![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
16:9 vs 16:10
- Thread starter Santa Claus
- Start date
1920x1200 is for housewives and teens as well.
2560x1440 is for men. 27 inch is perfect.
Really? I heard them screaming that 1920x1200 was "too large and expensive" for them. So they enjoy more economical and smaller 1920x1080 (castrated 1920x1200).
Higher resolution 2560x1440 is obviously better.
Of course, 2560x1600 is the best.
We just need more variety and more quality monitors in those segments.
last few comments made me laugh, how old are you guys, am I a peon?
Higher res is good for certian things but isnt the be all and end all, 1680x1050 I am happy with and if i had a higher res on the same size screen I would find it too hard to use for desktop use as text would be too small. There is no good uniform way to increase text size without it looking odd. Not to mention higher res adds stress to everything like ram, gpu, cpu etc.
Higher res is good for certian things but isnt the be all and end all, 1680x1050 I am happy with and if i had a higher res on the same size screen I would find it too hard to use for desktop use as text would be too small. There is no good uniform way to increase text size without it looking odd. Not to mention higher res adds stress to everything like ram, gpu, cpu etc.
Last edited:
I find it difficult to differentiate between sarcasm and honest-to-goodness bullshit in this thread.
16:9 is for a nonprofessional computer, to be used for nonprofessional things primarily. Someone who does a lot of media(viewing), gaming, and a small bit of work is best suited on a 16:9 monitor.
Someone who does a lot of work and needs the screenspace is best suited on a 16:10.
Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference.
(thread in a nutshell)
16:9 is for a nonprofessional computer, to be used for nonprofessional things primarily. Someone who does a lot of media(viewing), gaming, and a small bit of work is best suited on a 16:9 monitor.
Someone who does a lot of work and needs the screenspace is best suited on a 16:10.
Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference.
(thread in a nutshell)
With a couple exceptions.
1) The manufacturers are taking away the 16:10 option from us, which is better suited for real work. PC's != games in most of the world.
2) 16:9 is not best suited for games, or anything other than watching an *exactly* 16:9 video without black bars. Short of that exact scenario, 16:10 is generally better.
Toolbars, taskbars, ribbons, etc are all horizontal and thus take up precious vertical space. Most of the widescreen horizontal space goes unused in productivity applications.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
sorry but 16:9 is most certainly better for games. nearly all games are designed around 16:9. nearly all games are hor+ which means they simply add more info to the sides for wider aspects which gives you a wider fov. so if anything a 16:9 monitor is the best choice if your only concern is gaming.
That is true for some games, however if you have a 16:10 you can always run it in 16:9 mode and get the extra FOV with black bars. 16:10 screens *tend* to be bigger so you don't lose much, and you gain a lot in functionality for "work stuff". 16:10 has always looked "right" to me. 16:9 always feels too short and I always feel cramped with toolbars etc.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
not every game will run with black bars though. thats the reason I just went ahead and got a 1920x1080 monitor. to me 16:9 feels perfect plus I know I am seeing the game the exact way it was intended to be seen.
We have talked about that many times.
Even if your concern is only gaming (that would be awful) you'll get max FOV.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
and that is not always true. I used several different 16:10 monitors for months and they could not always display 16:9 games properly. a 1920x1200 monitor doesn't just magically add black bars and display 1920x1080 the correct way every time. again if that was possible I would have just bought a 1920x1200 monitor. I just tested the same thing a few weeks ago on my parents 1680x1050 display by trying to run several different games using 1600x900 or 1280x720. some games used black bars while others got stretched or distorted.
Last edited:
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
again as a person who went through no less than 5 or 6 1920x1200 monitors before giving up and going 16:9 I can tell you it does not always work properly for games.
OK, then you'll have to name the models:
Monitor #1 -
Monitor #2 -
Monitor #3 -
Monitor #4 -
Monitor #5 -
Please...
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
that was around 2 years ago so I have no idea what the models were.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
yeah sorry, I will now document all model numbers just in case somebody asks me 2 years from now.
and your post has no value either because I was the one trying to run 16:9 content not you. just because I did not remember the model numbers for some future forum debate does not change MY experience.
I think his point is that you could always set the resolution to "1920x1080" if you run across a game which is "unplayable" in 1920x1200 and you'll still have the best of both worlds (unless you suffer from blackbaritis).
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
did you even read my post before replying? I know exactly what he was saying. I said not every game simply adds black bars so no its not the best of both worlds if the game gets stretched.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
hopefully 2560x1440 will become more common but that probably wont be any time soon.
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
It's actually blackbarophobia. It's not a disease, it's a mental disorder
Edit: I apologize for the triple-post, but as they are replies to different people, I thought it better to seperate them :3
Last edited:
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
It depends 100% on how you define "quality". To you, that extra inch does nothing because you only play video games and watch movies, it doesn't affect your perception of the quality of a monitor. To a person who spends a lot of time scrolling up and down in documents, for instance, where the extra real estate can improve productivity, the extra inch could mean saving money in the long run. Assuming the use of a PC monitor to be solely entertainment and hobby-oriented is very, very narrow-minded.
So tell me, what does response time, colours and contrast ratio matter to a person who uses his monitor primarily for handling large database systems, managing back ends and coding other kinds of underlying system structures? And what does screen real estate matter?
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
The only conclusion to draw from this is incompetence, sorry. Any 16:10 monitor will display its 16:9-counterpart with black bars if the source is a modern graphics card. You can, indeed, force anamorphic scaling in all games, so long as your graphics card is set up properly. So, assuming gamers know their way around their graphics card's control panel, image stretching is avoidable, and you WILL get the best of both worlds. If you are completely oblivious to this concept, I apologize for the condescending tone, but you are a self-proclaimed "experienced user" in the field, so I think it's fair to throw a bit of mud
The only point where the "16:10 is bad for gaming"-argument has any merit is when they are hooked up to gaming consoles, in which case it depends on whether the monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping or not. If not, then go ahead and get a tiny 23" 16:9 monitor to play your console games on, while I hook my console up to a 32"+ TV
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
well I hate to break it to you but it did not work correctly in every game at the time I tried. feel free to try and make yourself look superior though. hell I even remember around the time I was looking for a monitor there was some tech site review of a Dell monitor(24 or 27 inch I believe) where they made the comment about not being able get some 16:9 games to not stretch. if I would have known that I would be ridiculed 2 years later then perhaps I would have documented everything better. and even my current gpu driver right now seems to have taken away some scaling functions so obviously that can be a factor in some cases.The only conclusion to draw from this is incompetence, sorry. Any 16:10 monitor will display its 16:9-counterpart with black bars if the source is a modern graphics card. You can, indeed, force anamorphic scaling in all games, so long as your graphics card is set up properly. So, assuming gamers know their way around their graphics card's control panel, image stretching is avoidable, and you WILL get the best of both worlds. If you are completely oblivious to this concept, I apologize for the condescending tone, but you are a self-proclaimed "experienced user" in the field, so I think it's fair to throw a bit of mud
The only point where the "16:10 is bad for gaming"-argument has any merit is when they are hooked up to gaming consoles, in which case it depends on whether the monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping or not. If not, then go ahead and get a tiny 23" 16:9 monitor to play your console games on, while I hook my console up to a 32"+ TV
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Sorry, but he is exactly right. I have a Dell 2407wfp rev a03 and a Dell 2709W rev A01. They both do proper 1:1 scaling with black bars.
As far as the whole argument goes. There is a lot more to life than just gaming. Grow up and get a meaningful job. Then you will know what I mean.
I always say TV, Consoles, and Movies = 16:9
PC = 16:10 - There is just no other way.
1920x1200 > 1920x1080
Plus I like having the extra desktop space to work with. Also remember that you can run a 16:10 monitor at 16:9 resolutions should you ever need to.
PC = 16:10 - There is just no other way.
1920x1200 > 1920x1080
Plus I like having the extra desktop space to work with. Also remember that you can run a 16:10 monitor at 16:9 resolutions should you ever need to.
garbagemule
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 148
Again, if the source is a computer, the GPU can control the scaling. This is how it is for all modern graphics cards, and it was how it was for modern graphics cards 2 years ago too. I know that there are some issues with ATI drivers, but there are fixes readily available with a bit of Googling. I use a fix for older 4:3 games myself, and my U2311H displays these games with thick vertical bars.
But yes, I'd like to see some links or documentation proving this wrong. I still say it is a matter of settings, and I am in no way "trying to make myself look superior". I'm saying there is a simple solution to a problem you've mistakenly labeled unsolvable
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
what a senseless and rude comment to make because I already made it clear that I was referring to a monitor just for gaming and that was the context. if you need a 1920x1200 monitor for "work" then by all means get one. and I am almost 40 years old so don't assume someone needs to grow up and get a job just because you don't like what they said.
Last edited:
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
so you did not basically say I was incompetent? okay lets make this real simple so we can end the back and forth. I tried running some games in 16:9 and some just stretched regardless of settings I used in the Nvidia control panel. and no I did not spend time trying to track down fixes for individual cases. lots of things can not work properly in world of pc gaming and you know that. and like I just said, the option to change scaling in my drivers is not even there for the current set I am using. anyway, again MY experience at the time I was looking for monitors led me to get a 16:9 monitor for my gaming pc.Again, if the source is a computer, the GPU can control the scaling. This is how it is for all modern graphics cards, and it was how it was for modern graphics cards 2 years ago too. I know that there are some issues with ATI drivers, but there are fixes readily available with a bit of Googling. I use a fix for older 4:3 games myself, and my U2311H displays these games with thick vertical bars.
But yes, I'd like to see some links or documentation proving this wrong. I still say it is a matter of settings, and I am in no way "trying to make myself look superior". I'm saying there is a simple solution to a problem you've mistakenly labeled unsolvable
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,322
sorry how is 16:9 better for games at all? lets use 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080, neither one will give you more game on the sides, however 1920x1200 will give you more game on the top and bottom, both of them are 1920 pixels wide. How many games these days don't support 16:10? I haven't played one, and I even play a 7 year old game to boot.
This discussion really is silly, 16:10 and 16:9, get whatever you damn like and stop trying to convert everyone you radical monitor users
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
10 years here and you make a silly comment like that? please go learn about aspect ratios before making any more comments on this subject. here is a hint though...the wider the aspect ratio the more you see on the sides for properly(hor+) done widescreen games.sorry how is 16:9 better for games at all? lets use 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080, neither one will give you more game on the sides, however 1920x1200 will give you more game on the top and bottom, both of them are 1920 pixels wide. How many games these days don't support 16:10? I haven't played one, and I even play a 7 year old game to boot.
This discussion really is silly, 16:10 and 16:9, get whatever you damn like and stop trying to convert everyone you radical monitor users
and no one said 16:10 is not supported did they? Assassins Creed series and Condemned used anamorphic though so you got black bars on non 16:9 monitors whether you wanted them or not.
Last edited:
It's actually blackbarophobia. It's not a disease, it's a mental disorder
Oh, my apologies!
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,322
are you sure?
quoted from WSGF
so 16:9 and 16:10 still have 1920 pixels wide, the only difference is that you're not getting anything extra on the 1200 vertical pixels. seems like it simply expands the horizontal image by adding more "viewable" parts of the game, so how is it going to be so much less on an hor+ game
? explain it please.are you sure?
quoted from WSGF
so 16:9 and 16:10 still have 1920 pixels wide, the only difference is that you're not getting anything extra on the 1200 vertical pixels. seems like it simply expands the horizontal image by adding more "viewable" parts of the game, so how is it going to be so much less on an hor+ game
1920x1200 =/ 16:10
1920x1080 =/ 16:9
1680x1050 =/ 16:10
16:9 is wider than 16:10 and 16:10 taller than 16:9.
So obviosly 16:9 is better for games (which are mostly hor+.)
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
in nearly all games, its the aspect ratio not the number of pixels that determines your view in a game. 5:4, 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 will all have the same info from top to bottom in a hor+ game. the wider aspect ratios just adds more width and again pixels have nothing to do with it. people that go eyefinity or surround are simply making extremely wide aspect ratios and increasing their fov.are you sure?
quoted from WSGF
so 16:9 and 16:10 still have 1920 pixels wide, the only difference is that you're not getting anything extra on the 1200 vertical pixels. seems like it simply expands the horizontal image by adding more "viewable" parts of the game, so how is it going to be so much less on an hor+ game
1920x1200 is the best compromise for many since it has a bit more vertical space for work and technically should be able to do 16:9 with black bars for games. like anything else though it may not always work right in every case, at least not in my experience. 1920x1080 is okay if you mainly care about gaming and just want a cheap monitor. its silly to get all crazy over 120 lines so if you don't know any better than either aspect ratio monitor will work fine.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 16,322
fine, how about vert- games, is there a combination of vert- and hor+? a game that can scale both ways? like BF2 for example ,doesn't that give you both vertical and horizontal scaling?
The bolded part is completely, 100% wrong. 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are THE EXACT SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS WIDE.. FOV in games is something else entirely, but seriously, you need to stop posting blatantly false information when it comes to this topic.