Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 8ed3e4b2_stand5.jpg (1MB, 3264x1840px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 3264x1840px
Dumbshit question, sorry in advance:
I have 2x1080p monitors, both old (~20 ms/ea.). One is dying. Both on a GTX 670. Don't game much.
Considering doing one of the following:
1) Buying 3x1440p monitors at a higher (~10ms) refresh rate and a new video card, doing a 4 monitor setup
2) Buying 3x1080 monitors at a lower (~1ms) refresh rate and a new video card, doing a 4 monitor setup
3) Buying 2x1080 monitors that look like the other one (ASUS), rolling with a 3-monitor setup with the GTX 670.
Does refresh rate > resolution enough to warrant (2) over (1)? Is 4 monitors overkill if I genuinely do a lot of work (law/programming/engineering) on my computer requiring a lot of shit open at the same time? I could afford any of the above 3, but I'm kinda a cheapass.
>>
If you have the MONEY def go for 1
>>
If you run linux you could always try to go for something like i3wm because it makes multitasking so easy even with just one monitor and it's free. (Just something to consider before you spend a ridiculous amount of money, It's free so no harm done if it's not for you, right?). Also if you're not into competitive gaming then resolution will be more important then refresh rate on your monitors.
Thread posts: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1