3 x 1080p 40" TVs, this was too much as in tennis head looking from side to side. SLI just made you dizzy, but I sit close (4" away).
So then I sold 1 and stayed with 2 x 1080p 40", which was fine for work and gaming, loved it.
Then I decided to go back to monitors so I bought (on sale): LEFT: 1440p 32" Samsung CENTER: 4k 40" Philips running at 1440p RIGHT: 1440p 32" Samsung
Again it took too much room up and tennis head was an issue, also I found myself only using 2 screens while working, so I sold 1 of the samsungs.
So now I am with: LEFT: 4k 40" Philips running at 1440p RIGHT: 1440p 32" Samsung
I'm finding this ideal. I still find 4K even at 40" a pain in the ass to read text, especially sheets of code in various open applications at the same time so I run at 1440p on the 4K screen which, for me is perfect.
I wouldn't touch these ultra wide, ultra short screens, it's like looking through a letter box. I still run some games at 1080p on the 4K screen, I personally get into my games and can't tell the difference unless I start to look for it. But this is my ideal, I will do what is good for me. I also wont touch any screen below 30" ever again.
I get annoyed when in these 3rd person RPG's eyes are just 2-3 pixels. So thats the first thing I look from the game if I just can see these eyes, kinda weird habit. Second is that some tessellation bumps simply need few more pixels or you get this feeling like there is no difference in between high and ultra settings, and that you must have also noted from some games.
Each to our own, I pref 1080 or 1440 all ultra hd super quantum string theory maxed out and frame rates to the wall (Im more concerned with framerates than quality, but I still wont overclock a GPU for them).
But obviously you can tell the difference when looking for it... But you wont when moving at pace in a game. I don't have time to admire the pixel perfection of the reflection in their eyes before I send the bad guys back into the digital oblivion they came from.
Right sorry, somehow ignored that "some" and just read it as "I still run games at 1080p".
But yes agreed, the only action moments I look are driving & trying to distinguish if that blinking light is a sign or police "PS2 NFS", and then trying to make longer shots & deciding between left or right pixel.
Personally, I'd go 4K. In fact, I did. I had 3x 1080p monitors and didn't think I'd get on well with 4K because I was multi-tasking full screen on multiple displays. However, with the 4K screen I effectively get 4x 1080p full screen applications in a 2x2 grid with no bezels. It works pretty well. Then, when gaming, I go full screen 4K for the high res goodness.
like a few here, i went from 1 x 24" 1080p to 2x and then 3x wich was fun, but recently i went up to 40" 4k, and i love it. You have the horsepower, DO IT!
The next monitor I'm looking at is a 1440p 60hz IPS. I'm not buying into the 144hz bandwagon because the price premium is wayyyyyy too high imo. 1440p IPS 144hz is like twice the price of a 60hz. No thanks.
1440p 144hz all they way for me personally... But Im the kind of person who has trouble playing fast paced fps, racing, or general action games with a refresh rate under 96hz preferably 110-120+
And 1440p leaves you room for massive framerates even with heavy graphic mod pack in games like fallout and skyrim.