I want to thank the author for the article, it comes at the perfect time for me. Earlier today I just had a main power line incident that resulted in burning almost half of all my electric equipment in the house, so I need to buy immediately at least one monitor and I was in doubt about spending too much on it (I need to buy other stuff too) and I am a cheap bastard, but I am moving a bit up versus what I was planning to get.

I saw some discussions about multiple monitors; I am a heavy user of multiple monitors, 2 most of the time and 3 when really needed; I don't have space on my desks (home & office) for 3 monitors all the time, so it depends on the needs and not on coolness. What I plan to do now is to get an asymmetrical configuration at home with one regular (1080p) monitor for some work and gaming (the CPU is an i3 7100, so I don't do much gaming) and a larger and better one for work only cases where a lot of information needs to be on the screen at the same time. As the article did not mention multiple monitors and buying 2-3 monitors that are 120 Hz/4k resolution is extremely expensive for a home setup, I think it is worth mentioning this kind of compromise of mixing size to have one of each. Not having OCD the different size is not such a big deal, while the extra functionality/productivity helps.