12 ms·
Tangentially related thought: Take my advice, don't go ultra-wide. Go with a large 4k. You get more pixels for cheaper. The only ultrawide that makes any sense
by LASR 3y ago
Tangentially related thought: Take my advice, don't go ultra-wide. Go with a large 4k. You get more pixels for cheaper.
The only ultrawide that makes any sense is the 5k x 2k resolution one. These have more pixels than a single 4K. But they are expensive.
Even then, a 16:9 5K monitor has more pixels.
I personally use 3 x 27 inch 4K - which is cheaper than a single 5k Ultra-wide and gives you a TON more pixels.
- fennecbutt 3y ago5kx2k replaces 2x4k monitors basically. I have a 1440 ultra wide and it's been great, for gaming and dev, 2 windows side by side is basically like having two separate monitors, but with the ability to have like 0.25,0.5,0.25 window layout if I really want. I do need to upgrade it at some point, I think it's easy to justify the higher price of a high res uw given that it's a replacement for two monitors, not one.
- danieldisu 3y agoAlways focus on PPI, some rough numbers 27” 5k (5120 x 2880) -> 218 PPI 32” 4k (3840 x 2160) -> 137.68 PPI 34” 5k (5120 x 2160) -> 163.44 PPI 39,7 5K (5120 x 2160) -> 139.97 PPI Apple Pro Display XDR 32" 6k (6016 x 3384) -> 218 PPI
- Kuraj 3y agoPPI doesn't translate to screen estate, though
- notorandit 3y agoAnd too many PPI won't make text easier to read, unless you magnify the screen, thus actually loosing PPIs. PPIs will display sharper pictures, provided that they have enough quality.
- vladvasiliu 3y agoThe text is sharper with a higher PPI even if the actual size of the text is the same. I have a 4k 24" screen, and text is much much sharper than on any FHD 24". Hell, it's noticeably sharper even than on my 14" FHD laptop. And sharper text helps with legibility, so I find I can actually use smaller font sizes more comfortably than the "regular" size on a lower-res screen. You don't get more real estate, indeed, since that depends on zoom level. However, depending on your setup and habits, you may actually gain some. In my case, I use 4k at 100% zoom. I don't care for window decorations, interface icons and so on, so it's not an issue if they're small.
- brandall10 3y agoIf you go up PPI by a percentage you can reduce font size by a similar amount. Too small to be legible? Literally move the screen closer. No need to magnify anything. Have a 27" 4k monitor and a 42" 4k monitor? Move the 27" close enough that it takes up the same FOV as the 4k and you get the same experience. This isn't like home theatre where you're constrained to the dimensions of a room (ie. wall or console location a TV sits on top of and seat viewing distance).
- ParetoOptimal 3y agoFor eye health, I've gotten the recommendation to keep my monitor an arms length away. If that is true, I'd consider move the screen closer to not be an option.
- brandall10 3y agoYou don't want it too close, but it can be closer than that if you have normal eyesight. The line should be where your eyes have trouble focusing and add a small buffer. For me that's about a foot. So wherever you're comfortable looking at a smartphone (or really any object) is a good point of reference. Otherwise this is a commonly propagated myth related to radiation from early TV sets. https://theopticalshoppetn.com/is-sitting-too-close-to-the-tv-really-bad-for-your-eyes/ https://theopticalshoppetn.com/is-sitting-too-close-to-the-t...
- wongarsu 3y agoMy preferred setup in terms of screen real estate is 24" 2k (2560x1440) without scaling. In terms of PPI it's a bit low (122), but 244 PPI 24" screens are hard to get. 1.5x scaling is an option
- baq 3y agoI like 25x14 on a 27" and the fact that on a mac you have to buy BetterDisplay just to make it work about 80% as good as on Windows makes me... not at all surprised since I'm supposed to use an apple display with an apple computer, right?
- pivo 3y agoWhy not just get a 4K 27”? They can be had for around $220 USD nowadays. I paid that for mine. I do dislike the fact that Apple removed decent support for lower resolution monitors, but I also don’t see why anyone would prefer them to higher res unless it’s a budget issue.
- baq 3y ago4k is... too low res for desktop use on a mac. 25x14 upscaled to 5k only to be downscaled again to device native resolution by a $15 tool still gives me more usable screen real estate than a native 4k and the $15 makes it so text is actually legible...
- pivo 3y agoBy 25x14, do you mean 2560x1440? If so, are you saying that a $15 device will magically make a 2560x1440 monitor higher resolution than 3840x2160? If that's what you're saying, do you have a link that provides some detail on this because I don't believe it. I'm also unable to believe someone would consider 27" 4K text illegible on a mac since that's what I use that every day and can read text comfortably. Edit: Unless you're using it unscaled, then yeah, text isn't that legible. These are strange statements to make without any detail.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sirsinsalot 3y agoMy 5k2k LG 40WP95C-W is an absolute dream. Worth every penny for dev.
- liamwire 3y agoCould you expand on this a bit? How’s the ergonomics, window management, etc?
- sirsinsalot 3y agoThe curve is just right, the width is just right at ~60cm away. The ratio is the real winner. I can split it into thirds and each third has enough height (2160px) and width (1706px) to be useful. Each third is taller than it is wide, which is ideal for coding, web, documents. It's more like having 3 portrait monitors for productivity work. For media editing, splitting the monitor into 2 is like a classic dual monitor setup with enough width for widescreen video. Then, if you really need it, it works great as a single wide monitor without making the workspace too "letterbox" like other ultrawides. Honestly, for me, it is the absolute ideal.
- ethanbond 3y agoI was within inches of buying this this holiday season but was offput by people’s brightness complaints. Figured I could wait another iteration until either the brightness or the refresh rate gets better… the 5K2K seems like the move though.
- sirsinsalot 3y agoIn practice, the brightness and refresh rate have not been an issue in a software development / home office setting. It has been more than enough. For gaming it isn't as desirable. HDR also gives the brightness a boost for media so it is plenty fine for that too. The only thing that I found annoying is lack of inputs. There is 1DP and 1TB, and 2 HDMI (60hz). I wanted at least 2DP and 2TB to be super useful with a dock and a few other inputs. The size is perfect however. If LG release an OLED version better brightness, you bet i'll be ordering that too. It has been so ideal, the ROI has been better than any monitor setup i've used.
- vakz 3y agoOn the contrary, I have a 49" 32:9 monitor, and for a laptop it's wonderful. The support for a single monitor is just way better than any dual (or more) setup. I can just connect it directly to my laptop, and it just works. When I had two displays I needed a docking station, and truth is most of those out there suck. Unless you go for the top models, and then you've lost all the money you saved on cheaper monitors. In addition you generally need a thunderbolt compatible dock, and that seems to come with it's own category of issues, assuming your laptop even supports it. Also found ultrawide easier to configure hotkeys for windows management.
- hau 3y agoI think you could daisy-chain DisplayPort MST monitors, so that only first one would be connected to your laptop.
- superjan 3y agoDoes anybody know how to test if a monitor is compatible with that? And is it plug and play?
- liamwire 3y agoMy understanding is that, yes, it’s plug and play. If the monitors have DisplayPort out, they should support daisy chaining.
- wongarsu 3y agoOn windows and Linux this works great. I have two Dell business screens, one with USB-C, a DP in and a DP out. Just connect another screen to the DP out, and you get two screens over one USB-C connection. Together with the charging and USB hub provided by the screen this replaces a docking station for me. However, Macs have spotty support for this. I believe it works on the newest Mac books, but not older generations, and not the Mac mini?
- Macha 3y ago
- peebeebee 3y agoI think 27" 4k with some scaling is a good spot indeed. 32" 4k is nice as well, if you scale down to 2560x1440, or 3008x1692. On 32" 2x scaling (1920x1080 is just too big, and native (3840x2160) is just too small. But if money is no problem, 3x 24" 4k, 2x 27" 5k, or 1x 32" 6k is really the endgame. That 2x scaling is just soooo crisp. :)
- grujicd 3y agoThere are 32" monitors with native 2560x1440. I still prefer that dpi to run Windows, where some apps still have problems with hidpi scaling. It's mostly about older and niche apps, but every now and then you encounter something that doesn't scale well.
- peebeebee 3y agoI do find that 4k with scaling still feels crispier than native 2560x1440. And I also find myself switching between 3008 and 2560 a lot, depending on the workload I have. 2560x1440 is nicer for reading, 3008 is nicer for programming, video editing, ...
- fudged71 3y agoI’ve been doing this lately as well, more screen real estate for programming than for other tasks. It’s been working really well.
- batperson 3y agoThe PPI ratio for 32" 4k with no scaling is actually pretty good (at least to my eye, since it's similar to my previous 24" 1080p, 27" 1440p monitors). If we can agree on that, then the solution is to just move the monitor closer to your eyes, 3rd party monitor arms help with that.
- peebeebee 3y ago32" 4k = 137.68ppi. 27" 1440p = 108ppi. 24" 1080p = 91.78ppi. Significant difference. 32" 4k is not pleasant to read natively, and bringing it that close that is would be readable means you are putting things out of your focus and you need to start moving your head a lot.
- larodi 3y agoI find it difficult to actually figure the proper position where the 27” Dell 4K (still very top notch) is just as far so that I can see it and not have to move my head left and right. Anything beyond this size may be OK for games, but too much space and too much windows is actually too much of cognitive load. It is not a surprise that many ppl (not me though) start to prefer full screen terminal rather than dozen windows arranged in some disarray on a large screen.
- quickthrower2 3y agoI’m very happy with a laptop monitor and 1920x1080. Browser goes on laptop monitor and code on the monitor. I always will be. I am about condensing information to just what I need.
- williamdclt 3y agoI always thought that moving my head to look at another monitor isn’t really faster than pressing a key to make my fullscreen terminal appear, especially if we start taking cursor hunting into account
- vladvasiliu 3y agoI agree it's not faster, especially when using a simple WM with no animations. However, I also find it easier to recall where I was looking by moving my head between static content instead of having it change. FWIW I use a 32" screen positioned so that I barely need to move my head to see it all, and try to have all things I'm looking at visible at the same time.
- zone411 3y agoA 43'' 4K monitor in the middle and two 28" 16:18 LG DualUp monitors on the sides is my recommendation for an unparalleled setup for a large desk.
- Joeri 3y agoIt is surprising how much more affordable 4k displays are. I was stuck finding a suitable display for my macbook being used to the 5k iMac, and ended up with the 32 inch samsung m8, which is one third what apple charges for the 5k studio display. I find myself liking it more in practice than the 5k imac, because while it is a bit less crisp, the colors once properly set up are equally nice and the size is luxurious.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y agoWell M8 is a VA. Good for movies, not as good for everything else.
- hosteur 3y agoWhy is that? And what type is better and why?
- layer8 3y agoIt depends. If text contrast is a priority, VA provides better blacks. Personally I also can’t stand IPS glow and rather live with the VA off-axis gamma shift. OTOH, my favorite VA monitor is now 15 years old and there is no current replacement with the same picture quality. I’m hoping for more OLED monitors coming out.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
- andix 3y agoI don't get the point of a lot of monitors. My current setup is a 4K 32" 16:9, which I do 98% of my work on. Everything on one big screen. I have another monitor next to it, which I sometimes use for to put documentation on, a hot reloading web app I'm working on, maybe a video I'm watching while doing some work, or a video conference while I'm screen sharing. But turning my head to the secondary monitor is too much of a burden to really use it a lot. 80% of the time the second monitor is just empty.
- xattt 3y agoI’ve got the LG 2-UP monitor and a plain-Jane 1080p monitor in portrait mode. I use the second monitor for mostly-PDF mostly-letter paper document review. I would love to find an ergonomic reason for my org to purchase an eink monitor for that, but I haven’t come up with any excuses ;) Two monitors let me compartmentalize my workflow. Window management is otherwise too messy for my needs with a single display.
- ethanbond 3y agoWhat are your thoughts on the LG DualUp for programming workflows?
- BatFastard 3y agoI have a dual up from LG and it is the greatest coding monitor ever made! In Intellij and VSCode, I can see project outline, 120 columns of code, and DB details all on the same screen. I use it as a side monitor, with main monitor being a Dell 32 inch 4k.
- xattt 3y agoI use it for R Studio occasionally, and I appreciate being able to see my code and my data at the same time. My main use is writing, and it can a little overwhelming to see all my copy at once. I tend to fill out my screen with other resources that I’ll use. Since it’s an odd-ball ratio, built-in Windows 11 window snapping also has some weird default behaviour that assumes that I want my windows a third of the height and stacked.
- wil421 3y ago100% disagree. I went with 2 4K monitors years ago. When I switched to an ultra wide lat year it was a night a day difference. I wish I never bought 2 4k monitors (or dual monitors at all). Ultra wide is perfect and has a more functionality than a massive piece of each monitor's border in the dead center of your vision.
- graphe 3y agoDid you go with one large 4k monitor in front like he said?
- penguin_booze 3y agoI, too, am in the ultrawide camp now. I initially bought a 4k monitor. The default rendering was too small for my eyes. My Linux didn't support fractional scaling; 200% scaling kind of defeated the purpose of having a 4k monitor in the first place--net real estate I got felt the same. I then returned it and went for a flat 34" monitor (HP X34), and I'm happy for it.
- thfuran 3y agoYeah, bezels midfield is no good. That's why three monitors is where it's at. Or perhaps one of those 32:9 ones. But many window managers make it easier to deal with multiple monitors than one enormous one.
- blocko 3y agoThere's some jank involved depending on which combo of x/wayland, window manager, and compositor you're using, but if you can manage to get virtual monitors working on an ultrawide it's great. A lot of recent models also support "picture by picture" mode, allowing you to connect two separate inputs to the monitor and avoid doing anything in software.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoThey said one big one front and centered, and one to the side. Who voluntarily sticks a gap right in front of themselves?
- 3y ago
- rollcat 3y agoSince this is now a personal preference/setup thread, I use a single 43" 4k display at 1x. Stacking window compositors do much better than tiling, it's quite natural to just spread things around, wherever the best place may be.
- CPLX 3y agoI use a single 43” as my main display, and then also two 27” displays in portrait mode on either side. The 43” is where I actually work. The other two are like static displays, the left one is slack on top and iMessage on bottom. The right one is task list app on top and calendar on bottom. You get used to it pretty quick. It’s just great for like having a few conversations in progress without being interrupted and so on. They’re right there I’m just not looking at them. Not sure if it’s decades of driving or something in the brain but having static readout displays like that really doesn’t bother me the way trying to juggle everything on one screen does. Reminds me of how a dashboard full of indicators in a car can be constantly changing without feeling like it’s “interrupting” my ability to look at the road.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y agoI use a 5120 X 1440, 49" ultrawide. It's one of those things that I never knew I couldn't live without, until I had it. Running my laptop (with a much greater pixel density) is downright painful. Disclaimer: I'm 61, so all those packed-in pixels are wasted on me.
- batch12 3y agoI have both, an ultra wide in the middle and two curved monitors on each side with the edges touching. It works great for me
- nickjj 3y ago> I personally use 3 x 27 inch 4K Are you able to read text at 1:1 native scaling? I believe once you reach 150% scaling, you end up with the same screen real estate as a 2560x1440 monitor. 200% scaling is the same as 1080p.
- spiffytech 3y agoIndeed: I like ultrawides so I can see more stuff at the same physical size. I only want greater pixel density to he crisp rendering. If I had a taller, 16:9 version of my 49" 32:9 ultrawide, I think that much screen would swallow me alive.
- bdavbdav 3y agoThat’s true - but the text is soooo nice (especially on Mac OS)
- beezle 3y agoI'm working on a new build to replace my 11 yr old system. Monitors are a vexxing issue as I have competing needs - general/coding use and photo editing. As I'm working with 40+MP images, I'd like to have a screen with as high a resolution as possible to minimize the need to zoom in and out. However, then you run into the need to do display scaling for UI elements for everything else. Windows mostly works in that regard and when it does not it is often the program in use that is not quite up to snuff. After a lot of research, it seems to me the best approach is trying to get the resolution you want at a physical size that doesn't require excessive scaling (like 300%) as after all, we all want more desktop real estate and scaling reduces the effective resolution for most non-photo/video apps. I've been looking closely at the Dell Ultrasharp 32" 6K monitor. The dpi is a little high at 223 but it will fit about 75% of an uncropped photo. I'd likely also get one of the LG dual UPs as well. The one issue with both monitors, disappointing for the price of the Dell, is they are 8bit+FRC panels. Don't want to find out that I'm one of those who are sensitive to flicker or that the panel does not age well. At least the Dell is a 3yr warranty and the LG can be had in a commercial version that has 3 yr too.
- kadoban 3y agoIt's unclear to me why we'd be optimizing solely for pixels or pixels/$. I personally like my wide monitor, and I don't even particularly care to go for more pixels when available, ie my preferred resolution is ~1440p. They're nice and cheap, they look good to me, and they're easy to drive for the gpu. I go more for deep blacks and good colors, pixels just look good until your eyes adjust and then it's all the same.
- calfuris 3y agoFor me, it's about screen real estate, not looks. More pixels is more usable space, until you have to start scaling things up for comfort. I find a 27 inch 4k monitor to be comfortable without scaling, but I think it's just about the limit for me, and I expect that the PPI limit varies from person to person.
- nevir 3y ago5k x 2k has been worth every penny
- zeitlupe 3y agoThe problem with multiple monitors for me is that you have to turn your head very wide to look onto the adjacent screens' center, which is definitely not ergonomic and healthy. That being said, it is still my current setup as this wide turn holds me off from looking at the second screen, where slack and other distracting stuff is placed.