What has been your experience with the monitor setups you've tried?
I'm currently running two 27 inch, 1080p monitors and I'm thinking about adding a third. I'm running an: Acer S271HL Asus VP279Q-P
They're nothing special. Just two IPS panels between $200-$300. As far as I can tell, both have identical image quality, but the Asus starts of a bit quicker. I honestly can't see what there would be too gain from spending over $300 on a 1080p 60hz display.
I kinda wanted a new centerpiece display. One that was clearly better than the other two. But I don't know where to go. We kind of seem to be stuck in a transitionary period without making much progress towards the next stage. I feel like 1440p was never here to say. I just seemed like a "here you go" while we wait for 4k to become mainstream. But 4k is still kinda out there. So what then? Just stick with 1080p for the time being? I don't even think they make IPS monitors with high refresh rates, so I'm not going to a TN panel for that.
There a BenQ GW2765HT 27 inch 4k near me for $400. Is that something worth considering?
> 27 inch 4k near me for $400 fuuuuuuuck no, 160 dpi is a crap intermediate sharpness level that will force you to use flaky 1.5x-1.6x scaling. Look for the LG 43UD79-B (42.5" IPS UHD) for $500.
Noah Cox
i roll 1 landscape (middle) with 1 portrait (left or right), the portrait is only turned on when i need to read shit/multitask
I used to have 2L/1P but found it way too much, sold the 2nd to a friend
Hunter White
also find it easier to focus with 1, but harder to multitask with 1
Charles Bell
I have 6 monitors and tv / vive connected to my pc, monitors are 4x FHD and 2x ultravide shit with some dense pixels - arranged like that: [ ][ ][ ] [ ][ ][ ] And i can honestly say that with amount of work i do, 4 is maximum that can be used without tryharding, except when i remot econnect to some workstations, otherwise top-side screens are turned off.
Carson Davis
This man is a true genius and the most valuable Google engineer. He's like a God at Google and not even the CEO would go against him. He literally made Google what it is today and wrote/worked-on all of their most important software stacks. He's worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Now, notice something interesting:
He doesn't have two, three or four monitors and he doesn't have some gigantic TV screen that kills your focus and distracts him from everything important.
He's not distracted by having a phone out on his desk, because he doesn't use such technology as a lifeline like consumerist millennial do who'd literally die without their phone.
He doesn't have some bullshit meme mech keyboard with some special switches that were forged by elves in Japan from katana-grade steel and lights that emit perfect sRGB colors.
He doesn't have some tricked out text editor with million different features and colors.
He doesn't run some super-autistic Linux distro like Arch that demands you babysit it all the time.
He doesn't have some DE with customized CSS US that you usually see in tons of threads on here.
He didn't even change the default theme, colors or the default background.
He can afford all that shit, yet he doesn't waste his time on it. Instead, he writes 100x better code than you and is 1,000,000x more accomplished than you'll ever be. And he's infinitely smarter than you'll ever be.
So quit falling for fucking memes and quit craving all the latest bullshit that gets posted on here in these cancerous consumerist "generals" threads. Mark my words, and this is coming from a professional: there's nothing more pathetic than consumers who think having multi-monitor setups makes them productive.
nice copypasta bro, also >> Instead, he writes 100x better code than you and is 1,000,000x more accomplished than you'll ever be. And he's infinitely smarter than you'll ever be.
you know shit about people and shoudl stop talkign shit, because you will look stupid af at some point.
He probably has all those memes at his house. When he's doing work he can't get distract.
Isaac Bell
>that is some eye-rape dpi, OP. Everyone says this on this board. I've never had an issue. I like the real estate. I can't fit a TV on my desk.
Kayden Miller
Huh. I've not really seen 4 monitor displays, but I can't see myself using a second row of monitors. I feel like I'd just want to keep a single row.
Work and home aren't the same.
Landon Torres
I have a big 32" 1080p monitor, and then a wee 8" 768p one that I only turn on when I need it. it's pretty cozy, but it can be improved by having the 8" on a monitor arm, which should be delivered within a week
>There a BenQ GW2765HT 27 inch 4k near me for $400. Is that something worth considering? if you have a purpose for the 4k then go for it
>LG 43UD79-B (42.5" IPS UHD) Weird. I just bought this exact model earlier today and now I see it in this thread. I wonder if this is a coincidence or if I've been corrupted by the botnet.
Cameron Jenkins
It gets good reviews and it was $400 during black Friday at Costco. I was about to buy it but I went with dual 32 inch 1440p monitors
Caleb Flores
>1440p monitors Can you please explain the 1440p thing to me? As far as I'm aware, 1080p content doesn't scale properly into 1440p and 1080p makes up the vast majority of content on the internet. Because of that 4k makes the most sense to me, since 1080p scales perfectly into it. Am I looking at this the wrong way? I know there's some scaling option that can be used, but I'm not familiar with that. But wouldn't 4k also work better in conjunction with 1080p monitors than a 1440p?
Easton Reed
Really?
Anything over 24" for 1080p feels retarded to me. Everything is huge, despite not actually having more screen real estate.
I'm too lazy but 1440p at 32 inch is the dpi same as either 24 or 27 1080p so you don't have scaling issues. With 4k you need a big screen to avoid this and big screens tend to have bad input lag or slower refresh rate for games (mine arent too fast but it is 75hz).
I never had an issue with 1080p at full screen noticing anything since it already looks blurry at 32inch and I play my games at 1440p. I like having a 2nd monitor so I can run something full screen and still have a 2nd screen for my chat and music or notes/documentation when I do work.
Kinda worried about the BenQ monitor I'm getting in a few weeks for that reason. It's 4K but only 28". The physical size is fine, but I feel like cramming 4K resolution into that small of a space is going to really fuck with some programs.
Grayson Lee
Site and what are the good PPI points per size?
Jayden Phillips
He drinks gay foamy coffee tho
Easton Thompson
>He doesn't have some tricked out text editor with million different features and colors. I'm pretty sure he does.
Daniel Peterson
reminds me of these little displays cashiers at McDonalds use
Adrian Green
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. What I mean is that if I watch a 1080p movie or game, fullscreen on a 1440p monitor, the image doesn't fit properly into that resolution, giving you a janky image.
Logan Sullivan
Isn't having 4k at a regular monitor size the whole point? Otherwise, why even make 4k monitors. That insinuates that 4k is a television technology.
Connor Lewis
But 4K at regular monitor sizes makes everything small.
Jace Howard
I feel like 24" 1080/1200p is a sweet spot, 27" for WQHD is bretty nice too
Camden Taylor
you gotta scale everything 400% but then the value is questionable for everyday use
Jason Wood
Then what exactly is the point? What's the proper use of a 4k desktop monitor that's a normal size? Just movies and games or fancy AA effect with 1080p content?
Nathan Cooper
Aye. I would guess the ideal size for 4K is 32", but then again I don't have much experience with 4K monitors.
Isn't there a bug in Nvidia drivers that prevents proper nearest-neighbor upscaling from 1080p to 4K? So if you set it to 1080p at 400% size, instead of each pixel just being doubled into a 2x2 square, it applies whatever retarded resizing algorithm that makes it blurry?
Asher Barnes
the point is that you can declare supremacy over lowly 1440p/1080p fags
Ryder Thomas
Not sure about DPI scaling bugs with Nvidia; if you don't have some niche reason for needing/wanting really high ppi why bother.
Basic math says if you use a 24" 1920x1080 monitor (my guess this is most people) than you'd expect a 48" 3840 x 2160 monitor.
3840x2160 at 32" is like 1920x1080 at 16" (almost the what most laptop users, use nowadays - might actually be 14.1"); so yeah I'd say 28-48" is ideal for 3840x2160.
Gabriel Cox
Pardon my proofing. I'm a fucking retard.
Just double the size of what you prefer at 1080p for your ideal 4k.
John White
What if my ideal 4K is a 3" screen mounted to my face?
Joseph Thomas
Then at 1080p you'd want a 1.5" screen. 8k you'd want a 6" screen.
Michael Wilson
What if I want two 8K screens?
Evan Cook
What size are the screens and what ideal resolution are you looking for?
The LG 27UD58-B seems to be the cheapest IPS 4k monitor I can find at 27 inches. So at $500 CAD, but must be the entry level price for 4k at the moment.
Ian Wood
>entry level ips light bleed/10
Cameron Flores
Along that train of thought the ASUS PB277Q seems to be the entry level 1440p option at 27 inches. $300 CAD.
The LG 27MP48HQ-P seems like the cheapest non-garbage 1080p at 27 inches and goes for $200 CAD.
Already having the $280 ASUS VP279Q-P and Acer S271HL, I wouldn't want to buy the LG.
So I guess at those prices, I'm not buying another 1080p. I also don't know if 1440p will work well with 1080p monitors and 4k is still pretty pricey.
My monitors don't have that issue. You can nitpick about anything.
