I have been searching for a while re: 34" 2560x1080 21:9 monitors and this one came up in my quest. Normally ~$599+delivery from most vendors.
Key Features (from http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UM59-P-ultrawide-led-moni…)
34" 21:9 Full HD IPS Display
sRGB Over 99%
FreeSync
On-Screen Control with Screen Split 2.0
Black Stabilizer/ Dynamic Action Sync
Differences between this and the UM69 - https://www.productchart.com/monitors/16592_vs_16585
Currently using 2 x 22" screen for work.
Just wondering will it be better to use 1 x 32" screen like this one?
Are you multitasking a lot? If so keep the dual monitors. If you game a lot and want a bigger screen and want to give up the multitasking then this would be better. It also depends on the resolution of the monitors. But IMHO keep the dual monitors
Mainly for working multitasking.
Two 22" FHD monitors.
Yeah stick with the two monitors
If multitasking alot stick with the two FHD or upgrade to a single 4K monitor.
I multitask like crazy. This monitor works great for me.
I also enjoy the convenience of having just the one monitor. I previously had two 24”. The single 34” has made my setup a lot neater and simpler.
Sure it’s a first world problem but I haven’t regretted buying this monitor. Suits my needs perfectly.
I can't see how this is easier to multitask compare to 2x 24". Assuming your old 24" are 1920x1080, you literally lost 2/3 of one 24" screen in both size and pixels.
Everything is a trade off.
I knew I was losing screen real estate. But I also like the convenience of having just one monitor. And since I’m mainly web surfing and using Office, I still have plenty of room to view documents at big enough sizes.
The only thing is that I wish I had the budget for a curved screen. One flat slab of 34” can at times be a pain. Having the two 24s meant I could angle them in. But again, these are the trade offs.
Some will be happy to make em, others won’t.
Be aware that this is a lower resolution 34" widescreen. Others with higher prices are typically 3440 x 1440 which has a similar dot pitch to a normal 24" 1080P panel. This one has larger dot pitch and lower resolution. Similar to 1080P 27" panels.
At the moment I'm running a 26" WUXGA 16:10 + 2x 19" SXGA 5:4's (rotated to 4:5) for an effective resolution of 3968x1200 and the dot pitch doesn't bother me, however I have yet to experience 4K-grade goodness so this opinion may change in future :)
i miss the $299 deal
1080p on a monitor of this size would look atrocious. Would pay extra for 1440p
wat he said
your mileage may vary on this front. I'm running a 35" 1080 x 2560 and its nothing but gorgeous for me.
Now just imagine how much better it would look in 1440.
for the extra $1,000 I can keep imagining :)
I think "atrocious" is overstating it but there is definitely a large image quality compromise. But this is much less of an issue for gaming.
I use a 31.5" 1920x1080 as a secondary monitor next to a 34" 3440x1440.
Suppose it can also depend on type of panel and maybe other display tech. I've seen 1080p monitors at 28", some of which look completely fine and others that are starting to look pixelated.
depends on how good your eyesight is.
Pixel snobbery at its finest! I think some people are so concerned about numbers that they forget about the very slight difference in subjective experience.
It wasn't that long ago that 1080p was touted by the pixel snobs as 'indistinguishable from reality'. Soon they'll move onto 8k (or 10K for widescreens) and say that 4k is unwatchable.
I actually have this monitor and 2 x 27" screens and they make a great tri-screen setup as the displays are the same height.
Lol there is a huge difference between the ~82 PPI of this monitor and the ~110 PPI of the alternative. It's not something people just imagine, but whether people notice the difference or care depends on the user. You obviously can't noticed or don't care, but it's a bit low to start judging those who do notice and do care.
In fact for these two monitors you need to be a roughly a foot further away from your screen to reach the point of being 'indistinguishable from reality' (aka "Retina"). And a foot further away from the screen for same image quality is huge when people are generally only 2-3 feet from their screen to start with.
woohoo, Im 4 feet away in a recliner.
As I said, people will soon be saying, with absolute certainty, that 120 PPI is too low, then 150, then 200 and so on. I remember being amazed at 640 x 480 in more than 16 colours - the first 'Hi-res' computer display I had was 320 x 200 in 2 colours. I guess I'm just not fussy - I usually have my Galaxy S8 turned down to 720p to save on battery life.
@Rayve: Some people might.
But your lopsided posts ignore two important facts:
1) There is an obvious and noticeable difference in the quality of the two products we're comparing.
2) There is a scientific and objective way of measuring what is actually "good enough" aka at the limits of human perceptability.
You're pretending this is a meaningless argument which will go on forever. Both of these are wrong. You're correct some people are just after "epeen" and nothing is good enough for them, and your posts make you look just as bad.
Still only 1080p tho
Same price at computer alliance too https://www.computeralliance.com.au/parts?id=22071