Back to Article

  • fbrdphreak - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    The warranty is nice, but don't forget the U2414H: Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    Vivek mentioned the U2414H to me on Twitter. It's £200 each, so three of those or one 4K TN panel. It was mentioned that the U2414H is a 6bit + AFRC panel though? Reply
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    The only downside that I can see is that you could never do a portrait setup (3240x1920) due to the huge bottom bezel.

    Wait for a proper 10-bit 4K panel.
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    (or at least true 8-bit...) Reply
  • Dug - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    I have the Dell U2414 monitor. Not bad at all. Color is very nice and I like the bezel.
    The EIZO has interesting features but I would need an extremely positive review to look past that ugly lower bezel.
    Next monitor- I'm holding off to see if gsync is worth it.
  • Laststop311 - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    If you are a gamer you got to go with the 27" 2560x1440 144hz g sync enabled monitors Reply
  • tonyn84 - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    As the owner of an eyefinity 3x1080p setup, I have a really hard time recommending it over one of these new 4k panels for gaming. It is wonderful for productivity, but far too many games don't know what to do at that resolution. Either they flat out don't support it and just replicate across each panel or they assume a standard aspect ration based off the largest dimension (width) and everything in the UI gets screwed up because of it. When it works it is great, but I've been let down so many times I'm just waiting for the Samsung or Asus 4k monitors to hit $500ish. Reply
  • Kevin G - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    I have an Eyefinity setup at home and run three 1080P displays in portrait. Running at 3240 x 1920 is relatively close to 16:9. With bezel correction on, it is pretty much 16:9 on the mark. Reply
  • jmke - Friday, June 13, 2014 - link

    I can but recommened eyefinity (triple) monitor setup, the added FOV makes a serious impact on immersion. and while some games have issues out of the box, there are some good resources available with fixes that make the games very enjoyable. as a PC user, tweaking the system and apps should be fun and challenging ;-)

    the list of games that I couldn't get to play nice with Eyefinity is very short, even older games like Quake 1 works wonders with such a high FOV :)
  • DanNeely - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    If you're interested in a 3 monitor setup, why isn't 3x2560x1440 under consideration? You'd avoid a capability degradation for software that doesn't support eyefinity, and for games that do support it you could run at 5760x1080 to avoid breaking the bank on GPUs. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    Three 27" panels is a bit of a stretch on my 1.2m work table. 3x24" works a lot better, but there are no 24" 2560x1440 panels that also offer thin-bezels. Reply
  • Coup27 - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    Could you make it work if you used a triple monitor stand? Reply
  • DanNeely - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    I've looked a few times (I've got a 30" flanked by a pair of 20" 1200x1600's); and multi monitor stands intended for anything bigger than 24" screens range from very expensive to non-existent. If Ian was willing to accept having his monitors placed off center, sitting two on the desk with factory stands and having the third overhang the side with a flexible arm could be done without breaking the bank. Reply
  • lever_age - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    Or there's 34" 3440x1440 (LG 34UM95 for starters), though the cost there is probably similar to what three of these FS2434 will likely sell for. Pixel pitch is similar to 27" 2560x1440. There's something to be said for not needing to deal with the bezels at all. Reply
  • HigherState - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    I agree 100 percent. You beat me to it. Productivity, check. Better gaming, check. Cleaner desk environment, check. Thunderbolt input for macs (or PCs), check. Use the display port input and you get color dithering that is great, approaching 10-bit territory. USB3 hub too. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    Doesn't seem to be in the UK yet (2 weeks?) and pre-order prices are around £840. I can see the reasons you give and they make sense (panel, space), although I'm currently on a 27" 2560x1440. Moving to 3440 and a lower pixel density on my work space doesn't sound much like a good deal for such a large outlay. But I could see the appeal if I was on a 19" 1080p TN right now. Reply
  • lever_age - Thursday, June 12, 2014 - link

    I don't know how exact the diagonal measures are (to do a direct calculation), but 34UM95 is listed as 0.2325 mm pixel pitch. 27" 2560x1440 is 0.2331 mm. It's pretty much the same... but then again, that means there's an argument questioning why one would want those 880 horizontal pixels so badly. Reply
  • Coup27 - Friday, June 13, 2014 - link

    It infuriates me immensely that my phone has a display with a ppi of 441 whereas my 23" 1080p trundles along at 96. And given the state of 4K displays, lack of IPS, lack of 60Hz and lack of drivers and OS maturity, it's all very depressing! Reply
  • TrackSmart - Tuesday, June 17, 2014 - link

    I respect the author's desire for a multi-monitor setup, but I would consider moving from a larger 27" panel to multiple 24" panels a downgrade on too many levels, despite the overall increase in screen area. I suppose a three-panel setup could provide a more immersive gaming experience (when you can get it to work properly), but even relatively thin bezels would kill the joy for me. And for everyday work, having only 24" of bezel-less workspace on your primary screen sounds like a big downgrade from the 27" display. I would also miss the extra vertical screen real estate of the larger display for getting real work done.

    To each his own.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now