monitor(s): options and configuration

[baar8n]

Good morning to all,

After years with laptops and non-my computers between employee work and university (usually 27), I find myself creating my desktop pc configuration.
While for the construction of the machine I am quite sure, I find myself having many doubts about the monitor(s). are therefore looking for suggestions and valuable experiences.
things associated with:
- professional use cad/cas, render and video editing (rhino, blender, various cad, etc.)
- for the main monitor I want you to have at least 32" height 16:9.
my doubts:
- Curved or not cured? I found interesting the existence of the ultrawide 40" 21:9 (dell and lg, would be a 32 more a slice close). I find instead rather sacrificed in height the ultrawide 34" 21:9 and 49" 32:9. interesting (to see them) 32" 16:9 curved, but I do not know if it is worth it. otherwise there may be the use of multiple screens: for example a 32" main and one or two 27" support, what do you think?
- Are response and frequency time so important? (I don't have to do gaming) many are the 60hz monitors, even among the most blatant and expensive. I'm afraid to find myself "straight" in video editing and using 3d on heavy files. is this sensible reasoning?
- 10 or 8 bits? (10 sure pc will hold them)
- technology: absolutely ips vs goes? (which, according to the web, would go to discard the curves).
- color: adobe rgb and in general color accuracy. Is it worth considering them and increasing budget? (I am thinking, for example, of asus proart).

Thank you all.

 

[Cristallo]

I can tell you that I personally do not find comparisons.
the ips is much more homogeneous and allows you not to be "planned" in front to look at it (which is very difficult if you plow 2 flanked). Is it slower? But I don't think with a cad you'll have that representative valocity to make you trouble.
For the Kurdish, I saw 32 of a colleague and sinceramene I don't like.
using cad, the curvature of the monitor (obviously) generates curved lines in the representation plane. until you look in front of him again... but as soon as you move the point of view, the curvature is seen here. For example, in front of the monitor, you get used to it and feel it correctly, but the colleague who looks at it maybe sitting in a pile next to you, sees a series of curves instead of lines. .
double monitor, if you use it sporadically, different sizes can also go, but if you use it constantly, I would recommend you equal size.
also because the resolutions are almost always those, so (for example) a 1920 on 27 and a 1920 on 32.
and you will have different sizes (physical) icons, different size menus etc.
certain that couple 2 32 inches ultrawide, run the risk of the effect " tennis party"

 

[baar8n]

Thanks for the answer.
sincerely I do not remember that technology had the screens that I used over time, but among the options I would certainly discard the tn and if they would play it go and ips.
As regards the example of the colleague who looks from above I do not see a problem, the files I send them and if someone is close to me sit
correct the question of double screen, if they are of different size they will have to have adequate resolution (add, on a 32" almost certainly 4k). for this reason (and also for a matter of space) I thought to point to a 32" 16:9 as a main screen and a 27" 16:9 as a support screen (also wanting to keep the vertical), or even two 32" to turn as you want depending on the case.

 

[matteostasim]

Hello.
I'm creating a station and now I'm on the monitor stage. I have no space problems.
I was initially oriented to take 2 monitors from 27" 4k (or 1 from 27" and 1 from 24).
different designers are pushing me to take unique ultrawide monitor instead (uw).
their mantra (of all) is: 10 days to adapt and then you can no longer do without it.
I recognize the advantages of uw (no separations, no frames, etc...) but they seem less relevant to me than against.
I tell you my big doubts that are as consequential among them:
- I prefer flat monitors (no line deformations... )
- if you opt for flat uw, the ends would be too angled.
- if I take curvilinear I fear to find myself badly with the peripheral areas where the curved effect of the lines would be accented (although obviously I would use the cad in the central area)
- I would still have less flexibility: I currently have 2 monitors and sometimes I find myself turning one over the other (for light or comfort). turning a uw seems like a countersensitivity
- exploitation spaces: for me 2 working areas is ideal: 1 central and one at the right
- with the uw I doubt that 1/3 of the space would not use it
- with the normal wide I would work either to dx or to sx, never central (soak)

In summary, my doubts are:
a) perplexity on the curvature effect of the lines (my or real paranoia)... really working on us constantly the brain does not perceive the curved lines?
b) Configuration stiffness
c) real exploitation of monitor space

Is there anyone among you who passed to the Uw and then repented? What experiences do you have?
Thank you.

ps: zero gaming use (where there I would have no doubt about the uw)

 

[re_solidworks]

exist uw that manage separate working areas as if they were 2 monitors and when needed does not have frames. I am more likely to use 2 standard monitors. I challenge the use of very high resolutions because the cad is very usable in fhd and if you have a 3d, the high resolutions do nothing but hang the vga to achieve a slight improvement in image quality. I am now using 2 monitors 25" with resolution 2560x1440 and 125% magnification. Unfortunately windows badly manages the magnification, so I recommend you take usable monitors with 100% resize.
the last ones I took are of the 27" fhd, taken precisely because they have the biggest dot pitch available on an ips panel of discreet quality. the choice was made to not overly affect the view and the colleague who is using them is very satisfied.
If you see us well, I think a good compromise is the 1920x1200 resolution on several 24".

 

[matteostasim]

exist uw that manage separate working areas as if they were 2 monitors and when needed does not have frames. I am more likely to use 2 standard monitors. I challenge the use of very high resolutions because the cad is very usable in fhd and if you have a 3d, the high resolutions do nothing but hang the vga to achieve a slight improvement in image quality. I am now using 2 monitors 25" with resolution 2560x1440 and 125% magnification. Unfortunately windows badly manages the magnification, so I recommend you take usable monitors with 100% resize.
the last ones I took are of the 27" fhd, taken precisely because they have the biggest dot pitch available on an ips panel of discreet quality. the choice was made to not overly affect the view and the colleague who is using them is very satisfied.
If you see us well, I think a good compromise is the 1920x1200 resolution on several 24".

Thank you for the match King! excellent also the indication not to head on the 4k
(effectively in the current ones of u2715h (2560x1440@59hz) the definition seems more than sufficient)
you also made me think that it is better to specify the vga: I took a pny nvidia painting rtx a4000 16gb gddr6

 

[re_solidworks]

Thank you for the match King! excellent also the indication not to head on the 4k
(effectively in the current ones of u2715h (2560x1440@59hz) the definition seems more than sufficient)
you also made me think that it is better to specify the vga: I took a pny nvidia painting rtx a4000 16gb gddr6

is the same card that I have been using for about 2 years and a half and I am satisfied with it. mine is branded because I took a workstation already done and finished.