popular Posted by phoinix | Staff • 2d ago
Jun 30, 2025 7:19 AM
Item 1 of 4
Item 1 of 4
popular Posted by phoinix | Staff • 2d ago
Jun 30, 2025 7:19 AM
$219.99: 34″ SAMSUNG ViewFinity S50GC Series Ultra-WQHD Monitor, 100Hz, 5ms (LS34C502GANXZA) at Amazon
$220
$330
33% offAmazon
Get Deal at AmazonGood Deal
Bad Deal
Save
Share
Leave a Comment
7 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Depends on your needs. This is 21:9 so it is less screen real estate than 2 16:9 monitors.
I went with multiple 16:9 monitors because I think it works better with remote desktop and screen sharing which are a large portion of my work load
I went with multiple 16:9 monitors because I think it works better with remote desktop and screen sharing which are a large portion of my work load
You can share but most people have normal sized monitors so it will look squashed from their view
If you can add a secondary display to an UWQHD monitor, then it becomes a much more viable option for productivity work. The additional monitor(s) don't need to be anything special. It can be a cheap 22" or 24" monitor or a laptop display. Since an UWQHD display is much narrower than a pair of 16:9 displays, an auxiliary display off to the side isn't quite so far away.
In this scenario, you are centered on the UWQHD monitor. Any additional displays are off to the side, or possibly above. These can be dedicated to a specific task, like holding a media player, monitoring tool, or communication app. I personally keep Microsoft Teams or Outlook windows maximized on mine during work hours.
I've found that for me personally, a 16:9 display often wastes a lot of space. When maximized, many UIs are either uncomfortably wide, or have giant margins. As an example, look at typical Google results [google.com]. When maximized on a 16:9 monitor, there are likely large, empty margins on either side. However, when "snapped" to one half of an UWQHD monitor, the page looks the same but the margins are much narrower.
This is my primary reason for preferring an UWQHD display. A pair of windows "snapped" on an UWQHD usually provides plenty of real estate. But at the same time, a single UWQHD is much narrower than a pair of symmetrical displays. That means shifting my eyes or rotating my head much less to go back and forth between two windows. And my secondary reason is that because it is much narrower, it's more practical to add one or more auxiliary monitors.
All of this is based on productivity work. I'm not a PC gamer, but I'll take a crack at that as well. 16:9 displays are more practical for gaming, as more games a designed for them. But when games do support wider resolutions, I think that wider displays are more immersive.
This is all my $.02 as someone who has put way too much thought into this topic, but is still far from an expert. Use my opinions to help brainstorm which setup is right for you.
I'd argue that dual symmetrical 16:9 displays is the all around better choice. And I'm saying this as someone who uses 34" UWQHD monitors by preference. Dual displays tend to be cheaper per pixel and per square inch of space. For most kinds of productivity work, having more than one monitor is very helpful. The screen-sharing example above is one reason. Another is the many applications and use cases simply respond better to maximizing on a single display. And the screen real estate on a single UWQHD is often not enough.
If you can add a secondary display to an UWQHD monitor, then it becomes a much more viable option for productivity work. The additional monitor(s) don't need to be anything special. It can be a cheap 22" or 24" monitor or a laptop display. Since an UWQHD display is much narrower than a pair of 16:9 displays, an auxiliary display off to the side isn't quite so far away.
In this scenario, you are centered on the UWQHD monitor. Any additional displays are off to the side, or possibly above. These can be dedicated to a specific task, like holding a media player, monitoring tool, or communication app. I personally keep Microsoft Teams or Outlook windows maximized on mine during work hours.
I've found that for me personally, a 16:9 display often wastes a lot of space. When maximized, many UIs are either uncomfortably wide, or have giant margins. As an example, look at typical Google results [google.com]. When maximized on a 16:9 monitor, there are likely large, empty margins on either side. However, when "snapped" to one half of an UWQHD monitor, the page looks the same but the margins are much narrower.
This is my primary reason for preferring an UWQHD display. A pair of windows "snapped" on an UWQHD usually provides plenty of real estate. But at the same time, a single UWQHD is much narrower than a pair of symmetrical displays. That means shifting my eyes or rotating my head much less to go back and forth between two windows. And my secondary reason is that because it is much narrower, it's more practical to add one or more auxiliary monitors.
All of this is based on productivity work. I'm not a PC gamer, but I'll take a crack at that as well. 16:9 displays are more practical for gaming, as more games a designed for them. But when games do support wider resolutions, I think that wider displays are more immersive.
This is all my $.02 as someone who has put way too much thought into this topic, but is still far from an expert. Use my opinions to help brainstorm which setup is right for you.
I usually share a specific application instead of the whole window to avoid this. It is still a problem when I want to switch between applications.
Leave a Comment