Optimal Monitor Sizes

[meztek]

I have a six screen setup in a 2 row 3 column configuration.  Right now they're not all the same size; I've been collecting them for good prices over the years.  I'm hoping to scrap up enough cash flow to buy six identical sized monitors by the end of this year.  My caveat being I don't know which size to choose.  So, I want to hear from you - what size is/are your monitor(s)?  Is it too small or too large for you? 

My smallest screens are 15", they're nice when in a multi-monitor setup but too small separately.  My largest is 25", and that feels way too big in my opinion.  I'm thinking 22" would be nice.  However, I remember having a tiny 12" or so monitor for many years and when I finally went up to a 19" monitor (which seemed large at the time) I later decided I would not turn back. 

[tp4tissue]

at least 30 inches

Ideally Viewed @ 1 Meter away.  1280x800 resolution


THis is the minimum size.


Even better would be 4k 65" viewed at around 3 meters out.

[tbc]

i use 28" 4K atm

i want to move to 32" 4K.

why?  because 32" at 1.5ft will completely block my vision of the wall behind my monitor

[noisyturtle]

[Lain1911]

25-27, but I'm interested in how widescreens would be.

[daerid]

3x30"

Accept no substitutes

[Psybin]

Impressive set up.
Stand up desk frame also!

I have two 24" right now. I'm shopping for an upgrade, on the fence on a 27 or 30 to replace one of them.

[byker]

What exactly are you looking for psybin? Imo you cannot go wrong with the cheap asian 1440p 27inch monitors off of ebay for $250-300. Mine is overclocked to 100hz and I love it for the price.

[Input Nirvana]

My work gave me a 32" tv with 1920xcrap resolution. In windoz I can make adjustments to various sizes of stuff, but when I go to some other program things are crazy big. It blows.

For single monitors I'm a believer that 24" is a starting size for convenience and go up from there. 30" can sometimes be too big, depending on your usage.

If you have more than one monitor the size rules change.

[tbc]

3x30"

Accept no substitutes

Show Image

are you using software to swap desktops between the screens?  or do you look at and work on the other screens?

[mason]

3x30"

Accept no substitutes

Show Image

What monitor arms are you using? Thanks in advance.

[daerid]

are you using software to swap desktops between the screens?  or do you look at and work on the other screens?

Visual studio, multiple browsers, Sql server windows, various internal dashboards and chat rooms, text editors, etc. things can get a bit hairy. No desktop swapping, use all three pretty consistently.

What monitor arms are you using? Thanks in advance.

The Dell ones. Not sure what the model number is.

[jacobolus]

The HP Z27q Display has a 5120 x 2880, 5K wide-color gamut. It delivers seven times more pixels than a classic full HD display —packed in a factory-calibrated IPS solution. The HP Z27q boasts premier imagery with 14.7 million pixels, 16:9 aspect ratio, 300 nits luminance(4) and 1.07 billion colors. The HP Z27q offers picture-in-picture and picture-by-picture, allowing users to display mobile device and PC feeds.

It's expected to ship in March for US$1299.99.

[jacobolus]

These articulating display arms are working pretty well for me:
https://www.massdrop.com/buy/Ergotech-Freedom-Arm?mode=guest_open

[Oobly]

I find 24" (1920x1200) to be the perfect size at the distance that's most comfortable for me (about 60 to 70cm I would guess).

At home I have a 22" 1680x1050 and it's just a bit too small.

[baldgye]

I used to rock a 24 and thought it was great. Now I'm on a 19 and while the resolution is a bit worse it's not really a big deal.
If I had the money I would probably just use two 19's or two 24's.

Like I don't think you can realistically do more than two things at once, and so having two screens allows you more space to do that without wasted desktop or wall space. It would also mean you only have to slightly move around physically in order to see what you where doing on each display. After playing around on a 30 it's just too big for a desktop, half the time your physically looking around for the stuff you need.

Even if your gaming there arnt too many games that actually benefit from having more than one display, the exception being racing games. At which point you really benefit from three 30" displays filling your view, but its probably safe to assume your not into racing sims if your asking... And even then it might be more practical to wait for the Rift to come out and just use one of those!

[slip84]

I have done the following recently:

Monitors
20" @ 1680x1050
23" @ 1920x1080
24" @ 1920x1080
27" @ 2560x1440

Laptops
15.6" @ 1376x768 - Work laptop, ugh
10.6" @ 1920x1080 - Surface Pro, running 1:1 without scaling
15" @ 1440x900 - MacBook Pro

And of those two, the two I love the most are the 27" @ 2560x1440 and the Surface Pro @ 1920x1080. I don't have scaling on for either and they're great. Mind you, when I use the Surface Pro, I'm not sitting too far back from it. It's just nice to have that many pixels for what I do for work.

The 27" is a good mixture for work/gaming/movies, etc. Even my PS3 looks pretty sharp on it at 1920x1080.

[Candyflip]

I am using 2x22" 1080 viewing from around 60 cm. I can see myself going up to 27" 1440 in near future as I can't justify going up to 4k at the moment.

[tjcaustin]

Sooon

DSC00861.jpg by tjcaustin, on Flickr

[SpAmRaY]

Sooon

Show Image

DSC00861.jpg by tjcaustin, on Flickr

Let us know how you like it, earlier in the thread I was going to make a joke about g-sync but after I read up on it realized maybe it is more than a gimmick.

[daerid]

How is G-SYNC different from standard V-Sync?

[tbc]

it's really only for gaming.  i'm not a gamer, so i might be off, but i'll try to explain this.

basically, on the outside, it looks like a really finetuned version of vsync.  normally, if your gpu can only do 48 fps, vsync would drop your refresh rate to 30fps.  you lost 18 fps worth of 'smoothness'.  gsync is better than vsync though and has the ability to set the refresh rate to exactly what the gpu is outputting.

in the end, you get the screentear prevention of vsync, without its laggy animation.

i'm not sure how well gsync works above 60fps

EDIT:

this requires specialized hardware in your monitor.

[tp4tissue]

How is G-SYNC different from standard V-Sync?

Gsync adaptively syncs to the exact number of frames your gfx card dips-to..


IMHO.. yes it's better than Vsync..  but now there's the trouble of intermittent time-dilation/contraction, because it may be holding onto a frame longer or shorter than it's relevant..


In practice.. you can't tell, because humans arn't very good detectors.. so the overall smoothness trumps the fact that you're not getting (closer to real frames)..

IMHO, it's irrelevant atm, because ULMB is far more desirable..

ULMB gives you MOTION CLARITY,  and that's immensely more pleasing and noticeable to the eye..

But.. ULMB only works well @ 100hz +,,,,,,, on the asus swift, ulmb goes up to 120hz instead of 144, a shame, but still already very good..

Now, because ULMB requires insane Frame rates,  it usually can't be coupled with Gsync..  due to average GPU power..

There's high risk in building a monitor with features that only works for people with SLI 970s..

Therefore , because ULMB is far more attractive than Gsync, and it can not be used together... Gsync is currently God damn useless.

ULMB is the most important feature because the HEART of our modern visual experience is NOT only Resolution,   but Resolution IN MOTION.....

ULMB is the only known way to regain what we lost from the CRT era..


OLED is NOT the ****ing answer, because it uses sample and hold.. not only that, but because OLED is NOT very bright AT ALL.. it REQUIRES sample and hold just to produce a bright enough picture,  which means,, EVEN if the pixels can come down in latency and respond,  IT CAN NOT possibly produce a bright enough image in that small time frame..


WHEREAS  a backlit system absolutely CAN..

[Findecanor]

I'm hoping to scrap up enough cash flow to buy six identical sized monitors by the end of this year.

What aspect ratios are we talking about?

Are you running multiple computers, multiple desktops under Linux or single-desktop Windows?
I have been content with a single screen under Linux because I am used to multiple desktops (about the same wm and setup since '97...), but I absolutely must have multiple screens if I am going to do programming under Windows.

As to resolution, I do my calculations in PPI: At least 100 on a Windows or Linux desktop, at least 120 on a laptop or on Mac, and preferably more in either case.
That means that 1920×1080 has max diagonal of 21.5". Bigger size needs more pixels.

I have been thinking that my next monitor at home is going to be a 34" 21:9 curved screen with 1440p pixels or more on the vertical (110 PPI). I have yet to evaluate it in person but I think that one curved ultra-wide could be an alternative to two flat monitors in 4:3. I have heard remarks though that you would need to align the screen and your head at the right heights so that your eyes are in the middle or else the curve could feel weird.
I calculated that a 34" 21:9 screen is about as high as a 27" 16:9 screen or a 25" 16:10.

[XMIT]

I've tried all manner of multi monitor setups and find I get the most actual work done with a single 30" 2560x1600 panel. It depends on your goals.

Someone above asked about "GSYNC". I work closely with this sort of thing so here is my take on it:

Typically, a computer monitor refreshes the image at a fixed rate (60Hz, 59.94Hz, 120Hz, what have you). Recall that 1 Hz = 1/s. That's a fixed clock and this really dates back to CRT monitors where this directly corresponded to an electron beam scanning over a phosphor. But this clock proceeds no matter what. Usually a computer's graphics system will have all the data ready for the monitor before the next tick of this never ending clock and the user sees a clean image. Sometimes, the computer falls behind and only part of the image is ready; this is called "tearing".

GSYNC flips control of the monitor. Instead of the monitor refreshing on a fixed clock and the computer trying to time new frames correctly, the computer tells the monitor when a new image is ready. In a game this has great benefit: maybe one particular frame has a whole bunch of geometry and takes longer to render. Instead of stalling and tearing, the system can wait until the frame is rendered correctly.

The is not the same thing as VSYNC, which is a feedback cycle still working on a fixed clock. This slows rendering to some integer divisor of the frame rate (say 30Hz on a 60Hz setup) resulting in more latency (more time) to the next frame. Gamers hate latency.

tl;dr: The computer tells the monitor when a new image is ready and controls monitor timing per frame. This requires special hardware and software in both the monitor and the computer system.

[Grill3dCh33z]

I've always attributed how big my monitor is to how big my desk is and how far away I sit from where the monitor is. Right now, I'm using a 30" monitor, I have a 27" in the closet with no room to put on my desk to do a double setup. When I get a big enough desk, that'll be another story

[tp4tissue]

I've always attributed how big my monitor is to how big my desk is and how far away I sit from where the monitor is. Right now, I'm using a 30" monitor, I have a 27" in the closet with no room to put on my desk to do a double setup. When I get a big enough desk, that'll be another story

Let's not turn this into an epeen competition..

[Grill3dCh33z]

I've always attributed how big my monitor is to how big my desk is and how far away I sit from where the monitor is. Right now, I'm using a 30" monitor, I have a 27" in the closet with no room to put on my desk to do a double setup. When I get a big enough desk, that'll be another story

Let's not turn this into an epeen competition..

Huh?? 

[Grill3dCh33z]

I've always attributed how big my monitor is to how big my desk is and how far away I sit from where the monitor is. Right now, I'm using a 30" monitor, I have a 27" in the closet with no room to put on my desk to do a double setup. When I get a big enough desk, that'll be another story

Let's not turn this into an epeen competition..

I think what I meant to say is how big the monitor is to desk size. Not /mine/ personally. Sorry.

[whentheclouds]

never mind tp4, he's just

[tp4tissue]

never mind tp4, he's just

Show Image

Only partially

[whentheclouds]

that's why he's making the cuckoo sign with only one hand and not two  )

[tp4tissue]

that's why he's making the cuckoo sign with only one hand and not two  )

I accept !

[HalfSharkAlligator]

OG 24" 16x10 1920x1200 FTW 

Maybe not the most impressive, but I think it's just a great sweet spot between size and resolution.

[davkol]

...and now for something completely different...

I swear by multiple 20" 1600×1200 screens.

[metalliqaz]

No matter how much screen space you have, you could always use more.

I think 27" is a good size right now.

[metalliqaz]

...and now for something completely different...

I swear by multiple 20" 1600×1200 screens.

I have dual 2007FP screens at work and it's a pretty good productivity layout.  I have one at home but I use it in portrait mode next to a widescreen.

[davkol]

It makes sense after all; for example, the aspect ratio fits A4 papers + some toolbars pretty well.

[katushkin]

I think I'm going to get two more 27s to flank the cheap one I bought from Amazon.

EUGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I WANTS MORE

[tp4tissue]

Asus Swiffffffffff...ffffffffffffffffffffffff

[katushkin]

Asus Swiffffffffff...ffffffffffffffffffffffff

If only I had £1200 to blow on a pair of those...

[supersoul]

23"-27"max. even 27 might be too big optimally i think 25 might be best. 2560x1440 ofc 

[Altis]

I really like 16:10 monitors and screens but they seem to be pretty uncommon. The 15" MacBook Pro is ideal for laptops, I'd say, as it's 16:10.

I like 27" as about the largest size for a single monitor. 16:10 would be great but I'm using 16:9 now (Dell U2713HM) at 2560x1440 that's very nice indeed.

I think having IPS versus TN makes a very big difference, too, and is easier on the eyes.

[jacobolus]

The 15" MacBook Pro is ideal for laptops, I'd say, as it's 16:10.

Nope, way too big. 12–13" is the sweet spot. :-)

[evangs]

another monitor size to consider that I've absolutely fell in love with is this 34 inch ultra wide.  The resolution is 3440 x 1440 and its a bit pricey, but i can have all my development stuff open in larger windows than I'm used to.  I also have a 24 inch dell ultra sharp (1920 x 1200) to the left.  Makes for a pretty good setup.

sorry for potato quality

[katushkin]

another monitor size to consider that I've absolutely fell in love with is this 34 inch ultra wide.  The resolution is 3440 x 1440 and its a bit pricey, but i can have all my development stuff open in larger windows than I'm used to.  I also have a 24 inch dell ultra sharp (1920 x 1200) to the left.  Makes for a pretty good setup.

sorry for potato quality

Show Image

That's pretty...

[MythicalWagyu]

another monitor size to consider that I've absolutely fell in love with is this 34 inch ultra wide.  The resolution is 3440 x 1440 and its a bit pricey, but i can have all my development stuff open in larger windows than I'm used to.  I also have a 24 inch dell ultra sharp (1920 x 1200) to the left.  Makes for a pretty good setup.

sorry for potato quality

Show Image

I've really been lusting after one of those 34" ultrawides after watching Linus review the LG 34UM95... so smexy! One day I'll get me one of those along with a nice new video card (never thought 2Gb VRAM would feel outdated so quickly!)

[tp4tissue]

another monitor size to consider that I've absolutely fell in love with is this 34 inch ultra wide.  The resolution is 3440 x 1440 and its a bit pricey, but i can have all my development stuff open in larger windows than I'm used to.  I also have a 24 inch dell ultra sharp (1920 x 1200) to the left.  Makes for a pretty good setup.

sorry for potato quality

Show Image

I've really been lusting after one of those 34" ultrawides after watching Linus review the LG 34UM95... so smexy! One day I'll get me one of those along with a nice new video card (never thought 2Gb VRAM would feel outdated so quickly!)

Bro..

Get the  31MU97-B

It's hands down the best 4k Profesh IPS out today if you're going that route..  The color is UBER good..


But that said..   Asus Swift makes the biggest difference in terms of MOTION image quality because it has ULMB.. night and day..

[MythicalWagyu]

another monitor size to consider that I've absolutely fell in love with is this 34 inch ultra wide.  The resolution is 3440 x 1440 and its a bit pricey, but i can have all my development stuff open in larger windows than I'm used to.  I also have a 24 inch dell ultra sharp (1920 x 1200) to the left.  Makes for a pretty good setup.

sorry for potato quality

Show Image

I've really been lusting after one of those 34" ultrawides after watching Linus review the LG 34UM95... so smexy! One day I'll get me one of those along with a nice new video card (never thought 2Gb VRAM would feel outdated so quickly!)

Bro..

Get the  31MU97-B

It's hands down the best 4k Profesh IPS out today if you're going that route..  The color is UBER good..


But that said..   Asus Swift makes the biggest difference in terms of MOTION image quality because it has ULMB.. night and day..

I do way too much gaming on my PC to bother with a 4K primary monitor; 4K isn't ready for primetime yet. If I had the luxury of a PC dedicated to photo editing I might consider one, but my machine needs to be multipurpose for now.

[katushkin]

Get the  31MU97-B

It's hands down the best 4k Profesh IPS out today if you're going that route..  The color is UBER good..


But that said..   Asus Swift makes the biggest difference in terms of MOTION image quality because it has ULMB.. night and day..

The swift is super expensive though. Yeah it looks good, but I haven't heard 100% good things though =/

IMO the BenQ XL2720Z looks better. Especially when you get one ****ing display port input on the Swift. WTF is that all about?