16x10 vs 16x9?

Mike89

Gawd
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
702
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.
 
Well I'd be happy to tell you all the reasons why; but if you'll bear with me while I don this flame retardant suit...
 
16x9 is cheaper to manufacture, and most of the 16x9resolutions adhere to HD broadcast and film standards. Generally 16x9 also gives a slightly wider field of view in gaming.

In a FEW games, 16x10 gives a taller field of view but this is not common at all.

Those who covet their desktop pixels prefer 16x10. Personally I can get by with a vertical resolution as low as 720, so the difference between 1080 and 1200 is really moot.

16x10 is being generally phased out. Soon enough , all 17" widescreen LCDs will be 1366x768 (replacing 1440x900), 19s will be 1600x900 (replacing 1680x1050), and 20-24s will be 1920x1080 (replacing 1920x1200).

I like both aspect ratios, but right now I use a 24" 16x9 and a 26" 720p 16x9.
 
16:10 was the old mainstream widescreen gaming res. 16:9 is (sadly) the new. That explains the older tests.

I'd assume that hardocp keeps testing in 16:10 because it has more pixels for equivalent displays (i.e., 24" 16:10 is 1920x1200 and 24" 16:9 is 1920x1080). Thus if you're running a 16:9 display you know that you'll get at least the performance they show. Whereas if they tested at 16:9 and you had a 16:10 you'd be left wondering if you're going to start texture thrashing or something else equally as fun due to your larger number of pixels.
 
From what I've read it seems at one time 16x10 monitors were more common than 16x9 but now that's reversed. Seems 16x10 is kind of an odd aspect ratio since it isn't a standard of any kind as 16x9 is. Wonder why Hardocp doesn't include them in reviews.
 
16:9 is (sadly) the new.

Why sadly? I would think the wider view would be more preferable and more media would be able to be played without being stretched?
 
(i.e., 24" 16:10 is 1920x1200 and 24" 16:9 is 1920x1080). Thus if you're running a 16:9 display you know that you'll get at least the performance they show. Whereas if they tested at 16:9 and you had a 16:10 you'd be left wondering if you're going to start texture thrashing or something else equally as fun due to your larger number of pixels.

Would it always work that way? 16x9 would be less pixels but rendering more of a scene (a couple of extra trees for example). Wouldn't that demand more of the vid card?
 
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.
The real-world performance difference is pretty negligible. You can always just assume that your performance will be somewhat better at 1920x1080 than at 1920x1200, but not what I'd call "markedly" better.

Would it always work that way? 16x9 would be less pixels but rendering more of a scene (a couple of extra trees for example). Wouldn't that demand more of the vid card?
In some cases games reduce the field of view from 16:10 for 16:9 as opposed to expanding it, so you'd have to look at it on a game-by-game basis.
 
16:10 sucks big time. End of the story. 16:9 is the future. 16:10 is for those who wants to stay in the past. Honestly Everything is better with 16:9!
 
24" 16x9 (1920x1080) monitors display a slightly bigger 1920x1080 image than that same image on a 24" 16x10 (1920x1200) monitor where the image is letter-boxed, but for many people, the extra vertical resolution is much preferable for general computing.

1080 is a step backward for people who have been used to 1200+ for over a decade.

For me, a wider aspect is desirable as the resolution increases, given a minimum vertical resolution. With the popularity of triple monitors, it makes sense that a single ultra-wide monitor would be ideal. People wouldn't complain about 16x9 and wider monitors that have 1600 vertical pixels, for example.
 
I just bought a new 16:10 (ZRW30), I almost almost jumped on a 16:9 but am very glad I didn't.

After living in 16:10 land 16:9 seems smaller and more limited, when I want larger and less limited, it just seems counterproductive.
 
16:10 is for those who wants to stay in the past.!

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.
 
Why sadly? I would think the wider view would be more preferable and more media would be able to be played without being stretched?

If you want the wider view (for games in which AR changes will give it to you) then set to output 1920x1080 pixel mapped and voilà, you've got the same as a 16:9 (well with a few black bars) except you can still run 1920x1200 for other games and get more vertical view without sacrificing horizontal or for when you're web-browsing or horror of horrors actually doing work :p
 
for many people, the extra vertical resolution is much preferable for general computing.

1080 is a step backward for people who have been used to 1200+ for over a decade.

For me, a wider aspect is desirable as the resolution increases, given a minimum vertical resolution. With the popularity of triple monitors, it makes sense that a single ultra-wide monitor would be ideal. People wouldn't complain about 16x9 and wider monitors that have 1600 vertical pixels, for example.

This! 5120x1600 anyone?

It's not that we're against width, we just want our height. You notice we're not arguing for a 1728x1080 display ;)
 
16:10 sucks big time. End of the story. 16:9 is the future. 16:10 is for those who wants to stay in the past. Honestly Everything is better with 16:9!

Nothing is better in 16:9.
 
I have 3 16:9 24" monitors at the moment.

So far, I really, really HATE 16:9

Probably going to be replacing these with a U3011 and basking in the 16:10 goodness very soon here.
 
i figured 16:10 is for gaming and those who want more desktop space.
then 16:9 is for htpc or watching widescreen video
 
16:10 sucks big time. End of the story. 16:9 is the future. 16:10 is for those who wants to stay in the past. Honestly Everything is better with 16:9!

Yeah, because with 16:10 you are given the option of having a 16:10 viewable area versus a 16:9 viewable area with hardly noticeable black bars on the top and bottom.

To have that option taken away is just so much better indeed...
 
It really simply a question of "value." Because of economies of scale, manufactures can offer 16:9 much cheaper then 16:10. (The LCD substrates can be shared with TVs in manufacturing being the same aspect ratio)

1920x1200 (16:10) is better then 1920x1080 (16:9), I mean 1920x1080 fits inside of 1920x1200, so you in fact get both resolutions. I guess if you really hate black bars when watching videos (partly compounded by terrible black levels on your monitor and static contrast) then 1920x1080 might be better.

However for the vast majority of people 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080 is not a decision breaker worth paying a very high price premium for, or sacrificing in the other aspects of there display. I'd rather take better contrast, faster response, better blacks, and a substantial price savings over 120 vertical resolution for instance.
 
What constitutes a "big display"?
Probably should have worded it differently. What I meant was, 24" is a big display compared to say 17" and yet you gain only very little vertical space over it if you go 16:9.

I'm just not at all convinced 16:9 is the optimal aspect ratio for computer usage.
 
Probably should have worded it differently. What I meant was, 24" is a big display compared to say 17" and yet you gain only very little vertical space over it if you go 16:9.

I'm just not at all convinced 16:9 is the optimal aspect ratio for computer usage.

Personally I kinda liked 4:3

1920x1440 anyone?
 
As I understand it, 16:10 was the standard widescreen monitor aspect ratio before LCD HDTV's became really common (which are all 16:9), at which point there were greater economies of scale involved in using the same LCD panels for monitors and TV's.

As I understand it, lower end monitors which are more likely to share LCD panels with HDTV's are more likely to be 16:9, whereas high end displays, like the recently launhed DELL u3011 I am considering getting are still 16:10.

There really isn't a huge difference between them.

My 24" widescreen is16:10 and has the resolution of 1920x1200. If it were a 16:9 monitor it would be 1920x1080.

I can still watch 1080p content without any scaling artifacts on my screen, I just have 10 pixel tall black bars on the top and bottom of the screen. No big deal.

I tend to prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio, but thats probably just because I'm used to it.
 
widescreen is annoying when web browsing and reading PDFs and other things that were all designed for narrow screens. Many websites don't scale well and just have massive blank space when viewed on widescreen.

I don't have a specific preference in aspect ratio, but rather number of pixels. I'd rather have a 1920x1200 display than a 1920x1080 display, because it's a 10% reduction in number of pixels. I can always black-bar the extra 120 pixels on a 1200 vertical res screen, but I can't magically make 120 pixels appear on a 1080 vertical res screen.
 
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.
 
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.

With one click of a button, I can turn my 16:10 LCD into a 16:9 LCD. The reverse isn't possible. Mama always said it's better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it.
 
With one click of a button, I can turn my 16:10 LCD into a 16:9 LCD. The reverse isn't possible. Mama always said it's better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it.

Well, never trust a woman when it comes to electronics! :)
 
Aren't most hd movies wider than 16:9 so you still end up with omg teh black barz!11 anyway?
 
I was just discussing this elsewhere. I'm not sure my 16:10 1920x1200 may be acting up, so was looking at what displays are out that, and it looks like even if I wanted to stay with 16:10, it's hard to find a good one, nothing jumped out at me on newegg or amazon. So I'm resigned to having to get a 16:9 if I were to get a new one, but I'll miss that extra space.
 
Zarathustra[H];1036229384 said:
I never knew of that resolution.

Not sure anyone made it, but I'd like it.

That said I do have a CRT at work that can output 1800x1440. Only reason I keep it around. 5:4 anyone? :D
 
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.

now i really like my 16x9 monitor, but there's alot more to it than that for why people prefer 16x10. 16x10 is a better overall office/business ratio, no argument there. 16x10 means less scrolling up and down.

i stll enjoy 16x9 for gaming though.
 
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.
 
The only reason why you prefer 16:10 over 16:9 is because you are very conservative.

Or maybe because you're a programmer and you like the extra vertical space for more lines of code on the screen. For the record though, I can live with either aspect ratio on my PC, but right now my current monitor is 16:10, but I'm in desperate need of a replacement, and it might end up being a 16:9 monitor.
 
Not sure anyone made it, but I'd like it.

That said I do have a CRT at work that can output 1800x1440. Only reason I keep it around. 5:4 anyone? :D

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.
 
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.

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.
 
People watch movies on their computers? Isn't that what the 55" LCD on the wall is for?

;)

16:10 ftw, visual studio, gaming, web browsing is markedly worse at 16:9
 
I have 3 16:9 24" monitors at the moment.

So far, I really, really HATE 16:9

Probably going to be replacing these with a U3011 and basking in the 16:10 goodness very soon here.

Same.

I had a 30" and the three 16:9 monitors I have now look skinny. Three 24" Dell U2410s would have been a better alternative to the 30". The 16:10 is more of a square which is more visually appealing to me than the skinny looking 16:9 monitor. A 22" 16:10 looks larger than a 23" 16:9. I'll deal with these for a while until I can get another 30" or three U2410s under 1K.
 
The problem with 16:9 aspect ratio is that the monitors are *shorter* than their 16:10 counterparts, instead of being *wider*. People prefer more pixels, higher resolutions, not less/smaller.

I will gladly take a 2134x1200 monitor over 1920x1200.
 
Back
Top