Monitors; Dual or Ultrawide?

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
12,246
2,498
Pines; Bamber area
I'm ready to move from this 22" Dell Monitor to something bigger/better. I often have two maps up, or I often have a spreadsheet or Word Document up while I'm looking at a PDF file. In my research I found this article below. Seems to make a lot of sense for one wide monitor. How about you, do you have a preference? Ever use dual or widescreen?

 

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
23,209
5,080
I use dual monitors.

I originally purchased one to use with my 27 inch iMac. It resolution was 1920 x 1080 which was much smaller than my iMac. So if I had a window fully opened on the iMac and dragged it to the new monitor it overlapped the screen and I could not make it smaller. But I loved the quality of the Acer. So, when the iMac died and I punchased the MacMini, I used the same monitor and purchased a new 2560 x 1440 and it was so dark I could not see anything. So I returned it and bought another Acer at 2560 x 1440 and the same occurred. The gaming monitors do not have the same brightness adjustments. So for me to view a map I have to use the older Acer and just use the newer one for documents and anything that is not a map.

I would suggest you go to a store and look before buying which I did not do. A mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobpbx

Boyd

Administrator
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
7,949
1,706
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
I never really liked multiple monitors, but they are necessary for video editing - in addition to the usual monitor, I have a Sony production monitor with accurate color for previewing the video.

Aside from that, I'm really happy with the screen I got last summer, a BenQ PD3200Q 32" 1440x2560 screen ($400 at B&H Photo, IIRC). I just want one big "canvas" for my maps, with room to have other windows as needed. I was tempted to go full 4k, but I prefer to run screens at their native resolution, and for text to be a reasonable size at 4k, I would need at least a 45" screen. Worried that I'd end up with a sore neck looking around a screen that big at close range. :D One day, I might actually give it a try though.

Those ultrawide screens are cool, but a curved screen sounds a little too weird for my needs. I'm sure they are great for games, but that doesn't interest me. Also Bob, the computer specs you posted here awhile ago showed you have the Intel UHD630 graphics chip - same as my Mac. These chips don't get any love from computer geeks, LOL. They can have trouble with very high resolution screens. I'm a moderator at MacRumors.com and this is a constant source of complaints.

I know that Windows implementations may be different, but before you fall in love with an ultra-wide monitor, do some research of what other users of PC's with the UHD630 chip have to say. The common complaints on the Mac side involve not supporting the resolution or refresh rate they want, overall user-interface "lag", etc. The method of connecting to your PC can also affect this, such as displayport, hdmi or usb-c.

One issue is that, if the graphics chip works too hard, it gets hot. Since it's an integrated chip, that means your processors will slow down to avoid overheating. I think this is the cause of the "lag" that people complain of.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
12,246
2,498
Pines; Bamber area
Yeah, I'll be looking at them at Best Buy. One advantage with Windows is they have this Snap function where you can set several panes on the monitor and load them.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
12,246
2,498
Pines; Bamber area
I know that Windows implementations may be different, but before you fall in love with an ultra-wide monitor, do some research of what other users of PC's with the UHD630 chip have to say. The common complaints on the Mac side involve not supporting the resolution or refresh rate they want, overall user-interface "lag", etc. The method of connecting to your PC can also affect this, such as displayport, hdmi or usb-c.
I wonder though, since I never play games, maybe I'd still be okay? Do you think our chip is too slow too drag aerial maps around? It's fine for that on the monitor I have.
 

Boyd

Administrator
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
7,949
1,706
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
No question that the 630 works perfectly at 1080p (your screen). And it also supports 1440p (my screen) perfectly. That's why I got a 1440p monitor, I just didn't want to deal with potential issues. Where it really struggles is if you want to scale to display to some custom size. For example, let's say you get a 27" 4k screen. If you run that at native resolution (2160x3840), everything will be really tiny and hard to read. But you might think it looks OK if you scale the size to QHD (1440x2560). That is going to make the graphics chip work really hard, much more computation is involved with scaling something by a fraction (as opposed to a power of 2).

On the Mac, what people often do would be to run a 27" 4k screen at "looks llike 1080x1920" resolution. That doesn't stress the chip, because it's half the native resolution. With that setting, text and user interface elements will look like 1080p screen, but images will take advantage of the extra pixels and show twice the detail.

But with the 630, it seems that 5k and 6k screens just don't run acceptably on the Mac. I've actually seen complaints that the same screens work OK on a PC with the 630, but that could be a "grass is always greener" complaint. :D

I think your PC may have an empty slot inside for a "real" graphics card that could drive any screen you want. It may also support external graphics processors. Of course, these would be an additional expense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobpbx

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
23,209
5,080
I have tried everything to get the monitor on the right to brighten.

image1.jpg
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
12,246
2,498
Pines; Bamber area
I went to Best Buy after my walk. I was impressed with this one, but I wonder if too big. I did not like the wide screen so much because it scrunches the visual.

 

Teegate

Administrator
Site Administrator
Sep 17, 2002
23,209
5,080
That is the first one I purchased and took back. I liked it but the maps looked the same as in the photo I just posted. So I purchased the Acer I now have, similar to the other I have and love, and it also was dark. I would be careful Bob that the LED monitors will not display the maps properly. However, it may on your computer as mine is a Mac. My other Acer is a LCD and is great.
 

Boyd

Administrator
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
7,949
1,706
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
I went to Best Buy after my walk. I was impressed with this one, but I wonder if too big. I did not like the wide screen so much because it scrunches the visual.

Same size and resolution as my screen - perfect (for me). Look up the specs on your existing screen, specifically the pixels per inch(PPI) or dots per inch (DPI). How do you feel about the size of text on your existing screen? Too big? Too small? About right? That 32" QHD screen will be about 95 PPI. I used a 100 PPI screen for more than 10 years and always felt the size of text to be about right, so 95 PPI looks good to me. Note that a smaller PPI means LARGER text.

If you get a 27" QHD (1440x2560) screen then text is going to be pretty small. Will still certainly be usable, but more like the size of text on a laptop screen.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
12,246
2,498
Pines; Bamber area
Same size and resolution as my screen - perfect (for me). Look up the specs on your existing screen, specifically the pixels per inch(PPI) or dots per inch (DPI). How do you feel about the size of text on your existing screen? Too big? Too small? About right? That 32" QHD screen will be about 95 PPI. I used a 100 PPI screen for more than 10 years and always felt the size of text to be about right, so 95 PPI looks good to me. Note that a smaller PPI means LARGER text.

If you get a 27" QHD (1440x2560) screen then text is going to be pretty small. Will still certainly be usable, but more like the size of text on a laptop screen.
It doesn't tell me DPI. I think the settings are made for dummies like me.

1617418680042.png
 

Boyd

Administrator
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
7,949
1,706
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
No, your computer won't show you the PPI. You will need to find the specs for your screen, should be in the monitor owners manual or the manufacturer's website. Or do a google search for a review, etc. However, it is probably about 100 PPI, just found this calculator. Looks like it is just an approximation however


But apparently you are scaling things up, according to your screenshot, which would make it appear to be about 80 PPI. Is that right? Seems like things would be pretty large at that setting. But, as I said above, a 32" QHD screen (1440p) is gonna give you about 95 PPI (the calculator says 92). At the native settings (100% under "make everything bigger") this will be similar size to your current 22" screen (a bit larger).

But on a 27" QHD screen, everything will be pretty small (109 PPI) and you will probably want to use that setting to make things larger. IMO, that is what you want to try to avoid because it makes the graphics chip work harder. Not much of an issue with your current HD screen, which has a total of about 2 million pixels. But a QHD screen has almost 4 million pixels so the chip will have to work twice as hard.

If you got a 27" HD screen (1080p) and ran it at native resolution, that would be about 80 PPI at the 100% setting - about the same as the 22" screen at 125%. This stuff may be difficult to wrap your head around if you aren't sure what you want or what the goal is. You may just have to give it your best shot, then return if it doesn't give you the result you hoped for.
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
12,246
2,498
Pines; Bamber area
No, your computer won't show you the PPI. You will need to find the specs for your screen, should be in the monitor owners manual or the manufacturer's website.
Yeah, I got my info first and tried it that way. All I could see was the pixel pitch, and so gave up.

Yes, hard to wrap my head around this. I'm going to rely on it being okay whatever the size.
 

Boyd

Administrator
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
7,949
1,706
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
If you like your current screen at the 125% setting, things should appear to be about the same size on a 27" HD (1920x1080) screen at the 100% setting. The advantage would be that things should be sharper since you'd be using the native resolution of the screen instead of scaling everything with software (which results in a quality loss). But that is still only an HD screen.

A 32" QHD (2560x1440) screen at native resolution (100% setting) would result in things being a bit smaller but you would see a MUCH bigger area, giving more room for separate maps windows.

What happens if you set that slider to 100% on your current screen? Is that too small for you? IMO, the 125% setting for your 22" HD screen is pretty high.
 
Top