Modern PLP Setup Like 20-30-20?

[Panel]

Basically the title. Does there today exist a PLP setup on the level of the legendary 20-30-20? Those displays had matching aesthetics (as in casing), matching heights, matching pixel densities, and to top it all off, matching color properties.

I doubt such a perfect match exists today, but is there anything close? And if so, just how close is it?

Thanks.

 

[Archaea]

Basically the title. Does there today exist a PLP setup on the level of the legendary 20-30-20? Those displays had matching aesthetics (as in casing), matching heights, matching pixel densities, and to top it all off, matching color properties.

I doubt such a perfect match exists today, but is there anything close? And if so, just how close is it?

Thanks.

I’ve looked and I don’t think so.

I had that setup you are describing with a Dell 3014 and two 2007FP. For gaming the AW3418DW I have now is just better. Its the best monitor for gaming, and overall use Ive ever had.

I still miss the picture quality of that 3014. I think that was the best looking PC monitor I’ve ever owned, but at 60hz it pales compared to a modern gaming display. The 3418 is better for gaming with g-sync and 120hz, and bests the tripple monitor setups Ive had because of no complexity and no bezel bars.

my monitor setups in the last 5 years
30 - Dell 3014”
20, 20, 20 - Dell 2007FP
20 30, 20 - PLP combination of above
32 - HP Omen 32
32, 32, 32 - three HP Omen 32
35 - Acer xz350cu

Current:
34 - Dell AW3418DW for gaming station
24, 32, 24 - Two Dell U2412M 24" at 1920x1200 and a Dell s3219d 32” at 2560x1440 for workstation


BTW - don't bother with those Dell 2007FP monitors now days. They are too old. My four died and were thrown away in the last 2-3 years. They just all stopped working. Internal PSUs failed most likely, but the LCD Panels were discoloring from age too.(whites were more yellow)


My PLP setup -


My Dell 3014, Acer 35”, and HP Omen 32 compared:


I didn’t make a video of the three HP Omens. They were fantastic for flight sims and racing games but at over 80” wide was just way too big for a productivity setup. I found myself only using the center monitor because the left and right display stretched out so far to the sides.

pics here:
https://hardforum.com/threads/best-games-for-eyefinity-or-surround-gaming.1924191/


I also didn't make a video of the Dell AW3418DW, but its just a single monitor and there are a bunch of reviews out there. I cant add anything new to whats already said. it was considered the best ultra-wide gaming monitor for a couple years. Its nice!

It costs about $600 to $650 right now on sale is the overall best monitor experience I’ve owned. My next upgrade will be OLED or MAYBE QLED based for top notch blacks over the 3418’s IPS. However I’d like it to be a 38” widescreen, with high refresh, and that doesn't exist yet, so it may be some time.

 

[Panel]

Thanks for the in depth info and warning to stay away from the old Dells. Honestly, I might have still been tempted otherwise to reuse what I already have and only spend a few hundred to get a decent PLP setup going.

For gaming the AW3418DW I have now is just better. Its the best monitor for gaming, and overall use Ive ever had.

Unlike most people on [H], I insist on only having on PC setup, even if that means I have to compromise on either gaming or productivity, or both. My problem with most all of these ultrawides is that while refresh rate is important for gaming and makes arguably the biggest improvement to a setup (like adding in an SSD to an aging, slow laptop), it doesn't make the biggest improvement to productivity. Sure, you can see it on anything you do on a PC, like moving around the mouse cursor on the desktop and scrolling, but that doesn't really translate to a more comfortable experience for me. the problem that I really have with my 27" 1440p 60Hz display is text clarity. Everything looks noticeably blurry compared to my tablet, phone, and laptop, and that's bothering me. I look at beautiful displays like Samsung's CRG90, but the idea of upgrading my monitor (which was released 8.5 years ago) to a brand new 2019 release model with the SAME EXACT pixel density is unbearable.

When I say this, I'm usually met with arguments that spec sheets shouldn't be given such weight and that the real value of anything comes from the user's experience. The underlying assumption there is that the only reason to ever want anything above 1440p is to be a spec junkie (no offense to spec junkies, btw). I flat out disagree on this. That's nonsense. And more so, I'll admit that the difference from 1440p to 4K is not too noticeable in games. I can see it, and I'm sure most of us can, but its subtle. No, to me the real issue is with text clarity as I mentioned earlier. I don't understand how people who sit only 1.5-2" from their 27" displays claim they can't see the difference between 1440p and 4K/5K.

EDIT: Apologies if any of this came off as a criticism towards you, because that's not the intent. I really do appreciate you sharing your old videos. I'm speaking generally towards the sentiment I see when it comes to ultrawides.

 

[Archaea]

Im with you on having multiple screens for productivity. A single Ultra-wide gives me two windows easily for productivity using Windows snap to function. My three panels give me six easily using snap to and 3 in full screen! More real estate is better for work!

I don’t think 27” text at 2560x1440 or 34” text at 3440x1440 is blurry though. I’ve got 20/20 vision and it looks great to me. Certainly not blurry. If I lean forward I can see pixels, but sitting a normal distance no. Have you tried optimizing with Windows Clear Font optimizer tool?
https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/adjust-cleartype-windows-10

In fact Im sitting here at my 32” dell s3219d I use as my center workstation monitor. (it's cheap and works fine). I don't see pixels even then at normal seating distance. 27” should be cleaner still. But, if you appreciate more pixels than me — fine — my opinion/needs wont change your opinion/needs. I understand some folk like really fine pixels!

You must find PPI of standard productivity 24” at 1920x1200 too big? I like that personally. I find the 32” in the middle of the 24”s to be excellent for my productivity!!! Much better than thee 24"s IMO, and better than three 32"s too. Of course no ability to do a clean size matched PLP.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

No matter what you do there are compromises.
I think most gamers have moved to ultrawide rather than trying to pair two different displays and panels. It's honestly just more trouble than it's worth.
The issue for users like you is that you want to kind of have both. A gaming setup and a productivity setup all in one setup. And that's just a lot harder to do if you want to have nice tech like 144hz+, LFC, Freesync, etc.
The LG 5k2k monitor more or less has you covered for ultrawide, high resolution and great for widescreen gaming, but it's missing all the gaming features (it's definitely geared toward productivity) and its resolution is too high for all but the best GPU's to drive at native resolution for gaming.

If you are okay with options below that then there are quite a few different 3440x1440 options that are sufficient. Which was noted above work well for having two windows up while providing a wider screen experience so long as the pixel density is enough for your needs.
If you can wait over a year then likely there will be 3840x1600 options that should be under $1k. Right now there is only one and it is ultra premium priced.

 

[Panel]

If you can wait over a year then likely there will be 3840x1600 options that should be under $1k. Right now there is only one and it is ultra premium priced.

Honestly, I’m seriously considering Dell’s 38” 1600p option. I really want something here and now, and and it’s right under a thousand. Would I prefer gaming features like Freesync and (more importantly) high-refresh? Yeah. But for my primary concern (productivity), it’s looking excellent.

 

[Archaea]

What about the Acer with the 75hz FreeSync and HDR?
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XR382CQ...a_1_2?keywords=acer+38”&qid=1575760453&sr=8-2

my buddy has one and loves it. He got one with no backlight bleed too.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

PLP: this is a no-go, as GPU vendors stopped supporting it (AMD) or never actually supported it (Nvidia). Would have been nice.

Otherwise, Windows 10 makes it very easy to cut up a larger panel.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Honestly, I’m seriously considering Dell’s 38” 1600p option. I really want something here and now, and and it’s right under a thousand. Would I prefer gaming features like Freesync and (more importantly) high-refresh? Yeah. But for my primary concern (productivity), it’s looking excellent.

Personally if I only wanted a productivity focused monitor at the cost of gaming features, the top of my list would be the LG 5k2k:
https://www.amazon.com/LG-34BK95U-W...sr_1_4?keywords=lg+5k2k&qid=1575786349&sr=8-4

 

[Panel]

Personally if I only wanted a productivity focused monitor at the cost of gaming features, the top of my list would be the LG 5k2k:
https://www.amazon.com/LG-34BK95U-W...sr_1_4?keywords=lg+5k2k&qid=1575786349&sr=8-4

I’ve considered this one many times too. When I’d attach any of these to my MacBook, which is my main productivity machine, I’d definitely like to have USB-C connectivity. The Dell, Acer, and this LG all support that.

My concern is, while I get more space with the Dell/Acer compared to my current 1440p display, I get LESS space with the LG. I like using 2x scaling, which would give me an effective resolution of 2560 x 1080. Not only that, but text would look a little too big at that size, IMO.

 

[kasakka]

Unlike most people on [H], I insist on only having on PC setup, even if that means I have to compromise on either gaming or productivity, or both. My problem with most all of these ultrawides is that while refresh rate is important for gaming and makes arguably the biggest improvement to a setup (like adding in an SSD to an aging, slow laptop), it doesn't make the biggest improvement to productivity. Sure, you can see it on anything you do on a PC, like moving around the mouse cursor on the desktop and scrolling, but that doesn't really translate to a more comfortable experience for me. the problem that I really have with my 27" 1440p 60Hz display is text clarity. Everything looks noticeably blurry compared to my tablet, phone, and laptop, and that's bothering me. I look at beautiful displays like Samsung's CRG90, but the idea of upgrading my monitor (which was released 8.5 years ago) to a brand new 2019 release model with the SAME EXACT pixel density is unbearable.

When I say this, I'm usually met with arguments that spec sheets shouldn't be given such weight and that the real value of anything comes from the user's experience. The underlying assumption there is that the only reason to ever want anything above 1440p is to be a spec junkie (no offense to spec junkies, btw). I flat out disagree on this. That's nonsense. And more so, I'll admit that the difference from 1440p to 4K is not too noticeable in games. I can see it, and I'm sure most of us can, but its subtle. No, to me the real issue is with text clarity as I mentioned earlier. I don't understand how people who sit only 1.5-2" from their 27" displays claim they can't see the difference between 1440p and 4K/5K.

The reality is that there are just a limited set of ultrawides each with their own compromises.

• LG 5K x 2K display is only 34" and 60 Hz - though driving that in gaming would need dual 2080 Ti or something anyway.
• Most ultrawides are just a bit wider 1440p screens. Nice if you don't already have a 16:9 1440p, not so much if you do.
• Ultrawides that up the size and res to 3840x1600 are mostly 60 Hz or you pay through the nose for the new LG 38GL950G. It's a larger size but about the same sharpness as a regular 1440p display.
• Super ultrawides aren't sharper than a regular 1440p display. Most of these are either too narrow vertically (1080p and 1200p variants), 60 Hz only or just too wide for some. CRG9 is really the only viable contender in this category at the moment.

I do think the ultrawide format is absolutely the best for desktop displays but we have to wait a year or two for "ultrawide 4K" (5120x2160) at larger sizes (38-43" would be grand) and higher refresh rates. For me 60 Hz just does not do it anymore. Even if I can't drive modern games at 120 fps, having the possibility to do so in the future is important as I don't change screens often and selling old ones is a chore.

 

[wagoo]

PLP: this is a no-go, as GPU vendors stopped supporting it (AMD) or never actually supported it (Nvidia). Would have been nice.

Otherwise, Windows 10 makes it very easy to cut up a larger panel.

Can still run some games in windowed mode stretched across multiple mismatched displays, though?

I'm kind of using a PLP, though it's not as perfect as the oldskool 20/30/20 setup seems like it would have been (I was doing 5x1P eyefinity for 6000x1920 before this, though). I have a 49" 3840x2160 wasabi-mango UHD490 in the middle, 2x Dell 1200x1920 U2412M in portrait as wings.. pixels are around the same size.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I’ve considered this one many times too. When I’d attach any of these to my MacBook, which is my main productivity machine, I’d definitely like to have USB-C connectivity. The Dell, Acer, and this LG all support that.

My concern is, while I get more space with the Dell/Acer compared to my current 1440p display, I get LESS space with the LG. I like using 2x scaling, which would give me an effective resolution of 2560 x 1080. Not only that, but text would look a little too big at that size, IMO.

Considering your two compromises are either A) using a display of lower resolution or B) choosing a scaling that isn't 200%, I would opt for not choosing to scale at 200%. Especially if you're working in macOS. The scaling options work perfectly and there isn't a worry about getting a perfect 4:1 ratio or rather having a 4:1 ratio isn't necessary. This of course being the way that all scaling should work in the first place, there shouldn't be a difference save for size and without any form of artifacting.

Still, its your purchase so ultimately you use whatever you buy however you want to use it. However, if that's really the way it has to be for you then I'd suggest looking at a 32:9 monitor which essentially operates as 2x 27" 2560x1440 monitors joined together. Then you can have no scaling, two windows up, and a massive screen for gaming as well as productivity.

 

[Panel]

Ultrawides that up the size and res to 3840x1600 are mostly 60 Hz or you pay through the nose for the new LG 38GL950G

Is there any news of a Freesync version of this screen coming out (anytime soon)? Heck, I don't even care too much about VRR so much as I just don't want to pay hundreds extra for a dedicated G-Sync 2 chip that I'm probably not ever going to make use of. I'd snap up a Freesync version of a high-refresh 1600p ultrawide for around $1300 in a heartbeat. It's around the same price as a CRG9, so it's pretty fair I'd say.

On that note, my issue with the CRG9 is that it's too wide. Like, it's excessively wide to the point where I'd have to change where I work and get a new desk. The extra width, as cool as it may look on screenshots from r/ultrawidemasterrace, isn't worth as much as the slight extra vertical space on the 1600p. Plus, if support for 21:9 ultrawide games isn't as strong as it should be, I'm sure 32:9 support will be even weaker.

Considering your two compromises are either A) using a display of lower resolution or B) choosing a scaling that isn't 200%, I would opt for not choosing to scale at 200%. Especially if you're working in macOS. The scaling options work perfectly and there isn't a worry about getting a perfect 4:1 ratio or rather having a 4:1 ratio isn't necessary. This of course being the way that all scaling should work in the first place, there shouldn't be a difference save for size and without any form of artifacting.

Still, its your purchase so ultimately you use whatever you buy however you want to use it. However, if that's really the way it has to be for you then I'd suggest looking at a 32:9 monitor which essentially operates as 2x 27" 2560x1440 monitors joined together. Then you can have no scaling, two windows up, and a massive screen for gaming as well as productivity.

I think you make a fair point about not needing to use 4:1 scaling. Even my MacBook's internal display uses imperfect scaling, and despite hearing a few people complain, I've never had an issue with it. The text looks clean and sharp like I'd want it to. I think I'll seriously consider this; it's a solid compromise between ultrawide and high-DPI. As for the CRG9, it's incompatible with my current workspace size-wise, and that's made me realize that it really does have more width than I'd know what to do with.

 

[kasakka]

Is there any news of a Freesync version of this screen coming out (anytime soon)? Heck, I don't even care too much about VRR so much as I just don't want to pay hundreds extra for a dedicated G-Sync 2 chip that I'm probably not ever going to make use of. I'd snap up a Freesync version of a high-refresh 1600p ultrawide for around $1300 in a heartbeat. It's around the same price as a CRG9, so it's pretty fair I'd say.

On that note, my issue with the CRG9 is that it's too wide. Like, it's excessively wide to the point where I'd have to change where I work and get a new desk. The extra width, as cool as it may look on screenshots from r/ultrawidemasterrace, isn't worth as much as the slight extra vertical space on the 1600p. Plus, if support for 21:9 ultrawide games isn't as strong as it should be, I'm sure 32:9 support will be even weaker.

Yeah that would be a far more reasonable product. Throw in a decent PbP mode too as there is no point not having it on large screens when they already offer it on their "business" monitors.

For super ultrawide support is roughly the same as ultrawide. Control is so far the only game where it has not worked at all and required a 3rd party patcher despite the game supporting 21:9.

I like the size for work and it's very immersive for gaming but I could get by with a slightly taller 38" easily. No good candidates were available this year so I went super ultrawide. Even the new LG 38" is not available yet and is at the moment sold for about 1000 euros more than the CRG9, which is absurd.

 

[Panel]

Yeah that would be a far more reasonable product. Throw in a decent PbP mode too as there is no point not having it on large screens when they already offer it on their "business" monitors.

For super ultrawide support is roughly the same as ultrawide. Control is so far the only game where it has not worked at all and required a 3rd party patcher despite the game supporting 21:9.

I like the size for work and it's very immersive for gaming but I could get by with a slightly taller 38" easily. No good candidates were available this year so I went super ultrawide. Even the new LG 38" is not available yet and is at the moment sold for about 1000 euros more than the CRG9, which is absurd.

It would be a far more reasonable product? So no plans for it being made, huh?

I'm surprised to hear that proper ultrawide support is the same as 32:9, but I still am of the newfound mentality that it's just too wide for my use. Just wish they'd make that hypothetical Freesync 144Hz 1600p already.

Another option I'm down to consider is a 40" 16:9 panel, and I do mean 40" as opposed to 43". The only issue is that they don't exist in large quantities, and at that width I'd want a curve. I don't think there's a single 40" that's curved.

 

[kasakka]

It would be a far more reasonable product? So no plans for it being made, huh?

I'm surprised to hear that proper ultrawide support is the same as 32:9, but I still am of the newfound mentality that it's just too wide for my use. Just wish they'd make that hypothetical Freesync 144Hz 1600p already.

Another option I'm down to consider is a 40" 16:9 panel, and I do mean 40" as opposed to 43". The only issue is that they don't exist in large quantities, and at that width I'd want a curve. I don't think there's a single 40" that's curved.

We don't know anything until next CES. I would not mind seeing a VA contender in that category from Samsung.