Which monitor should I choose to run in [Unity3d] [Visual Studio Code etc]?

For more than a year I have been working in Unity3d and Visual Studio Code on a 20-inch monitor with a TN-matrix (8 bit) with a resolution of 1600x900, and if everything is more or less satisfied in the code editor, then in Unity it is quite problematic due to the large number of additional plugins, which need to be placed somewhere and, accordingly, there is absolutely not enough space for all this (4 main tabs + 12 tabs to switch between).
1. If you replace my monitor, which is 1920x1080 x 25 "or 2560x1440 x 27" in terms of value for money? (Is QWHD useful for working in environments with a lot of windows or is it unnecessary)
2. In some models I met the function of switching to portrait mode, is it so convenient if my code cannot exceed 500 lines? (I saw a 27-inch photo upside-down)
3. Is there a difference between 60Hz and 75Hz regarding eye fatigue?
My computer:
ryzen 5 2600
8gb ozi
Gtx 660
4. Will this configuration handle 2560x1440? (not in games)
Which Full HD and QWHD models would you recommend on a budget (under $ 300)?
Leaving the old one together with the new monitor in my situation will not work

 

Consider secondary monitor.
I use 2x24''.
If not for a space limit, I would go for bigger ones. But price tag also go up.
If anything, you can have one screen vertically.
In other work place, I hade two wide screens. But due to space limit, they couldn't be side by side horizontally. Instead, having one horizontally and other vertically. Works great. Specially for text based related works. Including coding.

 

I have four monitors. My main display is 43". I might have a problem...

 

A budget 1080p monitor is typically half the price of a budget 1440p monitor. Is it a better value is a much more difficult thing to answer as resolution isn't the only important factor for a monitor. Quality of the panel is a factor too. It's very much possible for a quality TN panel to surpass a budget IPS or VA panel.

Every model can be placed into portrait mode. You just need the stand to support it. If a monitor doesn't have the stand for it you can always replace the stand. Worst case you could build a stand with some wood and screws.

Nothing I'm aware of.

Yes. A GTX 660 should be able to handle as high as 4K (3840 by 2160).

My experience with monitors is almost entirely limited to BenQ. While I'm a fan of 1440p myself two 1080p monitors is superior to a single 1440p monitor.

https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-proprietary-borderless-Brightness-GW2480/dp/B072XCZSSW/

That said if you absolutely must have a 1440p monitor and can live with only one of them here is mine.

https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-PD2500Q-2560x1440-Monitor-Calibrated/dp/B0749RC47S/

If any aspect of your job involves working with art I highly recommend a calibrated one. It's insane how inaccurate a budget monitor can be. I have had monitors show blue where they should have showed purple and red when it was meant to be orange.

 

Two or three montiors at fullhd should do it. However there's matter of diminishing returns, meaning if you have two monitors, you'll be using them both, and if you have three, one will be mostly idling. So going from one to two is good idea, but going from two to three will result in less gain.

This is (or can be) actually done by a video driver and not by the monitor. You can mount a display sideways and switch in the driver to portrait mode.

(opinion)
Fatigue appears to be mostly related to brightness and contrast. High contrast with low brightness can make you tired in a minute.

For desktop work, your environment will be mostly still and unchanging. So 60 or 75 Hz shouldn't make a difference.

It will if your GTX 660 has more than one output. It should be able to support up to 4 displays running simultaneously.

 

At my customer office I have two 24 inch 1080p and at my home office I got one 27" 1440 because of lack of space.

Would take the 1440p any day. As a bonus the 1440p is a high quality ezio IPS with a ISF calibration done to it. It's such a night and day difference when I visit the office and compare with my home office screen.

 

It is hard to advise, the best course of action heavily depends on what you're planning in the future and other circumstances. Also it heavily depends on your taste as well.
Some ideas you consider:
- multiple lower res monitors are better than one high res monitor
- if you tweak graphics in any way, it's a good idea to have at least one high quality, calibrated monitor with good color space capabilities (expensive...), you need one, to check your colors and stuff regularly, but it's more optimal if you actually work on it when you aren't coding but tweaking colors and graphics in general
- for coding one result and one code monitor are the best, having the code monitor in portrait mode
- consider the contrast and brightness of the multiple monitors, you need to be able to set them up very close in order not to hurt your eyes, switching back and forth between vastly different brightness and contrast rapidly is a big eyestrain-source

But if you're very price-sensitive or physical space-constrained, then you probably will end up with one monitor. In that case, try to save up for a better one, especially if you're tweaking colors, again.

 

my main display is 100cm (40 inch) and I still wanna go bigger, my secondary display is 70cm (around 27 inch).
I don't know how people work with one small screen.. lol

both of them are 1080 and it's enough for everything I need, I don't see any reason to go above 1080 if you're under 70cm (27 inch).

 

A larger panel increases available workspace but a higher resolution increases the quality of that workspace. Some degree of this is personal preference though. I would never consider 1080p for a display higher than 25-inch. I have yet to decide my upper limit for 1440p but it's most likely upper 30s.

You might be able to pick up an ultrawide monitor for a little less than the cost of two monitors. Below are two 2560 by 1080 monitors. Second one is factory calibrated.

https://www.amazon.com/Sceptre-C305W-2560UN-30-inch-DisplayPort-Build/dp/B07XZNXWGS/
https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-PA278QV-DisplayPort-Anti-Glare-Adjustable/dp/B088BC5HMM/

Below is a 3440 by 1440 monitor. First link is refurbished while the second link is brand new.

https://www.amazon.com/Acer-smiiphzx-UltraWide-FREESYNC-Technology/dp/B089ZWT8DN/
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-CB342CK-smiiphzx-UltraWide-Technology/dp/B07ZL57G3Z/

 

I have been looking at upgrading my second monitor -- or possibly replacing both with identical larger models for simplicity of configuration. A warning I run into repeatedly for 4K TVs and monitors is that even though Windows has a scale adjustment, not every piece of software pays attention to it.

The explanation is that the fonts are displayed based on number of pixels. You have more and therefore smaller pixels, you have smaller text.

On my smaller side monitor, I have to run it at a lower resolution because otherwise I cannot read things in a number of the programs I use. This is why my primary monitor is only 'Full HD' 1920x1080 instead of a 4K.

Just something to keep in mind before investing significant capital. Try to find out of the programs you use daily will be tiny and unreadable under 4K.

 

The advantage of smaller monitors if that you can keep something maximized in them, which can be done quickly with windows hotkeys. In my experience, this doesn't really work this well at larger work area.

My left display is 1280x1024 ASUS VB172TN. I'm not sure how old it is, probably 8 or 10 years. It has been incredibly useful and saw more use than 1080x1920 BENQ on my right. Coincedentally I'm using 27 inch display in the middle.

 

of course, it's all about that pixel per cm/inch and to each he's own limits, the most I run on my 1080 100cm display is 3 windows, and I've got enough resolution and real estate to not notice/need an upgrade

you really won't tolerate 1080 on a 25, or did I miss interpret your statement?

Right, good reason to have one big main and two(or more) smaller sides, arranging windows can be a real hassle.

 

Yes, based off of my own experiences with a 24-inch 1080p monitor and two 25-inch 1440p monitors. For me the biggest advantage was being able to have an entire 720p or even 1080p game view window without disabling or shrinking other windows.

 

Based on my experience a good setup would likely be one large main, and several smaller sideway monitors, which don't even have to be FullHD. In fact, few more 1280x1024 panels woudl probably work well.

The thing is for the perfect setup you'd want to bable to MOVE and ROTATE them, and monitor stand developers want to charge quite a bit for something like that.

I'm honestly thinking about optimizing space at this point and maybe mounting system case on a wall. But the prices for mounts and stand and all the stuff like that aren't great.

There's also matter of preference. I like big pixels. For 4k I'd probably need 54 inch display.

 

I've been very happy with my 34" LG Widescreen, its really easy to have two HD windows snapped next to each other.
And sometimes it's just nice to have one program open taking up the whole screen.
And of course for gaming, it's hard to beat widescreen

 

Factory calibration is a gimmick, you need a on premise ISF calibration

 

Far too expensive for far too little of an improvement.

 

Have you seen a factory calibrated monitor side by side with a on premise ISF? Its night and day., Completly WRONG colors on the factory calibrated.

 

No, and I wouldn't bother having an on premise calibration unless I were the artist of a multi-million dollar project.

 

If you are not working with assets or lighting it doesn't matter for your game development. BUT, for me I cant stand a monitor with wrong colors when going from a correct one. Its night and day with skin tones etc.

edit: Same with whitebalance I always need to bring my whitebalance cards when I take photos

 

BTW, stay away from TN-panels. They cant display full RGB

 

Because it is "premium"?

If you are working with assets and lighting, that's why we use PBR these days.

You should absolutely keep in mind that the game will be mostly run on uncalibrated devices, factory-claibrated devices, some portion of users will have misconfigured brightness and contrast, some will have color range set incorrectly (16-235 instead of 0-255), and significant portion of user base will simply ignore all your calibration-related work, and up the gamma if they decide that the game is too dark and they can't see well in it.

Calibration might make sense if you're working with PRINTS, though. I can give you that. And if you're working for Multi-million dollar company, like @Ryiah said

 

If you work on a uncalibrated screen its just guesswork how it will look. If you work on a ISF calibrated monitor you at least know how it will output. Its better and will look better on the unlimited number of uncalibrated setups out there.

 

then you have have spent some money and are still doing the guesswork, because the target systems are not calibrated.

By the way, display calibration is probably not related to the thread topic.

 

Most indiedevs buy sub 1000 USD screen anyway. I wouldnt bother with a crap monitor. Personally I cant understand why anyone would cheap out on something as fundamental as the monitor.

 

Most indie devs buy sub-$200 monitors because they use the same monitors near everyone else uses: standard cheap panels, uncalibrated, the most inconsistent thing being not colour, but brightness.

 

Brightness is part of ISF calibration

 

Yes, I am aware of that. I have been calibrating displays for longer than Unity has even existed.

 

Where'd you get that number? or what are you considering indiedevs? my whole rig is around a 1000 USD

 

Thanks everyone, can anyone share a screenshot of running Unity3d on your monitor at Full HD or QWHD.
For me, the main point now is that a lot of panels can fit in the Unity3d editor (so that they are available "here and now" such as scene panels, hierarchy, etc.)

 

Because higher price does not mean better quality, most people do not have highly specialized expensive requirements and the game is going to be run on sub 1000 monitors anyway.

For example, I checked out local stores and the second most expensive model is $4500 Dell 31.5 inch (4k hdr or something. Also they're boasting about colorspace coverage and perfect colors). Basically I'm looking at this thing and I don't see a single reason to have it, even if it was given to me for free. Because I'm not in the target audience.

I think same applies to most other people.

Also, would you kindly stop derailing threads?

 

I'm working with uv2 right now. Looks like this

 

My setup looks like this.

Spoiler

I have 3 screens - 1280x1024, 1920x1080, and 1080x1920.

Like I said, the right monitor tends to be unused.

I often put profiler at the left screen, or scene view while game view is running, and so on. It is convenient, and that's why I suggest multimonitor.

If you're programming, then visual studio can take two or three monitors alone, depending on what you're doing in it.

 

I'm derailing? I'm just replying to you. Yes the game will in most cases run on a cheap display. But if you have a correct calibrated fully sRGB capable monitor chances are it will look good on a bigger variety of end user monitors.

edit: We got a saying in swedish, Garbage in, garbage out

 

This is my general "world-building" layout (for white-boxing and coding).
I have a Dell UP2716D, calibrated monitor (1440p). Unfortunately I have physical space constraints at the moment so I can't use multiple monitors at the moment.

 

I hope you dont play FPS on that screen

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2717d.htm#lag

I'm so happy I found a decent IPS with good lag
https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/eizo_foris_fs2735.htm#lag

The monitor market is really stagnated, I want OLED

 

I do, but not competitively, I found the MP-scene toxic, so I stopped playing 10 years ago or so.
It's good enough for 1P mode. I'm not in a hurry.
And frankly, I don't really care, it's good enough for me.

BTW, my monitor is UP2716D. It's a "creator" monitor (rather cheap one though, it was around $400 when I bought it two years ago on a deep discount). The u2717D is a cheaper office monitor.

 

Like I said, two monitors, right one is the main one - 100cm @ 1080p, left one is the secondary - 70cm @ 1080, used to be 60cm @ 768(i think) and I can't tell the difference in resolution, only in color and brightness like others mentioned.

I'm working right now and this is how my layout is usually
if i'm doing unity stuff without VS i edit animation curves or whatever there, or pop the profiler there.
if i'm doing some heavy coding i pop VS to my main and the secondary to stackoverflow
when i'm on blender, gimp, quixel or doing level design in unity i have reference art on my secondary

 

Doesn't matter for most. Rather for considerably few I would say. And when people play on mobile, or on large screens with pads, rather than mouse and keyboard, that lag argument is totally out of the window. Is not like everyone makes, or play FPS games, for that to matter.

@Orexx

My very current setup, which is rather fluid.
I use right screen mostly for coding, or other application.
But often I use both of them for coding too.