Best Resolution For Gaming And Productivity

[R-T-B]

6ms if true black to black is actually excellent.

It's almost certainly a grey to grey time though, and thus, rather poor.

You call that high?

I have a 25ms Monitor from 2001

I mean, if we're time traveling through dumpster-monitor material I can probably beat you all...

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

2560 x 1600

My favorite resolution. Sad it isn't more popular.

 

[Gasaraki]

I would actually do 3440x1440 ultrawide (which I have right now) or triple 27" 2560x1440.

 

[Luka KLLP]

Have to agree with others; I simply cannot imagine doing any work at all without my two monitors.

I don't really need many windows open (I basically just want to be able to write while reading other papers etc. on the other screen) so in terms of the actual resolution I don't really have any advice. I guess I can say I like 1440p for gaming as well, if you don't care about putting everything on ultra/high my trusty gtx980 still runs everything quite nicely.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I'm actually using a a vevo triple tree monitor stand

Okay. With 3 x 24", that's a lot of space in front of you. But with your 3 monitors mounted to a triple stand, I am having a hard time picturing in my head what you mean when you say you want to "clear some space".

What space? Desktop real estate? Assuming you have two bottom monitors and one above, are your trying to clear some height space? Perhaps a triple horizontal stand would work better for you? I know moving my head and eyes side to side is a lot less tiring than up and down.

That said, I realize you are also using this excuse(?) to justify buying a new monitor (which likely would be cheaper than buying 3).

I don't really see where you stated the purpose of this setup. Only in Post #24 is the word "gaming" used, but it is almost in passing. If you use this computer only for gaming, then perhaps a single large monitor is fine. But if you use it for other purposes, or like to have other windows open when gaming, for me anyway, multiple monitors is still the only way to go.

Beyond that, I see this really as a personal decision only you can make.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don’t see this Resolution very often. Nor have I seen many offerings for it.

It's 8:5 and 8:5 is definitely better for productivity but because of low volumes, they cost a lot. 16:9 and 21:9 are for TV/movie consumption.


What software do you usually have running? If productivity is your goal, basically you want everything you use visible all of the time so you don't waste time switching focused windows. You also want as much of that thing visible without scaling and still comfortably readable. For example, if you can read 4K text easily on a 24" panel as you can on a 1920x1080 24" panel, you're seeing 4 times as much of it on the 4K panel as the 1920x1080 panel. That should translate to more productivity. If instead you're enabling scaling on that panel so you can read stuff, then you would have been better off with like a 32" 4K panel than 24" because you're not really gaining any work space.

You mentioned gaming in one reply about latency. I would buy one good high refresh rate FreeSync monitor for gaming and use that as your primary. Your other productivity software should determine your secondary monitor. 21:9 is terrible for productivity.


If you're trying to reduce down everything to one monitor, as W1zzard and ZenZimZaliben said, 2560x1600 is the best resolution for gaming and productivity. 2560x1600 is backwards compatible with 1920x1200 and 1600x1200. It can handle old games as well as new. The extra height is also really good productivity (can see more without scrolling).


The popularity of thin user interfaces on browsers, for example, surged with the popularity of 16:9 resolutions. If you have a lot of toolbars up there on 16:9, the content inside the window gets crowded out. That's not a problem with 8:5 because even with all of those toolbars enabled, you still have more content space than 16:9. 16:9 is like using a computer with your eyes squinting. It's silly.

 

[Vario]

I voted 2560x1440, I run two myself it is nice. I don't use a triple setup.

Having discrete screens is nice for keeping applications separated and organized.

 

[mtcn77]

The questionnaire is flawed. What the issue presents is nematic display gradient illumination fringing. The problem does not present itself in IPS(high grade variant, won't bleed from below) or VA displays, therefore it is merely a cheap TN artifact. You can easily read text so long as there isn't an irreducible 'sharp halo' around font, or colours don't fringe when tilted.

 

[Durvelle27]

Okay. With 3 x 24", that's a lot of space in front of you. But with your 3 monitors mounted to a triple stand, I am having a hard time picturing in my head what you mean when you say you want to "clear some space".

What space? Desktop real estate? Assuming you have two bottom monitors and one above, are your trying to clear some height space? Perhaps a triple horizontal stand would work better for you? I know moving my head and eyes side to side is a lot less tiring than up and down.

That said, I realize you are also using this excuse(?) to justify buying a new monitor (which likely would be cheaper than buying 3).

I don't really see where you stated the purpose of this setup. Only in Post #24 is the word "gaming" used, but it is almost in passing. If you use this computer only for gaming, then perhaps a single large monitor is fine. But if you use it for other purposes, or like to have other windows open when gaming, for me anyway, multiple monitors is still the only way to go.

Beyond that, I see this really as a personal decision only you can make.

I mean even though they monitors are mounted they do take up space.

And for the stand it’s across horizontal side bye side.

Sort of as so many monitors are available with higher resolutions so it does ping a lot in your head about upgrading.

Like mentioned I game but also for work I use the mutilmonitors for using excel, fedex shipmanger, and seller cloud for doing multiple shipments for my job that requires a lot of multasking.

This is how the mount is made

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So why reduce from 3 monitors?

 

[Bill_Bright]

Like mentioned I game but also for work I use the mutilmonitors for using excel, fedex shipmanger, and seller cloud for doing multiple shipments for my job that requires a lot of multasking.

Yeah, so for me, I definitely would want to keep my multi-monitor setup.

You might trying doing your work tasks with two of your monitors turned off.

 

[John Naylor]

If I take you literally, then we must include the quality of the panel and the user experience. And, for gaming, that really requires:

a) 144+ Hz
b) IPS panel with low ***tested** lag and response time (adverised is typically double).
c) 10 bit color
d) Motion Blur Reduction

1. Unless prepared to spend $2,500 4k is outta the question.

2. 1440p is up next, but your 1060 3GB is going to be strained on occasion, especially if you want to use MBR. At 1440p, we had been recommending either of the following:

Acer Predator XB1 XB271HU $599
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/ttnG3C/acer-monitor-xb271hubmiprz

Asus - PG279Q ROG $683
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/XvfmP6/asus-monitor-pg279q

However, I have seen it listed now that the Asus model no longer uses the same 10 bit IPS panel and the predator and had switched to an 8 bit panel. So at this point, can only recommend the Asus. BTW, with a GTX 1060 in your rig, it warrants a G-Sync card, you listed "Freesync" ... not that useful with an nVidia card and also Freesync offers no MBR reduction (ULMB is a nVidia only thing); Freesync has no such technology offering.

3. 1080P really is the best match or your 1060 3GB. Suggest grabing an Asus VG248QE for now until you get more GFX horsepower,

4. When you move up, then use the above 2nd for utilities, web sites and other resources.

 

[Vayra86]

It's 8:5 and 8:5 is definitely better for productivity but because of low volumes, they cost a lot. 16:9 and 21:9 are for TV/movie consumption.


What software do you usually have running? If productivity is your goal, basically you want everything you use visible all of the time so you don't waste time switching focused windows. You also want as much of that thing visible without scaling and still comfortably readable. For example, if you can read 4K text easily on a 24" panel as you can on a 1920x1080 24" panel, you're seeing 4 times as much of it on the 4K panel as the 1920x1080 panel. That should translate to more productivity. If instead you're enabling scaling on that panel so you can read stuff, then you would have been better off with like a 32" 4K panel than 24" because you're not really gaining any work space.

You mentioned gaming in one reply about latency. I would buy one good high refresh rate FreeSync monitor for gaming and use that as your primary. Your other productivity software should determine your secondary monitor. 21:9 is terrible for productivity.


If you're trying to reduce down everything to one monitor, as W1zzard and ZenZimZaliben said, 2560x1600 is the best resolution for gaming and productivity. 2560x1600 is backwards compatible with 1920x1200 and 1600x1200. It can handle old games as well as new. The extra height is also really good productivity (can see more without scrolling).


The popularity of thin user interfaces on browsers, for example, surged with the popularity of 16:9 resolutions. If you have a lot of toolbars up there on 16:9, the content inside the window gets crowded out. That's not a problem with 8:5 because even with all of those toolbars enabled, you still have more content space than 16:9. 16:9 is like using a computer with your eyes squinting. It's silly.

On 16:9 I tend to put my taskbar on the left border instead of bottom, unfortunately browsers and most applications do still use the standard orientation. On 21:9 however, you get new options, for example having two windows side by side over the full height. Still works fine for productivity, just needs a bit of adjustment in how you work. It falls flat on its face though when you consider things like Photoshop because when you zoom in you are restricted to that monitor height. And 21:9 needs a much bigger diagonal to have some comfortable display height, which also translates in a crapload of pixels, the only 21:9 I'd go for is a 3440x1440 or bigger, at 32 inch at least. While for a normal 1440p panel, I'd consider 27 inch the sweetspot.

 

[Durvelle27]

If I take you literally, then we must include the quality of the panel and the user experience. And, for gaming, that really requires:

a) 144+ Hz
b) IPS panel with low ***tested** lag and response time (adverised is typically double).
c) 10 bit color
d) Motion Blur Reduction

1. Unless prepared to spend $2,500 4k is outta the question.

2. 1440p is up next, but your 1060 3GB is going to be strained on occasion, especially if you want to use MBR. At 1440p, we had been recommending either of the following:

Acer Predator XB1 XB271HU $599
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/ttnG3C/acer-monitor-xb271hubmiprz

Asus - PG279Q ROG $683
https://pcpartpicker.com/product/XvfmP6/asus-monitor-pg279q

However, I have seen it listed now that the Asus model no longer uses the same 10 bit IPS panel and the predator and had switched to an 8 bit panel. So at this point, can only recommend the Asus. BTW, with a GTX 1060 in your rig, it warrants a G-Sync card, you listed "Freesync" ... not that useful with an nVidia card and also Freesync offers no MBR reduction (ULMB is a nVidia only thing); Freesync has no such technology offering.

3. 1080P really is the best match or your 1060 3GB. Suggest grabing an Asus VG248QE for now until you get more GFX horsepower,

4. When you move up, then use the above 2nd for utilities, web sites and other resources.

That’s not true. Non of those are required more so preference

1. Also not true. 4K is much more affordable now than it was once before. You can find many decent panels under $500

2. I was never concerned about GPU horsepower as it’s not what I plan to run. Main reason the GPU was never mentioned.

Also freesync indeed would be useful as I don’t plan to keep using Nvidia

3. Again I was never concerned about that as I won’t be using the 1060. Buying a 1080p monitor when I have 3 just until I supposedly get another GPU is a waste of money.

 

[mtcn77]

Check tftcentral.co.uk: - go for RTC error color code. 'Green' specifier is a good bet.
Check prad.de: - go for overdrive oscillator graph. If no overshoot, the response time is dependable(no switching mismatch). They also provide you with calibrated menu options in the 'profilierung' page.
By this time, make all reservations for 250Hz. It will obviate all color trace woes.

 

[holyprof]

I swapped my cheap old 22" FHD monitor for an IPS WQHD 24" and i'm very happy with the results. Image editing and drawing are much better, and i can finally edit 1920x1080 video and see the controls without using a second monitor. 4k video is pointless for me, but if you're editing 4k video, the WQHD monitor won't cut it. You will need a 4k monitor and a small secondary monitor for the controls. Of course, you can edit video in a small, reduced window but you will need to preview it in 1:1 to judge quality.

TLDR: as many posters above said: go with a 27" WQHD and you will be happy. It will have the pixel density of a 22" FHD monitor which i find to be perfect. Choose one with good panel and high refresh rate. Or save on refresh rate and go for a quality 32" 4k IPS monitor with 60Hz refresh.

 

[Wavetrex]

If money is no object, I would go with 3440x1440 for center, and two 2560x1440 for the sides.
Today's content and workflow just doesn't work anymore on 1080 monitors.

If budget is limited, I would go with 2x 2560x1440 and skip the ultrawide - This is actually what you see in most modern corporations, it's great for anyone doing creative work, they NEED that pixel amount.

Some display panels are starting to understand this and produce very-ultra-wide monitors at 5Kx1440, which basically replace the two 2560 with a bezel-less screen.
It's still rare today, but you can find one if you really want to. Not sure about the price.

---
4K needs 32" minimum, or items might be too small for normal eyesight. 4K @ 27" certainly needs scaling, and not all software cooperates with that well, and the issue with a 32" or bigger 4K display is that it becomes too tall for normal desk usage, and creates fatigue from the moving of eyesight too much vertically.
It's much more comfortable to look left and right, or turn your head, than bobbing eyes up and down.

 

[king of swag187]

I'm deciding between 2560x1080 and 2560x1600, both are great.
TBH, I'd go 2560x1080 as you're likely very used to very widescreen

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

I voted for 4K... 32" minimum 3840x2160 is perfect all rounder IMO.

 

[qubit]

I voted 4K for the following reasons:

Productivity: set the desktop scale factor to 2.00 in Windows 10. This has the effect of giving you a desktop the same size as 1080p, but with 4 times the detail and looks beautiful, with especially clear antialiased text. It's also a great compromise if your eyesight can't resolve small objects very well, like mine, especially if I don't sit right up close to the monitor and even with glasses.

Gaming: games look beautiful in 4K. If you're aiming for a 60Hz framerate vsync locked no dropped frames performance, then something like a GTX 1080 works very well and you might only have to turn back the quality settings a little bit in some games to maintain it.

Note this isn't absolute and just reflects my own personal preference, especially with my less than perfect vision.

 

[Komshija]

The best would be 27" WQHD.

 

[Gorstak]

I have to vote for the lowest of all figures, but I would have voted for fullhd if it were on the list. Modern gpu's simply lack the strength for high resolutions, and when games go dx 12, it will get even worse, as it will require double gpu strength then it is now. Without a doubt, 8k will offer the prettiest image, and on a 40" TV or monitor that would look amazing and should be aimed to achieve. However, I don't think NOW is the time to make that effort. Perhaps in about 5 years 4k will be standard like fullhd is today, and I mean an enjoyable standard, not just availability in the stores, and that's the time to make a change. For now, a pc that can run fullhd dx 11 titles at decent fps is all that is needed, doesn't cost much, and the child illnesses have been reduced to a minumum.