Desktop Upgrade - Displays

Monbo Jumbo

Hates the crockpot
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
25,231
the other Athens
My desktop PC, a self-build, is going on 7 years old. It works fine - it's an i7 chip - Win10 on an SSD.

But I think I'm ready to upgrade the displays. I have two 23" Samsungs running at 1920x1080 side-by side on my desk. The video card has DVI outputs.

Id' like to upgrade to sharper/faster/bigger/more pixels.

What are my best choices? A pair of 27"s at higher than current resolution? Or just one big feckin wide-screen monitor? Or should I consider something else?

What video cards should I get to drive this?

What's out there these days?

I am not a gamer.

thanks in advance
 

Couperin47

Member
SoSH Member
What motherboard ? 7 years old means either PCIe 1.1 or very early 2.0 slots on that motherboard thus much of the speed/bandwidth of virtually all modern video cards won't be available.
You say you want sharper: that means high resolution
You say you want faster, but you don't game, exactly what do you think "faster" will gain you, especially considering the advantages of all current video cards (which are PCIe 3.0 or 4.0) will be unavailable ?
You say you want bigger, understanding bigger screens at same resolution will actually reduce sharper (you'll get bigger pixels), so you need bigger screen plus higher resolution to get 'sharper'.

At some point one larger screen becomes a test of your peripheral vision (unless you move it further away, in which case you start losing the ability to apprehend the additional detail), you currently use a pair that can be angled, does this annoy you ? Unless your current screens are IPS/MVA tech, moving to those will improve off-axis color shift and other TN annoyances.

If your current mb has PCIe 1.1 slots, it's probably time to upgrade more than just the video card, especially since there is a very high likelihood that you will encounter significant incompatibilities trying to run a modern card on such an old mb.

All current mid/high end video cards also require direct additional power connections, which I'll wager the power supply for your 7 year old build probably cannot supply...but give us the details of your current mb, ps and video.
 

Monbo Jumbo

Hates the crockpot
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
25,231
the other Athens
Thanks - I figured a more substantial upgrade might be required.

Not sure of exact model numbers

the Mb is a Gigabyte Ultra Durable Classic 3

video is an MSI N250GTS

cpu is i7 920 - running at 2.67 ghz. Hope that helps.

The current video card is drawing power from the ps. Not sure of the PS specs, but I didn't skimp at the time.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
4k monitors are now very cheap. If you want what I think you want-- more desktop real estate and sharper text, you basically want more pixels and physically bigger monitors.

From a very quick search, here's a $350 4k 28" monitor.
http://www.monoprice.com/mobile/product/details/13809
Exact model you want may differ.

You can get cards that will drive two of them, or use two video cards. You will need to use a higher speed connection than VGA and sDVI. Displayport is probably the easiest, easier than DVI-D.
I am running a similar 4k monitor on a PC and it's great, after a little font size tweaking.

This all assumes you are using a PC. 4k is roughly the equiv of Mac Retina displays. You can use a 4k display on a Mac too, but connection is a slightly different story. Apple's Thunderbolt monitors may be a better choice for Macs, although they are more expensive. Couperin may know more about Thunderbolt connections on PCs, I'm not sure what state of the art is.

Edit: specifically to your question- you'd be fine with a single 28" 4k display, which will be sharper but roughly the same real estate as you currently have. Two 4k displays would be awesome.

Also, your current card can't drive these resolutions. Looks like you're getting card upgrade advice above.
 
Last edited:

Couperin47

Member
SoSH Member
OK meanwhile, your video was pretty high end for the time and you do have PCIe 2.0. It includes a pair of Dual Link DVI-I outputs which mean you can run any pair of DVI-I or DVI-D monitors up to 2560x1600 resolution. You can also use the adapter to convert these to HDMI output at that resolution.

Example: you can run a pair of these: http://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=13808&seq=1&format=2 at max resolution with what you have currently with a pair of DVI-D cables.

Most PCIe 3.0 cards should also work, though it's debatable if you should consider upgrading unless you're going for much higher resolutions on monitors over 30", in which case you will need a card with Displayport output options, also be aware...while in theory you can daisy-chain several Displayport monitors off a single output...in reality doing that is still quite an 'adventure' with particular brands of card/monitor sometimes working and other times leading to endless frustration.
 

Couperin47

Member
SoSH Member
LOL crystal has suggested the 'next step up' monitor. Be aware, while your current card can drive these, not at the max resolution, for that you would need to move up to a PCIe 3.0 card that supports 3840x2160 with Displayport or HDMI outputs. Here's the link to that monitor that 'works better': http://www.monoprice.com/product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=13809&seq=1&format=2
A pair of these is a pretty incredible setup and not outrageously priced.

There are only a gazillion cards that can run this, here's an example of one on sale currently that includes every possible output you could want: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487159&ignorebbr=1
(Amazon has this card at $150 currently)

To run such monitors you'll need either Displayport cables or high speed HDMI cables.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
I was just researching this topic a couple days ago.

I currently run a 24" dell Ultrasharp 1900x1200 for my home office. I would like to upgrade to something higher resolution in order to get more screen real estate.

I looked into something 2560x1600 (I like the 16:10 screen ratio) but the smallest I could find at that res was 30" and very expensive.

I also looked into 4k screens but it was very confusing trying to figure out all the different standards and I read some stuff about only getting 30fps output.

My next step was looking at 2560x1440 displays in the 25-27" range. It looks like dell makes a 25" for $359 and a 27" for $480 at that resolution.

I'm considering one of those right now but I'm open to any other recommendations in that size/price range.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
I currently run a pair of HP ZR24w (I'm partial to 16:10 also...which as you are noticing is becoming rather rare and expensive). Look at the 2 Monoprice's mentioned above. The lack of choice and high price is going to force most of us to 16:9....
That 27" monoprice looks promising at $250. How is the quality of the panels?
 

Couperin47

Member
SoSH Member
That 27" monoprice looks promising at $250. How is the quality of the panels?
The reviews are good, more importantly they are consistent: Monoprice doesn't keep changing the panels it uses. In case you are unaware a disturbing trend with Dell is to bring out a new model using a quality panel, then after the reviews they start using 2 or even 3 sources for the panels in the model, with considerable variation in the results. When you buy certain Dell models you are now entering a 'panel lottery'.

It's a great budget monitor: Basic quality of panel is good, color accuracy is good but not $500 'pro great'. The stand is typical of budget designs, it's a bit wobbly and only tilts, but you have VESA mount on back.
Look at the reviews, Monoprice doesn't censor its reviews.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Not sure how much you want to invest in this but let me just describe my monitor craziness. I upgraded from a 20" to a 27" and ran dual monitors. Then I realized my video card could output 4k 3480x2160 and got a Samsung 4k TV for $450 before Xmas and while that was a special price BestBuy was also just selling them for $450 last week. I have to say its tremendous. I'm not sure what type of work you do but I write a lot of code and do a lot of crap on spreadsheets so I found the extra monitor space and resolution to really be unbelievably helpful because I could increase the text size and see more text at the same time. I tried running a dual monitor with the 27" but that could only handle 1920x1080 One thing to consider, when you have a 4k monitor and a 1080 at the same time your mouse is really difficult to control on the 4k because I think it makes 1080 movement but on the 4k monitor it feels like its jumping around as a result, so dont try to do this. I've found that the space and text size is really better than having a dual monitor at least for my use. Another thing to consider if you do this, is you are going to have to move your desk back like a foot otherwise you will get a terrible headache.

I feel like my investment was very worthwhile but might want to upgrade your video card to do the full 4k and you do want to make sure the monitor and video card can do 60hz. I have a home PC that can only output 30hz and there is a noticeable difference when I switch between my work and home PC.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
What are my best choices? A pair of 27"s at higher than current resolution? Or just one big feckin wide-screen monitor? Or should I consider something else?
One huge question that I dont think was ever asked, what type of work are you doing? And how are your using your dual monitors? While I was still using the dual I found that I used my main monitor to do work and my smaller monitor to just handle emails if I had to deal with them while they came in, so the 2nd monitor really just became a huge email previewer.

Which on a related note, if anyone knows how to customize the outlook preview partially transparent thing that pops up? I'd love to have it pop up and show the first few paragraphs of an email, that would be amazing.
 

Rudi Fingers

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,845
Adianoeta
Sounds like you're looking for something like a Dell curved 34" (U3415W) monitor. I know several people who have these who love them. Pricey at ~$800, but think of one as two... or two as four :)

SoSH'd link:
 

Monbo Jumbo

Hates the crockpot
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
25,231
the other Athens
Thanks for all the info. I think I'm going to wait on the upgrade. A single, big-ass 34" might be the way to go.

I don't have graphic intensive needs, but I do need plenty of desktop space for many windows/programs.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Here's a question for you folks. Why the heck aren't monitor companies making many 2560x1600 monitors anymore? These long, thin monitors absolutely suck. I get that this is the resolution for movies but who cares, I want space on my screen to, you know, work.

I'm still using a an HP monitor from 2008. It is good but it's certainly not retina quality. If someone has a good monitor that is 2560x1600, please let me know. This is totally crazy, being unable to find a screen with a 1600 pixel height. I have looked at Amazon and I wasn't thrilled with the choices, nothing is better than what I'm using.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
Here's a question for you folks. Why the heck aren't monitor companies making many 2560x1600 monitors anymore? These long, thin monitors absolutely suck. I get that this is the resolution for movies but who cares, I want space on my screen to, you know, work.

I'm still using a an HP monitor from 2008. It is good but it's certainly not retina quality. If someone has a good monitor that is 2560x1600, please let me know. This is totally crazy, being unable to find a screen with a 1600 pixel height. I have looked at Amazon and I wasn't thrilled with the choices, nothing is better than what I'm using.
I mentioned this briefly up thread, the only one I could find at that resolution was a Dell 30" ultrasharp. It looks like a great monitor, but 30" is a bit too large for my tastes. It's also ridiculously expensive ($1000).

I'd really like to get something around 25" that's 2560x1600 but I don't think it exists.

 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
I mentioned this briefly up thread, the only one I could find at that resolution was a Dell 30" ultrasharp. It looks like a great monitor, but 30" is a bit too large for my tastes. It's also ridiculously expensive ($1000).

I'd really like to get something around 25" that's 2560x1600 but I don't think it exists.

Definitely overpriced for a 30 inch, non 4k monitor, that is 3 years old. I actually looked at that on Amazon a few months back but it's really not an improvement on what I have and I made a pact with myself never to buy anything from Dell after they screwed me on an Alienware Computer a few years ago. Thanks for the help, though.

I still need an answer. Why don't they make monitors with 1600 resolution? Those wide, skinny monitors aren't only less functional, they look so fucking stupid. I don't get it.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
Reduced manufacturing costs.

"If you're familiar with aspect ratios, you'll probably know about the fact that in the last four or so years, monitors have switched from being predominately 16:10 (typically 1,680 x 1,050 or 1,920 x 1,200) to 16:9 (usually 1,600 x 900 or 1,920 x 1,080). This is to cut production costs by tying them in with flatscreen TV manufacturing which also sports a 16:9 aspect ratio."

http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2012/10/22/16-10-vs-16-9-the-monitor-aspect-ratio/

While it's not what I was looking for, I'm talking myself into 2560x1440 on the basis that it still has more vertical screen space than my current 1920x1200.

On a slightly related tangent, I really like the 15:10 screen ratio on my surface pro. Wish they had a model with a slightly larger screen.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Thanks for all the info. I think I'm going to wait on the upgrade. A single, big-ass 34" might be the way to go.

I don't have graphic intensive needs, but I do need plenty of desktop space for many windows/programs.
I'm going to make my suggestion again of going to a 4K tv. This is the model I got and its $500 at Jet and I love it. The TV route is actually cheaper than the monitor route and its essentially the same thing. 40inch might be a little bigger than what you are looking for, but if you just move your seat back it will be fine.

I do SQL programming and so screen space and font size was a huge thing for me. When I upgraded from my 27 inch monitor, I increased the DPI on my screen from either 100 or 125% to 200% and I can still see about 3 times more text on the screen than I could before. I really, really love my new setup because I'm not sure what I love more the additional screen space or it being easier on my eyes but both are just awesome.
 

Couperin47

Member
SoSH Member
I'm going to make my suggestion again of going to a 4K tv. This is the model I got and its $500 at Jet and I love it. The TV route is actually cheaper than the monitor route and its essentially the same thing. 40inch might be a little bigger than what you are looking for, but if you just move your seat back it will be fine.

I do SQL programming and so screen space and font size was a huge thing for me. When I upgraded from my 27 inch monitor, I increased the DPI on my screen from either 100 or 125% to 200% and I can still see about 3 times more text on the screen than I could before. I really, really love my new setup because I'm not sure what I love more the additional screen space or it being easier on my eyes but both are just awesome.
Just be aware that there is a ton of older (and some not-so-old) code in apps that don't scale worth a shit. The result is once you go much over 125%, dialog boxes pop up where half the text, and all the selection buttons, are outside the box and make the damn stupid app unusable. This is a slowly declining phenomenon, but I still hear complaints all the time.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Just be aware that there is a ton of older (and some not-so-old) code in apps that don't scale worth a shit. The result is once you go much over 125%, dialog boxes pop up where half the text, and all the selection buttons, are outside the box and make the damn stupid app unusable. This is a slowly declining phenomenon, but I still hear complaints all the time.
No I've come across this too. I use SQL Server Management studio and the regular text of SQL code, view design and table design work fine, but there are a few pop-up menus that are a mess. So you are totally right this should be a consideration if you run some older stuff this might be a real problem but if you update your display to 200% you can at leasttest it out, or if you arent as blind as me and dont need to update the DPI then you have nothing to worry about.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,893
Alexandria, VA
Those wide, skinny monitors aren't only less functional, they look so fucking stupid. I don't get it.
All things being equal, I find a wider 16:9 ratio more functional--it's a lot more comfortable to have reasonable-width windows stacked side-by-side than super-wide windows stacked above and below each other.

It's the same reason that most people with dual monitors have them left/right rather than over/under.

Of course, all things are rarely equal (if you're losing pixels, which you often are, then it's not worth it).


(Usually it makes more sense to set a larger font size at the correct DPI than to mess with the DPI, though that's not always possible).
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
All things being equal, I find a wider 16:9 ratio more functional--it's a lot more comfortable to have reasonable-width windows stacked side-by-side than super-wide windows stacked above and below each other.
It really depends on what you're doing.

For multi window stuff, yeah, wider is better.

For working on spreadsheets, word documents, etc - having more vertical space is better. In my actual office (as opposed to my home office) I have a 1920x1080 monitor - it sucks having to constantly scroll up and down through spreadsheets and not be able to see that much of the content in the limited vertical space. If I'm working on a spreadsheet with multi-line cells I can sometimes only see 3 or 4 rows at a time.