I know much about graphic cards. I do some research myself. I would recommend you using HD series cards from ATI. Any modern HD series card will suit your needs. In addition, you can get it as low as $14.99!! I know someone who is using similarly big size too with HD cards achieving great results. All the cards below support 2560 x 1600. HD3450 (lowest is $18.99): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102724 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121259 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102763 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127299 HD series is great at processing video output and HD rendering, thus reducing the load of CPU. Some benchmark tests shows nVidia cards lack a lot in this area. If you watch blue-ray videos, it will help you considerably. HD3650 (lowest $39.99): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121243 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127335R http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814261021 HD3650 is worth every penny price-performance wise. It's about two times stronger than HD3450. However you don't need it if you are strictly for trading only. Well but if your computer is somewhat multi-purposes (occasional gaming, watching HD videos, 3D video editing etc.), you may consider this card instead. X1550 (lowest is $14.99): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102704R http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127294 This is not the latest generation but it can still do what you want at a even cheaper price. The price difference is small so you would consider getting the latest technology instead. Any dearer graphic cards are only for hard-cored gaming and professional video editing. These are one of those few areas which put a lot of stress on the graphic card. For example gamers turn on all those heavy tasks like AA and AF eye-candy in the games. It requires a lot of processing and complicated calculation *in less than a second*. :eek: I have yet to know any trader who needs such kinds of heavy workload and processing.
24" is all i can handle, i think above that the resolution makes it difficult and you are better off with multiple lcds. But a 30" 1080P lcd tv is ok for those who prefer big text.
have you even looked at one? a 30" at 2560 resolution is finer than a 24 at 1920, at least with the two i saw side by side. maybe i was looking at a crappy 24"? not sure what the brand even was on the 24, but i did set up the resolution on both myself, so i am sure about that part. BTW, electronics store employees don't know shit about anything larger than a 24. they don't know what cards to use, etc. guys at best buy and circuit city were clueless. Had to go to Fry's, and they let me set up everything myself. they didn't even watch over me!
The smaller the pixel, the sharper the image. Among the sharpest readily available are the 1600x1200. UXGA... at .255mm. (30" LCDs are .25mm, a bit sharper yet. Common widescreen monitors have larger pixels, and are therefore less sharp.... that and the fact that most have TN panels accounts for their lower cost.) Some are rated in Dots Per Inch (DPI). 1600x1200 is about 100 DPI. Medical grade monitors can be >150 DPI.
I use some of these at work in a research lab, 2 per workstation. My impression is that 2 of these, one atop the other, would be OK. 1 itself would be OK. 2 side-by-side would by too spread out - you'd be better off with 4 24" screens in a box format. I think you want to be able to comfortably glance around and access all of your screen real estate easily.
I suppose I would need multiple monitors if I wanted to enhance my Flight Simulator experience. But I trade on a laptop.