Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,773
Over the past few days I have gone through three monitors and learnt quite a bit which one was is best suited to me. I use the computer mostly for productivity work, coding.
34" 3440 x 1440 Ultrawide 21:9
29" 2560 x 1080 Ultrawide 21:9
32" 2560 x 1440 16:9
Both the ultrawides I found myself having to increase the scaling to make text during normal use readable. For the 29" 1080 this was a real problem as my vertical screen space was then actually less than a normal 16:9 1080p display. The minor extra width was then hardly worthwhile after scaling. The 29" 1080 I believe is one of the bigger if not biggest? screen size for this resolution but I couldn't work on it without increasing scaling.
The 34" 1440 Ultrawide I found slightly too big for a monitor, Again I had to scale up the text which would cost me some of that vertical and horizontal space. I can see why people would choose this set up though. After scaling, would the intended use of putting things side by side be then practical?
So then I opted for a 32" 2560x1440 16:9. You might say this is a big screen size for QHD resolution, but it only has the same pixel density as 1080p 24" which I think is perfect. I can use this without any text scaling so I get the full real estate usable of resolution of 2560x1440.
So conclusion after testing ultrawides for the first time, I found the ultrawides too high for text readability without scaling. I do prefer the dual / triple monitor set up over having things side by side on one single monitor. I also prefer the vertical screen space 16:9 allows for when coding and browsing web pages. Not to mention the standard resolution for non movie videos on Youtube.
16:9 wins it for me. But then I'm not a gamer to which ultrawides probably most appeal too.
Do you use scaling on your monitors or do you all have 20/20 vision
34" 3440 x 1440 Ultrawide 21:9
29" 2560 x 1080 Ultrawide 21:9
32" 2560 x 1440 16:9
Both the ultrawides I found myself having to increase the scaling to make text during normal use readable. For the 29" 1080 this was a real problem as my vertical screen space was then actually less than a normal 16:9 1080p display. The minor extra width was then hardly worthwhile after scaling. The 29" 1080 I believe is one of the bigger if not biggest? screen size for this resolution but I couldn't work on it without increasing scaling.
The 34" 1440 Ultrawide I found slightly too big for a monitor, Again I had to scale up the text which would cost me some of that vertical and horizontal space. I can see why people would choose this set up though. After scaling, would the intended use of putting things side by side be then practical?
So then I opted for a 32" 2560x1440 16:9. You might say this is a big screen size for QHD resolution, but it only has the same pixel density as 1080p 24" which I think is perfect. I can use this without any text scaling so I get the full real estate usable of resolution of 2560x1440.
So conclusion after testing ultrawides for the first time, I found the ultrawides too high for text readability without scaling. I do prefer the dual / triple monitor set up over having things side by side on one single monitor. I also prefer the vertical screen space 16:9 allows for when coding and browsing web pages. Not to mention the standard resolution for non movie videos on Youtube.
16:9 wins it for me. But then I'm not a gamer to which ultrawides probably most appeal too.
Do you use scaling on your monitors or do you all have 20/20 vision
Last edited:
