How wide is too wide?

Beanboy · Post by **Beanboy** » 14 Oct 2009, 12:46

I'm about to take my first steps into multi-monitor gaming and am looking at an ATI 5870 solution to fit on my overclocked Q6600 rig.

I need to purchase new monitors, however price is a restriction. In order to keep my monitor options open, I've resigned myself to purchasing an active DP>DVI converter.

I've been looking at reasonably cheap 22" and 24" screens, but my problem is that all (cheap) 24" screens have moved to 1920x1080. I'm a little concerned that three of these next to each other will be too wide and thin, as such I'm leaning toward a 3x22" solution.

Does this seem reasonable? or am I being foolish and missing out on the opportunity to get 3x24" screens, even if they are 1080 ones, for just a few £/$ more?

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 14 Oct 2009, 13:32

The side monitors are more or less peripheral vision anyway - you look at the centre monitor. I can't say whether 16:10 is better than 16:9, but I'd probably look at 1080p screens over 1680x1050 now (I'm a res junkie :lol:) if I was doing it myself. :)

Butch_N · Post by **Butch_N** » 14 Oct 2009, 13:53

Hi

I'm using 3 25.5" monitors. I don't think them too wide.
I guess it really depends on how far away from them you plan to be. If fairly close, then smaller panels will be better. 3 feet or so and mine seem ideal. If I was back further away from them, then 28 or 30" would be better.

StingingVelvet · Post by **StingingVelvet** » 14 Oct 2009, 14:44

The side monitors are more or less peripheral vision anyway - you look at the centre monitor. I can't say whether 16:10 is better than 16:9, but I'd probably look at 1080p screens over 1680x1050 now (I'm a res junkie :lol:) if I was doing it myself. :)

1080p screens are almost all you can find now anyway...

Rpmucha23 · Post by **Rpmucha23** » 14 Oct 2009, 21:06

i just purchased 3 of the asus vw266h 25.5" 1920x1200 panels to replace 3 acer 22" 1680x1050 panels. definitely like the higher resolution & larger screen. The Asus's were 289each with $30 mail in rebate on each (although it says only 2 rebates per household). i payed about 169 each for the acers.

i would of gone larger originally, but got the smaller because of the matrox triplehead2go limit (i'm now using eyefinity)

it is slightly to wide when in some games, especially if you cannot reconfigure the hud & other on screen do-dads. but the extra width & resolution is awesome when I'm not gaming and doing work in 3dsmax or blender3d and can move the other menus out of my way and be able to concentrate on my 3d model in the center screen. or have multiple web pages open at the same time while editing html code in the center screen.

PapaLes · Post by **PapaLes** » 15 Oct 2009, 00:45

I've been looking at reasonably cheap 22" and 24" screens, but my problem is that all (cheap) 24" screens have moved to 1920x1080. I'm a little concerned that three of these next to each other will be too wide and thin, as such I'm leaning toward a 3x22" solution.

I'm not sure but from your above statement, what youre asking is, should you go with three 16:9 or three 16:10. I was running three 28" 16:10 monitors and was quite pleased with them. It was a nice balance of height to width. With the new EF ati card I could have run them at their native res of 1920x1200/screen which would have been fantastic in my opinion. Unfortunately I knocked over one monitor and have to wait till I have the money to replace it.

But to give you the short answer, I think that I would prefer three 16:10 over three 16:9 simply because of the height to width aspect. To be honest, I am considering waiting for the six output EF card and planning to try five of the 28" monitors in portrait mode.

Rpmucha23 · Post by **Rpmucha23** » 15 Oct 2009, 00:50

i agree with Papales....

definitely go 16:10, 16:9 just doesn't have the height. there is a point were going wider isn't as important as adding a little more height.

surprising how much of a difference 120 pixels of height makes going from 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200.

Beanboy · Post by **Beanboy** » 15 Oct 2009, 07:04

Thanks guys.

I'm inclined to agree that a 16:9 is just too wide and thin - so I think I'll stick to 3 x 16:10 22" screen for the moment.

atledreier · Post by **atledreier** » 15 Oct 2009, 08:58

I use 24" 16:9 screen and think it's fine, but then I have them pretty close to my eyes.

YouTube · Post by **ViciousXUSMC** » 18 Oct 2009, 04:40

2x24" seems ideal to me, its wide but just wide enough to take up all of your vision when sitting at a normal distance and that is the goal of surround gaming.

3x 16:9 monitors will still be just about as wide but when your going so wide already I would hate to lose those precious vertical pixels that a full 1920x1200 monitor gives you. Also while a lot of games are supporting 3x monitors nativity now for those that do not it seems the quite a few of our hacks/fixes for games that do not are based on 3x 16:10 monitors so not sure how well that will work for you if you use a 16:9 monitor.

The last thing to keep in mind is bezel management. Should you use it you will get black bars on the far outside of your screens so you can take a few inches off your total width if you use it. As an eyefinity user we do not have this option yet but I plan to use it for most games as soon as it is available.

Widescreen Gaming Forum