Skip to main content

LG's UltraWide Monitors Are All About Multi-Tasking

Sometimes, nothing gets tasks done quicker than having more than one display on the go. A multi-monitor setup means you can write a document on one screen while reading an important spec sheet on the other. We won't even get into the benefits of multi-screens in PC gaming.

LG has taken an interesting approach to multi-tasking with its new LG IPS UltraWide (21:9) monitors showcased during the show. The EA93 in particular had a 2560 x 1080 resolution, an sRGB of 100-percent, Dual-Link Up for connecting the display to two devices, and two 7W speakers. It also sports LG's thin-bezel CINEMA SCREEN Design

The wide display also features 4-screen split software that adjusts windows into pre-settled layouts. Users merely find the "Screen Split" function on the lower right-hand side of the tray bar, click the "Screen Split" button, go to "layout", and then pick the option that fits best for the multitasking scenario.

For PC gamers, this should be the ideal screen for desktop and maybe even laptops computers. In the general business or consumer environment, it would be interesting to see how three of these displays could function off the same device, seemingly boxing the user in with wall-to-wall desktop wallpapers, Facebook feeds, browser windows and other desktop clutter.

LG's announcement regarding all of its new IPS monitors for 2013 can be read here.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

  • spookie
    It's not a bad idea.. what about pricing?
    Reply
  • robthatguyx
    With oled technoloy where is it,i don't understand why company's wont just make a 5760x1080 and give it a slight curve for those people out there who have the power to run it.It would be much better than having bezels inbetween your screens.
    Reply
  • Fabel
    Bigger, higher resolution and curved. I'm waiting for that.
    Reply
  • JamesSneed
    10428862 said:
    with oled technoloy where is it,i don't understand why company's wont just make a 5760x1080 and give it a slight curve for those people out there who have the power to run it. it would be much better than having bezels inbetween your screens.

    I'm sure they will have this eventually when prices are at a point they could sell a few tens of thousand of them. As sits today not enough people would buy a $5,000-$8,000 monitor. When the OLED TV's are reasonably priced Im sure we will see these high res curved monitors as mass production savings will have finally overcome the R&D costs.
    Reply
  • barto
    So with a 680, would I use one connection or two for this monitor? Curious how that would work.
    Reply
  • powerincarnate
    This is YAWN. Why would I want this over a 2560 X 1440 monitor that Apple, Dell, HP, NEC, and a variety of other manufacturers have created at 27 inch. Why would I want this over a 2560 x 1600 monitor that Dell, HP and a few others have created. Now if this was like 3500 X 1600, then I could understand you are getting a 21:9 screen that is also of the pixel pitch relatively of the two mentioned above, but giving me 2560 x 1080, I get something that is worse than what is currently available. It is simply a stretched cheap monitor. No thanks.
    Reply
  • jn77
    powerincarnateThis is YAWN. Why would I want this over a 2560 X 1440 monitor that Apple, Dell, HP, NEC, and a variety of other manufacturers have created at 27 inch. Why would I want this over a 2560 x 1600 monitor that Dell, HP and a few others have created. Now if this was like 3500 X 1600, then I could understand you are getting a 21:9 screen that is also of the pixel pitch relatively of the two mentioned above, but giving me 2560 x 1080, I get something that is worse than what is currently available. It is simply a stretched cheap monitor. No thanks.
    Because that is the pixel density of a brick on a 27 inch monitor and as much as I don't like apple, the resolution you are asking for is only good on 10.1 inch screens. I would expect 5 times that on a 27 inch screen.

    Reply
  • powerincarnate
    Because that is the pixel density of a brick on a 27 inch monitor and as much as I don't like apple, the resolution you are asking for is only good on 10.1 inch screens. I would expect 5 times that on a 27 inch screen.

    Well we all would, but that is a different story, but with all this 4K, 4K, 4K stuff going around, one would think that creating a bridge to that, by giving us a stretched version of the top monitors, instead of the stretch version of el cheapo would be the way to go. I'll just get one of the two I mentioned and have way more vertical space, something that is useful since the point of this is to increase productivity, so that vertical space is already available in the 27 and 30 inch models while also giving us the 2560 horizontal space that this introduced. Like someone else says give us something, either better resolution or OLED, giving us Nothing is not worth my money.
    Reply
  • TunaSoda
    So sick of monitor displays that only go up to 1080, that is pathetic, this isn't a TV AT LEAST have it x 1200 minimal :(
    Reply
  • knowom
    If it's under $200's it could potentially sell well, but more then that and it's doubtful consumers are more likely to just wait for 4K to become affordable especially given the fact it's going to be next industry standard rather then this oddball stopgap resolution display manufacturers kind of missed their window of opportunity on these types of display resolutions at this point.
    Reply