Dual/Triple monitor setups

[Lagmonster]

I've been toying with the idea of replacing my monitor with a dual or triple stand system, but I'm worried about spending more money than I need to for a nice even layout. Some people have suggested that 'any two monitors' will do, but I want to solicit opinions from people who may have specific setups in mind. Do any of our members have nice, clean, flexible, not-overcompensating-at-all multi-monitor (for gaming) setups they can recommend (if necessary, including a new GPU)? I'm looking for that sweet spot between comfort and price, so I don't need bargain basement stuff and won't be considering high-priced cutting edge stuff.

[Borgholio]

I don't bother with having two identical monitors. That just drives up the cost for me. I have two monitors in similar size and it works fine. No complaints when working, or when dual-screening two EVE Online accounts.

[salm]

I have two monitors and just bought a second graphics card and two more monitors for a quad setup. Haven´t set it up yet though.
My current setup of two monitors consists of two different montitors, one 23 and one 24 inch monitor of different manufactureres.
At a customer I used to work for on site I had a setup with two identical monitors.
At the same customer I used a differnet setup for a while that consisted of two different sized monitors with different resolutions (1920X1080 and the other 1920 * 1200).

For me, like for Borgholio, it doesn´t matter if the monitors are identical and non of the people I work with have ever complained about it. You really don´t notice it at all after about 5 seconds of using it.

As for graphics cards I´ve got a NVidia Quadro 2000 which works fine but is probably not useful to you. The second card I´ll put in is an NVidia Geforce GTX 670 wich might be intersting for you.
A friend has been running a tripple monitor setup with two GTX 670s for a while and is very satisfied with it.
It´s mainly used for 3D applications and GPU rendering, though and not optimized for gaming, so perhaps there are better deals for you.

[Starglider]

Two 24" monitors is not as good as one 30" monitor.

[TheFeniX]

Two 24" monitors is not as good as one 30" monitor.

I beg to differ. It depends completely on what you use your computer for. If a game supports borderless windowed mode, two monitors is invaluable. WoW supports this, but is finicky on if it wants to let itself get minimized or put in the background. As it stands, my dual 24" monitors allow me to run WoW on one screen, a browser, my Steam windows, Teamspeak (for chatting with my friends), and Vent on my other screen and makes changes, look stuff up, or see who in my raid team is talking because I can't be bothered to care to tie a voice to a name. Sure, there are overlays to accomplish this, but I already have the monitors.

24" is a lot of gaming real estate when you are sitting right in front of it. However, my buddy uses a 42" TV as his primary because he sits further back with more of a "console" setup.

For work related tasks, it also depends completely on what you're doing. If I'm translating Lab data in PDF form to a spreadsheet, I can save the company loads of paper by just putting each on a separate monitor and looking back and forth.

[Starglider]

As it stands, my dual 24" monitors allow me to run WoW on one screen, a browser, my Steam windows, Teamspeak (for chatting with my friends), and Vent on my other screen and makes changes, look stuff up, or see who in my raid team is talking because I can't be bothered to care to tie a voice to a name. Sure, there are overlays to accomplish this, but I already have the monitors.

I grant that is helpful to have more monitors; my study is packed with numerous monitors and computers (in fact I would argue that a secondary web-browsing-only machine is more useful than a second monitor on your gaming machine, unless you are doing video editing). However for the majority of gaming scenarios, FPS/RTS/MMORPG etc two 1080p monitors sucks compared to one 1600p. Three 1080p is kinda immersive for FPS but less useful for strategy games and most productivity tasks.

However, my buddy uses a 42" TV as his primary because he sits further back with more of a "console" setup.

For immersion nothing (except dedicated VR setups) beats projector + home theatre system. The tradeoff is the space requirement and (unless you can afford a quad HD projector) resolution. Not coincidentally I mostly game on the projector in the living room, which I hope to replace with a 2080p unit in a year or so.

If I'm translating Lab data in PDF form to a spreadsheet, I can save the company loads of paper by just putting each on a separate monitor and looking back and forth.

A 2560 x 1600 monitor has the same amount of pixels as two 1080p monitors in a more convenient form factor. In fact for looking at two documents it is much better than a pair of 1080p monitors, as it can show them side by side with less saccade distance and a more appropriate aspect ratio (less wasted space).

Personally I am looking at upgrading to a single 32" 2080p in preference to three 27" 2560 x 1440s; DPI, lack of bezels and aspect ratio trump absolute megapixels. Of course 3 x 2080p would be even better, but I haven't been able to find an even vaguely credible business use case that would justify the tax writeoff yet.

[TheFeniX]

I grant that is helpful to have more monitors; my study is packed with numerous monitors and computers (in fact I would argue that a secondary web-browsing-only machine is more useful than a second monitor on your gaming machine, unless you are doing video editing). However for the majority of gaming scenarios, FPS/RTS/MMORPG etc two 1080p monitors sucks compared to one 1600p. Three 1080p is kinda immersive for FPS but less useful for strategy games and most productivity tasks.

That's apples to oranges and not what you originally said:

Two 24" monitors is not as good as one 30" monitor.

Throwing in a higher resolution isn't that same argument. Either way, 1600p is still way out there price-wise. A decent monitor alone is going to run you in the $800 range, closer to $1000. You're talking about a level of gaming resolution and price outside the scope of the OP.

Even for gaming/working at home, if you made me choose between my 2 24" 1080p monitors and 1 30" 1600p monitor (price not being a factor): I'd take the 2 monitors because they are that much more useful to me.

A 2560 x 1600 monitor has the same amount of pixels as two 1080p monitors in a more convenient form factor. In fact for looking at two documents it is much better than a pair of 1080p monitors, as it can show them side by side with less saccade distance and a more appropriate aspect ratio (less wasted space).

All that for 3 to 5 times the price.

At that price point, I could run three 1080p monitors (including a video card that would support 3 simultaneous displays) and have more productivity because, yea I can setup tiling, but the ability to throw something onto another screen and double-click to maximize means I'm not wasting time resizing anything.

And good luck getting Acrobat to open consistently in one position/size in anything but maximized.

[Starglider]

Two 24" monitors is not as good as one 30" monitor.

Throwing in a higher resolution isn't that same argument.

It was implicit. AFAIK the only available 30" computer monitors (excluding TVs) are 2560 x 1600.

Either way, 1600p is still way out there price-wise. A decent monitor alone is going to run you in the $800 range, closer to $1000.

Granted although you can probably get it less refurbed and certainly a lot less slightly used. Generally I find the reluctance of otherwise afluent people to spend money on displays odd. The monitor is a key part of your computer experience though and most gaming/tech enthusiasts spend a huge chunk of their life staring at one. The cost is trivial compared to say spending $1000s on a slightly nicer car, which you probably spend much less time with.

Even for gaming/working at home, if you made me choose between my 2 24" 1080p monitors and 1 30" 1600p monitor (price not being a factor): I'd take the 2 monitors because they are that much more useful to me.

Have you tried the 1600p option? I had the dual monitor setup for a while back when I lived in the north and the first 30" was a major upgrade all on its own (even without the flanking portrait monitors).

A 2560 x 1600 monitor has the same amount of pixels as two 1080p monitors in a more convenient form factor.

At that price point, I could run three 1080p monitors (including a video card that would support 3 simultaneous displays) and have more productivity because, yea I can setup tiling, but the ability to throw something onto another screen and double-click to maximize means I'm not wasting time resizing anything.

3 1080p displays in landscape is sub-optimal for productivity (vs 2 or even 1 bigger screen) because the aspect ratio means that you are constantly turning your head. Plenty of people have this setup on the trading floor and only the sales guys with a genuine need to monitor lots of live feeds in their peripheral vision really benefit (the real traders & quants have six 1080ps in a grid and this applies even more so). Programmers & managers focus their work into one and have another for reference material, the third screen is virtually unused (e.g. permenantly on outlook or chat). 3 widescreen in portrait is probably better; haven't experimented with it myself but some people I work with swear by it, certainly head-turning and saccade distance is reduced. Less immersive for gaming, but I guess if you're spamming bargin-basement 1080ps you can just go to 5 in portrait (for max pixels at the cost of bezel jailbars).

[phongn]

I don't bother with having two identical monitors. That just drives up the cost for me. I have two monitors in similar size and it works fine. No complaints when working, or when dual-screening two EVE Online accounts.

I must be in the minority; multiple screens that are different pixel densities drives me nuts. Same goes for color accuracy and such.

It was implicit. AFAIK the only available 30" computer monitors (excluding TVs) are 2560 x 1600.

Yep.

3 1080p displays in landscape is sub-optimal for productivity (vs 2 or even 1 bigger screen) because the aspect ratio means that you are constantly turning your head. Plenty of people have this setup on the trading floor and only the sales guys with a genuine need to monitor lots of live feeds in their peripheral vision really benefit (the real traders & quants have six 1080ps in a grid and this applies even more so). Programmers & managers focus their work into one and have another for reference material, the third screen is virtually unused (e.g. permenantly on outlook or chat). 3 widescreen in portrait is probably better; haven't experimented with it myself but some people I work with swear by it, certainly head-turning and saccade distance is reduced. Less immersive for gaming, but I guess if you're spamming bargin-basement 1080ps you can just go to 5 in portrait (for max pixels at the cost of bezel jailbars).

There's a few people at my work who do the portrait thing (though usually two of them, or sometimes even one landscape, one portrait). It looks like a pretty useful thing, though three would be even better. I think pretty much most people have 16:10 displays here.

I say bring on the 4K displays, though!

[Executor32]

I'm currently running a dual-monitor setup with the 27" ASUS VG27AH I got last year and my old 24" BenQ E2400HD I've had since 2009. The ASUS is the primary, placed directly in front of me on the desk, while the BenQ is the secondary, mounted directly to the wall to the right of the ASUS with a flat VESA mount. The ASUS is also connected to my Xbox via HDMI, ditto for the BenQ and my cable box. I normally use the BenQ to watch TV while I do game/surf/work on the ASUS, though I also use it to watch Netflix under the same circumstances. If I'm gaming on the Xbox, I'll also use the BenQ for Internet stuff as needed. I'll watch Blu-Rays/DVDs on the ASUS not only because it's larger, but also because it has an IPS panel with LED backlight, while the BenQ has a TN panel with CCFL backlight; needless to say, the viewing angles and color reproduction on the ASUS are far superior.

[Borgholio]

I must be in the minority; multiple screens that are different pixel densities drives me nuts. Same goes for color accuracy and such.

Oh believe me I know what you mean. My first dual-monitor setup was a 20" LG and an old 14" MAG 1st generation LCD. Needless to say, it wasn't long before I replaced the 14" with a 22" Samsung and I am now much happier. But at least from my experience, as long as the monitors are *similar* that's ok. But yeah you can definitely see a bit of a difference and if that bothers you, having two identical monitors will be better.

[Siege]

I run 27" and 24" Samsungs on a GT670. I added the 24" because one monitor gets cluttered real fast and this way it's easy to cross-reference multiple documents at once. It's mostly a work thing, but I've found that it's very pleasant to be able to browse whilst a game is loading or browse while a video is running on the other monitor as well. I'm very happy with this setup. Even bigger monitors sound pretty great, but unfortunately my desk isn't infinitely sized.

I don't feel more than two monitors would be useful for me, I have my TV hooked up as a third because I could but if it's just gaming two monitors should suffice. Unless, I suppose, you're someone who likes watching three or more streams simultaneously, then you might want more. I'll also definitely echo the call for monitors that are similar in terms of color and pixel density, just having things go from white to slightly less white between monitors would be enough to drive me up the walls right quick.

[Wicked Pilot]

I started out with a Dell 2408WFP which I had for a few years before deciding to get another to add. I tried to get the exact same model but at that point they were out of production, so I instead got a Dell U2410. They're pretty identical except the base and control setups. Having worked in the office with mix matched dual monitor setups, I can tell you that standardization is the way to go.

[Mr Bean]

I'm an oddball with a 32 inch Sony TV as my main monitor and a 25.5 inch Asus Monitor as my secondary. I've been looking to upgrade to two 27 or 30 inches for awhile as the 25.5 is starting to die on me. The 25.5 is used to play video/music/hold icons/reference material while I work/play on the main monitor.

[TheFeniX]

It was implicit. AFAIK the only available 30" computer monitors (excluding TVs) are 2560 x 1600.

Fair enough. That's on me for glossing over terminology. I consider many TVs no different than monitors these days, in use, maybe not in picture quality.

Granted although you can probably get it less refurbed and certainly a lot less slightly used. Generally I find the reluctance of otherwise afluent people to spend money on displays odd. The monitor is a key part of your computer experience though and most gaming/tech enthusiasts spend a huge chunk of their life staring at one. The cost is trivial compared to say spending $1000s on a slightly nicer car, which you probably spend much less time with.

Because at some point, you're just burning money on cool factor. Buying a single display device that costs more than your computer hardware is rarely cost-effective. Back when I worked IT, the only kind of people who blew that kind of cash were the business users who would have gotten by just fine with a tablet: managers/owners.

And you aren't spending an extra $1,000 on the car. You're spending more than you paid for the car.

Have you tried the 1600p option? I had the dual monitor setup for a while back when I lived in the north and the first 30" was a major upgrade all on its own (even without the flanking portrait monitors).

No. And I won't until I can get one for less than I could just build a second gaming PC with it's own monitor.

3 1080p displays in landscape is sub-optimal for productivity (vs 2 or even 1 bigger screen) because the aspect ratio means that you are constantly turning your head.

Turning your head 5 degrees isn't an issue when you're saving time on opening multiple documents over and over again. It also isn't an issue if your only option is to instead force minimize your game (which many just do not like and may crash, especially console ports), in order to do something else on your PC.

Less immersive for gaming, but I guess if you're spamming bargin-basement 1080ps you can just go to 5 in portrait (for max pixels at the cost of bezel jailbars).

I could buy 4-6 ASUS 24" 1080p displays for the cost of one 1600p display. Those are not bargain basement displays. Is the 1600p monitor going to be better? Yes. Is that cost justifiable? Debatable, and for me personally: No.

If anything, graphical fidelity just doesn't really matter to me anymore. I'm currently playing WoW, Resident Evil 6, Sins of a Solar Empire, and emulating a few things that are way old. At some point, the games look good enough, and jacking the resolution up higher is just going to make the textures look that much worse in RE6, if the game will even support a higher resolution. Sure, I could get back into Skyrim because I already have the 4k textures, but that's about it for my interests. I could see myself just taking my old 46" Bravia 1080p and gaming on it for laughs.

[salm]

I'm an oddball with a 32 inch Sony TV as my main monitor and a 25.5 inch Asus Monitor as my secondary. I've been looking to upgrade to two 27 or 30 inches for awhile as the 25.5 is starting to die on me. The 25.5 is used to play video/music/hold icons/reference material while I work/play on the main monitor.

When working on my laptop (which doesn´t happen very often these days) I hook it up to a 42 inch TV. It actually works pretty decently. The trick is to sit 2 or 3 meters away from the TV with the laptop close to you. Then, in the Windows settings, instead of setting the monitors to be next to each other simply set the TV to be above the Laptop screen.

In case of a tripple or quad setup with 1080p screens I wouldn´t recommend to set all of them next to each other in landscape mode but to set two monitors next to each other and the third and fourth on top of them. The lower one on normal monitor height for comfortable use for the main work you do. The third and fourth which are less comfortable to look at are used for less important stuff like references, web browsing, push charts. That´s way better than minimizing and maximazing or pushing around windows all the time. I think the lack of space that two monitors offer is the main source wasted time for me.

[Edi]

I don't bother with having two identical monitors. That just drives up the cost for me. I have two monitors in similar size and it works fine. No complaints when working, or when dual-screening two EVE Online accounts.

I must be in the minority; multiple screens that are different pixel densities drives me nuts. Same goes for color accuracy and such.

I worked for years with a dual monitor setup where there was one 24 inch and one 19 inch monitor side by side. They were color synced so that they had the same color accuracy, though the resolutions obviously were different. I'm not bothered by the resolution difference, but color accuracy is the killer for me.

[Borgholio]

The specific problem when I first started was that my new monitor had a good (for the time) contrast ratio of 2000 to 1. The tiny monitor had a ratio of 250 to 1. So yeah, bit of a difference there.

[fordlltwm]

A slightly colour blind friend of mine used to have a pair of identical 21" crt's sitting next to each other that were out of colour balance quite badly, he never noticed but it drove me up the wall until I got round to adjusting them since one was rather blue tinged and the other too red.
Different resolutions are far less annoying.