Two monitors, or two in one?

[Peter Jason]

Win7 SP1, i760, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480.


I have only one BenQ FP241W (Digital) monitor and
now I need another.

Should I just buy a similar one to the above, or a
new super-wide one and somehow have two screens
showing on it. Which arrangement would be more
efficient? If I bought a super-wide one I could
utilize my existing one and so have 3 screens.

Peter

 

[Jason]

Win7 SP1, i760, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480.


I have only one BenQ FP241W (Digital) monitor and
now I need another.

Should I just buy a similar one to the above, or a
new super-wide one and somehow have two screens
showing on it. Which arrangement would be more
efficient? If I bought a super-wide one I could
utilize my existing one and so have 3 screens.

Peter

Seperate monitors will probably perform a little better than one huge
one, but it depends on how you use your machine. I have two, a large one
and a smaller secondary screen. The big one is in landscape mode, the
small one is rotated to portrait mode. I do a lot of Photoshop work and
use the big one for the image and the smaller one for menus. It works
great that way. I use the same split setup for other Adobe apps and it
works well.

Jason

 

[Jason]

Win7 SP1, i760, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480.


I have only one BenQ FP241W (Digital) monitor and
now I need another.

Should I just buy a similar one to the above, or a
new super-wide one and somehow have two screens
showing on it. Which arrangement would be more
efficient? If I bought a super-wide one I could
utilize my existing one and so have 3 screens.

Peter

oh...and... does your gfx card suppor three monitors? Most that I know of
do not.

 

[Roger Mills]

oh...and... does your gfx card suppor three monitors? Most that I know of
do not.

Having a super-wide one plus a 'normal' one is only *two* monitors - not
three!

Not quite sure what the OP means about "somehow having two screens
showing on it".

You can certainly arrange your application windows so that, for example,
one occupies the left-hand half of the screen and another occupies the
right-hand half[1]. I don't know whether that's what he means.

[1] Hold down the Windows key and press left or right arrow to achieve this.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

 

[Paul]

Win7 SP1, i760, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480.


I have only one BenQ FP241W (Digital) monitor and
now I need another.

Should I just buy a similar one to the above, or a
new super-wide one and somehow have two screens
showing on it. Which arrangement would be more
efficient? If I bought a super-wide one I could
utilize my existing one and so have 3 screens.

Peter

The advantage of buying a single monitor which is as
large as two regular monitors, is "no gap in the center".

When you put two monitors, side by side, there is a gap
between viewing screens. And when an object moves from
one screen to the other (like the mouse pointer), that
can be annoying.

There are some 4K screens now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236338

That one is 3840 x 2160, and the panel is 30" x 20" roughly.
Price is $3500. (You can also get 4K TV sets, which might
be cheaper. But that might not have the same display properties
as a computer monitor would.)

That panel is so big, you drive it like two panels side
by side. It has two HDMI inputs, 1920z2160, and the
video card thinks it is driving two monitors in spanning
mode. It's possible DisplayPort can drive it with one
connector and cable. That's what I think I'm reading
in the manual.

But for that price, a second FP241W is probably looking
like a pretty good option right now. A used one was
around $200 for example. At this point in time, you'd probably
end up shopping for a newer 1920x1200 monitor of some
other brand.

Other problems with monitors, include viewing angle. If
you wanted accurate colors, it would help if the two
monitors were wide viewing angle type (178 degrees rated). As
those have less color shift as you move your head. With two
monitors, each monitor ends up referenced to the center
line, so your head is not centered in front of either monitor.
And if the viewing angle is poor (like on a TN versus an IPS),
it's possible the colors would be off enough to make Photoshopping
unpleasant.

To test for that, take the existing FP241W and move it as if
you'd acquired the second monitor, and needed to make room
for both on your desktop. Are the colors on the other
edge of that screen, still good looking ?

I could probably get away with that on my monitor, since it
has a 178 degree viewing angle. There is a slight color shift,
but it's not too bad. If I was doing Photoshop though, I can
imagine a purist would not be all that happy with the color,
even though the shift at the edge is small.

There have been various attempts, to make wide monitors
out of separate LCD panels, and then try to butt the panels
together to avoid the gap. Probably not all that cheap either,
as it would probably be priced for business, rather than
for consumers.

This one, for example, isn't a serious effort, because it still
has the gap in the center. At least they start with 178 degree
monitors. But no attempt was made to remove the bezel.

http://www.digitaltigers.com/zenview-dual-lcd-monitors.asp?type=pro

Paul

 

[Ken Blake]

Win7 SP1, i760, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480.


I have only one BenQ FP241W (Digital) monitor and
now I need another.

Should I just buy a similar one to the above, or a
new super-wide one and somehow have two screens
showing on it. Which arrangement would be more
efficient? If I bought a super-wide one I could
utilize my existing one and so have 3 screens.

See Jason's reply, and especially note his "but it depends on how you
use your machine." Almost nobody *needs* a second monitor, but
depending on what you do with your computer, a second monitor (or even
more monitors) can be very helpful.

You ask "Which arrangement would be more efficient?" but it's not a
matter of efficiency; again, it's a matter of what works best for
*you*, so somebody else's opinion is really not pertinent to you.

I have two monitors, both identical 23" wide screens. If I could
afford it, and if I had a big enough desk, I'd like to have four
monitors. But that doesn't mean that you should.

 

[Mike Barnes]

Other problems with monitors, include viewing angle. If
you wanted accurate colors, it would help if the two
monitors were wide viewing angle type (178 degrees rated). As
those have less color shift as you move your head. With two
monitors, each monitor ends up referenced to the center
line, so your head is not centered in front of either monitor.

But your head easily *can* be centred in front of both monitors. Just
angle the monitors in a bit. That's what I do and it works well.

 

[Mike Barnes]

I have only one BenQ FP241W (Digital) monitor and
now I need another.

Should I just buy a similar one to the above, or a
new super-wide one and somehow have two screens
showing on it. Which arrangement would be more
efficient? If I bought a super-wide one I could
utilize my existing one and so have 3 screens.

My first experiment with a second monitor was with a spare monitor I had
available. The two monitors were of different sizes and that didn't work
too well, partly because the number of pixel was different (so things
didn't always go smoothly when moving a window from one monitor to the
other) and partly because the pixels/inch was different (so things were
different sizes on the two monitors).

So I bought a duplicate of my existing (24" widescreen) monitor and that
suits me fine. I never have a window spanning the two screens so the
one-inch gap down the middle is of no importance. I have the taskbar
positioned vertically down the left size of the right monitor, and
therefore in the middle of the screen area, which might seem an odd
arrangement, but I find it convenient.

 

[Peter Jason]

The advantage of buying a single monitor which is as
large as two regular monitors, is "no gap in the center".

When you put two monitors, side by side, there is a gap
between viewing screens. And when an object moves from
one screen to the other (like the mouse pointer), that
can be annoying.

There are some 4K screens now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236338

That one is 3840 x 2160, and the panel is 30" x 20" roughly.
Price is $3500. (You can also get 4K TV sets, which might
be cheaper. But that might not have the same display properties
as a computer monitor would.)

That panel is so big, you drive it like two panels side
by side. It has two HDMI inputs, 1920z2160, and the
video card thinks it is driving two monitors in spanning
mode. It's possible DisplayPort can drive it with one
connector and cable. That's what I think I'm reading
in the manual.

But for that price, a second FP241W is probably looking
like a pretty good option right now. A used one was
around $200 for example. At this point in time, you'd probably
end up shopping for a newer 1920x1200 monitor of some
other brand.

Other problems with monitors, include viewing angle. If
you wanted accurate colors, it would help if the two
monitors were wide viewing angle type (178 degrees rated). As
those have less color shift as you move your head. With two
monitors, each monitor ends up referenced to the center
line, so your head is not centered in front of either monitor.
And if the viewing angle is poor (like on a TN versus an IPS),
it's possible the colors would be off enough to make Photoshopping
unpleasant.

To test for that, take the existing FP241W and move it as if
you'd acquired the second monitor, and needed to make room
for both on your desktop. Are the colors on the other
edge of that screen, still good looking ?

I could probably get away with that on my monitor, since it
has a 178 degree viewing angle. There is a slight color shift,
but it's not too bad. If I was doing Photoshop though, I can
imagine a purist would not be all that happy with the color,
even though the shift at the edge is small.

There have been various attempts, to make wide monitors
out of separate LCD panels, and then try to butt the panels
together to avoid the gap. Probably not all that cheap either,
as it would probably be priced for business, rather than
for consumers.

This one, for example, isn't a serious effort, because it still
has the gap in the center. At least they start with 178 degree
monitors. But no attempt was made to remove the bezel.

http://www.digitaltigers.com/zenview-dual-lcd-monitors.asp?type=pro

Paul

Thanks, I'll go for separate monitors because of
the wrap-around effect. My original monitor cost
$1000 a few years ago but a new one will cost only
$200 or so. My main need is to use Lightroom5 &
Photoshop6, and to sort hundreds of thumbnails
into appropriate folders - a task made easier if I
put images on the destination folders.

Peter

 

[Peter Jason]

oh...and... does your gfx card suppor three monitors? Most that I know of
do not.

Only two HDMI outlets on the card. Can the
motherboard HDMI be used for a third?

 

[Paul]

Only two HDMI outlets on the card. Can the
motherboard HDMI be used for a third?

Yes, but you don't want to do that.

Imagine what happens, when the three screens are being updated.
The motherboard port updates slowly, the GTX480 updates fast.
Not a good way of playing 3D games. And in my limited experience
with spanned monitors, I notice the secondary displays may update
after the primary display is finished (i.e. lags).

Sooner of later, a video card runs out of addressable pixels.
AMD Eyefinity, and their high end cards, give examples of
supporting as large a canvas as possible. NVidia has 3D Surround
as their answer to Eyefinity, but I don't know if this really
allows as many monitors to be connected. Best case on AMD, you
can connect six monitors to the same video card. I don't know
what the current limit is for NVidia. It could be, that extra
ports are available with some sort of SLI configuration. At
least, that would sell more video cards for NVidia. Without
SLI, you could use any two ports, at the same time (dual head
capability).

Example of their advertising page. I don't see why some options
aren't available for older cards.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-vision-surround-technology.html

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/3dvision-surround/system-requirements

They have a configuration tool on that page...

3D Surround Configuration Tool

Geforce GTX 480, 2-way SLI, 3D Surround, Landscape

"GeForce GTX 480 2-way SLI With 3D Surround (Landscape)

Maximum Resolution: 5760x1080
Maximum Resolution (Bezel Correction): 7680x1080
Maximum number of displays: 3 in Surround and any number
supported by additional cards"

Geforce GTX 480, 2-way SLI, 2D Surround, Landscape

"GeForce GTX 480 2-way SLI With 2D Surround (Landscape)

Maximum Resolution: 7600x1600 <--- close to HDMI cable limit???
Maximum Resolution (Bezel Correction): 8192x1600
Maximum number of displays: 3 in Surround and any number
supported by additional cards"

So that shows Nvidia's answer to Eyefinity, their own scheme of a sort.
Using two video cards, gives three connectors at a time. Instead
of just two. And then, you can game across three monitors and
have the thing uniformly accelerated. If you run non-SLI, two
video cards, you can run four monitors at the same time. But not
with the same kind of uniform support for all possible computing
activities.

Adding a second GTX 480 card to your PC, would turn it into an oven

Paul

 

[charlie]

If you are going to use two monitors simultaneously,
They should be EXACTLY the same, down to the the LCD/LED module.
Otherwise, things like color balance and tracking may be noticeably
different. I once had Dell ship a pair of the same model, and could not
get them to color balance or track properly. It turned out that Dell
was buying that model from two different suppliers, and they were using
different LCD modules. Even worse, there was no practical way to insure
that when Dell shipped the monitors, they were exactly the same.