16:10 120Hz plus monitors?

M

matt_to_the_max

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
388
Hello everyone, are there any 120Hz/144Hz LCD monitors that are 16:10? I haven't found any online. I have an old Dell 2407wfp which still works great but I would like a faster monitor for gaming. I also care about picture quality yet most 120Hz plus monitors are TN panels. Hopefully we will have something like the Dell U2415 but with 120Hz or more. I like 1920x1200 but wouldn't mind a higher resolution if the price isn't too much more like 2560x1600.
Thanks,
Matt
 
The FW900 supports refresh rates up to 160Hz and is 16:10. I recommend using it at 1920x1200@95Hz. It is a CRT, which means that it has better color than even the best IPS LCDs.
 
I agree the FW900 is a legend but I don't have the room for it and doubt if I could find one at a decent price too. :(
 
All post 2010 120hz monitors are and will be 16:9.
 
rabidz7 said:
The FW900 supports refresh rates up to 160Hz and is 16:10. I recommend using it at 1920x1200@95Hz. It is a CRT, which means that it has better color than even the best IPS LCDs.
Click to expand...

The recommended mode is 1920x1200 at 85 hz.
 
85hz on a CRT is gonna look much more fluid than 85hz on LCD, because it lacks the sample-and-hold motion blur effect
This is where ULMB (strobing) comes in but it degrades image quality and can add some input-lag
 
spacediver said:
The recommended mode is 1920x1200 at 85 hz.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the recommended mode on my monitor is 1600x1200@85Hz. I run it at 100Hz without issue, as 1600x1200@100Hz is under 125KHz with the timings I use. The recommended mode doesn't matter. What does matter is that you stay within the HScan and VScan limits, which are 121KHz and 160Hz for the FW900.
 
What do you need 1200p for? A lot of games will be letterboxed when running in 16:10
 
Pechendko said:
What do you need 1200p for? A lot of games will be letterboxed when running in 16:10
Click to expand...
Stop with the nonsense.

If a game is unable to run at multiple aspect ratios, I will not play it, and nobody should. Don't support idiot developers that can't make a game properly.

Even if you play games with a letterbox, it is better to have all other games run at 1920x1200 than to be stuck to a measly 1080p when most games support 1920x1200.
 
i have a 25.5 inch 16:10 monitor, and the new 27-28 inch 16:9 monitors add just about 0 vertical real estate. I'd have to get a 32 inch 16:9 monitor to get a reasonable jump. would love to see more 16:10 monitors.
 
Oubadah said:
I always thought it amusing, how the upcoming mainstream res lost 120 lines overnight, yet the marketers still managed to convince everyone that they'd done them this huge favor.
Click to expand...

x1000. Marketing bullshit at its worst.
 
Totally not what you are looking for but contrary to what people say here I do I like my Dell U3014 but its not anything you want. I heard Overlord monitors makes one though. (I have nothing to do with then - just coincidence)
 
Valnar said:
x1000. Marketing bullshit at its worst.
Click to expand...

To be fair, at least with gaming, since everything is designed for consoles, most of the time you just ended up with letterboxed games on 16:10 screens anyway or you ended up with games with vertical cropping.

16:10 was always doomed due to 16:9 TVs being the standard.
 
bigbluefe said:
To be fair, at least with gaming, since everything is designed for consoles, most of the time you just ended up with letterboxed games on 16:10 screens anyway or you ended up with games with vertical cropping.

16:10 was always doomed due to 16:9 TVs being the standard.
Click to expand...

True, but the reasoning was bad. I find 16:10 resolution monitors much more functional for anything NOT a game. The 16:9 standard was based on a couple things, such as as compromise for most Hollywood movie formats and some kind of quasi-study that suggested it was good for a far away field-of-view, neither of which applies to computer use.
 
spacediver said:
Which modern PC games don't offer 16:10 support?
Click to expand...

Far Cry 4 and Ass Creed Unity. The latter is kind of expected, but the prior is regression from the previous game which is lame.

Most MOBAs and some RTS do HOR- for 16:10, giving the most view to 16:9 displays.
 
that's unfortunate, yea far cry 3 supported 16:10, surprised to see the regression, hope they fix it in a patch.
 
Oubadah said:
That's no excuse. 1920x1200 supported 1920x1080. You weren't losing anything by letterboxing. 1920x1200 also supported the outgoing 1600x1200, which was important as there were games stuck at 4:3, and 1600x1200 was generally the largest standard 4:3 res (ie. Inflexible 4:3 games wouldn't support oddball 4:3 resolutions like 1440x1080, but they did support 1600x1200).

1920x1200 was an extremely versatile resolution. No matter how you look at it, the shift from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 can only be seen as a loss.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I like the extra 120 pixels, it makes a difference to me. But I guess I should just wait until 4K monitors go down and price and get one of those. But my current GPU (GTX 460) won't be able to support any modern games at that resolution. I gotta wait until I can get a 290X or 780ti for 200 or less.
 
I'm a fan of 1920x1200 too. shame there seems to have been a conscious decision to kill it off
 
Calling 1920x1200 'mainstream' is like calling 2560x1440 'mainstream' as of a year ago. Granted as CES 2015 showed 2560x1440 is gaining popularity but I still wouldn't call it 'mainstream' by any means. Also, I'd hate to break it to you 16:10 white knights but there's been this thing called 1440p for awhile now...and guess what..it has 240 more pixels than 1200p - double the amount that 1200 had over 1080. Seriously, get off the 16:10 high horse.
 
Papaj said:
Calling 1920x1200 'mainstream' is like calling 2560x1440 'mainstream' as of a year ago. Granted as CES 2015 showed 2560x1440 is gaining popularity but I still wouldn't call it 'mainstream' by any means. Also, I'd hate to break it to you 16:10 white knights but there's been this thing called 1440p for awhile now...and guess what..it has 240 more pixels than 1200p - double the amount that 1200 had over 1080. Seriously, get off the 16:10 high horse.
Click to expand...

Or maybe people like what they like. Take your own advice and get off your high horse.
 
matt_to_the_max said:
Exactly, I like the extra 120 pixels, it makes a difference to me. But I guess I should just wait until 4K monitors go down and price and get one of those. But my current GPU (GTX 460) won't be able to support any modern games at that resolution. I gotta wait until I can get a 290X or 780ti for 200 or less.
Click to expand...

Good luck running 4k on a 290x or 780ti... You would need at least 2 of them
 
wizzi01 said:
Or maybe people like what they like. Take your own advice and get off your high horse.
Click to expand...

I would except the entirety of what seems to comprise a white knighting 16:10 argument is the extra vertical pixels over 1080p...not that 16:9 resolutions are inherently inferior. I'm simply showcasing the fact that for awhile now 16:10 has been inferior to 16:9 if you're just rehashing the extra vertical pixels argument...and by a much larger margin. There are still people clinging to 4:3 for whatever god forsaken reason, but they also aren't the one's saying it's a superior resolution with a flawed argument.
 
rabidz7 said:
Even if you play games with a letterbox, it is better to have all other games run at 1920x1200 than to be stuck to a measly 1080p when most games support 1920x1200.
Click to expand...

The difference between 1080p and 1200p is negible. Especially as 1440p becomes the new mainstream and soon 4K. To pretend otherwise is to delude oneself.

Papaj said:
I would except the entirety of what seems to comprise a white knighting 16:10 argument is the extra vertical pixels over 1080p...not that 16:9 resolutions are inherently inferior. I'm simply showcasing the fact that for awhile now 16:10 has been inferior to 16:9 if you're just rehashing the extra vertical pixels argument...and by a much larger margin. There are still people clinging to 4:3 for whatever god forsaken reason, but they also aren't the one's saying it's a superior resolution with a flawed argument.
Click to expand...


16:9 was inevitable, primarily because of TVs as already pointed out. It's better for gaming too, for the same reason why 21:9s are so popular with gamers(who can afford it), the extra horizontal space gives better immersion.
The vast majority - if not all of them - of movies are in 16:9 and who likes those black bars? The arguments keep propping up. 16:10 was doomed from the outset and it's amusing reading all this "I don't why it happened! It was so perfect!".
 
finrep said:
16:9 was inevitable, primarily because of TVs as already pointed out. It's better for gaming too, for the same reason why 21:9s are so popular with gamers(who can afford it), the extra horizontal space gives better immersion.
The vast majority - if not all of them - of movies are in 16:9 and who likes those black bars? The arguments keep propping up. 16:10 was doomed from the outset and it's amusing reading all this "I don't why it happened! It was so perfect!".
Click to expand...

All your reasoning is logically incorrect, but alas too many people believe it which is why it happened. Games and movies are hardly the main reasons people use PC's. In fact, I do neither. There is no reason why 1920x1200 can't view a movie the same as 1080. In fact, unless said movie is exactly that AR, you'll get black bars anyway, especially with older 4:3 content.

But for me it's not even the vertical resolution that matters. 16:9 simply looks weird given that most of the horizontal space goes wasted as I wish for more vertical space in applications. This is resolution agnostic as modern Windows can adjust fonts and sizes to anything you want. When I bring up two windows, they are squished squares, as opposed to nicely formatted portrait sized.
 
Nicholars said:
Good luck running 4k on a 290x or 780ti... You would need at least 2 of them
Click to expand...
In that case I might as wait until the new generation of GPUs come out or just get a 2K monitor lol.

finrep said:
The difference between 1080p and 1200p is negible. Especially as 1440p becomes the new mainstream and soon 4K. To pretend otherwise is to delude oneself.

16:9 was inevitable, primarily because of TVs as already pointed out. It's better for gaming too, for the same reason why 21:9s are so popular with gamers(who can afford it), the extra horizontal space gives better immersion.
The vast majority - if not all of them - of movies are in 16:9 and who likes those black bars? The arguments keep propping up. 16:10 was doomed from the outset and it's amusing reading all this "I don't why it happened! It was so perfect!".
Click to expand...
I disagree that the difference between 1080p is 1200p is negligible. I have always used my 1200p monitor with my home computer. My cousin bought a 1080p 25" LCD monitor and I could see the difference right away. Yes it might be a small difference, but to me I'm used to 16:10 and would not like anything less. Also, manufactures are still making 16:10 screens, more than likely because people are requesting these aspect ratios. For example, the Dell U2414H came out in 2014 with a 1080p resolution and then they came out with the U2415, 1200p resolution, in the later part of 2014. I just hope that we will see higher refresh rates for these 16:10 monitors and I think it's only a matter of time as long as there is still a desire for these types of monitors.
 
I thought [H] banned discussion years ago talking about 16:9 vs 16:10 because of fights from ignorant people.

Oubadah said:
That's no excuse. 1920x1200 supported 1920x1080. You weren't losing anything by letterboxing. 1920x1200 also supported the outgoing 1600x1200, which was important as there were games stuck at 4:3, and 1600x1200 was generally the largest standard 4:3 res (ie. Inflexible 4:3 games wouldn't support oddball 4:3 resolutions like 1440x1080, but they did support 1600x1200).

1920x1200 was an extremely versatile resolution. No matter how you look at it, the shift from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 can only be seen as a loss.
Click to expand...

Can I quote this anymore? This is exactly what I've been saying for nearly a decade.

16:10 does PROPER 4:3 scaling. This is extremely important to anyone who still plays older games, especially if they're natively Vert- and can't be changed. Increasing the native resolution (1440p) doesn't resolve the issue, it's the ASPECT RATIO that matters.


And to counter argue the "oh it's barely any loss", it's 2.5cm less space on your screen. Instead of showing a 1080p video and having space for toolbars and stuff, there's no more space, you have to shrink the content significantly.

Here's an old screenshot I took to show people how much space you lose from 16:10 -> 16:9 http://i.imgur.com/RS2N3gR.png

It is far more significant than people think, especially in day to day PC usage outside of gaming. Trust me, I have a 16:10, 21:9 and 16:9 display; I never turn on the 16:9 display unless I need to just casually throw something up on a third monitor, and it's 120Hz+Strobing. Yeah, I hate it that much.


Edit: Oh, thread is 3 months old.

And there was never a follow-up on the Monoprice monitor announcement. It doesn't do 120Hz, it's a sham. http://www.monitortests.com/monoprice-2560x1600-120hz-review/

Damn shame, I would've bought it immediately if it did.
 
Last edited:
In games, usually using HOR+, and in virtual cinematography in general (a virtual lens) .. 16:9 (or wider) is always a larger viewing area, and many of us will be looking fwd to/hoping for 144hz variable hz at 21:9 for an even wider aspect. Most people would love something like a triple monitor setup without bezels (if only the gpu power could keep up). I don't see any argument for 16:10 gaming personally now that we are past 1200 height. 4k for desktop/apps is much greater real-estate though.

HOR-plus_scenes-compared_1-sm.jpg




Desktop/app wise a real-estate comparison:

4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg


Beyond that, using desktop/app suites a lot of people like using multiple monitors for their toolboxes and multiple preview/viewport windows, not a single 16:10. With the greater vertical heights available now, multiple monitor support, ability to resize apps and windows and have them remembered per monitor (helped by things like displayfusion pro), I really don't see a strong position anymore like 1080 vs 1200.



Common movie aspect ratios.. of course movies are better on a VA (or plasma) for black depth + detail-in-blacks, so again, not applicable to most gaming monitors
4K-digital-film-standards.png
aspect-ratios_2.jpg


And beyond all that, we will be looking forward to VR setups in the next few years. Even if they are in their re-imagined infancy, they might advance over time and be a strong gaming "screen" /gaming and virtual experience segment too.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
In games, usually using HOR+... I don't see any argument for 16:10 gaming personally now that we are past 1200 height.
Click to expand...

I admit that playing in letterbox isn't too comfortable (I actually quit competitive SC2 over it), but letterboxing/pillarboxing is a highly subjective thing and people deal with it in different ways. I myself prefer pillarboxing since vertical space is scarcer, so I can deal with playing 16:9 restricted games on my 21:9 display better than on my 16:10.

But that's just for Hor+ restricted content. If you can control the FoV, the debate is pretty much moot. Yeah, wider aspects will still have a higher native FoV due to the scaling, but you can still get your ideal FoV.

Unreal Engine 3/4 are default Vert-, so narrower aspect ratios win out, though we can just change it via a config edit.. usually. And man are older Vert- games unplayable on anything wider than 16:9. Tried to play Jedi Academy on my 21:9.. oh boy, made me search for 120+Hz 16:10 displays again to no avail.

elvn said:
And beyond all that, we will be looking forward to VR setups in the next few years. Even if they are in their re-imagined infancy, they might advance over time and be a strong gaming "screen" /gaming and virtual experience segment too.
Click to expand...
I can see gaming for a while with an HMD.. but office usage? Err, no way. Long, casual session stuff is probably going to stay monitor only unless the tech gets way advanced to the point where it's actually wearable for 12+ hours. Even then, the potential eye damage from looking at something that close all day, every day.. Monitors are already bad enough.


But hey, maybe a 21:10 display will come out. That's basically the holy grail of aspect ratios. Supports 16:9? Check. Supports 16:10? Check. Supports 21:9? (movies look great without letterboxing, wow) Check. Supports 4:3? CHECK!

Well, if that ever is a thing, I'll be the first to grab it. Won't hold my breath though; after all the years waiting for a 120Hz+ 16:10 display over 1680x1050, and a complete lack of OLED monitors, I doubt it will be here for many, many years.. if ever.


Though.. a 120Hz 1920x1200 monitor does exist, but.. well.. I doubt anyone's willing to buy it instead of a car.

http://vpixx.com/products/tools-for-vision-sciences/visual-stimulus-displays/viewpixx/
 
Last edited:
You could have a hotkey to make any app window 16:10 on the fly easily with displayfusion pro or similar apps, down to the exact number of pixels. You could also hotkey/quick-setting an exact monitor profile and saved app window layout with a simple script. 4k has a ton of vertical resolution so there'd be no lacking there, though there are no dp 1.3 - 1.4a input 120hz 4k's, nor dp 1.3 - 1.4a output gpus for gaming... yet. No one says you have to limit yourself to only one monitor though. 1440p is still much higher than the old "1200" vs 1080 argument too.
If you really wanted to with that app, you could add a vertical taskbar (perhaps a black one) on each side of the screen exactly wide enough to make the desktop area 16:10 for better snapping, tiling, and maximizing. A 128px wide bar on each side (or a single 256px bar on one side) = 2304 x 1440, 16:10. This would also give you even more usable app height if you had a non-hidden taskbar on the bottom before and chose to use the side bar(s) for your main taskbar functions instead, keeping no taskbar on the bottom at all.
In most games, 16:9 mode is superior with bars even on a 16:10 monitor as it shows more FoV/game-world for any given pair of viewpoint distances. If you cookie cutter 16:10 and 16:9 FoV's out of each other over and over you are just playing leap-frog. A wider aspect ratio from the same viewing distance will always show more in a lens, and in a virtual lens at the same virtual distance.

elvn said:
http://www.displayfusion.com/Compare/

Save or Restore all window locations
Click to expand...

Function to load saved Desktop Icon Profiles
Click to expand...

You can also hotkey window placement, alignment, and exact number of pixels.

http://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/View/ability-to-specify-window-size/?ID=1571bdaa-f53f-4658-b952-f59effeec912

http://www.displayfusion.com/Discussions/Download/?ID=c0a88146-e202-433b-8a90-42d226682dc6

The app also has scripting which you can do a lot with if you read up on it in the forums.

http://www.displayfusion.com/ScriptedFunctions/View/?ID=ecd0626e-800f-40b7-8674-6e3aaa0d25e9
Description:
This script will save your window positions, then load a Monitor Profile, and then restore the window positions. It's useful on systems where Windows decides to shuffle around your open applications when the monitor configuration changes. Note that this script is only useful if you're switching between monitor profiles where the primary monitor is the same monitor, since the window positions are saved based on their X,Y location, which is calculated starting at the top-left corner of the primary monitor.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top