how you intend not to change width going from eg. 24" 16:10 monitor to 24" 16:9 monitor?
even 23" 16:9 monitor is little wider than 24" 16:10...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
16:10 vs 16:9 - what you prefer?
- Thread starter drcrappants
- Start date
even 23" 16:9 monitor is little wider than 24" 16:10...
I hope you are joking!
So you mean that 16:9 is 3 times as high as 4:3?Let me help you with this.
16:9, 16:10 and 4:3 are just ratios.
Which means that 16:9 is wider than 16:10 which is wider than 4:3.
4:3 is higher than 16:10 which is higher than 16:9.
I hope you are joking!
Let me help you with this.
16:9, 16:10 and 4:3 are just ratios.
Which means that 16:9 is wider than 16:10 which is wider than 4:3.
4:3 is higher than 16:10 which is higher than 16:9.
Joking about what? He said the exact same thing that you said.
For the same sized screen (ie 24"), a 16:9 monitor will be the same width as a 16:10 monitor. The only difference in that case would be the height.Joking about what? He said the exact same thing that you said.
The first part is true because, well, LOLed, but the second part is not because we are talking about diagonal measurements for both 24" screens.
From www.tvcalculator.com
24" 16:9
Image Dimensions: 20.92" x 11.76"
Image area: 246.02 sq. in.
24" 16:10
Image Dimensions: 20.35" x 12.72"
Image area: 258.85 sq. in.
So naturally you are getting "more monitor" for a 16:10 golden ratio (thanks Snowdog) versus a 16:9 screen because you are getting more image area.
BUT if you are displaying 16:9, 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 content, yes the 24" 16:9 image will be larger.
The above was from http://www.tvcalculator.com/
Nice site for quick ratio checking.
At the end of the day I prefer a 16:9 TV and a 16:10 monitor.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,409
the aspects fit inside of each other though as far as aspects go. a 16:10 ratio that fit inside of the same height 16:9 would be much less area on the 16:10, and a 16:9 that fit inside the same width 16:10 would be much smaller area on the 16:9. The resolution standards are arbitrary but we have been stuck with them up until now. If the 16:9's had more pixels than the comparable 16:10, both at the same pixel height - I still think less people would be in the 16:10 camp.
I hope the quadHD 27" 16:9 becomes the high end and enthusiast standard in the next few years so this talk of one aspect ratio being larger than the other starts to die off on the top end panels.
The golden ratio isn't enough functionality either as I said.. many people want multiple monitor arrays wide (and would do so without noticeable bezels if it were possible), making a ratio much wider than 16:9 or 16:10.
I hope the quadHD 27" 16:9 becomes the high end and enthusiast standard in the next few years so this talk of one aspect ratio being larger than the other starts to die off on the top end panels.
The golden ratio isn't enough functionality either as I said.. many people want multiple monitor arrays wide (and would do so without noticeable bezels if it were possible), making a ratio much wider than 16:9 or 16:10.
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
I don't really have a preference. Whichever ends up with the most pixels is better, I guess. And it depends on what you're doing.
For personal/home use I like 16:9 just because the black bars are smaller on movies.
At work I prefer 16:10 (at least when we're talking 24") for more workspace. It's true I could just have more 16:9, but at a certain point I spend more time organizing my windows and spinning around to find what I'm looking for than doing actual work
At work I prefer 16:10 (at least when we're talking 24") for more workspace. It's true I could just have more 16:9, but at a certain point I spend more time organizing my windows and spinning around to find what I'm looking for than doing actual work
quantum112
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 392
It doesn't really matter what we prefer when anyone can pull standards out of his a** and do whatever he wants for the sake of profit. Since when is it acceptable for the industry to dictate consumer demand, instead of vice versa? If people want to buy 16:10 monitors they should damn well be able to, and same for 16:9 (keep in mind the reason this ratio was created in the first place). We are being left without a choice and that is what is causing these arguments.
The fact that they are forcing 16:9 is only because it is cheaper, well in that case let's just buy a 1920 pixel wide line (1 px height) monitor and use that, I'm sure that would be even cheaper for them.
Saying that 16:9 is better because movies are being filmed for it (or black bars are smaller or whatever) is like saying it's better to listen to pop because that's what's on MTV.
The industry is constantly probing the waters with something like this, when you people actually go out and buy it, you're basically telling them "yes, we'll pay for less, and don't mind getting shafted". Well, go for it. Pretty soon you'll be sold 2.35:1 OLED screens which are gonna burn out within a year and I'll probably be forced to go live as a hermit on some island because I won't be able to stand the continuous downfall of technology that has been going on for the past 10 years.
The fact that they are forcing 16:9 is only because it is cheaper, well in that case let's just buy a 1920 pixel wide line (1 px height) monitor and use that, I'm sure that would be even cheaper for them.
Saying that 16:9 is better because movies are being filmed for it (or black bars are smaller or whatever) is like saying it's better to listen to pop because that's what's on MTV.
The industry is constantly probing the waters with something like this, when you people actually go out and buy it, you're basically telling them "yes, we'll pay for less, and don't mind getting shafted". Well, go for it. Pretty soon you'll be sold 2.35:1 OLED screens which are gonna burn out within a year and I'll probably be forced to go live as a hermit on some island because I won't be able to stand the continuous downfall of technology that has been going on for the past 10 years.
luluthemonk
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 55
16:10 1920x1200 x3 here.
@quantum112
as I see it and I have good sight (despite using CRTs ) at least two new 24" 16:10 monitors came out recently. Dell U2412M (E-IPS + W-LED) and Samsung S24A850DW (PLS + W-LED). For more quality panels with wide-gamut you have Asus PA246Q and Dell U2410. There is just no flood of TN 16:10 120Hz monitors but giving games look better with 16:9 I don't see this as drawback...
ps. and anamorphic OLED monitors can't get here soon enough
as I see it and I have good sight (despite using CRTs
) at least two new 24" 16:10 monitors came out recently. Dell U2412M (E-IPS + W-LED) and Samsung S24A850DW (PLS + W-LED). For more quality panels with wide-gamut you have Asus PA246Q and Dell U2410. There is just no flood of TN 16:10 120Hz monitors but giving games look better with 16:9 I don't see this as drawback...ps. and anamorphic OLED monitors can't get here soon enough
ps. and anamorphic OLED monitors can't get here soon enough
Anamorphic is a process to warp/unwarp to from native aspect ratios.
An Anamorphic monitor would likely have a big lens in front of the screen to adjust it's aspect ratio something like this:
The marketing peoples' job is to improve the bottom line..so if 16:9 is replacing 16:10 i'm sure they're doing it for a good reason and i'm betting we're just not a big enough market segment to justify producing 16:10.
Funny thing is i can't think of a 16:9 vs 16:10 debate that wasn't talking about 24" monitors.. the main complaint being loss of vertical resolution. If that's the case..just buy a monitor with the vertical resolution you want. If it happens to be 16:9 then you just get more horizontal resolution, and i don't think anyone can complain about that
Cool Vibrations
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2008
- Messages
- 660
16:10 for life.
Only reason 16:9 started phasing out 16:10 was for economical purposes.
“It is all about reducing manufacturing costs. The new 16:9 aspect ratio panels are more cost effective to manufacture locally than the previous 16:10 panels."
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/hardware/17621-Widescreen-monitors-Where-did-1920x1200.html
For computer monitors, it's either 16:10 or bust. 16:9 only belongs with movies. Nothing else.
It's not hard folks. More screen real estate = more documents = more productivity.
1680 x 1050 > 1600 x 900
1920 x 1200 > 1920 x 1080
2560 x 1600 > 2560 x 1440
etc.
Only reason 16:9 started phasing out 16:10 was for economical purposes.
“It is all about reducing manufacturing costs. The new 16:9 aspect ratio panels are more cost effective to manufacture locally than the previous 16:10 panels."
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/hardware/17621-Widescreen-monitors-Where-did-1920x1200.html
For computer monitors, it's either 16:10 or bust. 16:9 only belongs with movies. Nothing else.
It's not hard folks. More screen real estate = more documents = more productivity.
1680 x 1050 > 1600 x 900
1920 x 1200 > 1920 x 1080
2560 x 1600 > 2560 x 1440
etc.
Last edited:
Paully's5.0
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2002
- Messages
- 398
16:10 all the way! Dreading my new work laptop that will not be 16:10. Loved 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen! Laptops are for entertainment not productivity, so watching movies in he resolutions trump all *marketing brainwash.
When it comes to productivity, I prefer whichever aspect ratio has more pixels. I work with huge spreadsheets that require scrolling right and left as well as up and down, so the more that's on the screen the better. At work, I have two monitors, both Lenovo brand, one 16:9 and the other 16:10. The resolutions are 1600x900 and 1440x900. They are exactly the same height, with exactly the same pixel density. In this case, the 16:9 monitor actually has more pixels and more screen area, so it is my preferred monitor - note that this is different than the higher resolutions mentioned in this thread before. It is true that a 1920x1200 (16:10) monitor has more pixels and screen area than a 1920x1080 (16:9), but keep in mind that this is not always the case for the same tier of monitor sizes (notice I didn't say same size monitors - because you're measuring the diagonal things get a little unintuitive).
Now, going back to the StarCraft II example. The screens could have been taken at resolutions similar to my workstation example given above. In this case, the 16:9 monitor truly does have more area and provides a larger picture. However, I'm proposing that if you were to try that experiment with 1920 resolutions, you may find a different story. Either that, or the picture will appear "blown-up" on the 16:10 screen (physically, the menus would have to be larger/taller).
On a completely different note, when combining multiple displays, (3) 16:9 monitors just looks silly, IMHO. Either you're stuck with an aspect ratio wider than that of my car's rear-view mirror (where's the vertical?), or in vertical orientation, you're stuck with three displays that are too narrow to display anything without a bezel in the way.
I personally find the 16:10 ratio more attractive, but on a single display setup, I'll choose the one with the most pixels.
Now, going back to the StarCraft II example. The screens could have been taken at resolutions similar to my workstation example given above. In this case, the 16:9 monitor truly does have more area and provides a larger picture. However, I'm proposing that if you were to try that experiment with 1920 resolutions, you may find a different story. Either that, or the picture will appear "blown-up" on the 16:10 screen (physically, the menus would have to be larger/taller).
On a completely different note, when combining multiple displays, (3) 16:9 monitors just looks silly, IMHO. Either you're stuck with an aspect ratio wider than that of my car's rear-view mirror (where's the vertical?), or in vertical orientation, you're stuck with three displays that are too narrow to display anything without a bezel in the way.
I personally find the 16:10 ratio more attractive, but on a single display setup, I'll choose the one with the most pixels.
Here, I fixed the gif.
It does go both ways though; you can have a fixed vertical width where 16:9 > 16:10 > 3:4 or a fixed horizontal width where 3:4 > 16:10 > 16:9. Personally I would just opt for the largest screen possible, but there is the 'evil black bar' camp that prefers 16:9. I've never really understood it though because a small percentage of movies are actually 16:9, not to mention the HD releases of 3:4 content. Why watch 1440x1080 video at it's native resolution when you can scale it up to 2133x1600 or 2048x1536 if you own one of the rare QXGA screens? With games it's a more valid point since FOV is normally handled in that matter, but even ignoring fixed games and other scaling methods you still get more detail out of same-width 16:10 screen.
So yeah, manufacturing costs or something.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,409
16:9 cost saving is because it has less pixels, which isn't due to the aspect ratio itself but to the production standard. I suspect the reason most people still desire 16:10 is more the greater number of pixels/vertical pixel count difference than the aspect ratio in itself.
If you had a choice between a 27.5" 1920x1200 and a 27" 2560x1440 16:9 - for the sake of argument both ips and for the same price, you are telling me you would choose the 16:10 1920x1200?
How about on more equal terms a choice between
- a 2560x1440 16:9 and a hypothetical 2304x1440 16:10 ?
- or between a 2560x1600 16:10 and a hypothetical 2884x1600 16:9 ?
As I said before I hope the Quad Full HD dispenses with the arbitrary pixel cuts and just keeps one very high resolution at 16:9. For everything else we have today it is what it is.. but on the 2560x 16:10's and 16:9's the difference is very slim imo overall when you consider the actual resolution real estate difference and not the screen size differences with the different ppi's. In my opinion the 27" 16:9 is better sized for a desk and at a higher pixel density, but I would be ok with either really at the right distances (if not for the AG on the 30"ers).
I don't think three 16:9's is silly at all for desktop use.. and for gaming the intention of eyefinity and nvidia surround gaming using three monitors is for the side monitors to be peripheral, not viewing all three with your main gaze at all.
.
If you had a choice between a 27.5" 1920x1200 and a 27" 2560x1440 16:9 - for the sake of argument both ips and for the same price, you are telling me you would choose the 16:10 1920x1200?
How about on more equal terms a choice between
- a 2560x1440 16:9 and a hypothetical 2304x1440 16:10 ?
- or between a 2560x1600 16:10 and a hypothetical 2884x1600 16:9 ?
As I said before I hope the Quad Full HD dispenses with the arbitrary pixel cuts and just keeps one very high resolution at 16:9. For everything else we have today it is what it is.. but on the 2560x 16:10's and 16:9's the difference is very slim imo overall when you consider the actual resolution real estate difference and not the screen size differences with the different ppi's. In my opinion the 27" 16:9 is better sized for a desk and at a higher pixel density, but I would be ok with either really at the right distances (if not for the AG on the 30"ers).
I don't think three 16:9's is silly at all for desktop use.. and for gaming the intention of eyefinity and nvidia surround gaming using three monitors is for the side monitors to be peripheral, not viewing all three with your main gaze at all.
.
Last edited:
Megalomaniac
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,193
the argument should be simpler than that.. why bring resolution into this at all.
Lets say the ratio is the resolution, which it is actually representing. So a 16:10 would be a resolution of 160 pixels, while a 16:9 would be 144 pixels. Add any number of zeros behind those numbers if it makes it easier, but a 16:10 will always have more pixels, all things being equal. The all things here is the width (the 16) fixed at say 1920, or 2560 or what ever. it wall always have more pixels.
Will a screen that is 1920 wide have more pixels than a screen that is 2560 wide? No, that's obvious, but that's also not apples to apples.
You want to have a test, put two monitors in front of people, one a 1920:10 and the other a 1920:9 and see how many will pick each. or two 2560s, one 16:10 the other 16:9.
When you bring resolution into this, you muddy the topic. Does greater resolution mean you get more work space, kind of. You have more pixels, but there is only so small you can make a letter before people can't read it.
Would you really pick 23" monitor at 2560x1440 (if it existed) vs a 24" at 1920x1200? I wouldn't, because it's as "good" as the other 16:9.
Lets say the ratio is the resolution, which it is actually representing. So a 16:10 would be a resolution of 160 pixels, while a 16:9 would be 144 pixels. Add any number of zeros behind those numbers if it makes it easier, but a 16:10 will always have more pixels, all things being equal. The all things here is the width (the 16) fixed at say 1920, or 2560 or what ever. it wall always have more pixels.
Will a screen that is 1920 wide have more pixels than a screen that is 2560 wide? No, that's obvious, but that's also not apples to apples.
You want to have a test, put two monitors in front of people, one a 1920:10 and the other a 1920:9 and see how many will pick each. or two 2560s, one 16:10 the other 16:9.
When you bring resolution into this, you muddy the topic. Does greater resolution mean you get more work space, kind of. You have more pixels, but there is only so small you can make a letter before people can't read it.
Would you really pick 23" monitor at 2560x1440 (if it existed) vs a 24" at 1920x1200? I wouldn't, because it's as "good" as the other 16:9.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,409
That's basing the limit on the width instead of the height for no reason other than the arbitrary industry standards so does not counter my previous post. You are basing that on the arbitrary limitation we have been stuck with, not he fact that the aspect ratios fit inside of each other. Make the limit the height instead and 16:9 would always have more pixels.
last time I checked there were no height or width listed as main parameter of monitors but diagonal size and resolution and price.
Aren't 16:9 monitors usually cheaper? They are and people get mad because you have to pay premium for 16:10 monitor not to mention 4:3/5:4 and it's actually silly considering that 16:9 are cheaper to manufacture...
most people don't care about ratio and don't see difference just like they didn't know 1280x1024 is not really 4:3 even though its obvious to others...
Aren't 16:9 monitors usually cheaper? They are and people get mad because you have to pay premium for 16:10 monitor not to mention 4:3/5:4 and it's actually silly considering that 16:9 are cheaper to manufacture...
most people don't care about ratio and don't see difference just like they didn't know 1280x1024 is not really 4:3 even though its obvious to others...
quantum112
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 392
Aren't 16:9 monitors usually cheaper? They are and people get mad because you have to pay premium for 16:10 monitor not to mention 4:3/5:4 and it's actually silly considering that 16:9 are cheaper to manufacture...
most people don't care about ratio and don't see difference just like they didn't know 1280x1024 is not really 4:3 even though its obvious to others...
The first problem is solely related to capitalism...
The second; most people don't need $6000 professional broadcasting monitors but they are being made...I am willing to bet more people are buying 16:10 monitors than that Sony BVM OLED yet 16:10 monitors are slowly being phased out. 3 years ago nearly every single monitor was 16:10, now there are but a few per year.
This whole "profit and majority" thing is, as you can see, quite damaging to everyone who isn't in the "durr full hd lcd" crowd.
I, for one, would like to purchase a 24" 16:10 FED display right now, yet am unable to. Why? You guessed it.
I think two things have happened
1: Monitors have been marketed mostly based on the diagonal even though size is less important than resolution and diagonal is a misleading measure of size.
2: the demand from the HDTV industry has driven down the price of 1920x1080 panels
The result has been a positive feedback loop. 1920x1080 screens are cheap so they sell in large numbers so they stay cheap.
I'd like to have as many vertical pixels as I can get but it's hard to justify it when 1920x1200 means a doubling of price over 1920x1080 and prices go through the roof from there.
1: Monitors have been marketed mostly based on the diagonal even though size is less important than resolution and diagonal is a misleading measure of size.
2: the demand from the HDTV industry has driven down the price of 1920x1080 panels
The result has been a positive feedback loop. 1920x1080 screens are cheap so they sell in large numbers so they stay cheap.
I'd like to have as many vertical pixels as I can get but it's hard to justify it when 1920x1200 means a doubling of price over 1920x1080 and prices go through the roof from there.
Last edited:
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,409
Quad Full HD will be 16:9 and no other from the looks of it. I'm glad its just one ratio.
Even the high resolution 2560x panels make the number of pixels high difference quite negligible imo compared to the overall number of pixels tall.. 90% of 1600 is still a lot of high ppi vertical real estate compared to 90% of 1200 being 67.5% of 1600. Another benefit is the pixel sizes are smaller on the 27" 16:9's making the physical dimension more suitable to a desk (imo, though 30" would be fine set back a bit further on capable desk setups)..and the 27" 2560x 16:9's are the only ones that have a few models that do not have over-aggressive AG this generation.
. With 3840x2160 being 2160 high , that should be enough vertical for the high end crowd for awhile at least. Keeping one aspect ratio with an abundance of vertical and overall ppi sounds great to me and appears to be what the standard will be (outside of a few 4k screens , most likely TV's, that will have +256px more width).. If they started making an arbitrary aspect ratio resolution cut they could always make a 3556x2160 16:10 and save a little production cost for whoever would want to buy 16:10 I suppose...
Even the high resolution 2560x panels make the number of pixels high difference quite negligible imo compared to the overall number of pixels tall.. 90% of 1600 is still a lot of high ppi vertical real estate compared to 90% of 1200 being 67.5% of 1600. Another benefit is the pixel sizes are smaller on the 27" 16:9's making the physical dimension more suitable to a desk (imo, though 30" would be fine set back a bit further on capable desk setups)..and the 27" 2560x 16:9's are the only ones that have a few models that do not have over-aggressive AG this generation.
. With 3840x2160 being 2160 high , that should be enough vertical for the high end crowd for awhile at least. Keeping one aspect ratio with an abundance of vertical and overall ppi sounds great to me and appears to be what the standard will be (outside of a few 4k screens , most likely TV's, that will have +256px more width).. If they started making an arbitrary aspect ratio resolution cut they could always make a 3556x2160 16:10 and save a little production cost for whoever would want to buy 16:10 I suppose...
Last edited:
Sigh, not this discussion again.....
These threads should all be renamed to "Which do you prefer - 1080p or 1200p?", because that's all these debates really boil down to. The 16:10 proponents' main argument is the lack of vertical space that 16:9 offers, but that matters only when comparing resolutions of comparable width, which cannot be derived purely by the AR. I don't think anyone here would argue that they prefer 1920x1200 over 2560x1440...
To put in my own .02 - I upgraded from a 19", 1440x900 to a 23", 1920x1080 (Dell U2311H) at home, and am perfectly happy with the 16:9 AR of the Dell. The 1080p resolution was the best fit for me at home, though I would prefer using 1200p at work.
These threads should all be renamed to "Which do you prefer - 1080p or 1200p?", because that's all these debates really boil down to. The 16:10 proponents' main argument is the lack of vertical space that 16:9 offers, but that matters only when comparing resolutions of comparable width, which cannot be derived purely by the AR. I don't think anyone here would argue that they prefer 1920x1200 over 2560x1440...
To put in my own .02 - I upgraded from a 19", 1440x900 to a 23", 1920x1080 (Dell U2311H) at home, and am perfectly happy with the 16:9 AR of the Dell. The 1080p resolution was the best fit for me at home, though I would prefer using 1200p at work.
People buy monitors based on the diagonal length number, right? So, 24"? Guess which costs less to make, 24" 16:10 or 24"16:9. They're not the same thing.
In short, wider aspect ratios have less space. Less surface area. But you wouldn't know it from the number you're sold. You have to consider that lowering the denominator in that ratio fraction means moving the surface area toward zero. 16:10, 16:9, 16:8.... 16:0. No more monitor.
At work I use a 27" iMac 2560x1440 (16:9) and at home a 30" 2560x1600 display (16:10). At that resolution the aspect ratio doesn't matter much. There's so much real estate already.
At 1920x1200 and lower I prefer more vertical space to fit toolbars, the taskbar and whatnot.
What I don't like is how many games these days offer a much wider view at 16:9 resolutions. Add to that the "binoculars on" narrow field of view and you pretty much have to play at 16:9 to combat that. I don't mind that it adds black bars on my 30" but it's still a bit annoying. I'd imagine having less vertical view on 16:9 would be less of a problem in most games. It's 2011 and 4:3 monitors are pretty much gone so the "horizontal plus" thing isn't that great an idea.
At 1920x1200 and lower I prefer more vertical space to fit toolbars, the taskbar and whatnot.
What I don't like is how many games these days offer a much wider view at 16:9 resolutions. Add to that the "binoculars on" narrow field of view and you pretty much have to play at 16:9 to combat that. I don't mind that it adds black bars on my 30" but it's still a bit annoying. I'd imagine having less vertical view on 16:9 would be less of a problem in most games. It's 2011 and 4:3 monitors are pretty much gone so the "horizontal plus" thing isn't that great an idea.
Of course black bars and small field of view is annoying.
Thats why those who still have relic 16:10 monitors should by 16:9.
No worse than no black bars and a small field of view. A 30" is more than large enough, so I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.
I prefer 16:10 for two reasons, one is the most commony mentioned reason and the other I rarely see brought up... The first is that I prefer the taller aspect ratio for productivity, you get to see a couple extra lines of text, code, whatever.
The second reason is that I'm building an Eyefinity setup, 16:10 means wider screens if/when I decide to use them in portrait, which means more space between bezels, which works out great with 24" screens imo (probably the most common size for enthusiasts now).
There's some FOV arguments against 16:10 since a lot of games are coded with 16:9 in mind primarily, but they all go out the window with Eyefinity imo. 'Course if you wanna do portrait mode in Eyefinity you need decent IPS screens which mean $300+ per, which makes it a bit of a niche for now.
The second reason is that I'm building an Eyefinity setup, 16:10 means wider screens if/when I decide to use them in portrait, which means more space between bezels, which works out great with 24" screens imo (probably the most common size for enthusiasts now).
There's some FOV arguments against 16:10 since a lot of games are coded with 16:9 in mind primarily, but they all go out the window with Eyefinity imo. 'Course if you wanna do portrait mode in Eyefinity you need decent IPS screens which mean $300+ per, which makes it a bit of a niche for now.
I agree with the general sentimet, but I think you're forgetting a few case scenarios. Yeah it'd be great if we had 4K displays that make all these current resolutions/aspect ratios obsolete, but that's a long way off and as you said earlier (I think), the vast majority of people won't care for it... There's a reason the market is saturated w/cheap TN displays and IPS costs are still high, people just arent very critical of computer displays (on average), beats me why.
I'm hardly a fan of Apple, but I applaud their recent push for higher quality displays on mobile products and their long standing commitment to shipping decent displays w/most of their systems (even if most are still TN).
Anyway, until the industry changes or makes the long transition to whatever's next , there's a lot of us that do care about the quality of our display... And amongst those there's more than a few of us who can't very well afford 30" screens, with anything smaller a 16:10 aspect ratio is preferable, particularly when being used in portrait mode imo. That's something I value more than whatever FOV differences there are in games (which are minimal anyway) or even the extra lines I might see on a 16:10 display in landscape.
You can't just isolate these argument completely in a void because at the end of the day we're all limited by what we can actually buy, and space restrictions. and many of us can't spend $1,000+ per screen (but wouldn't mind spending $300-500 for something just right). That's why the argument usually centers around 22-24", obviously, it's the middle ground above the cheapest panels and the 30" monsters that make most of the discussion irrelevant.
Last edited:
Just made the switch from a 16:10 1920x1200 monitor to a 120hz 1080p monitor and man is it terrible for anything but playing games. Surfing the web is probably the worst, followed by desktop 2D applications. Even with MMO's I feel like I am missing out because there is less room to place my UI. I thought it would just be a small difference, I mean its only 120 vertical resolution lost... but it is really noticable. I can only hope I will get used to it with time because 120hz is awesome. I really wish they had 120hz monitors that were 1920x1200.
Megalomaniac
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,193
fixed that for you, since you can't help trolling. Sure if you play on console, you want a 1080P, because that's the best you can possibly get. Oh whats that you say, that so many games are made for consoles. Well sure they are, it's about making money after all, and consoles sell more. Does it make it right? Nope
But since we all use PCs for things other than gaming, we would want 16:10 for those other things. Oh and we can still play at 16:9 resolutions on our nice, big 16:10 monitors. And you know what, i'll let you in on a secret, the game doesn't know the difference! Stupid game.
So true. Loaded up ARMA 2 earlier and had to set it from 16:10 down to 16:9... even in FPS games, 16:9 lets you see less of the game world. The golden ratio is golden for a reason. Feels like I'm on the bronze ratio now, completely skipping over silver.