useful to have one landscape for main uses and a side monitor portrait for working on projects that can use the vertical real estate. When you don't link all your monitors together, you've got lots of options.

Multi-monitor is great for multitasking.

 

[Deders]

Have you considered this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnrxNfxRK_4

 

[exar333]

I really like my 3440x1440 that replaced a 3x24 1200P setup.

 

[jtaylor991]

Have you considered this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnrxNfxRK_4

I didn't realize that existed. Looks pretty awesome! He did say, though, : "If you can handle bezels [which I can for non-gaming purposes], you can get a triple monitor setup that blows this out of the water in terms of pixels per dollar ratio."

Is 1920x1200 really worth the extra $50 or so per panel? How much of a difference does it make?
I'll probably buy 3 of the same just to be consistent, and try to sell the one I have now (I'm using my 4th and last monitor port for my TV).

 

[sxr7171]

By far of the choices 30" 1600p. But honestly 32" 4k is where you want to be. A close second is the LG 34UM95.

 

[jtaylor991]

By far of the choices 30" 1600p. But honestly 32" 4k is where you want to be.

That has less PPI though, the 30". 4K seems way too immature and way too expensive to implement right now. Plus, now I'm definitely leaning the multi-screen way. I dream of a triple 27in 1440p rig, but alas that's way too expensive


Should I maybe wait several months and expect prices on 1440p displays to come down? I could wait if it meant getting that dream setup...

 

[blastingcap]

NEC did a study on increasing monitor size or resolution vs adding a second monitor and they both increased productivity but IIRC second monitor added more.

IMHO more screens is often better because it adds more physical inches. A 4K 30" screen sounds impressive but the thing is, you will have to boost font size to get it legible. All you really wind up with is the same number of physical square inches that a 2560x1600 30" panel has, just with sharper resolution.

In contrast, I can easily pop up three windows on my three 23" 1080p monitors and further split them in half if necessary to get 6 windows open (use Windows key + left or right buttons). I have legible text on all of them. And I have way more physical square inches of monitor space than if I were to use a single 30" panel. The discrepancy would be even bigger if I had 24"+ panels, and 1080p on 23" or 24" is still plenty sharp.

 

[sxr7171]

NEC did a study on increasing monitor size or resolution vs adding a second monitor and they both increased productivity but IIRC second monitor added more.

IMHO more screens is often better because it adds more physical inches. A 4K 30" screen sounds impressive but the thing is, you will have to boost font size to get it legible. All you really wind up with is the same number of physical square inches that a 2560x1600 30" panel has, just with sharper resolution.

In contrast, I can easily pop up three windows on my three 23" 1080p monitors and further split them in half if necessary to get 6 windows open (use Windows key + left or right buttons). I have legible text on all of them. And I have way more physical square inches of monitor space than if I were to use a single 30" panel. The discrepancy would be even bigger if I had 24"+ panels, and 1080p on 23" or 24" is still plenty sharp.

What you're saying is true. And no doubt NEC wants to sell more panels - so they commissioned a study to point this fact out.

How about a 48" 4k monitor. It would be about as sharp as a 24" 1080p and it would be like 4 monitors. I could see this working out great on a trading floor.

 

[jtaylor991]

I don't really have room for more than about 27inches anyway. I'm aiming to keep the cost of three panels in the $5-600 range total

 

[3DVagabond]

Are you doing anything that color is super critical?

 

[jtaylor991]

Not really, but I stare at my monitor several hours a day to read and see things, so I might as well see things as vividly as possible. Plus, I might wanna try out a portrait setup. I probably won't like that, but I want to leave the door open (with better viewing angles). I assume you're seeing if I should go TN or IPS and I'm leaning IPS. Although I guess TN really isn't *bad*, it's just not *awesome* like IPS is/can be I suppose. I'm pretty sure the panel I have now is TN, but the listing on Samsung's website doesn't actually say. The one I have here is decent, but I've never used IPS before anyway, so I wouldn't really know.

 

[sxr7171]

Not really, but I stare at my monitor several hours a day to read and see things, so I might as well see things as vividly as possible. Plus, I might wanna try out a portrait setup. I probably won't like that, but I want to leave the door open (with better viewing angles). I assume you're seeing if I should go TN or IPS and I'm leaning IPS. Although I guess TN really isn't *bad*, it's just not *awesome* like IPS is/can be I suppose. I'm pretty sure the panel I have now is TN, but the listing on Samsung's website doesn't actually say. The one I have here is decent, but I've never used IPS before anyway, so I wouldn't really know.

If you are going multi monitor you have to go IPS because viewing TN from an angle is not fun.

 

[3DVagabond]

I was because the Sammy and Asus 28" 4k monitors are in your general price range. They better than your typical TN panels. If I were in the $600 price bracket today, that's what I would buy. YMMV.

 

[gorobei]

if all you need is OA size and standard ppi, just get last year's seiki 39" 4k tv for 330$.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2389561

 

[bepo]

+1 for the LG 34U95M. I've had it since it came out and it's amazing. Productivity wise you get two 5:4 windows next to each other with more pixels than your 1080p monitor and no bezels. 21:9 1080p movies look amazing using the entire screen with no black bars. The little bit of gaming I've done has been very nice, pretty easy to setup the resolution and FOV.

http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UM95-P-ultrawide-monitor

 

[BrightCandle]

I am a programmer so I tend to find multiple screens is beneficial to my work. Typically I will have my IDE taking up a whole screen, the bigger that screen is the better. I find 1080p is a little cramped, 1920x1200 is better. Then I will often have a screen that contains documentation for whatever it is I am currently working on, usually in a web browser with perhaps the web app I am working on in that browser as well. That is often all I directly have open and a third monitor isn't that useful. But in a few applications I also have a console open or the application itself and in those cases the third screen can become useful. Personally I find that I don't really use 3 screens very effectively, 2 seems to be the sweet spot most of the time, and I would say for workstation like activities >1080p is preferable from my own experience.

 

[blastingcap]

What you're saying is true. And no doubt NEC wants to sell more panels - so they commissioned a study to point this fact out.

How about a 48" 4k monitor. It would be about as sharp as a 24" 1080p and it would be like 4 monitors. I could see this working out great on a trading floor.

48" 4K on a trading floor would be be a good match because only finance industry folks would be able to afford them.

Btw I think I found an article talking about the NEC study and other stuff: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/t...improve-office-efficiency.html?pagewanted=all

 

[KingFatty]

For me, something about putting 2 work projects side-by-side on the same monitor is OK, especially if I'm writing into a word document on the left side, and designing in Visio on the right.

But I hate having a short display for that, so I prefer the 16:10 aspect for being able to show two full-size pages in portrait side-by-side. A 24" 1920x1200p works for this, so maybe if you have around 24" that will be the key, regardless of pixels, because you want to see the page size big enough to read etc. Also, I use a 23" 1080p at work, so it gets a bit annoying compared to when I work at home on the 24" 1200p. Seems like such a small difference, but it really gets on my nerves at work when I feel constrained compared to at home. I dunno, maybe if you could test-drive a display of a certain side.

Anyway, the point is that you can put multiple things on the same display side-by-side etc., and some programs help with this (e.g., artificially imposing a grid that forces each app to fit into that grid, something like AMD Hydravision or other aftermarket software solutions to fit more than two apps side-by-side if you have a huge monitor).

But for me, I much prefer multiple monitors. So much easier for your brain to keep work separated. I always think of my left monitor as my Outlook and 'support' display for showing supporting documents in PDF or drawings/schematics, and then my main display as my 'working' display where I draft/write/edit etc.

Also something to think about - the internet/web browsing is "vertical" not horizontal. I love viewing the internet on a dedicated portrait display, instead of a horizontal/landscape. Why would you want to be stuck staring at all that white space to the left and right of the actual data? It's much better to show websites vertically where you don't have any white space, but you have lots of info vertically stacked. Like right now as I type this text into the edit window of Anandtech, I can also see the four previous posts above, without needing to scroll.

The point is it's very handy to have a portrait display for websites, and landscape for things like PDFs or charts that are horizontally arranged.

 

[jtaylor991]

Maybe I could do my current 1080p monitor alongside this?

28in Dell 4K monitor: $405 !!!!
http://www.geek.com/deals-2/geek-deals-dell-p2815q-28-inch-4k-monitor-for-405-1599649/
Edit: It's a TN. Would that matter? Still worth it?

I think the 39" TV might be a bit much for me...higher than my field of view

 

[blackened23]

If you're not gaming, dual monitors are pretty great. Why not 2x 1440p monitors? The DPI scaling situation has been a problem forever with Windows, 4k is kind of a PITA because of it. I still think 1600p at 30 or 1440p at 27 inches is perfect, why not rock dual monitors? 3 is a bit much, I would say that i'd prefer 2 1440p screens over 3 1080p.

Oh, you get what you pay for with that dell 4k screen. Don't do it. 30hz is painful even on the desktop.

 

[jtaylor991]

OK, maybe 30hz is bad, I figured it'd be tolerable for movies that are only 30fps anyway and just text and images. I won't do it.

2x 1440p is too expensive :/
I'd like to keep the cost of the panels to a total of $600 or so. You think I can trust those Korean ones? Even the "perfect pixel" ones say that up to 1 bad pixel is allowed (well one of em I looked at said that)
But I agree, I'm starting to think maybe I only need 2, at least for now.