Dual Monitor, Ultrawide or Single Monitor & UltraWide?

[Alex.G]

HELP ME! So I'm building a new PC for productivity and gaming, thing is, I need to get a new monitor but I'm clueless as to which to get. I do know what the different types of monitors names mean, so don't feel the need to explain what they mean. I do plan on incorporating the 720p panel I already own in order to create more screen real estate, as I am using this pc for things like video editing as well as gaming. Thanks!     -Alex

[The Sloth]

i have duel ultrawide its worth it 

[Alex.G]

1 minute ago, thom derksen said:

It depends on your own preference. We can tell what we like, but that doesn't really matter unless you don't care and want to flip a coin....

well, i thought to ask the community because im not sure whats better, a single ultrawide or a dual monitor set up

[Alex.G]

2 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

i have duel ultrawide its worth it 

i dont really have that much money, i have to buy my pc, then i have £200 for monitors, so dual ultrawide isnt an option

[Alex.G]

2 minutes ago, thom derksen said:

Well, something will be better according to your opinion... Questions about refreshrate and other specs of monitors would be more suitable for the forum. Ultrawide vs regular is a personal preference and depends on the intended use.

ok, well thanks for the advice

[The Sloth]

1 minute ago, Alex.G said:

i dont really have that much money, i have to buy my pc, then i have £200 for monitors, so dual ultrawide isnt an option

well its personal preference as thom derksen said. personally, I love ultrawide but it's up to you what you want.

[Alex.G]

Just now, nerdslayer1 said:

well its personal preference as thom derksen said. personally, I love ultrawide but it's up to you what you want.

ok, well tanks for the help

[Alex.G]

Just now, thom derksen said:

Then it will be dual regular or a singel ultrawide... I currently have dual monitors, but am planning to buy an ultrawide soon

nice, the thing im not too sure about is gaming, friends say some games like cs:go dont work well on ultrawides

[Alex.G]

Just now, thom derksen said:

 

oh, ok then, well.... so what do you recomend, i have £200 to £300 to spend on monitors/a monitor

[Alex.G]

Just now, thom derksen said:

LG 25UM58

i was looking at one of those accually, thanks any ways!

[NinJake]

I'm just going to chime in and say my opinion. Don't go ultrawide, go 2560x1440p

[Alex.G]

1 minute ago, NinJake said:

I'm just going to chime in and say my opinion. Don't go ultrawide, go 2560x1440p

can you recommend a monitor with that resolution for £300 or less?

[Astralye]

In my opinion I would say if you like editing or something on the lines of that and want large space then ultrawides would work and for games too. If you are streaming or multitasking  then dual monitors are the way to go but if you want between either then you could go 1 ultrawide and 1 regular 16:9

[NinJake]

https://www.amazon.com/Acer-G257HU-smidpx-25-Inch-Widescreen/dp/B00QS0AKVK

not sure how that converts to GBP but that should work... what are the specs of your system btw? @Alex.G

[Alex.G]

Just now, Astralye said:

In my opinion I would say if you like editing or something on the lines of that and want large space then ultrawides would work and for games too. If you are streaming or multitasking  then dual monitors are the way to go but if you want between either then you could go 1 ultrawide and 1 regular 16:9

Thats what i thought about doing, as i already own a semi-decent monitor, im just not sure how to arrange them if they are both different sizes. i was thinking the altrawide on the bottom and the 16:9 on top of it? but idk

[Alex.G]

Just now, NinJake said:

https://www.amazon.com/Acer-G257HU-smidpx-25-Inch-Widescreen/dp/B00QS0AKVK

not sure how that converts to GBP but that should work... what are the specs of your system btw? @Alex.G

heres my build link https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/Dm49RG

[Astralye]

Just now, Alex.G said:

Thats what i thought about doing, as i already own a semi-decent monitor, im just not sure how to arrange them if they are both different sizes. i was thinking the altrawide on the bottom and the 16:9 on top of it? but idk

Since you already have a monitor you could go dual but ultrawide is up to you

[NinJake]

Ultimately it's up to you... but now I'll never go back to 1080p displays unless it's a phone/laptop.

[Alex.G]

Just now, NinJake said:

Ultimately it's up to you... but now I'll never go back to 1080p displays unless it's a phone/laptop.

ok, well they dont sell the one you sent me in the UK, the cheapest and best thing is a BenQ one thats £380, around $400-450

[Alex.G]

2 minutes ago, Astralye said:

Since you already have a monitor you could go dual but ultrawide is up to you

alright, well thanks for the help

[JACOR]

HOLD ON!
Unless you have some kind of very specific use case for this monitor, like cheating fov(field of view) advantages in some game, or something, maybe, ultrawide is inherently retarded.

The human Field of view, that is the aspect ratios of your vision, t les tni the effective zones, is roughly aroound 16:10, but closer to 16:10.

Also, since ther perception is wapedd, because it`s nunnatural, not to have regular height, if you look at people in some games, it looks like they are runnig on thier knees.. cause the ground is so close up and the sky is so low down..

 

Have one display, instead olf two.  Ive had it all, basically.  And im down to one display.

Heres the deal, having more screen size, mean you have to move the jdisplayu back, to keep everything ihn your `perfect ergonimic zone` that is the place your eyes work well, and arnt strainig, if your scanning withy your eyes from one perifery zone to the other, your incurreing lots of fatigue tax, it`s just nromal, so you should keep everyyhting in the centre 40 eprcent of you vision, roughly, something like that,it is the fastest place to scane, and is geherally themost comfortable overall.  if you ahve a 30 inch display, oike i was using, to keep everyhing in your fast zone, you have to move it like, 3 feet back, then everyhting is in your GOOD fov.  but if you do this, the your putting the display otu of your clsoe range vision, close range vision is like 1350 percent(for example) more efficent then hving the two or three feet away.,  cause in close range vision your super fast, and super easy, you mvoe it backm, to keep a big display in yojur optimal field of view, and you loose close range vision advantages

Close range vision advantages are like, for exmaple 65 percent increased scanning speed(eye back and foruth),signfincantly easier tracking of movement, significantly less  stereoscopic stress on eyes, 83 percent faster/easier focusing of your eye on the tracked area, 60 percent faster/easier cognition,  (thats liek your brain recognition of what your seeing).  Basically, keepingf your display in close range vision is super important, and keeping your display, or at leasty your content, in your vcenter fov is super important.  You'll scan like 1209 faster, with a fourth the effort.  basically, imo, no good reason to have things on the side.  need to see something fast press a key, save your eyes. ;-)  Liek reasing a book notice the pages are long and narrow, iut's fast and ergonomic to scan on a centre.  so your display should be in the center of your fov, and your hot content should be in the centre of that display as well, so it goes narrow, narrow, like your zoning in.

so, instead of getting more screen, and tracking your eyes back and forth, move evrything to the centre, call programs or workspaces on khotkeys, single hot keys, or if oyur actively monitoring things, have the content appear to you on timer, in the centre,
bring the content to the centre of the screen, instead of searching for it with oyur eyes on the sides
you`ll save effort on kyor eyes, for faster less fatigued eyes. better brain generally speaking.

Alsom i dont remmend buy any displays, soon withing a year or months, there will be consumer oleds.. Thsi is a big deal.  ALL lcd is crap, only a clued out tasteless  person, or someone trapped in some kind of  terrible, retarded nightmare without realising it  would use, like i was before.

ive' had super wide, it've had big screen, many, i've had multimonitor, and 4k.

it's all crap,.  ypou'll be better off keeping eveyrhting in the centre, and swithcing content there, if you ask me.

registerdd just to say, superwide is ergonomically retarded(ergonomically).  Superwide is ergonomically retarded.

So, widescreen is only uised for movies, afaik,  to shove peopel into large horizontal ros in theatres, where peopel dont notice theyre off axis, since they still hve screenh in front of them, because it`s SO  much cheaper to accomodate hozontally seated rows, then vertical rows, inthreatres, where movies are shown and sold generally, at least before home video.
it has nothig to do with whats good for an indikvidual itnerfacing with a display.

Ìf you ask me, you should buy a 1080p oled when it comes out instead.  I think flanders sells one for only 5 grand, but new ones much less epsensive should be comming outvery soon, lcd displays today are like 4.6 out of 10, oled will be like 8, thats a big difference. and it's going to be great, again, and hopefully for reasonale consumerish prices,  or go get a good old 19 inch crt.  pce  also, all those more pixels, theyre ll in my scale of pixel qaulity lcd the best lcdd 10 bit majic repronse pixels are onkly 4.6 out of 10, todays crt monitors have a pixel quality of 7.6, and oled might be 8, otu ojf ten, so buying millions of 4.6 pixels are still going to be 4.6, it`s crap, i bene ther on hard forum last year and made some posts. tried ot kepxlains to the guy he`s staring at a lightbulb.  you could also go plasma, but then your going to loose close range vision. Sorry to busy for typos, busy man, gtg, lcd sucks.  turn thelights out, black image and you got lightbulb, unless oyu got your mega dyaamic contrast, then you got no stars, or big patchies.

 

Edited: i ant to add  clause, that some ppl make emersion claim, when sitting too close,. have to move there heads to see the screen sides, i cant argue with everything, yes it might be more nemersive for some people to have thier nosie to a big display, im just talking about speed and ergonomics, if you only gonna log on for 5-8 hours a week like my buddy, andjust want a `big screen gaming experience`thats a differnt story, if you work on a computer though like me, or say your gaming compedatily, and your interested in efficiency, fatigue and ergonomics, and are there around the clock thats a different story now eh.  Also careful with the pxiel count, 720p is pretty easy to drive, you ight find yourself getting lag with largr resolutions., just something to keep in mind.  if you do, sfor whatever reasohn get a 1440 lcd and find oyurself in majjor lag, you can always 1:4 upscale driving the desktop at 720p and have the display INCREMENTALLY, non interpolatedly (not interpolation (straight  scale))upscale.. and that can help you net frames back, if you ever wind up in such a position i might not be back here later, just thought ièd share that tidbit..

Edited January 11, 2017 by JACOR
rewording, explanation for typos, explanation, a number a typo, same intents

[Alex.G]

7 minutes ago, JACOR said:

HOLD ON!
Unless you have some kind of very specific use case for this monitor, like cheating fov(field of view) advantages in some game, or something, maybe, ultrawide is inherently retarded.

The human Field of view, that is the aspect ratios of your vision, t les tni the effective zones, is roughly aroound 16:10, but closer to 16:10.

Also, since ther perception is wapedd, because it`s nunnatural, not to have regular height, if you look at people in some games, it looks like they are runnig on thier knees.. cause the ground is so close up and the sky is so low down..

 

Have one display, instead olf two.  Ive had it all, basically.  And im down to one display.

Heres the deal, having more screen size, mean you have to move the jdisplayu back, to keep everything ihn your `perfect ergonimic zone` that is the place your eyes work well, and arnt strainig, if your scanning withy your eyes from one perifery zone to the other, your incurreing lots of fatigue tax, it`s just nromal, so you should keep everyyhting in the centre 40 eprcent of you vision, roughly, something like that,it is the fastest place to scane, and is geherally themost comfortable overall.  if you ahve a 30 inch display, oike i was using, to keep everyhing in your fast zeon, you have to move it like, 3 feet back, then everyhting is in your GOOD fov.  but if you do this, the your putting the display otu of your clsoe range vision, close range vision is like 1350 percent(for example) more efficent then hving the two or three feet away.,  cause in close range vision your super fast, and super easy, you mvoe it backm, to keep a big display in yojur optimal field of view, and you loose close range vision advantages

Close range vision advantages are like, for exmaple 35 percent increased speed, 40 percent faster/easier focusing of your eye to the tracked area, 60 percent fastr/easier cognition,  (thats liek recognition of what your seeing).  Basically, keepingf your display in close range vision is super important, and keeping your display, or at leasty your content, in your vcenter fov is super important.  You'll scan like 1209 faster, with a fourth the effort

so, instead of getting more screen, and tracking your eyes back and forth, move evrything to the centre, call programs or workspaces on khotkeys, single hot keys,
bring the content to the centre of the screen, instead of searching for it with oyur eyes
you`ll save effort on kyor eyes, for faster less fatigued eyes.

Alsom i dont remmend buy any displays, soon withing a year or months, there will be consumer oleds.. ALL lcd is crap, only a clued out person would use, like i was before.

ive' had super wide, it've had big screen, many, i've had multimonitor, and 4k.

it's all crap,.  ypou'll be better off keeping eveyrhting in the centre, and swithcing content there, if you ask me.

registerdd just to say, superwide is ergonomically retarded(ergonomically).  Superwide is ergonomically retarded.

So, widescreen is only uised for movies, afaik,  to shove peopel into large horizontal ros in theatres, where peopel dont notice theyre off axis, since they still hve screenh in front of them, because it`s SO  much cheaper to accomodate hozontally seated rows, then vertical rows, inthreatres, where movies are shown and sold generally, at least before home video.
it has nothig to do with whats good for an indikvidual itnerfacing with a display.

Ìf you ask me, you should buy a 1080p oled when it comes out instead.  I think flanders sells one for only 5 grand, or go get a good old 19 inch crt.  pce  also, all those more pixels, theyre ll in my scale of pixel qaulity lcd the best lcdd 10 bit majic repronse pixels are onkly 4.6 out of 10, todays crt monitors have a pixel quality of 7.6, and oled might be 8, otu ojf ten, so buying millions of 4.6 pixels are still going to be 4.6, it`s crap, i bene ther on hard forum last year and made some posts. tried ot kepxlains to the guy he`s staring at a lightbulb.  you could also go plasma, but then your going to loose close range vision.

what? so your saying i should go pick up an old crt display and use that as my priamry monitor? when im going to be doing gaming, video editing, and other things that require a monitor that can do more that 25 fps, and i dont really want a screen thats going to take up my whole desk, my desk is long but not very thick, so i can barely fit on a monitor, mouse and keyboard, so trying to fit on a crt that dosent meet up to my requirement and dosent do 1080p full hd? its just out of the question, and plus i need a second monitor of some sort, or a really wide one, again, video editing and screen capturing.

[JACOR]

We'll, i dont know what fps 25 has to do with anyhting, im not a psychic, a babysitter, a therapist and im not here to do rocket science, or try to figure out what you mean, or convince you of anything, guy im running out of time for this, jus considering tht might save oyu a headache and losses, i have crts i run them at 90 frames per second, (90hz) if your talking frames per second, way better then the average 60 frames per second of an lcd, thats what most good people who know what theyre doing do, afaik, 90fps is pretty good, secondly, since were on the topic, a good 1280x960 crt will look 10 times better i find, than any 1080p lcd, imo, even downscaling 1080p content, you can research this yourself, do a stars test, make a test image blah blah blah, it`s easy to see.  later oled comming out si say, if you buy know, you`ll be costing the world etrash, and unfortuante production from likely some unfornatute person working in the third world, if oyu gonna cost, cost well, is just  thought.  like i says i have and have used many displays.  Right now im at somebody elses study using a 19inch 900p display,k it`s blue, no quantum dots say.

 

I`d rather watch a 4k video on a display with a million good qaulity ;pxiels, which are accruate or well representative, then cheap pixels.  because im there to see color and whatnot.  it really makes  HUGE difference. Incomparable. I have plasma displays too, but even they dont compare in some regards...  my only oelds in a phone, but they comming, andin 10 bit, itès gonna be a deal i think, i`d make sure oyu have something in the pot for them.  as a reference ièd say most plasma iève demos are roughly 7 something  out of 10 as well, suauly, but closer to 7.3, abviously alot  omre prefferable in my grading scheme, then 4.8 for your dynamic contrast hdr, ahips local dimming variant quantom dot pwm variant.  7.3 is lot bigger then 4.8, even if you had 8k 4.8 it doesn't add up for the individual pixels and their result with neighbours.  i also explored topics of aspect ratios, fov, it was a whole contemporary display address spiel, not just focusing n that one point. Also, people in color critical industries use crts or palsma, becuse they have realsitic colors, at least in color corrections stages, because lcd dipslays haveonly one brightness setting, they cannot modulate thier brightness pre pixel, so epseically if your working with color, a crt is great, ad i tihnk you can run them for 10 bit color, thats 10bpc or 1024 shades per rgb color, on linux systems or with qaudro cards, if im not mistaken,  mostl lcds dont even get 255 shades per rgb if your thinking of working in that 10 bit space, might be useful, an active 10 bit display, the lcds cant produce much accurate dynamic range, afaik, especially if your working with color, shades and many scenes, because there is only one light bulb which light up the whole display(figuratively), so there is only one luminance value for all the pixels in any given scene/frame, and often time the whole ilmn unless your actively changing the brightnes per frame, or per editing part of a frame, which is not realistic, to hae one luminance for everything, it's video retarded. Where as active technologies crt monitors, other projectors types, oled, and plasma can modulate their brightness per pixel and they and or are a more realistic color friends brightness to begin with which is why lighting and shades are so poorly rendered on lcd, even in the 8 bit space( if im not mistaken on that point on 10 bit).  so i woudlnt give money for an lcd today..  like i says, there is a HUGE difference in picture quality, and accuracy, in my experience.  Even when comparing with old wide gamut ccfl professional lcd displays, like those done by hp or eizo, which didn't suffer the led blue color crush fiasco of most displays today, resultant(imo) in quantom dot sheets.  it's just a poor spectrum of light, led, imo, give me 5700k or something

 

, i dont want you to do anything, and i not going to try to convince you of anything, im just saying, since your asking for advice,  andi have some experience.. with the relevant topics.. these are some figures you might not otherwise hear bout,to think of,  i'll contribute as I was just passing by, do what you like, theres some possibly very important details you might never otherwise know about.  possibly saving our eyes years or a lifetime of tracking and fatigue ad poor ergonomics, or whatever else, or maybe not.  Maybe an lcd would work fine for you, i have tons of them too, ah-ips, pva, ccfl, led, 8 bit, ultra wide, had a 4k setup, 30 incher, plasma, crts, identical size debezzle multi display, cross formation display setup(same pixel pitch differnt sized displays in a cross or a t) like i said, i done the works, and im prtty sure all new lcds still sit in 4.6, the 4.8 i may have referenced doesn't exist yet. those are just some current constant realities, as i understand, that might help you situate yourself and for shopping.  And you dont have to quote me, i find it rude, and i`ll ask you to remove the quote, pls, thanks for your consideration, and your welcome for my uber valuable opinion i shared with you, cause you were asking, dont have to get rude to me if that your intent.  im only telling you the things i think ièd wish to ehar if i were in your shoes, help you get to what i figure would be a much better place. instead of pva, or ah-ips led-regret, or just missing out.  Anyhow fellow, if i dont come back here or if i do, fare you well.  Wishing you a great experience and lots of video glory, supersedant or whatevers good. :-) pce