Do you think 3 27 inch monitors is overkill?

[notigg]

how far back do you think I would have to sit to appreciate a set up of that magnitude? I am thinking about it...........

 

[paperwastage]

wat resolution, and what are you doing(eg stock picking or photoshop/gaming)?

 

[notigg]

gaming mostly. Sometimes programming as well in silverlight.

resolution is 1920 X 1080 on each one.

3 of these http://www.asus.com/Display/LCD_Monitors/VG278H/#specifications

 

[ShadowVVL]

For programming its overkill but if you game alot its not a bad idea.
Not sure what eyefinity/3d surround is going to be like in 3d.

Distance from eyes to monitors about 6 or 7 feet should do.

 

[lehtv]

Distance from eyes to monitors about 6 or 7 feet should do.

Two meters away from the monitors? I've got a 27" monitor at 60-70cm away, if I added two monitors the center one would still be 60-70cm away. The whole point of the other two monitors is to fill your peripheral vision, but if you go 2 meters back that wont happen

 

[drizek]

That monitor at $700 is pretty steep. Unless you're really dying to get 3D, I think a single 30" display will serve you much better. You can even get two 30" displays for the $2100 the Asus setup will cost you.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

3x http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN55D8...8928732&sr=8-6

Would be such glorious overkill. Those bezels!

 

[Via]

3x http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN55D8...8928732&sr=8-6

Would be such glorious overkill. Those bezels!

haha

very funny

 

[nanaki333]

you don't get the extra resolution going from 23 to 27. so it's not like you have more real estate to fit more on 1 screen.. you'd be better off with 23 or 24 so you can sit at a normal distance. i tried a single 27 and downgraded after a week to a 24. now i use 3x 23 at work and home.

 

[nitromullet]

you don't get the extra resolution going from 23 to 27. so it's not like you have more real estate to fit more on 1 screen.. you'd be better off with 23 or 24 so you can sit at a normal distance. i tried a single 27 and downgraded after a week to a 24. now i use 3x 23 at work and home.

Yep, 27" screens need to be 2560x1440 not 1920x1080.

 

[we1shcake]

were computer enthusiasts, there is no such thing as overkill, if you want the monitors and can afford them go for it, or you might regret it in the future

 

[Vdubchaos]

Depends who you ask.

IMO I wouldn't want 3 separate monitors for # of reasons.
- Bezel - yea yea I know your eye ignores it after a while, I dont care
- Cost of 3 monitors will get you a pretty sweet 40" or 47" TV now days. I would take big screen over 3 monitors ANY day of the week
- Cost of extra GPU horsepower you will need to run 3 monitors at that resolution
- Too many electronics to plug in/heat and power usage IMO

 

[toyota]

this would be the only type of triple monitor setup I would like.



hosting images

 

[spinejam]

this would be the only type of triple monitor setup I would like.


http://www.postimage.org/
hosting images

That's very nice!

 

[toyota]

and to be clear that is not my setup. it was posted here http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1644035

 

[BrightCandle]

I think 3x 24" is about as big of a screen as I would want to go on a desktop. You certainly can't look at it all while sat in front of it. Given the same choice and having used eyefinity for nearly 3 years I would go 22" instead of 24".

 

[toyota]

all the 22 inch 16:9 monitors are 21.5 inches. that is so small height wise that even the old 17 inch 5:4 screens were taller.

 

[BrightCandle]

I use 16:10 with my 24" screens. For gaming I don't really think 1080p is a particularly good resolution. But going 16:10 is getting pretty expensive these days. Having had one of my 3 monitors failed I found out just how hard they are to replace and how expensive that is.

 

[toyota]

I use 16:10 with my 24" screens. For gaming I don't really think 1080p is a particularly good resolution. But going 16:10 is getting pretty expensive these days. Having had one of my 3 monitors failed I found out just how hard they are to replace and how expensive that is.

for gaming 16:9 is better than 16:10 because that is the aspect ratio modern games are made to be played at. for multiple screens though 16:10 is slightly better because you are already increasing the fov enough.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

this would be the only type of triple monitor setup I would like.



hosting images

Nice creepy picture.

 

[Ferzerp]

3x http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-UN55D8...8928732&sr=8-6

Would be such glorious overkill. Those bezels!

Hey. That's my tv!

 

[spaceboy909]

It sounds great to me. If you've got plenty of options for workstation arrangement, then you can adjust accordingly so that the size works for you.

I remember reading somewhere awhile back that studies had been done and it was determined that 22" is the ideal size, but of course, that's not going to be true for everyone in every situation.

There are many different ways to setup, and nothing says you have to run all 3 displays at max-res.

What I plan to do when I get the green, is add on a 3rd, large tv, 42-52", which will sit off in the corner, while my two 22"s sit on my desk.

Definitely check out tv's instead of monitors, unless you've just got the bucks to blow.

 

[BrightCandle]

for gaming 16:9 is better than 16:10 because that is the aspect ratio modern games are made to be played at. for multiple screens though 16:10 is slightly better because you are already increasing the fov enough.

I have only ever had a problem with one game - The Witcher 2. Every other game has worked correctly with 16:10, and I suspect they all still work with 4:3. Games are better in 16:10 as you see a bit more sky and floor and you use eyefinity/surround to increase peripheral vision. 16:9 is just cheap because its the same ratio as modern TVs.

Its tempting to go for cheap screens because you are buying 3 of them, but personally after having being forced to buy an IPS screen as a replacement I am now of the opinion you should spend the extra as the image quality difference is enormous.

 

[imaheadcase]

Its overkill if you don't have a specific reason to use it.

You would be better off just getting a nice TV with good stats for monitor usage. Gets rid of the bezels, and just looks nicer.

 

[imaheadcase]

for gaming 16:9 is better than 16:10 because that is the aspect ratio modern games are made to be played at. for multiple screens though 16:10 is slightly better because you are already increasing the fov enough.

That is wrong. Games don't care, they are made to play at different ratios/resolutions, etc.

I've yet to see a modern game that has a problem with using both.