Depends on what kind of monitor: If you're mainly going for 1080p monitors anyway, the 3 will be more useful to you if you do any sort of work on the setup.

 

Whichever you have space for. The three 24s are gonna take up more space. I would recommend going with triple monitors if you are gaming, dual monitors otherwise so there you go.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doomtomb

Whichever you have space for. The three 24s are gonna take up more space. I would recommend going with triple monitors if you are gaming, dual monitors otherwise so there you go.

Exactly what i would say. I would go with 3x24's. Most 27's are the same resolution (unless you send allot of money).
However, you may have to upgrade the ole' 6950 if your going to game using eyefinity.

 

3 x 24" so you can play games in eyefinity when you are done programming

 

which 27" monitors..
which 24"s?

27" is almost always better than 24 but i say you gotta have at least 3 monitors.. your card can take plenty and if you're gonna do tv on one then you definitely need at least 3. i've too been thinking about a tv turner but why not just get another tv. tvs are cheap.

when you go 2 you'll yearn for 3 then yearn for 4. its an addiction.

start good and start big.

 

Dude I rock a 23.6. That's still a tad too large, but a hell of a lot better than the 27'' TV I was using. 27's are too big IMO. I'd go with 3 24'' and throw them on a stand.

Side note:

3 Monitors = peen.

 

depends what resolution they are.

2x 27" at 2560 x 1600?

or

3x 24" @ 1920 x 1080?

 

3x24. Even if the 27s your considering are 1600p or whatever. I think more screen space (without an obstructive bezel) is better than ultra HD. Just my opinion though.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remix65

which 27" monitors..
which 24"s?
27" is almost always better than 24"

Quote:

If viewing at normal monitor viewing distances, you want to keep your PPI (pixels per inch) above 90. The human eye can start to detect individual pixels at PPI < 96 ..... ok to miss by a little, after that screen starts to look grainy. I'd avoid the choices highlighted in bold text

Resolution / Description / Screen Size / PPI

1920×1080 / 1080p / 13.1 / 168.2
1920×1080 / 1080p / 15.6 / 141.2
1920×1080 / 1080p / 16.4 / 134.3
1920×1080 / 1080p / 21.5 / 102.5
1920×1080 / 1080p / 23.0 / 95.8
1920×1080 / 1080p / 23.6 / 93.3
1920×1080 / 1080p / 24.0 / 91.8
1920×1080 / 1080p / 24.6 / 89.6
1920×1080 / 1080p / 27.0 / 81.6
1920×1200 / WUXGA / 15.4 / 146.8
1920×1200 / WUXGA / 17.0 / 132.9
1920×1200 / WUXGA / 22.0 / 102.9
1920×1200 / WUXGA / 23.0 / 98.4
1920×1200 / WUXGA / 24.0 / 94.0
1920×1200 / WUXGA / 25.5 / 88.5
1920×1200 / WUXGA / 27.0 / 83.8

So it entirely depends on how far away you are.

 

Triple monitor. More screen real estate. With monitors, it is more about resolution vs screen size (although a good combination of both would be ideal). If all the monitors are 1080p whether you get them in 27" or 24", the will be running the same resolution. Plus, the 24" will appear sharper because of higher pixel density, and with triple monitors, you can do Eyefinity / Surround.

 

I'd say duals if you only want to game on one monitor, 3 if you want to do eyefinity. gaming on 2 is awful. for productivity, even with little 23s I really only use 2 at a time when I'm not gaming unless I've got netflix playing on one.

 

if they are >1080P then the 27", otherwise the 24"

 

27" monitors do not come in 2560x1600. They are 2560x1440.

Get the 3 - 24" monitors. 27" monitors should not be a choice. If you want 2560, get two 30" monitors instead. (or better yet, get three)

 

24" has pretty low PPI unless it is a 1200p monitor @ 24". I would get the 23" x 3.

 

i had 2560x1440 resolution in mind when talking 27". as a personal preference, i always pick the 16:10 monitors over 16:9. so i no 180p recommendations from me.
i dont game much or watch tv or movies on my monitors. but i see why a gamer picking a 120hz 1080p monitor..

 

I find 27" too large to be comfortable view the whole screen. Its really only necessary if you're running OSX, since the poor window management naturally leads to clutter, and the extra real estate is essential.

Our field of view is also fairly narrow vertically, so extra width will be easier to handle than extra height. You're looking at 6 windows up at a time compared to 4.

Also 27" monitors are expensive. 3 24" will run you at most $1000, while you'll pay that for just 1 2560x1440 monitor. A better comparison would be 6 24" monitors or 2 27" monitors, and well... I don't think there's any doubt there.

You could get 6 U2312HMs and an extra 6950 to drive them in Eyefinity and it would still cost you $600 less than a dual U2711s.

 

Isn't 8ms slow?

 

How about a 120hz monitor? For some games its quite impressive how smooth it can make them feel.

 

I second the 120hz monitor. Gaming just doesnt feel the same.

 

If your GPU can output high fps, go for it.

 

if u have the budget for it, i highly recommend ips monitors when it comes to dual/triple display, as it is annoying to have to have ur monitors in one and only one setup to avoid the really bad viewing angles of the displays.

But with ips, you don't have to worry about the setup as much, u can freely move ur multiple monitors around without worrying about viewing angles.

 

Id say 3 is overkill unless you really really need it for all the crazy multitasking and IT work. It can also cause your neck to hurt because you have to constantly look way left and way right. Two large monitors can be ergonomically more comfortable and still get the job done. I'd say try two large ones and see if that is enough.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by azeem40

Isn't 8ms slow?

Not really. The amount of time the screen takes to change an individual pixel is only one part of how long it takes to display a frame. Input lag factors much more than the actual panel.

Take my U2312HM for example. Sure it has a pixel response time of 8ms, but the average input lag is just 0.6ms. That makes the total time it takes to display a frame just 8.6ms. Now take the BenQ XL2410T, a 120Hz 2ms TN panel. The average input lag is 5.6ms. That makes the total time to display a frame 7.6ms, which is hardly faster than my 8ms IPS.

I game on my U2312HM all the time, and the responsiveness isn't an issue at all.