3 x 1440 vs 1 ultrawide 1440p

[Dysphemism]

I am building a new rig and I figure I should finally upgrade from my 1440x900 monitor. I'm deciding between 3 1440p 16:9 monitors or 1 21:9 1440p monitor.
3 of these http://www.amazon.com/Acer-G257HU-smidpx-25-Inch-Widescreen/dp/B00QS0AKVK
vs.
http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-34UM95-34-Inch-LED-Lit/dp/B00JR6GCZA

 

[Dysphemism]

I play league of legends, witcher 3 and skyrim along with some racing games. I also do a fair amount of 3d rendering and modeling and photoshop.

 

[10tacle]

The biggest question is what is your PC hardware, GPU(s) and CPU specifically? Your triple 2560x1440p setup is pushing more than twice the pixels of a single 3440x1440p monitor.

 

[Dysphemism]

I calculated it as roughly 25% more pixels than 4k. I was planning on running an OC'd 6500k and the flagship Pascal or Arctic Islands GPU once they are released. Given the increases in past GPU lines based on increases in transistor counts and from what I've seen I'm estimating like 60%(ish) increase in power so I should be fine running a single 1080 ti (or equivalent) for the resolution given that for those games you can already have a playable framerate on decent settings with a 980 ti.

 

[Dysphemism]

Also for more demanding games I can always just use the center monitor if it is a problem, I'm just wondering if the 21:9 would be a decent equivalent? Also the monitor seems to have fairly small bezels so I'm not too worried about that.

 

[10tacle]

I calculated it as roughly 25% more pixels than 4k.

Yep. 4K is 3840x2160 (8,294,400 pixels).

2560 x 3 = 7680 x 1440 = 11,059,200 pixels
3440 x 1440 = 4,953,600 pixels

I was planning on running an OC'd 6500k and the flagship Pascal or Arctic Islands GPU once they are released.

At this level of pixel pushing, no matter how high you overclock your CPU, most of the stress will be on the GPU. The only real CPU difference would make is if it isn't fast enough to keep up with the GPU (CPU bottlenecking). When the $550 980 came out, it annihilated the $750 780Ti. I felt much better about getting burned paying $500 for a GTX 680 when just six months later a 770 refresh game out and beat it for $400 (but not by much).

I've never raced or played shooters on a 21:9, but I have seen them in store demo displays. For me, and I have used a 3-display setup on a racing sim setup, you just get more immersed as the angles of the monitors wrap more around your side vision than a flat single (but ultra-wide) monitor.

 

[Yuki Core]

In my opinion if you build a triple monitor setup, they should rather be IPS, because of the viewing angles, you can't possibly have them all at the same perpendicular angle at all times, unless you sit and don't move at all. But they would make working with programs much easier, you can basically have 3 separate projects laid out on each monitor or parts of one project. And with a single ultra wide monitor gaming should be much better, without any black bars separating the game. And unless you have a extremely powerful multi-GPU PC, you won't be playing the recent games on high/ultra settings with all 3 monitors active, you will probably start playing on a single monitor, so for gaming I think single monitor all the way. Unless you primarily focus on racing simulators or some sorts, where you want to have a side-views.

So you have to sacrifice a bit.
3 Monitor setup = Better for modeling, rendering and photoshop
1 Ultra wide setup = Better for gaming.

 

[Dysphemism]

Yuki, I already said that I will be building a PC that can handle the pixels and the triple monitors that I picked out are all IPS and thin bezel.

 

[Dysphemism]

What about three ultrawide 1080p IPS instead? Because although it's lower resolution, it'll wrap around a lot better and it'll be cheaper than the 16:9 1440p monitors. I have the desk space to do it, but I'm not sure if I want to be forced to run any game I play in ultrawide and also it's a lower resolution.

 

[10tacle]

Well that's what you'll need to think about. I personally find 21:9 too "flat" unless talking about 34", and then even at 1080p in an LG format you are looking at $600+ a pop with pretty crappy DPI at that size. I'm biased on vertical height though and had to give up some vertical space going from a 1920x1200 16:10 26" monitor to a 2560x1440 16:9 27". I missed that extra vertical height even at a lower resolution, especially in driving games and being in cockpits in Microsoft's FSX.

It's all about personal preference of course. Whatever you choose though, make sure you think it through fully before pulling the trigger. You really don't want to be stuck with three monitors you wish you hadn't bought.

 

[Dysphemism]

I'm on a 19" 1440 x 900. The vertical height is gonna be an increase for me no matter what. The 25" ultrawide are $500 for three.