Opinion - Two Dell 20 inchers vs. single 24in

indigoflowAS

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 31, 2005
268
0
Columbus, OH
I'm on the market for more screen real estate, moving up from MBP + 17 incher that is also used w/ my PC

So...
For about the same price you can get two 2007WFPs OR a single 2407WFP.....about $700 for either configuration.

Has anyone else weighed in on a similar decision themselves?

It's likely personal preference, but I'd like to hear what users of a single 23" ACD/2407WFP and 20"x2 users have to say about their experiences.
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
1
Maryland
For overall enjoyment, the 24" wins easily (2405 owner).

Now if you do office work/research, I can see having a dedicated monitor for documents/research, and another one for the paper itself could be useful.

Still, going from a 17" CRT to a 24" WS net a 50% increase in diagonal...but tangible benefit in everyday use was MUCH larger.
 

indigoflowAS

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 31, 2005
268
0
Columbus, OH
Mav: You sound like you do some game playing (according to your PC configuration). It's probably immensely more gratifying to play at that size. I would have to upgrade my 6600GT to play at that size im sure.

By the way, how'd you jack your 146 to 3GHz? Does it have an unlocked multiplier above x9?

I can see it both ways, I do lots of graphics work where two monitors would help a lot, but using a 24" for media center-like entertainment and games sounds like a whole lot of fun. Guess I must weigh my career vs my fun more or less, either way I win some.
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
1
Maryland
indigoflowAS said:
By the way, how'd you jack your 146 to 3GHz? Does it have an unlocked multiplier above x9?

I can see it both ways, I do lots of graphics work where two monitors would help a lot, but using a 24" for media center-like entertainment and games sounds like a whole lot of fun. Guess I must weigh my career vs my fun more or less, either way I win some.


The 146's stock multiplier is 10x...so 10 x 300HTT? Equal 3Ghz :) This is a little dependent on your mobo's NB, but it is well known that DFI easily breaks the 300Mhz barrier.

On the monitors, I know mostly gamers and 24" is the obvious choice. Oblivion on a 24" vs. my old 17" CRT or even a 20" WS? The decision isn't even close. As you say, it's a "career" choice. I assume you're working from home then?
 

indigoflowAS

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 31, 2005
268
0
Columbus, OH
Boo, I'm stuck at 9x302. Don't think the 144 will do much more, oh well...should be happy :)

Career = home stretch of college education, likely moving to freelance as soon as I'm done, so working from home is likely...but if I get hired at a place where I work from work, still have to have something that makes my jaw hit the floor when I get home :p . 24in might win, I'll take the plunge in the next couple months.
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
1
Maryland
indigoflowAS said:
Career = home stretch of college education, likely moving to freelance as soon as I'm done, so working from home is likely...but if I get hired at a place where I work from work, still have to have something that makes my jaw hit the floor when I get home :p . 24in might win, I'll take the plunge in the next couple months.
Ok. It's simple then--build for the future.


2 x 24".
 

budugu

macrumors 6502
Sep 8, 2004
433
0
Boston, MA
20 x2 is much better .... but if tomorrow you want to use it with a notebook then a since 24" is much better. That said i always thought 20" is the best price performance trade off
 

Foggy

macrumors 6502a
Jul 4, 2006
513
5
London, UK
I run 2 20" screens so get a resolution of 3200x1200. Aesthetically I would rather have a 24" but from a screen real estate point of view (which is what counts for me) I prefer the 2x20". I am, however, hoping to get a 24" to slot in the middle of em when I get a Mac Pro in the new year - now THAT should give me a decent amount of screen space!! :D
 

Mav451

macrumors 68000
Jul 1, 2003
1,657
1
Maryland
Foggy said:
I run 2 20" screens so get a resolution of 3200x1200. Aesthetically I would rather have a 24" but from a screen real estate point of view (which is what counts for me) I prefer the 2x20". I am, however, hoping to get a 24" to slot in the middle of em when I get a Mac Pro in the new year - now THAT should give me a decent amount of screen space!! :D
Yeah, you're talking 20" standard, NOT widescreen. That was one of my biggest issues between 20WS or 24WS--the 20" WS simply did not give me a significant gain in virtual desktop space, coming from my 1280x1024 resolution. A jump of only 26 pixels (vertically)? Definitely not worth it then. 20" Standard, however gives a significant boost in both virtual desktop space AND pixel density.

So if you are arguing 2 x 20" (standard)? Yeah, but only if the cost is right.
 

xfiftyfour

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2006
2,573
0
Clemson, SC
We run both set ups in our office. My fiance likes duals and would prefer more screen real estate, whereas I prefer one big monitor.. sooo.. he has 2x2007wfp, and I have a 2407wfp. Both are very nice, but it really depends on what you're using 'em for, and what your take on dual monitors is. His two 20-inchers definitely offer more space.. so if you're likely to have a lot of programs/windows open at once, I'd opt for that setup.
 

Similar threads

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.