Are widescreen monitors a meme or useful for productivity and other shit? or is it better just getting a big high res monitor.
Gonna have limited desk space next year so im not able to fit 2.
Are widescreen monitors a meme or useful for productivity and other shit...
Charles Brown
Other urls found in this thread:
newegg.com
newegg.com
newegg.com
twitter.com
Henry Sullivan
Might be good for gaming
Otherwise for general productivity I'd recommend 2 monitors and you can put on in vertical mode
Andrew Perez
one*
Easton Mitchell
Yeah i consider putting one vertical but im not sure how id do it with the current ones i have. Would have to make some rig to hold it up
Jeremiah Mitchell
I have a 34 inch 3440*1440 and a 27 inch 4k monitor on my desk. If I were to choose only one between those two, I would 99% choose the ultrawide. More space for productivity, less pixels for gaming, fullscreen movies. Pic related.
The 4k monitor had its uses though, especially in old/badly supported games, since it can do 720p and 1080p with perfect scaling.
Julian Reyes
Doesn't seem to have an angle which is quite annoying for a widescreen
Adrian Carter
Is that a question or a statement?
If it's a question, the angle is indeed a little annoying, but there's not much I can do about it. I have a corner desk. I intend to get a bigger, rectangular desk soon.
Carter Ward
That a 100hz samsung panel Va 3440x1440p?
Based
Gabriel Sanchez
It was a question yeah
Jeremiah Scott
lg34gk950f ultra-wide cuck here
they are not a meme, I will never go back to regular 16:9 monitors.
also think about getting a monitor stand to put the second monitor above the ultra-wide. thats how I do it. no point in doing a multi-monitor setup side by side when you have a ultra wide to work with.
Angel Nelson
Do you ever find it a strain to view thing at either end of the monitor? Just curious trying to convince myself what i want to get
John Price
Im on a semi budget but do you think that the 3440x1440 is worth spending a little bit more on than 2560x1080? even if its a the cost of say, refresh rate?
Jason Walker
They're two normal monitors without bezel between them for a price of three monitors
Benjamin Roberts
As a rule of thumb, I choose monitors with at least 100ppi. It's the standard PPI for older versions of windows and I don't like seeing pixels. I had a 29 inch 2560x1080@75hz monitor and it was more than fine. IMO, it all depends on your use case and, if you want to play games, on your GPU. If you have at least a gtx1070 or Vega 56, 3440x1440@60fps should be attainable in 90% of AAA games.
On the other hand, if you need your monitor for productivity 3440x1440 is a huge difference. You can easily keep three usable windows/applications on your screen at the same time. 2560x1080 can barely keep two.
If you're on a tight budget, get something like an LG 29WK600 and be happy with it. But if you can afford a 3440x1440, it will probably be a better decision on the long run. You don't upgrade your monitor every year, so you might as well splurge for a good one. Ultrawides are worse than 16x9 in this regard, since you can't really keep the old one beside the new one when you upgrade.
Austin Robinson
They are great for gaming, very immersive.
Gabriel Lewis
Julian Barnes
Great game
Jaxson Butler
For gaming it's great. For productivity? Not so much. I'd go with 2 27" monitors for that (not curved ones). Should be plenty of real estate.
If you really want to ball out, get 4 27" monitors.
Blake Garcia
Idk man, this looks pretty comfy.
Though you can get two 4k 27" for the sane price.
Michael Cooper
Wow, that does look comfy.
Plus I've noticed that more and more ultrawides are shipping with the screen partitioning software built-in (as opposed to having to install clunky, bullshit software from the manufacturer), making them more useful for productivity. Once the price point dips a little it'll be a no brainer.
Brody Torres
Cost an arm and leg once you factor in the gpu requirements. I'd rather get higher framerates. For the same price you can probably go up in resolution and screen size.
Also personally I find 32" monitors too big for desktop gaming. My desk is about 2.5' from front to back and even with the vesa mount, I find I never focus on the entire 32" monitor. The center 27" is about as big as I can go before I start relying on peripheral vision or need to pull back my chair.
Ethan Jackson
>Cost an arm and leg once you factor in the gpu requirements. I'd rather get higher framerates. For the same price you can probably go up in resolution and screen size.
You just won the retardest post of the year award.
29 inch 2560x1080 costs the same as 24 inch 2k, less than 27 inch 2k, while having less pixels and better surface area per $
34 inch@60hz IPS costs a little more than 27 inch 2k and much less than a good 32 inch 4k IPS, while, again, having much better surface area per $.
2560x1440~3.5 megapixels
3440x1440~5 megapixels, 40% more pixels than above with 34% more screen
4k~8 megapixels, 60% more pixels than above for either 1)25% less screen are in case you go for 27inch, 2)5% more screen area in case you go for 32 inch
Tell me now, which one is the better value?
Even if you factor in high refresh rates, if you were to actually look for decent panels, you will see that it's not that big of a difference between a 27 inch 2560x1440@144hz screen and a another good 34inch 3440*1440@100hz.
At the higher end you will find outliers, such as the ultrawide nano-IPS LGs and the Acer x27, but if you're looking for that, you're not really looking for value/$.
Jack Rodriguez
Are you mentally retarded or just a fucking idiot?
Josiah Ramirez
Tfw don't know if I should go with a 4k 32" or 34" ultrawide for software development.
Grayson Wood
I use a 34" ultrawide at work, it's surprisingly good for productivity (spreadsheets n shit)
But if it was my own money, I'd probably go for 2x27"s
Jack King
>34 inch@60hz IPS costs a little more than 27 inch 2k
i wanna buy this but the cheapest im finding is 400 dollars 3440x1440
please link
Caleb King
nigga you talking bout productivity while posting on Jow Forums wtflmao
Levi Phillips
You sound like your shitposting habit interferes with your life.
Isaac Powell
Looking up/down causes strain.
Looking left/right doesn't.
Anthony Gutierrez
32"=2560x1440 24"=1080x1920
Pixel density identical.
Thomas Russell
If you can find them cheaper please show me.
Dominic Cooper
I use 2x 30" 2560x1600 screens for work. Im not sure i would want more surface area, but more pixels would be nice. If i can get that in one monitor, count me in.
I honestly dont understand why there arent more high resolution screens. I'd pay my left testicle for a 10k screen
Carson Sanchez
You realize you'd probably need three displayport cables to connect it to an existing graphics card, right? Look up the Acer xv273kp. It needs two cables to run at 4k@144hz 10bit.
Evan Hill
True, if i wanted high hz. I dont really see that as a requirement for productivity in my work. Im pretty sure the thin client im currently using is over 10 years old, and it does 5k good enough.
I already have a gaming monitor.
Blake Kelly
He's full of shit, only 3440x1440 monitors under $800 are high response time, 60 Hz, and 8 bit.
This is the best value ultrawide I could find: newegg.com
newegg.com
At 4K there's literally only one high refresh rate, low response time monitor.
newegg.com
Camden Lopez
10k, after a quick google search, seems to be 10240*3840, which is closer to 21:9 than 16:9, but anyways: at 60hz, 8 bit, that resolution requires 70.78Gbps. The theoretical maximum bandwidth of one displayport 1.4 cable/port is 32.4Gbps. Do the math. Btw, displayport 1.4 display scalers do not even exist yet, at least not in consumer products.
Josiah Cox
I use a 43" 4k monitor with a 1440p monitor turned sideways next to it. Its pretty great unless you'd feel ashamed of only having 60hz, but then again I got it for $500 instead of $5000.