@FrhtDnz That capability is called picture-by-picture, or PBP. Looking at the User Guide of the P2719H available on support.dell.com (direct link here), I can't find any indication that it supports this, although that really isn't surprising. This display only has a resolution of 1920x1080, which means that cutting it in half would mean each system would only have a 960x1080 display area. That is very small by today's standards, and it's an awkward shape because it means your display's height would be greater than its width. Even small 17" displays from decades ago offered resolutions 1024x768 and 1280x1024, so your usable area would be even narrower than those.
Additionally, I really wouldn't recommend a 27" display that only has 1080p resolution. The much more common resolution for 27" is 1440p (2560x1440). For reference, Windows is designed around a "reference" pixel density of 96 pixels per inch. Even a 24" 1080p display has a pixel density slightly lower than that, so taking that same resolution and stretching it out over 27" means you'll have an even grainier image. So your 27" display would make things larger, but they won't be as sharp and you won't actually have any more workspace compared to a 24" 1080p display. By comparison, a 27" 1440p display offers a pixel density that is a bit HIGHER than the 96 ppi reference, which means things will be sharper and you'll have more workspace. So if you only need 1080p resolution, then you might find that 24" is a better experience than 27" because things will be sharper and you'll have more space at your desk. Or if you want 27", then think about getting a 1440p display.
In my view, 27" 1080p displays really only make sense for kiosk displays designed to be viewed from a distance, where making things larger is more important than making them sharper. And I guess they might be useful for people with impaired eyesight where using the extra size to make everything bigger rather than increasing the amount of workspace might be nice.
@FrhtDnz If you want a proper picture-by-picture experience, you should be looking at "ultrawide" displays that have aspect ratios like 21:9 or even 32:9. The Dell U4919DW is an example of the latter. It is a 49" 5120x1440 display that is essentially two 27" 1440p displays fused together and curved a little bit. When THAT display's area is divided between two inputs (which that display support), then each source system gets its own 27" 2560x1440 "section". But of course that's twice as wide as a single 27" display like you're considering, and it's quite a bit more expensive than just buying two regular 27" displays. So if you will ALWAYS want to keep a display divided between two systems, then just buying two physically separate displays would probably make more sense. It will give you more flexibility in terms of placement compared to a single huge display, and it will cost less than a single display that has the combined resolution of those two displays. And of course even with two separate displays, if you ever wanted to use both of them with the same system, you could just connect both displays to both systems and then switch both displays to the correct input for the same system, and now you have a dual display setup from that one system. The only advantage offered by a single huge display is that you get the entire display area without any display bezels in the way -- but you pay for that.
Even if you don't want to go quite that large, there are less extreme ultrawide displays with resolutions like 2560x1080 and 3840x1600 that you might want to consider. Those are 21:9 aspect ratio rather than 32:9.
jphughan
9 Legend
•
14K Posts
1
May 16th, 2020 17:00
@FrhtDnz That capability is called picture-by-picture, or PBP. Looking at the User Guide of the P2719H available on support.dell.com (direct link here), I can't find any indication that it supports this, although that really isn't surprising. This display only has a resolution of 1920x1080, which means that cutting it in half would mean each system would only have a 960x1080 display area. That is very small by today's standards, and it's an awkward shape because it means your display's height would be greater than its width. Even small 17" displays from decades ago offered resolutions 1024x768 and 1280x1024, so your usable area would be even narrower than those.
Additionally, I really wouldn't recommend a 27" display that only has 1080p resolution. The much more common resolution for 27" is 1440p (2560x1440). For reference, Windows is designed around a "reference" pixel density of 96 pixels per inch. Even a 24" 1080p display has a pixel density slightly lower than that, so taking that same resolution and stretching it out over 27" means you'll have an even grainier image. So your 27" display would make things larger, but they won't be as sharp and you won't actually have any more workspace compared to a 24" 1080p display. By comparison, a 27" 1440p display offers a pixel density that is a bit HIGHER than the 96 ppi reference, which means things will be sharper and you'll have more workspace. So if you only need 1080p resolution, then you might find that 24" is a better experience than 27" because things will be sharper and you'll have more space at your desk. Or if you want 27", then think about getting a 1440p display.
In my view, 27" 1080p displays really only make sense for kiosk displays designed to be viewed from a distance, where making things larger is more important than making them sharper. And I guess they might be useful for people with impaired eyesight where using the extra size to make everything bigger rather than increasing the amount of workspace might be nice.
FrhtDnz
3 Posts
0
May 16th, 2020 17:00
Thank you very much for your answer, my friend. It was a clear and understandable answer.
FrhtDnz
3 Posts
0
May 16th, 2020 18:00
Thank you so much
jphughan
9 Legend
•
14K Posts
1
May 16th, 2020 18:00
@FrhtDnz If you want a proper picture-by-picture experience, you should be looking at "ultrawide" displays that have aspect ratios like 21:9 or even 32:9. The Dell U4919DW is an example of the latter. It is a 49" 5120x1440 display that is essentially two 27" 1440p displays fused together and curved a little bit. When THAT display's area is divided between two inputs (which that display support), then each source system gets its own 27" 2560x1440 "section". But of course that's twice as wide as a single 27" display like you're considering, and it's quite a bit more expensive than just buying two regular 27" displays. So if you will ALWAYS want to keep a display divided between two systems, then just buying two physically separate displays would probably make more sense. It will give you more flexibility in terms of placement compared to a single huge display, and it will cost less than a single display that has the combined resolution of those two displays. And of course even with two separate displays, if you ever wanted to use both of them with the same system, you could just connect both displays to both systems and then switch both displays to the correct input for the same system, and now you have a dual display setup from that one system. The only advantage offered by a single huge display is that you get the entire display area without any display bezels in the way -- but you pay for that.
Even if you don't want to go quite that large, there are less extreme ultrawide displays with resolutions like 2560x1080 and 3840x1600 that you might want to consider. Those are 21:9 aspect ratio rather than 32:9.
jphughan
9 Legend
•
14K Posts
1
May 16th, 2020 18:00
@FrhtDnz Happy to help.