Need a <£200 1080p thin-bezel monitor

gamingwoop

Honorable
Apr 29, 2015
357
0
10,810
Looking for 24in (perhaps even 27in if the price is ok) for under GBP£150///US$240.
Thin-bezel would be good, for future triple-monitor upgrade.
MUST be IPS panel, not TN, and if so have decent colour reproduction.

Secondary question, will this build run a triple 1080p setup? Benchmarks suggest it will, but if anyone has first-hand experience that would be great!

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor (£143.99 @ Novatech)
CPU Cooler: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro Rev.2 45.0 CFM Fluid Dynamic Bearing CPU Cooler (£16.50 @ Amazon UK)
Motherboard: Asus B85M-G Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£49.40 @ Ebuyer)
Memory: Patriot Signature 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory (£40.00 @ CCL Computers)
Storage: OCZ ARC 100 240GB 2.5" Solid State Drive (£67.99 @ Amazon UK)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 290X 4GB Black Edition Double Dissipation Video Card (£239.15 @ Scan.co.uk)
Case: Zalman Z11 Plus HF1 ATX Mid Tower Case (£52.93 @ Scan.co.uk)
Power Supply: Thermaltake Berlin 630W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply (£49.14 @ CCL Computers)
Total: £659.10
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-05-16 15:16 BST+0100


Thanks in advance for responses
 

BigBadBeef

Admirable
The R9 290X is right now the optimal choice for SINGLE MONITOR 1080p gaming @60fps. Just for two monitors you can split the framerate in half, for three, you can divide it by 4.

Now guess how well that will run a triple monitor setup? You should consider at the very least the performance level of a single 4K monitor... maybe league of legends... maybe minecraft... would be playable...
 

gamingwoop

Honorable
Apr 29, 2015
357
0
10,810


really, that bad? A single 21:9 1440p monitor would better then
 

BigBadBeef

Admirable
Now just explain to me how exactly did you picture that? That the other two monitors will run on magic while gaming? tripple the monitors - tripple the pixels that need rendering. Its common sense, its basic, 1+1+1 =/= 1.05 or however you pictured the hardware demand would scale...

Just so that it would be informatively accurate for you, scaling monitors requires 2^(n-1) graphical power, where "n" stands for number of monitors, multitasking places additional strain on the hardware because it has to deal with multiple outputs. There are about 1000 pages of how and why it is like that or you could take the word of a programmer for it.

Yes, a 21:9 monitor would definitely be better, but that mailbox view is not very appealing with games that feature lots of verticality... but its your decision. If I had the money, I would go for an image projector and a spay paint a wall in my room with a reflective white coating.:bounce:
 

gamingwoop

Honorable
Apr 29, 2015
357
0
10,810


I just based my assumptions on various benchmarks that I'd seen, which showed playable FPS at high settings. Actual results matter more than calculations..

I think 21:9 would suit me, its just triple is a cheaper option
 

BigBadBeef

Admirable
The benches you were probably looking at were for medium to low presets, these are for max:

Battlefield 4 - 25-30fps, unplayable, headache inducing performance;
Far Cry 4 - 17-40fps, very jumpy, at times nauseating;
Crysis 3 - 20,5 fps stable, but that is already within the field of visibile stutter.

I could go on the list but I think I've made my point. You could reduce the grapics details to a smear in order to get playable performance, but are 3 ugly images really better than 1 excellent one?
 

gamingwoop

Honorable
Apr 29, 2015
357
0
10,810


yeah fair enough, point well made.
Trouble is i cant afford a 21:9 1440p for a long while