Prove me wrong

I have a 40" HDTV.
It's basically like having four 20" monitors in a square arrangement with no bezels.

What kinda triple 32:9 are you running that you need to turn your head to the point it'll hurt

>he doesnt have a large tv mounted over his monitors
Absolutely plebeian

Attached: Laughing.jpg (283x352, 41K)

Super ultrawide IPS on the desk, with a 55" OLED mounted on top of it. Both connected to your computer only.

Attached: Get+ur+together+jk+_4bd2b3d6d3090b4a6352f8f00bcab4f5.jpg (2560x1600, 1.49M)

The only real option

I got a 34" QHD ultrawide few months back and ended up returning it. I don't get how anyone could be satisfied by that vertical height. My fucking 27" was slightly higher. Recently got a 32" 144hz QHD and holy fuck it's so much better.

If they ever make an ultrawide that is as tall as a 32", but 1.5x wider, I'm all in.

Attached: 20190505_085302.jpg (4032x1960, 1.98M)

My work gave me a T450 and an external monitor and dock which I used side by side for a whole 2 weeks before developing neck pain.
After switching to a vertical arrangement it went away.

Attached: 1552643833986.png (568x751, 21K)

>1 shitty VA panel with poor uniformity and no DP connection is better than 3 panels which you can mix and match for any use case that you would ever want
Jow Forums is getting so retarded these days it's not even funny

Huh guess I'll try it out

>I want a 200 bucks TV right in front of my ugly face
yikes

Separate screens makes playing vidya on multiple clients simpler and is cheaper/m3 of screen space.

38 inch ultrawides have been a thing since 2017, but I guess googling is too hard these days

... inches are from opposing corner to other, so you are looking for one wide ass monitor if you want widescreen to be as tall as 32" 16:9

When one monitor breaks, you don't have to order a new one.

I have a 43" 4k 60hz IPS panel and a 27" 1440p 144hz VA panel for fast paced gaming

Best of both worlds.

I believe ideal aspect ratio depends apon screen size, for a small screen 4:3 is best for small netbooks, 3:2 for mid sized laptops. For big 24" monitors 16:10, for more than that 16:9 up to ultrawide. The reason is that it's ergonomic to turn your body to the left or right to see the content on the outer parts of the work area but really uncomfortable to stare up so you can see the upper part of a screen, The massive screen you show has too much vertical space which is suitable for a TV use but not monitor use. The 3 screens showed below the image is much more suitable for a computer desk due to the ultrawide aspect ratio the 3 monitors together use.

my nigga

The only issue is the refresh rate and the lag latency. I have zero clue if the standard of HDMI 2.1 will fix this next year or even if 2.0 will be enough. Maybe someone can Chime in here. But honestly the best option is a Ultrawide with a full HD 23 inch monitor on the side with a swirve stand. That is kino tier setup.

I meant what I said. I don't want an ultra ultrawide monstrosity. 21:9 is the problem, fuck that.

I'd fucking love somewhere around 17" tall, 40" wide.

>removed some fucking mosquito from my screen
>it left a fucking blood stain

RRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: 1559122172411.gif (500x281, 1.39M)

That looks like a TV and TVs make shit monitors.

Why a 34? That is too huge. Even my 27 inch cuts it close in my small area.

Nothing is stopping you from buying any of the several 40-43" 4k monitors

Acer ET430K
Acer DM431K
Philips BDM4350UC
Philips 436M6VBPAB
LG 43UD79-B
Dell P4317Q
HP Z43

Yikes. Imagine that input lag.

TVs are usually 60hz and the input latency is about on par with a 60hz monitor
Higher end models have 120hz panels but HDMI 2.0 limits you to 1080p/1440p if you wish to use 120hz
HDMI 2.1 allows for full 4k@120hz and as of right now I think LGs C9 and some other Samsung TV can do 4K 120hz but there is no GPU with 2.1 support yet

/thread

If you want a gaming monitor, buy one as a secondary panel.

For general usage, a large format 4k display is comfy as fuck. Especially for media.

Except they are all overpriced and you would legitimately be better served with a TV that costs less

The cheapest one on that list can be had $450

I got my LG 43UD79 for ~$470, though it's gone up in price over the last year.

Attached: image.png (701x561, 10K)

Why would you want a 42" 1080p when you can get a 42.5" 2160p for under $500?

I was wondering about that. For my needs I just want Full HD 120hz. I am not trying to go for bleeding edge specs at 1440p or 4k.

No, Satan.
TVs make shit monitors.

It's an old 1080 and I don't really want an upgrade now, all I use it for is animes and dj streams

>killed the mosquito on the screen instead of shooing it off

absolute brainlet

Absolute poorfaggotry. That's why.
Same reason they don't go for a 1600p ultrawide as the main screen.

IT'S NOT LIKE I SPLASHED IT, I USED SOFT CLOTH TO SHOO IT AWAY AND IT FUCKING EXPLODED ON MY SCREEN

I’ll admit that isn’t too bad
Last time I was looking at large format 4K the prices where in the $800 range while you could get something similar in a TV for half

Fair enough, if you ever do upgrade, a 4k 42.5" would be within 3.6 PPI to your other monitors.

30" 2560x1600p is 100 PPI
20" 1200x1600p is 100 PPI
42.5" 3840x2160p is 103.6 PPI

So they would have near identical pixel density and moving content between screens would have near identical text scaling.

what resoluton combos can do this setup?

Attached: monitor.png (780x579, 3K)

How do TVs make shit monitors?
It’s not the input lag or response time, that’s been made decent enough a long time ago

>TVs are usually 60hz and the input latency is about on par with a 60hz monitor
what fucking lala land do you live in

Yeah, some of the panels there ARE pretty expensive like the dell one goes for $900+ on the dell website, but it's only $700 on amazon.

The 2nd Acer I listed is supposed to launch this week and can be pre-ordered for $450.

Not sure how long it'll be available though as panels of this size tend to be limited production runs and once they start selling out the prices go up.

bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1478727-REG/acer_um_md1aa_001_43_wide_ips_4k.html

1366x768

He posted basically the only viable one, and the panels you have to buy for it to work well are all fairly expensive to find 2nd hand.

2x20" 1600x1200 and a 30" 2560x1600.

It has matching pixel density allowing seamless movement of content between panels without any scaling differences.

What was said that was wrong?

Staring at this big screen while sitting at the desk will give neck pains.
Source: have two horizontal 22"s stacked on each other.

that a 60hz tv is equal to a 60hz monitor in terms of input latency. TVs, unless they have a ""game"" mode, where most of the post processing is stripped away, have an insanely higher amount of input latency. and then it looks like shit and is still laggier than an actual monitor.

I assume you still live with your parents? If that's the case I agree. But most adults don't have their computers in their bedrooms and may even have a dedicated media or their main PC in their living areas, instead of a dedicated study. If that's the case I can understand but other then that it's silly having a TV so close to your face when on a desk.

>having a TV
Nothing prevents you from buying a large 4k monitor.

It's not a TV unless you buy a TV.

Then just leave the shit in game mode then
What's the problem?

>while sitting at the desk
What is recliner office chair?

>looks like shit
>is uncomfortable to play or do anything on because its so fucking big and nothing is designed for that
>runs worse even in best case scenario
gee what the fuck is wrong with it you fucking stupid bitch?

Most modern TVs have a game mode though, here is the results for a 40-43" Samsung NU7100 which can be had in the US for $380.

Attached: 2019-06-01 20_13_53.png (397x491, 46K)

>trying to hide that you still live with your parents.
Please be under 18 or this post is just embarrassing.

Wow, it's almost like you've never actually used on for a desktop monitor

It looks fine tho
You are just sperging

>he's such a bitch that he doesn't just do what the fuck he wants with his computer setup, regardless of his living situation

I live on my own in an apartment, I don't give a fuck what people think of my computer setup on the rare occasions someone DOES see it, they mostly just comment on how it must be nice for watching stuff.

Not that user but how does it compare to the latency on the gaming monitors? Is it pretty close? Or a huge delay maybe?

i really don't want to link it to this but allow this person who is actually good at video games in spite of his obnoxious faggotry and degeneration of humanity through streaming to explain it. clips twitch tv/AbnegateTemperedKoalaCharlietheUnicorn

idk i like my layout. 1440p 144hz on top, 1080p 60hz on the side

Attached: monitorlayout.jpg (2367x1360, 461K)

I mean, it's a 60hz panel, it's not meant to compete with 144hz gaming panels.

The input lag of most 60hz IPS panels at the 24-27" range is 10-20ms

So 13-15ms is quite good overall.

Are you that faggot on /bst/ with that small bed and green racing chair that lives in the room in the addict or that faggot that posts a collage of expensive electronic and lifestyle equipment and claims to be poor? Either way, it's getting late, you should be in bed because you have school tomorrow.

If all you do is fucking game then yes a TV wouldn't be to great as a monitor but not all of us spend our time on CS:GO or Battalion and the downsides (which there isn't much of anymore) just are not that big of a deal, especially given how cheap a TV can be for what you get

Lmao, neither, and I rarely post in /bst/ threads.

My apartment has a living room with an attached dining room that I use as a computer room with my setup in the corner near a window. Out of the main view when you enter, and cheaper than getting a 2 bedroom apartment for a dedicated computer room.

In the future i'd like a study/office that is it's own dedicated space, but for now meh. I'm single and give no fucks about having a massive monitor.

Attached: 2019-01-26 11.14.14.jpg (4032x2268, 2.58M)

Color controls and calibration.
Pixel density.
>its not the input lag
There is that too, it is WAY worse than monitors.

OP btfo

Attached: 1559431034353.png (2535x776, 1.42M)

spbp but also it's bait my newfriends

>Pixel density
that's not a valid argument

a 40"4k is 110 PPI
27" 1440p is 109 PPI
42.5" 4k is 103.6 PPI
22" 1080p is 100 PPI

So large 4k displays have the same pixel density as normal size desktop monitor panels.

Most people have no issue using a 27" 1440p panel at a desktop, it has near identical pixel density to a 40" 4k panel, so at the SAME distance, text will be the same exact size, and pixels will be just as apparent as when using a 27" 1440p panel.

>Color controls and calibration.
TVs offer these controls, it's how Rtings gets there TVs calibrated to give them a score for post calibration
>Pixel density
a 43" 4k TV is literally more dense than a 24" 1080p monitor
>There is that too, it is WAY worse than monitors
It's not way worse, unless you're an idiot who can't change his TV to game mode but once you do that the input lag is no different than any other 60hz monitor You seem to have gotten your knowledge from PCMR redditfags

You Anons need to get on my level. 65" 4k center across the room w/the 27" security monitor. 32" top, 27" bottom on arms, can move them wherever I want. Pow!

Attached: 20190601_194310.jpg (3024x4032, 365K)

>using a television for a monitor
enjoy your niggerlicious font rendering

That hasn't been an issue in several years, even cheap 4k panels can do 4:4:4 rendering.

A 40-50inch wall mounted flat screen at a 30 degree tilt offers an optimal above the desk viewing environment for tilting chairs. You are not going to use it for many things besides long term viewing. On the desk you should have one larger screen for operation and 1 reading screen for reference documents. They don't need to be lined up or even the same system. Touch screen for the smaller document is acceptable.

Not him but this is still a point of contention with some TVs
The pixel structure arrangement isn't always the best
For example this LG uses RGBW subpixels that are staggered
Some VA panels can also have not great font rendering

Attached: uk6300-pixels-small.jpg (390x219, 39K)

haha faggot

True, but you can find those same issues on normal sized VA monitors too, it's not like it's exclusive to TVs.

>same issues on normal sized VA monitors too
false. the LG TV is literally a 6MP TV being marketed as 4K (8MP)

Input lag on new TVs is the same as what you get on monitors, 6.6ms at 1440p 120hz on the latest LG and Samsung TVs.
rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

can your computer treat one big monitor like several small ones? I.e. applications maxing to only one part of the screen

This is my current setup. I don’t see the need to have the tv right next to the other 2 monitors. I have a Bluetooth kB/m if I wanna chill on the bed and use my pc at the same time.

Attached: 4L_CljsUNYP.jpg (750x557, 424K)

Most LGs are IPS outside of there OLED
My post was from an LG IPS TV
But yeah he is not wrong in saying that VA in normal monitors can also have less than great font rendering

Botnet.

AOC C24G1 as an example

pcmonitors.info/reviews/aoc-c24g1/

Attached: 2019-06-01 21_17_08.png (1140x1075, 497K)

I game or program on a 27" screen and then have two older screens to the sides to have like chat programs, docs, videos, etc. on.

You can't escape it anymore
Smart TVs have been around for like over a decade in high end sets and like all high end features it slowly makes it's way down to even the bottom of the barrel

Nice cherry picking only the cheapest LG IPS TVs, the UK6300 and its predecessors used that arrangement everything else has RGB or proper WRGB with all 32 million dots.
rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg

13-15ms are 13-15 times a nice 1ms latency monitor. And yes, you can see the difference if you are used to it

lmao, even 144hz gaming monitors tend to have around 3-5ms input lag.

We're not talking pixel response time.

Attached: 2019-06-01 21_30_03.png (661x587, 334K)

>he believes the 1ms number posted on the product page
Go look at the real numbers for input lag and even response time
It's no where near the bull posted on a product page