Which would be better? Having a 24" monitor or dual monitor setup? If dual monitor setup, what would be equivalent to having a 24" monitor. I use a 24" at work since my desk space is limited. At my other office, I had 2 19" monitors but the nvidia driver in my Dell Precision M90 caused BSOD from time to time.

This dual display or 24" monitor will be for home use (gaming, internet, office, etc.) As of now, I have a Samsung 19" WS 940BW which is nice, but kind of small.

I'd also like a monitor that is HDCP compliant. Luckily, my Samsung 940BW is HDCP is compliant, but it's hard to find these monitors. The only place I can really find them where I'd be comfortable buying from is Dell.

Any suggestions?

Heh, I do a little of both... however, I think I game a little more than office/internet/etc. The other issue is that I've read that some 24" monitors don't scale down very well (as in natively, they're 1920x1200. I game around 1280x800). My 7900GS is capable of 1920x1200 for desktop applications... however for gaming, I know it'll die if I try to game higher than 1440x900 (current native resolution for my monitor). I mean, even at 1280x800, it isn't too strong (then again, that's partially due to drivers for Vista).

My other gripe is with dual display, it's easy to have two documents open side by side. On a single large display, I've found the trick to tile two windows vertically (regardless that you have, say, 10 windows open). However, the trick does not always work.

*sighs* If I could afford it, I'd just go with dual 24" monitors and crossfire (since my motherboard is a 975X chipset... else, I'd go SLI. But I don't think they have "hacked" SLI drivers for Vista).

That's not entirely true. My current widescreen monitor has no problem handling 1280x800 or 1280x720 ( for my XBOX 360 ).

I just know that the larger displays have some issues.

if you dont run at native it doesnt look as good. I would say dual monitors is better for you because of your video card.

native is always best. however, there is always the 1:1 option. even though the native is 1920x1200, you could game at something lower, such as 1680x1050 or 1440x900 and still have a sharp, clear picture is you use the 1:1 pixle option available either through the monitor (if it has it like the dell) or via nvidia control panel (not sure about catalyst). that way you can enjoy best resolution your card can handle for each game independently. you will have black bars all around if use less than native but should be same size as if had the smaller monitor.

gaming, 24", anything else, especially spreadsheet work, dual monitor

WEll
really you have to take into account what the native resolution of the 24" screen is, and the fps your card runs your game at the current resolution. If it currently borders 35-40, then you might have to upgrade video card in order to not lose GFX quality. So Really, i suggest 24" if your card cand handle gaming at that resolution (the native 24" is 192.1200, which is VERY high res) im just mentioning this cuz my big brother moved over to 24" LCD (Dell) and had to lower his GFX settings. The 7900GS should run games from the year before last, early last year games at full gfx; but late last year and recent titles might not. Oblivion is an exception to said statement, it will not run smooth at full GFX on that screen. Really, if you are a hardcore gamer and you want great FPS and GFX and the 24", you will really only find peace in the x1900xt - x1950XTX(any card in that range except the GT and PRO models), 7900GT, or GTX; or top of the line DX10 cards.

However if you dont care as much bout gfx then you prolly have a good enough fillrate with that card to manage that resolution.

So as far as gaming is concerned, 2 19 or 20.1s will not need a hardware upgrade to run recent games at decent FPS and GFX.

EDIT: Forget bout it, i just calculated RAW fillrate and that card just cant handle a playable framerate (@ 1920x1200) and load geometries/process textures fast enough at the same time

Im sticking with CRTs and their amazing native scalabilty till mainstream can keep a decent FPS at 1600x1200.

*by fillrate i mean the number of pixels the card can render per second.

With your card, I'd suggest getting a single 24". Your card will have much more work to do with dual displays, and I'd only get two displays if I had a 512MB card or more. Your card just doesn't have the horsepower to drive dual displays and play a game at high settings on one of them.

Well, I will eventually upgrade to a newer "enthusiast" card when I feel the time is ready. As of now, I don't feel to comfortable buying a 1st gen DX10 card seeing as they've been out for a few months and the drivers are still being optimized. I was thinking perhaps just getting another Samsung, but they're kind of small, yet, they have most features I need. Some additional features I'd like though would be being able to hook up my game consoles to them as well since my g/f likes to come over and take over my TV from time to time.

Anyone else have any ideas? If I were to get a 24", I guarantee I wouldn't play any game higher than 1280x800

And like I said, if I get a 24" and my card is strugglying when coming to gaming at 1280x800, then I'll get a new card.

A guy at work got a Dell Dimensions 9200 with a nVidia 7900GS and he's running two Dell 24" monitors right now without problems. Then again, it's not like he's really doing anything that would put a heavy load on the graphics. *shudders*

Oh, and to one of the other posters, I had an ATI X1900XT 512 GDDR3 until I broke it when trying to remove the Accelero X2.

I've just upgraded from 2x19" (1 tft and one CRT) to a gateway 24" and my old 19".

my 7900GTO runs obvilion ok, and with the second monitor I can have rivatuner sitting in background doing temp monitoring (can't be done with only 1 monitor even at none native res).

However, I'm thinking of taking it back, as it may actually be too big, but it also gives off a lot of heat, the surface is warm to the touch, and with that much surface it feels wrong, especially in summer (winter might be nice though).

I might try a 22" and my old 19".

Also some games (very few admittedly) support dual monitors, and allow a more functional view, I'm thinking X2 (and X3?), i.e. you can have the gunport views on the second screen instead of taking up space on the main screen.

What would be equivalent to a 24" monitor if I just go dual monitors?

Also, has anyone ever tried using two video cards in their computer seperately?

Let's say I theoretically get an nVidia 8800 and keep the the 7900GS. I put the 7900GS in the second slot and put the 8800 in the primary slot. I connect the secondary display to the 7900 and the primary to the 8800. Would that work? I don't want SLI nor can I run it since I have the 975X chipset.

My ex g/f's dad use to have a VGA and a PCI card, both outputting to a different single monitor. Just wondering if you could do the same here, except with PCI Express.

I got a Dell 2407WFP a couple of months ago. It's awesome - 24" of widescreen goodness, HDCP complient and looks real pretty

Are you considering 2 x 4:3 aspect monitors for dual setup? If so I think you'll have more difficulty in finding HDCP complient ones.

A 16:10 aspect widescreen 24" (like mine ) running at 1920x1200 is great for games, films etc. And if you are concered about HDCP, surely that means you want to be able to watch HD films on it in the future? Again, surely a single 24" would be better for that than 2x smaller 4:3 (i.e. 1024x768 or 1600x1200) or 5:4 (i.e. 1280x1024) monitors... And running at a non-native resolution doesn't look so terrible; I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.

I don't see any reason why you can't do that with the 7900GS and 8800. Though I'd get confirmation from someone who does it already just to be sure.

Finally - upgradability. In the future if you still feel you don't have the desktop real estate with a single 24", then maybe you could buy another further down the line? You won't have the option to improve gaming/film performace with smaller monitors. Just a thought

Improved grammar...

mpilchfamily: My concern is the fact that, and correct me if I'm wrong, PCI Express x 16 is recognized as a graphics slot. I'm not sure how the 975X chipsets are set up. I'm afraid that if I have two nVidia cards (seeing as people have had issues running an ATI and nVidia card at the same time due to drivers), that my motherboard/bios/OS will think I'm trying to run a dual card setup as one ("dual core GPU" ) and fuss over which one to use instead of allowing me to use both of them individually.

Does that make any sense?

Kodiak666: I have the Dell 2407WFP at work and love it!!! However, I've read extensive reviews on the Dell that it's not a truly HDCP compliant. Also, the 24" Gateway can handle 1080p, which I don't know if the Dell can. However, that brings up another issue... or two. In the near future, I'd like to be able to play my XBOX 360 (and perhaps a PS3 if they ever come down in price and come out with more of a selection) at 1080p. Sadly, my 32" LCD TV I got for Christmas (was the biggest one I could get to fit on my shelves ) only goes up to 1080i. (And please, I do not wish to debate about output signals and which is better!) But yea. I like the Gateway, but I've also read that if you scale down the resolution, it looks horrible. At work, I can't even get my Dell monitor to scale down to 1440x900 and I'm using an AGP 8x nVidia Quadro FX 3000 w/256 VRAM.

Right now, I'm not sure which is the better choice

Thanks for the quick response. I'll read the article when I get a chance.

Anyone else having anything they'd like to add

That is soo bullcrap.

To render a desktop and an application is no problem.
My setup at home on my game machine is a gateway 22in wide, and a samsung 19in.

On a 6800 I was able to play at full res of the 22in and multi-task on the 19in.
On the 9800, I had 2 CRT 19in montiors at 1600x1200 which ran games and office apps fine.

on the matrox 450 I played games that utilized both monitors, such as ST Armada.

I'd agree with most of the others:

1. If you will be gaming most of the time - 24" all the way. I find the 16:9 is much better for playing games than standard. Think it has something to do with how your eyes scan...

2. If you're using for work - dual screens are preferable, particularly for Excel and Access and Office in general. I can't even look at an Excel file anymore unless I have two screens, especially if you use VBA... way to clausterphobic.

I'd probably have dual 24" screens at home if RDP supported it, but it doesn't, so I have a single 24".

well if he turns one off during gameplay then i believe itd run quite a bit better...

First off, I currently own a Sony 23" monitor (same res as Dell 2407 but finer dot pitch). I have also used 19" dual-monitor solutions, so I think I have some perspective on this debate.

I really like dual-monitor solutions for doing dev work, office stuff, internet, etc. The problem with a widescreen monitor is that if you're surfing the web no web site will ever scale that wide (and if it does it looks messed up) and keeping two windows side by side is a pain. So, you will usually end up just not using most of the space. It's sometimes nice to keep a messenger window open next to your web browser with a widescreen monitor, but on a dual-monitor setup this is way way way easier.

That's not to say that I don't love my widescreen monitor. It's built for professional photo editing, so the color reproduction is just flat amazing. If you own a digital camera and want to be able to look at photos on a large screen that's something you should consider (important for some people, not for others). The gaming experience on it is also amazing if you can run at native resolution. Of course, the only game I can run smoothly at 1920x1200 is Far Cry.

By the way, scaling on my widescreen blows away scaling on other monitors I've seen (I believe it's because the dot pitch on my monitor is so fine). Another thing people don't ever mention is that you can always run at 1600x1200 (which is doable with most games on a 7900gs if you crank eye candy down) and your monitor will run in 4:3 mode with black bars on left and right (mine does at least... I can also set it to "stretch" the image to widescreen).

Anyway, after looking at images, watching HD content (which looks amazing running in it's native resolution of 1920x1080), and just growing accustomed to my widescreen monitor I never want to go back. The only thing that I'm considering (which you might want to as well) is just stacking on a 19" LCD or 2 for misc. apps that I want to run on the side (messenger, researching on the web while using visual studio on main monitor, etc.).

I hope this info helps you!

Not sure if the gateway can handle 1080P, according to the instruction manual it cannot.... I also understand that the dell won't 'allow' 1:1 scaling, i.e. blackbars all round if a lower res is selected?

I am most annoyed about this as I naturally wanted 1080p.

On a second note does anyone know of a test that I can perform to see if I am getting 1080p?

Not sure if the gateway can handle 1080P, according to the instruction manual it cannot.... I also understand that the dell won't 'allow' 1:1 scaling, i.e. blackbars all round if a lower res is selected?

I am most annoyed about this as I naturally wanted 1080p.

On a second note does anyone know of a test that I can perform to see if I am getting 1080p?
Doesn't your monitor have an info screen that displays what res you are running at? What's the source you're trying to figure out is 1080P or not?