3x24" vs. 20"-30"-20"

V

v1p3r

n00b
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
20
screens2yi7.png


These seem to be the most popular configurations for large multi-monitor setups. Which do/would you prefer and why?
 
Initially I thought I would like the one with more pixels, but upon thinking about it a little bit more I would probably go with the 3x24" because it has more horizontal space. More horizontal space would be more efficient for multitasking with multiple windows because putting a window above another window just seems wrong to me.
 
I personally would prefer the 20"-30"-20" as I have a 22" and 21" wide screen running next too each atm, and that already feels like more than enough horizontal space, and would prefer to have gigantic central monitor for gaming/movies and then two others for multitasking.

Just a personal opinion though, I'm sure you will be happy with either set up :p
 
Definitely 20x30x20.

after a while it's really too horizontal for a lack of verticalness (if that makes any sense)
 
I prefer the 20 30 20 if price is not an issue

If it is then 24*3 is the way to go.

But the key thing is what will you be doing with the setup. Some apps work well in portrait like Word, so it is important to figure that out before you invest either way.

For gaming I love to have the 2560x1600 res, so i would always go that route.
 
The top one. Too bad theres not enough gpu power on earth to make anything run more than 2fps with it.
 
Have 2x24" and it's about at the limit of my width tolerance. I'd definitely go with 20x30x20 since I always preferred triple setups (came from a 3x19") for having a middle monitor..
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
The top one. Too bad theres not enough gpu power on earth to make anything run more than 2fps with it.
Click to expand...

There's no way to play most games across multiple (>1280x1024) monitors anyway, so that's hardly a concern :p

Thanks for the opinions guys, this is a tough choice.
 
That's what I was referring to with ">1280x1024". When running with three screens, the TH2G can't exceed that resolution on each screen.
 
Webpages fit well into a 1200*1600 space.

The only concern is that text looks different in portrait mode, because the sub-pixels are oriented differently. Neither Windows nor OS X support sub-pixel smoothing of vertically oriented sub-pixels.
 
20-30-20... because i believe having atleast one large monitor is better than a bunch of smaller monitors (although 24 is large)... but thats because of what i do a lot of..

besides 3X24 would make my neck having to turn my neck side to side so much.
 
Yelnats said:
The only concern is that text looks different in portrait mode, because the sub-pixels are oriented differently. Neither Windows nor OS X support sub-pixel smoothing of vertically oriented sub-pixels.
Click to expand...

*Puts his face against his monitor* OMG you're right. It never occurred to me and I never noticed it. Well I did notice I couldn't get perfect sharp text on my XP setup but I just thought it was VGA's fault. Man that explains a lot.
 
Yelnats said:
The only concern is that text looks different in portrait mode, because the sub-pixels are oriented differently. Neither Windows nor OS X support sub-pixel smoothing of vertically oriented sub-pixels.
Click to expand...

That's a shame. I suppose I could put a feature request in with the UltraMon developer to add per-display ClearType settings :eek:

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType#Sensitivity_to_display_orientation

Vertical sub pixel structures are fully supported in the Windows XP Tablet PC Edition[5] and in Windows Vista (referred to as "Y-direction anti-aliasing" in the section on the Windows Presentation Foundation).
Click to expand...

I wonder where you enable it...
 
No question to go with the 20/30/20.

More usable space and a larger main monitor. Especially if you're doing worthwhile things with your computer, vertical real estate is far more valuable than horizontal, and spreading four or so documents out on the three monitors while still having 1600 vertical pixels for each is awesome.
 
I love my 3007wfp-hc, but I am no expert here.

Notables:
Low input lag for fast gaming, but expect to turn down graphics a good deal and forget about AA/AF.
No scaler to display resolutions other than 2560x1600 and 1280x800, so while you can run various resolutions on the computer and your video card automatically upscales to 2560x1600, forget about using a Playstation 3 or having your monitor do double duty as a TV without other hardware purchases.
High (relative) value, currently priced at $1200. This will probably drop further soon though as the 3008wfp model is finally escaping supply constraints. They were on sale earlier this spring for $1050. (when I got mine)
 
I'll probably get a 3007WFP-HC if it goes on sale for $1050 again. I think I skipped the price last time because I wanted a monitor with more inputs.

I'd rather have a 3007WFP or a 30" Apple Cinema Display, as they are standard gamut, but the first isn't available, and the second is too expensive for me.

The NEC 2090UXI-BK or the Dell 2007FP (IPS) would be good for the side displays.
 
I can't imagine what would be too different about it.


Side note:
The 20" monitors on the side will also be a hair taller than the 30" but not enough to have an appreciable difference. There was also someone in the show your display thread with a 20/30/20 setup on one of those 3 monitor mount stands. If they weren't $250 I would probably get one myself.


Real_Bateman's setup from the display thread
Makes me want to waste money and replace my 17" with another 2007fp to finally have a full set.
 
v1p3r said:
That's a shame. I suppose I could put a feature request in with the UltraMon developer to add per-display ClearType settings :eek:

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType#Sensitivity_to_display_orientation



I wonder where you enable it...
Click to expand...

I think the Wikipedia article is incorrect. Vista allows Cleartype on text in any direction, but there is no way to tell Vista what the physical layout of the sub-pixels is. You could have a word rotated 90 degrees (or 45 degrees, or whatever) and have it display properly, if you are in landscape orientation.

It should take very little work to implement portrait mode smoothing, because Cleartype in Vista already has the capability of rendering at any angle
 
On the subject of best 30" screens, if you're in the UK the Hazro HZ30W is a good choice.

It's basically identical to the 3007WFP-HC, except it's quite a bit cheaper and has a full aluminium build :)
 
Belgain Roffles said:
I love my 3007wfp-hc, but I am no expert here.

Notables:
Low input lag for fast gaming, but expect to turn down graphics a good deal and forget about AA/AF.
No scaler to display resolutions other than 2560x1600 and 1280x800, so while you can run various resolutions on the computer and your video card automatically upscales to 2560x1600, forget about using a Playstation 3 or having your monitor do double duty as a TV without other hardware purchases.
High (relative) value, currently priced at $1200. This will probably drop further soon though as the 3008wfp model is finally escaping supply constraints. They were on sale earlier this spring for $1050. (when I got mine)
Click to expand...


so the 30" dell is not good with a PS3 or 360?

lame
 
I thought 2408wfp monitors had a good amount of input lag too, but I haven't really paid much attention.

You can always get a Blackmagic Intensity card for $250 with the 3007wfp-hc in order to use a playstation 3 or 360 with the monitor and still be well under the cost of a 3008wfp. (Admittedly no 1080p input on Blackmagic Intensity, but there really aren't any games that play in 1080p except for racing ones.) If you want 1080p movies, you could always take another extra step and buy an internal blu ray player for ~$150.

EDIT:

What the..?
1080p3007wfp-hc.gif


Did I set something wrong or is this actually working like it says it is?

Settings shown are saved & used settings there, as there would be an apply button in the bottom right if I had changed something.
 
Belgain Roffles said:
I thought 2408wfp monitors had a good amount of input lag too, but I haven't really paid much attention.

You can always get a Blackmagic Intensity card for $250 with the 3007wfp-hc in order to use a playstation 3 or 360 with the monitor and still be well under the cost of a 3008wfp. (Admittedly no 1080p input on Blackmagic Intensity, but there really aren't any games that play in 1080p except for racing ones.) If you want 1080p movies, you could always take another extra step and buy an internal blu ray player for ~$150.

EDIT:

What the..?
1080p3007wfp-hc.gif


Did I set something wrong or is this actually working like it says it is?

Settings shown are saved & used settings there, as there would be an apply button in the bottom right if I had changed something.
Click to expand...

the font in the picture doesn't seem like it is running at 1920X1080, probably a bug... lots of them associated with Dell software. it should be pretty obvious that your resolution isn't normal.
 
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
It WAS running at 1920x1080, it is just not SUPPOSED to (with those options there) due to the lack of a scaler on the 3007wfp-hc.
The whole reason running resolutions other than 2560x1600 or 1280x800 is supposed to work is that the video card upscales the resolution to one of those two, but I supposedly had the video card scaling turned off here, which is the reason for my question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top