16x10 vs 16x9?

My old 22" Diamondtron 2060u can do 1920x1440@75Hz and 2048x1536@60Hz.

4:3 does seem too narrow now though. A large widescreen is more productive and pleasant to use.

I agree. I went from a 22" Diamondtron to a 22" LCD. At first I didn't like it being wider, but I've gotten used to it and anything else seems narrow.

Due to the arrangement of the eyes, people have a field of view that is wider than it is high, so widescreen makes sense. my issue with 16:9 isn't in the aspect ratio - I don't mind it. My issue is that they get it by removing vertical height, not by adding horizontal width.
 
It is very strange how some people like black bars!

Come on guys! Everyone knows that 16:9 is the future and 16:10 the past. Noone will ask for 16:10 monitors in 10 years. The only reason why you prefer 16:10 over 16:9 is because you are very conservative.

16:9 is only the future because clueless consumers like you buy into it hook line and sinker. What does my computer have to do with some TV aspect ratio? Movies don't even use 16:9.

30" monitors have always been and for the foreseeable future will be 16:10. 16:9 is absolutely horrible for multi-display surround setups versus 16:10.

16:9 multi-monitor surround is like looking out your window through a small horizontal slit in the blinds.

I run my 3x 30" in portrait mode for 4800x2560 which comes out to about 2:1 with bezel correction which is perfect.
 
OK, I'm a rookie with widescreen viewing. I was a long time user of a 19" LCD monitor that was not widescreen. Always suited my needs and I had been happily gaming with it for years.

Recently I bought a widescreen monitor with a res of 1920x1080. I like it. It got me thinking about this whole 16x9 vs 16x10 thing. I notice that there are way more 16x9 monitors out there than 16x10 yet Hardocp doesn't include any 16x9 resolutions in their testing of vid cards at all. I wonder why that is and why people either choose a 16x9 or 16x10 monitor.
16:9 is an abhorrent trend for the PC scene. Unfortunately given the zillion TN trash monitors being released every day, it's where the future of displays will end up.
 
A few questions.

1. Do we really see in widescreen? At first it does make sense due to the arrangement of our eyes, but it still seems more square to me than 16:10, let alone 16:9.

2. Even if we do, does that automatically make the 16:9 aspect ratio practical for computer usage? Books and newspaper for example are the complete opposite of widescreen and wide text would be hard to read.

3. Why is it always called 16:10 and not 8:5? :)
 
I run my 3x 30" in portrait mode for 4800x2560 which comes out to about 2:1 with bezel correction which is perfect.

You have any pics of this bad boy setup? I'd love to see it.

Something like this sounds near ideal, just wish there were no bezels :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1036230474 said:
You have any pics of this bad boy setup? I'd love to see it.

Something like this sounds near ideal, just wish there were no bezels :p

I'll have some pics soon, still working on removing all of the bezels etc. I think with the bezels removed and an overlap, I can get the vertical black bars down to 1.6 cm which which I think is pretty darn good.
 
Depends what you're doing; there's a reason portrait-mode exists. I use it at work for coding sometimes, 1200x1600 is a little narrow, but the extra height can be really worth it.

Right, but portrait mode is often used within a multi-screen setup. So if you had three 1200x1600 portrait displays, wouldn't one 3600x1600 display or wider be better? :)

As long as the required vertical resolution is satisfied, then the ideal aspect ratio is wide.
 
An awful trend, 16x9. It's hilarious when I read posters talk about monitors and think no HDMI is a deal killer without understanding the purpose of HDMI to begin with. This is the same crowd 16x9 is geared towards and advertisements tout 1080p! HD! As though all anybody does is watch 1080p movies on a desktop monitor.


Give me a 16x10 monitor any day over a 16x9. Those that use their monitors for actual work, whether it's coding, spreadsheet work, business, web work, etc. would rather work on a 16x10 monitor.

For the guy screaming about 16x9 being the future without even understanding the context and insulting women at the same time, 16x9 is for the kids. Let the grownups enjoy their 16x10 screens.
 
Anyone who mentions "no black bars" or HDTV as a reason for 16:9 in a monitor is an idiot. Not all videos are exactly 16:9, nor do people sit in front of their monitor and watch videos....full screen....all the time. Many movies have black bars anyway if they are wider than 1.85:1. Most TV shows from decades past were 4:3 where vertical resolution would benefit.

What can't be replaced is all the vertical resolution lost when trying to do actual work with a PC. Of course if you just play games and watch movies on your monitor, you aren't exactly a person whose opinion is valuable to the multiple uses of a PC.

This. I was looking through my blu-rays a few days ago for a 16:9 movie to watch on my new plasma while it is breaking in; realized every movie I have on hard-copies is 2.35:1 or greater.

Since I watch 0 videos on my monitor though, 16:10 all the way.
 
I watch movies and play games on my 16:9 setups, FWIW. My 720p display is extremely easy to use via use of large icons, a customized and correctly zoomed Firefox & Chrome, and large fonts. I know I'm in the minority, though, in that the PC I use half the time is plugged exclusively into my living room TV, and is controlled via MX5500/Revolution bluetooth... and I watch and utilize a LOT of media on it as well as game a lot on it.

My other PC has a 16:9 1080p 24" LCD, and it was an upgrade from a 19" 12x10 setup (which I might like to plug in as a second monitor at some point). Before these two monitors I used a 20" Dell 1680x1050 LCD for a couple years at work, so I've never used a 19x12 setup... I'm sure I'd like it, but TBH I'm ok at any rez, really... heck, I even enjoyed my old 1024x768 15" "utility use" LCD when I flew it down to Florida with the rest of my PC for a three week stay with some relatives... I gamed on it every day and still had fun with it.

I really would like to see a 3x 19" 1280x1024 setup, though... I think it'd look pretty nice and would have nice height AND width.
 
One more vote for 16:10. 16:9 might be acceptable for Laptops and minis where people don't perform complex tasks which require more vertical resolution.

But for a desktop simply 16:9 SUX!!! Apart from gaming and movies, in any other application that kind of aspect ratio is not bearable. Most of the windows based applications are not designed for that aspect ratio.

I would consider it unfortunate that vendors are considering 16:9 a future it is cheaper to manufacture. For a mainstream user it doesn't matter what aspect ratio he would use :(
 
Last edited:
I have two U2711's, which are 16:9. This is the first time I've had a 16:9 screen (apart from my TV). I must say that I would prefer it to be 16:10, but it is not a deal breaker.
 
16:9 is an abhorrent trend for the PC scene. Unfortunately given the zillion TN trash monitors being released every day, it's where the future of displays will end up.
My 16:9 display is IPS. Not all 16:9 displays are TN/PVA.
 
My 16:9 display is IPS. Not all 16:9 displays are TN/PVA.

Of the new displays that came out during the past year, all TN / PVA screens are 16:9. Most IPS are 16:9 with a few 16:10. The trend is not favorable for 16:10 lovers.

I hope there are enough of us around though to give IPS manufacturers the financial incentive to continue making and improving 16:10 IPS. I don't mind paying extra $200 for 16:10 IPS. 16:9 is simply too wide for 3x1 Eyefinity / NSurround setup.
 
I don't mind paying extra $200 for 16:10 IPS. 16:9 is simply too wide for 3x1 Eyefinity / NSurround setup.
I agree.

Eyefinity is even more of a reason to have 16:10 or even 4:3 monitors. You're adding more horizontal space and monitors are already plenty wide. There is nothing you can do to add more vertical space short of turning it 90 degrees, but then a 9:16 monitor is even worse. Might as well stick with three 4:3 monitors.
 
Give me a 16x10 monitor any day over a 16x9. Those that use their monitors for actual work, whether it's coding, spreadsheet work, business, web work, etc. would rather work on a 16x10 monitor.
Really? So you would pick a 1728x1080 (16:10) monitor over 1920x1080 (16:9)?

I didn't think so.

People have learned to associate 16:9 aspect ratio as a shorter version of 16:10 instead of wider (with a good reason, if you look at sub-27" monitors).

All of your discussions are biased because you're not just comparing aspect ratios on their own, but together with their respective resolutions (which is arbitrary, but in general everyone assumes 16:9 resolution is smaller than respective 16:10 resolution).
 
Really? So you would pick a 1728x1080 (16:10) monitor over 1920x1080 (16:9)?
The chances of finding a 16:10 "max 1728x1080" monitor are probably similar to finding a sub-27" 16:9 that does over 1920x1080.

The 2560x1440 screens are nice, but I have a hard time justifying going from 24" 1920x1200 to 27" 2560x1440 for more than double the cost. 30" 2560x1600 I can almost justify since the size is just so much bigger, but the monitor makers don't seem to be trying to invigorate that segment. Maybe 27" monitors are not only cheaper to make, but yield bigger profit.
 
Also, I remember seeing a couple of 2048x1152 (16:9) monitors a few years ago. They actually have slightly more pixel count than 1920x1200 (16:10). But they quickly died out because who needs a 16:9 monitor with a resolution over 1080p, right? Not the dumb consumers, of course.

SuperSubZero, that was a theoretical question.
 
i've probably said this in every 16x9 thread. but the 16x9 is perfect for my setup.
i have my computer desk sitting right next to my 46" lcd. so i run a clone screen of 1920x1080 on both my monitor and tv. so if i decide to play something like dirt2 or grid on my tv, i just select correct input on my tv, change the default sound setting to output to my home theatre system and i'm ready to go. i don't need to configure any resolutions or graphics settings in the game.
 
Really? So you would pick a 1728x1080 (16:10) monitor over 1920x1080 (16:9)?

I would. That extra horizontal space just takes up precious desk space and I don't need it. That is why I'm happy with my 1680x1050. It's already too wide to run web browsers and documents full screen so I run most things in a window. Who reads a line that long?

Edit: But my choice was this or a 1600x900 or 1366x768. Something bigger like 1920xXXXX wasn't on my radar because I don't want anything that physically big (wide).
 
Last edited:
I wonder why that is and why people either choose a 16x9 or 16x10 monitor.

I prefer 16:10, but manufacturers want us to use 16:9, so thats what they're pushing at all costs. 16:10 monitors are still out there, but now they mostly occupy the $400-$500 price range and usually have many additional features that are only useful for prosumers (basically, its being assumed that only professionals will use 16:10). But hey, if you really want/need it then you'll just pay the premium.

Basically, its really only a major issue in two areas. First, to people who already own 16:10 aspect monitors (specifically 1920x1200). Myself, for example, purchased my 1920x1200 monitor about 2 years ago for somewhere around $270-$300 (I can't quite remember). My only options at the same price range are 1920x1080 monitors, and I don't feel comfortable paying the same amount money as my current monitor for less resolution. If you own a 1680x1050 monitor, for example, then the transition isn't that bad (1080 is more than 1050, and the horizontal resolution is clearly superior).

The second is laptops. Because of the 16:9 takeover, 1366x768 has become the new standard being forced onto most consumer laptops (replacing 1280x800). The extremely limited vertical space that affords is unacceptable for many people. This is exacerbated by that resolution being used at nearly all physical screen sizes below 17-inches, this results in a fairly ugly image once you reach 14 or 15-inches. After 17-inches, you get 1600x900 (the replacement for 1440x900) and 1920x1080, which are better vertically. Recently it has become slightly easier to find laptops using 1600x900 at below 17-inches, and Apple has resisted the transition on its Macbook/Pro lineup, which still uses 16:10. Also, 1366x768 being the new standard has also forced internet browser creators to minimize the amount of vertical space used by their user interfaces in order to maximize room for actual web content. Google Chrome's UI is an example of this. So, in a sense, there has been some benefit in certain areas.
 
That is why I'm happy with my 1680x1050. It's already too wide to run web browsers and documents full screen so I run most things in a window. Who reads a line that long?

Ahh, I can't imagine people actually full-screen their browsers on a large wide screen monitor.

I love my 24" 1920x1200 as it allows me to have two windows opn side by side.

This is even easier now with the windows 7 "snap to side" feature than it was when I first got the monitor back in early 2005.
 
Zarathustra[H];1036233277 said:
Ahh, I can't imagine people actually full-screen their browsers on a large wide screen monitor.

I love my 24" 1920x1200 as it allows me to have two windows opn side by side.

This is even easier now with the windows 7 "snap to side" feature than it was when I first got the monitor back in early 2005.



Yup. I almost think Windows "Snap" feature has made multi monitor setups unnecessary for multi-tasking.
 
I like using my Soyo 24" 1920 X 1200 for general computing but I later got a Westy 37w3. Hopefully my Soyo's will last a long time, I take care of them by turning them off when not in use.
 
That's a bad question.

24" LCDs are either 1920 x 1200 (16:10) or 1920 x 1080 (16:9).

Given the two choices, I pick 16:10.
It's a good question.

It shows the flaw of comparing aspect ratios by associating them with some resolution. Of course most ppl prefer higher resolution, regardless of aspect ratio. I prefer 1600x1200 over 1280x800, and it has nothing to do with the aspect ratios.

Plus there used to be 2048x1152 resolution monitors... >_>
 
well, here's my question - in old times with 800x600 or 1024x764 everyone made it work, but now as resolution got higher would it really make that much of a difference (in your work) between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200? i've never pay much attention to the resolution beside that higher resolution gave me more space to work with on internet and word.

now i haven't used more than 1440x900 monitors for some serious work (on desktop) so can't argue on that but i do wonder how much difference will it make for you.

And for the laptop screen i do have gaming laptop with 1920x1200 resolution which i never used it for more than watching video/internet/microsoft use. the only difference i see is some application does open the window on full screen on 1920x1200 but on deaktop (1440x900) i've to change the window size to maximize it. i'm planning on getting 1900x1080 monitor next (27inch) and i hope i've better luck with it compare to current set up.
 
well, here's my question - in old times with 800x600 or 1024x764 everyone made it work, but now as resolution got higher would it really make that much of a difference (in your work) between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200? i've never pay much attention to the resolution beside that higher resolution gave me more space to work with on internet and word.

now i haven't used more than 1440x900 monitors for some serious work (on desktop) so can't argue on that but i do wonder how much difference will it make for you.

And for the laptop screen i do have gaming laptop with 1920x1200 resolution which i never used it for more than watching video/internet/microsoft use. the only difference i see is some application does open the window on full screen on 1920x1200 but on deaktop (1440x900) i've to change the window size to maximize it. i'm planning on getting 1900x1080 monitor next (27inch) and i hope i've better luck with it compare to current set up.

At work right now I keep a CRT around because I can run it at 1800x1440. I have a 1600x1200 LCD in portrait so I can get 1600 vertical lines to work with.

At work I'm far more interested in vertical space than horizontal. Having more lines of code on the screen at once helps.
 
If all you do with your PC is play videogames and watch movies then 16:9 is better. People who actually use their PCs for things outside of that (you'd be surprised how many people do work on their computers) prefer 16:10.
 
4:3 is the best. 16:10 was made to add more seats so movie theaters can pack as many people as they can. 16:9 came when they started to become more greedy, they thought about 16:8 but they did a survey and people preferred to watch a cam version from the torrent on sitting on the far sides of the theater specially if it was a 3D movie :p

no seriously, I don’t think there is a big difference between the two but I would always go with 16:10 because other than movies everything will benefit from any additional vertical space. I even prefer it for watching movies because MPC:HC can display the subtitles on the black bar not on the movie picture.
 
1080 vertical pixels is just too short. I could maybe see getting by on one of those 1440 vertical resolution 27" 16:9 monitors, but no way 1080. I like my vertical space so much I run a vertical resolution of 2560 with 3x 30" in portrait.
 
Yeah, bigger vertical resolution (the one that actually matters more). Bad times :rolleyes:

In my view, the only 16:9 displays that don't suck are those 27" 2560x1440 LCDs that have a good vertical resolution to begin with. 17" LCDs had 1024 pixels vertically, better CRT's could do 1200 and more 10 years ago. 1080 is too low for a big display and I don't see how "the wider the better" applies to PC MONITORS.

I completely agree with you.
 
Every time this comparison is brought up, it always leaves me baffled at how some people think.

By using some of the same reasoning shown in this thread and applied to video cards the GTX 480 would be the best single card for everyone because it outputs the highest fps, it should be the highest selling card, and everyone who wants anything else is an uninformed consumer. It doesn't matter if people have other considerations such as space issues, power/efficiency requirements, feature support (eyefinity, single card triple monitor, crossfire support), availability, and price. No, everyone who doesn't buy a GTX 480 for the highest fps is just simply misinformed and doesn't know any better.

Now back to monitors, do people realize it isn't possible to buy, or for the manufacture to even offer, two identical monitors in every way (price, response, features, image quality measures, size) that is 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200. LCD plants are tooled to work on specific LCD substrate sizes. By sharing the same size ratio with TVs, this translates into substantial cost savings that yes is passed onto the consumer believe it or not.

People who buy x1080 vs. x1200 are not misinformed consumers, they are looking at display options and thinking that they do not want to pay 50-100% more for a display that could be even worse in terms of response/PQ just because it is x1200. People tend to buy things by judging them as a whole after a few "must have" criteria are met. And I cannot see how x1200 vs. x1080 is a deal breaking criteria for the majority of consumers to warrant saying they simply don't know any better. If you passively followed Steam surveys for instance, most people upgrading to x1080 at the moment are likely coming from x1024 or lower vertical resolution screens. Even coming from a x1050, x1080 still offers them more vertical resolution. There is no strong incentive for most of those people to go out of the way to hunt down and pay more for a x1200 screen.
 
I'm not saying you are ignorant or don't "know better". I'm saying for a lot of us, giving up 10% of our vertical screen resolution is a dealbreaker. And yes, we are in many cases willing to pay more, sometimes even deal with inferior picture (though we'll complain appropriately about that part) just to get 16:10.

Moreover, most of us who prefer 16:10 feel that less damage is done by someone putting a 16:9 picture on a 16:10 screen and dealing with bars than is done by someone needing more vertical space who simply can't get it because it's not on the panel.

How do you think 30" monitors became so popular? Is it because they fit movies so well? NO! It's because putting more organized information on a screen, earns some of us more money in our pocket by making us more efficient. Or faster at getting our computing chores done. Or a more immersive game environment. But a lot of people who wanted 16:10 so badly, were priced into the range of 30" monitors because of the loss of 16:10 in smaller sizes. And most of those folks were looking for EVEN MORE vertical real estate than just 1200.

People consider moving up in pixels, exactly that, moving up. If I want a wider experience I'll go eyefinity. But you know what, 3 1080 panels looks awful compared to 3 1200's. That stretches you even further in the wrong direction.

Go to an Omni theater. Do you see a 16:9 ratio? No. You see both a wider and a taller picture. That is what immersion is about. Not stretching a screen from right to left but vertically as well. That's the entertainment side of the fence.

There are a multitude of reasons why 16:10 works for a lot of folks. It's not about "not knowing better" it's that a great many folks make enjoyable and profitable use from 1200 or more vertical pixels on a screen. Throwing those away is not something we are going to do if we can help it.
 
I'm not saying you are ignorant or don't "know better". I'm saying for a lot of us, giving up 10% of our vertical screen resolution is a dealbreaker. And yes, we are in many cases willing to pay more, sometimes even deal with inferior picture (though we'll complain appropriately about that part) just to get 16:10.

First of as a side note, I am not a proponent of either 16:10 or 16:9. What I am in favor of is people buying what suits there requirements after they properly understand what they want.

I acknowledge that certain users have requirements and strong preferences for the extra vertical resolution. However this is similar to the case of the GTX 480, some users have requirements and desire for that much performance in a single card, but that does not mean people who do not have that same requirement to be misinformed. I cannot see a reasonable argument to suggest for most people to get a x1200 vs x1080 screen at all costs regardless of other factors if there primary usage is gaming/multimedia, and because of this is why x1080 are becoming the norm in that market segment.

Moreover, most of us who prefer 16:10 feel that less damage is done by someone putting a 16:9 picture on a 16:10 screen and dealing with bars than is done by someone needing more vertical space who simply can't get it because it's not on the panel.

I mentioned this before in an earlier post. There is no reasonable way to argue a x1080 screen is superior to a x1200 screen if all other factors are the same, since x1080 fits inside of x1200. But in practical scenarios this does not occur. You cannot get a screen that is the same in every area except having a higher resolution and carrying a proportionate higher cost (as opposed to premium) given the higher resolution.

Realistically in some cases you are looking at a 1920x1080 vs. 1680x1050 screen in terms of price. And yes some 16:10 proponents have suggested that the 1680x1050 would still be unequivocally regardless of situation/usage by the prospective buyer. Again I cannot see a reasonable argument for this line of thinking. Yes if you are in a desk space challenged office environment this would be a practical choice in someways, but to think that this should be a generalized scenario for everyone involved?

How do you think 30" monitors became so popular? Is it because they fit movies so well? NO! It's because putting more organized information on a screen, earns some of us more money in our pocket by making us more efficient. Or faster at getting our computing chores done. Or a more immersive game environment. But a lot of people who wanted 16:10 so badly, were priced into the range of 30" monitors because of the loss of 16:10 in smaller sizes. And most of those folks were looking for EVEN MORE vertical real estate than just 1200.

People consider moving up in pixels, exactly that, moving up. If I want a wider experience I'll go eyefinity. But you know what, 3 1080 panels looks awful compared to 3 1200's. That stretches you even further in the wrong direction.

Go to an Omni theater. Do you see a 16:9 ratio? No. You see both a wider and a taller picture. That is what immersion is about. Not stretching a screen from right to left but vertically as well. That's the entertainment side of the fence.

There are a multitude of reasons why 16:10 works for a lot of folks. It's not about "not knowing better" it's that a great many folks make enjoyable and profitable use from 1200 or more vertical pixels on a screen. Throwing those away is not something we are going to do if we can help it.

The issue here is there is much more suggestive comments from those that prefer 16:10 that those that buy other aspects are just doing so out of ignorance then the other way around. As I have repeatedly mentioned different users have different usage scenarios and requirements. Vertical resolution concerns are legitimate which is why there are monitors that do cater to this segment. However at the same time it should be recognized that the extra vertical resolution is often surplus to consumer needs as well, which is why not it is not a deal breaking requirement for everyone. Someone who needs more vertical resolution for productivity requirements is not ignorant. Just like someone that simply wants to play games/watch movies and doesn't want to pay 50-100% more for a lower contrast monitor for example is not ignorant either.
 
I'm wondering how much of this becomes a moot argument when higher resolution displays start to become more commonplace. The example is the U2711 LG panel. When the day comes that you can get higher resolution, will that make folks care a bit less what the ratio is?

Just food for thought is all.
 
I like using my Soyo 24" 1920 X 1200 for general computing but I later got a Westy 37w3. Hopefully my Soyo's will last a long time, I take care of them by turning them off when not in use.

I'm a fan of the Soyo 24" as well, got it back when $350 for a P-MVA was a smokin' hot deal (2007 I think). But I've been looking for a 2nd monitor, possibly something that looks better. But still definitely 1920x1200.
 
Back
Top