Dualscreen or Widescreen?

Widescreen or Dualscreen?

  • Widescreen

    Votes: 97 77.6%

  • Dualscreen

    Votes: 28 22.4%
  • Total voters
    125
S

Sluuut

n00b
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
51
Hi,

I was wondering what you guys would buy in case you had the money, for instance for:
2x20" monitors, or 1x 24".

I think Widescreen has a future, because there are more and more avaible and people like to buy it. Also Vista will play into this. But then again, dualscreen would be larger then widescreen. But widescreen has the ability to play dvds/hdtv far better then dualscreen. But dualscreen has a higher resolution and most games don't support widescreen (yet). And so on, so on...

So, what would you do, and why?
 
Why not dual screen widescreens? There are tons of 20.1" widescreens out there.

I personally would have more use out of dual screen for the simple fact of the things I do on my PC other than just game.
 
I had a thread on this not too long ago, I ended up going with one 24" widescreen because of gaming. I game a lot so I want a bigger screen for gaming without the stupid line right down the middle that you'd get with two 2007FPWs.
 
Go widescreen unless you want to have a mad awesome custom crosshair in every game you play that looks remarkably like two inches of plastic.
 
uh...you only use one monitor as a gaming monitor and the other as a whatever monitor. I have samurize running on one while gaming, and a few other widgets for game stats, temps, etc.

Its all personal preference, but yes if you go dual montior and you have the game drivers for the double resolution, your crosshair will be in the void between the screens. Solution, go with three monitors :D
 
I like the widescreen gaming concept but you should probably check into whether your favourite games support it first. I imagine it would be nasty to find out that your favourite online game crops the top and bottom off the image rather then giving you a wider field of vision in widescreen (*cough* Battlefield 2 *cough*).

Personally, I'd probably do the single wide, but that's because I watch a lot of anime on my PC and a lot of newer releases are 16:9. It'll depend a lot on how much importance you place on each usage of the monitor.
 
placebo said:
Go widescreen unless you want to have a mad awesome custom crosshair in every game you play that looks remarkably like two inches of plastic.
Click to expand...
Umm.. I'll never play a game on dualscreen. Furthermore there are like 1 games that support that crap.
Skipper007 said:
I like the widescreen gaming concept but you should probably check into whether your favourite games support it first. I imagine it would be nasty to find out that your favourite online game crops the top and bottom off the image rather then giving you a wider field of vision in widescreen (*cough* Battlefield 2 *cough*).

Personally, I'd probably do the single wide, but that's because I watch a lot of anime on my PC and a lot of newer releases are 16:9. It'll depend a lot on how much importance you place on each usage of the monitor.
Click to expand...
Yeah, i did that :)
I play some counterstrike source and it supports it like crazy, because the FOV gets higher. So you can see more around you.

But i'm still not convinced witch one i should pick :(
 
If you're a gamer, you really need to get the 2407WFP, if you have a 7900GT or higher you'll be fine in games.

Either get one 2407, or two 2407s :D
 
For the price of a 24" you could go tripple screen and remove the bar from the middle. Actually I wish I could go tripple 20" and then one 24 sitting above or below for games/movies. Dreaming....
 
No, don't do that triple monitor crap. That'll give you some screwy resolution like 3880x1050.

For gaming I'm telling you, the Dell 2407WFP is where it's at.

However, if you're going to game a little and work a lot of applications and whatnot, you might be better off with dual monitors.

If you're like me and game 80% of the time and the rest of time is spent browsing/using apps than the 24" is great.

Imagine photoshop with 24 inches :D oohhhhhh yeeeaahhhh...
 
winston856 said:
No, don't do that triple monitor crap. That'll give you some screwy resolution like 3880x1050.

For gaming I'm telling you, the Dell 2407WFP is where it's at.

However, if you're going to game a little and work a lot of applications and whatnot, you might be better off with dual monitors.

If you're like me and game 80% of the time and the rest of time is spent browsing/using apps than the 24" is great.

Imagine photoshop with 24 inches :D oohhhhhh yeeeaahhhh...
Click to expand...

I think Matrox's gear maxes out at 3840X1024, actually. If you're looking at triple widescreens, you're looking at something like 3840X720 or 3840X768, if I remember Matrox's statements on the matter correctly.

The number of games that support three monitors is also smaller, although it's suprisingly large for such a niche technology. On the other hand, you'll need boatloads of graphics processing power to get it to run at high res, and Crossfire doesn't work with it (SLI and single card solutions work, though), so you'd probably want to get used to using scaling on the LCDs.

I still thing triplehead is a fantastic concept, though. Even if it does put bars in your 16:9 content if you use 4:3 monitors and 4:3 content probably works even worse... since it means you'll be using 1/3 of your overall screen area.
 
winston856 said:
If you're a gamer, you really need to get the 2407WFP, if you have a 7900GT or higher you'll be fine in games.

Either get one 2407, or two 2407s :D
Click to expand...

So the banding problem with the 2407's doesn't matter for games or to gamers.
 
This is what i did.

the_rig.jpg


I came from 2 19" CRT's to the 2 20.1" widescreen dells.

I love the widescreen. I would say instead of 1 24" dell get the 2 20" dell widescreens, about hte same cost ($150 difference) and you get the best of both worlds.
 
Skipper007 said:
On the other hand, you'll need boatloads of graphics processing power to get it to run at high res, and Crossfire doesn't work with it (SLI and single card solutions work, though), so you'd probably want to get used to using scaling on the LCDs.
Click to expand...

It's comments like these that irritate me. You don't need a 'boatload' of graphics processing power to play games at 1920x1200.

Observe: My box for example has a lowly 7900GT CO that can be purchased for the princely sum of $280 off of newegg.

With this card I'm able to run BF2 @ 1920x1200 everything maxed with 2xsuper sampling anti-alising and my FPS stays above 45, maxes at 95 and averages around 75.

With CS:S I can play at 1920x1200 again with settings maxed and 2xsuper sampling AA with 16xAF and I never drop below 50FPS, max 120, avg around 70.

This is all on a 256MB 7900GT!

Now, IMHO $280 for this kind of graphics power is a steal! I was all worried that this card wasn't going to cut it but it performs perfectly!

So don't let the fact that you don't have a 7900GTX/SLI X1900XTX/CF stop you from purchasing this monitor.



J32P2006 said:
So the banding problem with the 2407's doesn't matter for games or to gamers.
Click to expand...

I do not experience any banding on my 2407WFP. I bought mine July 15th and got rev. A02. No banding, stuck/dead pixels or ghosting. All is well :)
 
Might want to check the context of my statement. I'm not talking about running at 1920X1200. I'm talking about running a Matrox Triplehead setup. Sure, the thing supports 1920X480 and 2400X600... and you might even pull 3072X768 with a single card (only slightly higher overall then 1920X1200)... but 3840X1024? No way, you WILL need a boatload of GPU power to do that.



But since you brought it up, I guess it would be worth pointing out that even high end video card solutions tend to barely be enough for Oblivion at 1920X1200, so I wouldn't expect games a year from now to run at that. That said, I'm not sure going multi-GPU just to future proof is a good move either... I've tended to notice that those who buy super high end to future proof end up having their gear go obsolete almost as fast as the rest of us!
 
I use a 2407 A02 and a 17" samsung LCD. Love the dual setup. My next monitor will most definately be a 30" apple or dell.
 
Skipper007 said:
Might want to check the context of my statement. I'm not talking about running at 1920X1200. I'm talking about running a Matrox Triplehead setup. Sure, the thing supports 1920X480 and 2400X600... and you might even pull 3072X768 with a single card (only slightly higher overall then 1920X1200)... but 3840X1024? No way, you WILL need a boatload of GPU power to do that.



But since you brought it up, I guess it would be worth pointing out that even high end video card solutions tend to barely be enough for Oblivion at 1920X1200, so I wouldn't expect games a year from now to run at that. That said, I'm not sure going multi-GPU just to future proof is a good move either... I've tended to notice that those who buy super high end to future proof end up having their gear go obsolete almost as fast as the rest of us!
Click to expand...


Well yes, if he bought the triplehead2go from matrox he would need a faster card{s) to run that with high details.

Now that we're talking about futureproofing it's true that if he waited he could buy a better card in a while that would play the games coming out in a while a better settings. The thing is you can sit around and wait for ever but you have to bite the bullet sometime.

Also, everybody always brings up oblivion @ 1920x1200. I think this needs to be brought up to the OP. If he's going to be playing oblivion all the time than he's going to need a stout graphics setup. I sort of assumed he wasn't going to play it and that was wrong on my part.

But, for just about every other game out there, you can use a 7900GT with the 2407WFP and get very playable framrates. We just need to find out more about the type of games he likes to play and or if he games a lot or not.

Basically what it boiled down to for me was: The 2x2007 seemed like they be for someone who games maybe 20-30% of the time and worked with apps the rest. Where as the 2407 was for somebody who gamed 70-80% of the time and browsed the internet/use apps the rest of the time.

If he's going to be gaming a LOT, he really should get the 2407 for the best experience. It's going to be bigger than ONE 2007 obviously.
 
I don't deny you have to pull the trigger sometime. I just think it's important for people to know that if their video card doesn't have much breathing room... it's not going to be able to run those settings for three years or anything like that.
 
Skipper007 said:
I don't deny you have to pull the trigger sometime. I just think it's important for people to know that if their video card doesn't have much breathing room... it's not going to be able to run those settings for three years or anything like that.
Click to expand...

Quite right.

If you want to stay with the highest details and you have an LCD with a high native res, you're going to have to upgrade your graphics card more often than you might want to.

The OP should know this before he buys a monitor that uses a high native resolutions. There are exceptions however. Such as, with a 2407 and a nVidia card you can run 1600x1200 perfectly scaled with black bars on the sides.

I accept that I'm going to have to upgrade my video card more often now that I have a monitor that runs in a high res. That's what I have a job for and that's also what ebay's for :)
 
Sluuut said:
Hi,

I was wondering what you guys would buy in case you had the money, for instance for:
2x20" monitors, or 1x 24".

I think Widescreen has a future, because there are more and more avaible and people like to buy it. Also Vista will play into this. But then again, dualscreen would be larger then widescreen. But widescreen has the ability to play dvds/hdtv far better then dualscreen. But dualscreen has a higher resolution and most games don't support widescreen (yet). And so on, so on...

So, what would you do, and why?
Click to expand...
The 24in. Why? Leaves room for more improvement. You like to watch movies? You don't want to get 20in widescreen, its small IMO, the height is as tall as a 17in square :(. Now if you got two squares, they'll be big, but movies that support widescreen will take half the screen. It really depends on how you use your real estate.

1x1920x1200 vs 2x1600x1200.
 
Asian Dub Foundation said:
how about dual widecreen!

Click to expand...
If i had the money for it, i would buy two ofcourse.. But i want at least 24" because of the nice resolution, 1920x1200.. I dont want some 1650x1050 20" thing.. Also because the monitors will be lower in dimensions then my 2x19" i got at the time.

winston856 said:
If you're a gamer, you really need to get the 2407WFP, if you have a 7900GT or higher you'll be fine in games.

Either get one 2407, or two 2407s :D
Click to expand...
I'd rather not have Input lag and banding problems :p

With CS:S I can play at 1920x1200 again with settings maxed and 2xsuper sampling AA with 16xAF and I never drop below 50FPS, max 120, avg around 70.
Click to expand...
How can you have 120 frames if the screen is limited to 75 because of the Hertz? :p
winston856 said:
Actually that would be 1680x1050 :p


assuming he got the widescreen monitor.


I know.....sorry for nitpicking :D
Click to expand...
No, he is correct, it should be 1x 1920x1200 (24" widescreen) or 2x 20" normal screens 2x1600x1200...
 
Sluuut said:
I'd rather not have Input lag and banding problems :p
Click to expand...

The monitors have had banding problems, but the newest ones alleviate that almost completely. There is NO input lag at all. I do not notice any banding on my monitor and all the recent reviews i've read haven't noticed any severe banding. If there was any it was too little to notice or you had to be looking at something specific with your face close to the screen.


Sluuut said:
How can you have 120 frames if the screen is limited to 75 because of the Hertz? :p
Click to expand...

First off, the hertz are 60. Second the syncronization of monitor and graphics card only functions when you have the option (cleaverly named v-sync) enabled. Otherwise you get what's called 'tearing' when the videocard is drawing more screen than the monitor can display.


Sluuut said:
No, he is correct, it should be 1x 1920x1200 (24" widescreen) or 2x 20" normal screens 2x1600x1200...
Click to expand...

That's fine if you were getting the normal sized monitor, but I just thought if you happened to get the 2x20" you would choose the widescreen flavors. :)
 
Sluuut said:
Umm.. I'll never play a game on dualscreen. Furthermore there are like 1 games that support that crap.

Yeah, i did that :)
I play some counterstrike source and it supports it like crazy, because the FOV gets higher. So you can see more around you.

But i'm still not convinced witch one i should pick :(
Click to expand...

Isn't FOV locked in online matches because it's basically cheating ?
 
OP: The poll you started is even pointing you into the right direction.

May I ask what it is you do with your computer? What takes up the most of your time while you're on your box?
 
If you can't go duel widescreens I'd say go with a 20" or a 24" widescreen,I personally have 2 2005fpw's. If I'm PC gaming on the main one, the secondary is either showing me Teamspeak/MP3 player/Web Pages or my 360. I also have the second screen hooked up to my Media Center so I can watch TV/Movies if I am doing work on my main screen.
 
Demon_of_The_Fall said:
Isn't FOV locked in online matches because it's basically cheating ?
Click to expand...
Nope, thats the funny thing, you have to buy a monitor for it :p
May I ask what it is you do with your computer? What takes up the most of your time while you're on your box?
Click to expand...
I think the main thing is gaming & surfing..
Just a little movies/photoshop, not to much.
 
dualscreen gets annoying for games, and most of them are fullsize one screen so you ahve to downsize either way. Widescreen also doesn't have the annoying bar in the middle you would see on dual screen
 
Get the sony fw-900 if you have the desk space. Enjoy current gen games at 1920x1200 res. and scale back to 1600x1000 when newer stuff comes out :D . You can scale back even further and up the details if you wanted. No native resolution to hold you back.
 
Yeah. Agrees with the two posts above this one. :D

Dualscreens don't give the same benefits like widescreens in games, but then again you can have more stuff there at the same time and more desktop space. So go for dual widescreens! :p
 
Skipper007 said:
... but 3840X1024? No way, you WILL need a boatload of GPU power to do that
Click to expand...
Only if you plan on playing somthing like Oblivion at that resolution :p

Run all the games you can on 3 screens, and the ones you cant (Oblivion) run on just 1. Not that hard to figure out...
 
Unknown-One said:
Only if you plan on playing somthing like Oblivion at that resolution :p

Run all the games you can on 3 screens, and the ones you cant (Oblivion) run on just 1. Not that hard to figure out...
Click to expand...

It's pretty close to running 2560X1600... I think there area a few other games that could be problematic at that res with a single GPU. GRAW and FEAR come to mind.

Of course, you can still back off the res. That's what I'd do for Oblivion... no point in wasting 2 screens just for a bit more image quality in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top