Gaming on 16:9 vs. 16:10

K

Kabob

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
2,130
Question, I'm looking at picking up a new monitor when I upgrade my computer (I've got a 21" CRT that is about to break my desk in half with it's girth). Traditionally what is more universally accepted, 16:9 or 16:10? I figure it'd be the later but I see alot of "1080p native" monitors. Do most games have settings for both?

Thanks!
 
I think it's a matter of personal preference. The monitor I have now is 1680x1050 (16:10), and while it does offer more pixel real estate I feel that gaming on a 16:9 feels much more natural to my eyes' FOV.

May also depend on how far you sit from your monitor as well.
 
16:10 will give you more pixels in desktop use which means you will have more height. However when gaming, it doesn't necessarily mean so. It depends on the aspect ratio of the game. If a game is designed to be HOR+ (16:9), then you will actually see more when using a 16:9 monitor than when using a 16:10 monitor.

16:10 - Great for desktop use and for games designed specifically for 16:10
16:9 - Good for desktop use and for games designed specifically for 16:9
 
Haiku214 said:
However when gaming, it doesn't necessarily mean so. It depends on the aspect ratio of the game. If a game is designed to be HOR+ (16:9), then you will actually see more when using a 16:9 monitor than when using a 16:10 monitor.

16:10 - Great for desktop use and for games designed specifically for 16:10
16:9 - Good for desktop use and for games designed specifically for 16:9
Click to expand...

Adding to that i would GUESS that majority of games are designed for 16:9 as most of them are also on gaming console and all the tv's are 16:9. (there might be one or two i don't know about or in international market with 16:10 TVs)
 
Despite the HOR+ issue in games I would pick 16:10 every time due to the extra real estate, which is why I have a U3011 (16:10) instead of a U2711 (16:9).

The trend lately has been that monitors have been getting wider and shorter. That is okay for games/movies sucks for most other uses, especially business related ones.
 
I got a 23" 16:9 and a 24" 16:10 monitor sitting side by side here in front of me. For the life of me I dont get why you have so many die hard adamant fans of 16:10. It's honestly not that big of a difference. You could replace my 24 with a 23 and I wouldnt miss it one bit.
 
DemonDiablo said:
I got a 23" 16:9 and a 24" 16:10 monitor sitting side by side here in front of me. For the life of me I dont get why you have so many die hard adamant fans of 16:10. It's honestly not that big of a difference. You could replace my 24 with a 23 and I wouldnt miss it one bit.
Click to expand...

While the impact on gaming may not be that significant the extra real estate granted by 16:10 makes a huge difference in a work environment, as most applications work vertically vs horizontally.
 
Thanks for the replies!

It seems that 16:9's tend to be a good bit cheaper as well, I found one of these locally for around $100 like new so I'm thinking I may go that route.
 
DemonDiablo said:
I got a 23" 16:9 and a 24" 16:10 monitor sitting side by side here in front of me. For the life of me I dont get why you have so many die hard adamant fans of 16:10. It's honestly not that big of a difference. You could replace my 24 with a 23 and I wouldnt miss it one bit.
Click to expand...

That goes both ways. If you ever start developing software or doing CAD and graphics then you will probubly sing a different tune. As mentioned above it is really a matter of personal preference. Those preferences usually are based on what you actually do with your computer.

I do not mind 16 by 9 as long as it is a larger size and resolution. Replacing a 24 inch 1920 by 1200 with 27 inch 2560 by 1440 makes sense to me, but dropping to a 23 inch 1920 by 1080 does not.

For many of us it is not about aspect ration, it is about the total number of pixels, because this determins how much stuff you can cram onto the screen.

Dave
 
Either resoultion doesn't make you a better gamer.
Pick the monitor "you" like the most.

You can't go wrong with any resoultion at 1080p and above.
As for screen size, 24" or larger is the way to go.
 
For most games 16:9 is going to work great. If your getting an inexpensive 16:9 monitor might as well get a 120hz one, IMHO.

OTOH I feel for some games like say World of Warcraft you REALLY want the extra pixels. In that case I'd get a 30 inch one like HP monitor.. It totally pays off when your setting your UI up. You just have alot more screen real estate to work with.

Monitor companies REALLY need to break away from that 1080p is the greatest mindset. I have heard Rumours that apple's next friggin IPAD is going to have better then 1080p resolution. I want my desktop monitor to be much better then that toy..

The holy grail for me is tons of pixels on a 120hz monitor. I'd take 16:9 or 16:10. Graphics cards have caught up with monitor sizes and it seems pretty trivial to push alot of pixels. It's the monitor companies that are dropping the ball.
 
You could go with the 16:9 Dell SP2309W which is 2048x1152 resolution and gives you the best of both worlds.
 
kabob983 said:
Question, I'm looking at picking up a new monitor when I upgrade my computer (I've got a 21" CRT that is about to break my desk in half with it's girth). Traditionally what is more universally accepted, 16:9 or 16:10? I figure it'd be the later but I see alot of "1080p native" monitors. Do most games have settings for both?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

1920x1200 (16:10) is more universal. It gives you more functionality, flexibility than 1920x1080 (16:9).
1920x1080 (16:9) is an entry level of "1080p" or "full HD". They are cheaper and thus "more popular".
1920x1200 (16:10) (and higher) are also "1080p" and "full HD".
You cannot see "less" on 1920x1200. You'll see the same or more.

18975978.jpg


75587384.jpg


Also see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DJ6VMcQle4
 
GuyClinch said:
For most games 16:9 is going to work great. If your getting an inexpensive 16:9 monitor might as well get a 120hz one, IMHO.

OTOH I feel for some games like say World of Warcraft you REALLY want the extra pixels. In that case I'd get a 30 inch one like HP monitor.. It totally pays off when your setting your UI up. You just have alot more screen real estate to work with.

Monitor companies REALLY need to break away from that 1080p is the greatest mindset. I have heard Rumours that apple's next friggin IPAD is going to have better then 1080p resolution. I want my desktop monitor to be much better then that toy..

The holy grail for me is tons of pixels on a 120hz monitor. I'd take 16:9 or 16:10. Graphics cards have caught up with monitor sizes and it seems pretty trivial to push alot of pixels. It's the monitor companies that are dropping the ball.
Click to expand...

Exactly; this covers it completely.
 
albovin said:
You cannot see "less" on 1920x1200. You'll see the same or more.
Click to expand...
Actually.. A 16:9 image can certainly show more than 16:10. By taking a scene, compressing the top/bottom 10% to shave off 120 pixels, then expanding the FOV on the sides, they give more viewable game world. The image is less detailed, but hey, more viewable area! :rolleyes:

I don't have any issue with 16:9. I definitely have issue with forcing me to go from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. If they had kept the same pixel height while simply widening the panel to what, 2112x1200 or whatever, I'd be happy with it and listen to Rush a lot more. As it is now I'm stuck with my old Sager laptop because there's so few 1920x1200 laptops anymore and they are all kinda sucky or stupid expensive. Tempted to get another MacBook Pro 17 before they gimp that one.
 
sc2_fov36k6.gif


It's been discussed before, but with most games these days, the 16:9 ratio lets you see more because of the Hor+ scaling, like the in above Starcraft 2 example. However, I still prefer a 16:10 monitor as it's better for all purpose use. You can of course set your game (if it uses Hor+) to be in 16:9 ratio on a 16:10 monitor, which gives you the best of both worlds.
 
Last edited:
Comparison Between 1200p and 1080p in 2 types of game.
(This will also work when ever comparing 2 resolution with the same width and differing heights) [i.e. 1280x800 and 1280x720 or 2560x1600 and 2560x1440]

Hor+ Game:

16:10 = Crisper Image than 16:9
16:9 = Wider Image (more FOV)

Vert- Game:

16:10 = More Vertical FOV
16:9 = Less Vertical FOV

I prefer 16:10 generally. The extra height is more useful.
 
Last edited:
Amazing!
Some people keep confusing 16/10/9 IMAGES with 16/10/9 MONITORS!

It's funny and awful at the same time.
 
albovin said:
Amazing!
Some people keep confusing 16/10/9 IMAGES with 16/10/9 MONITORS!

It's funny and awful at the same time.
Click to expand...

It's kinda sad too, because these guys are falling for the manufactures BS and getting stroked in the process.
 
16:9 vs. 16:10 is not much of a gaming issue IMO but more a productivity one (Office, coding, etc...).
 
It´s a gaming issue as well for us that need good depth... It´s not just information to the side that is nice but simulators where you want to trck instruments or just want to see as far ahead as possible. Of course you can compensate by TrackIR but then you need support for it as well.

Optimum for me would be something like 16:11 for games. But yes it´s not a big issue
 
darklight_tr said:


I've seen that review, and that GIF (sorry for the repeat) is extremely misleading, as the 16:9 resolution is 1920 x 1200 and the 16:10 resolution is 1680 x 1050. No wonder the FOV is better on the 16:9 picture, they gimped the 16:10 resolution!
Click to expand...

You don't know how FOV works do you? In a game like SC2 (Hor+) you will have more FOV on 1280x720 then on 2560x1600. It deals with aspect ratio, not resolution. The GIF is there only a demonstration of FOV, not resolution.

I guess it's misleading because we keep say "See More." You'll see more FOV in 16:9 but not necessarily more detail.

Here's a Good read.
Widescreen FAQ

EDIT: Also 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 are both 16:10.

EDIT 2: This is a Detailed Report on how dragon age acts in different aspect ratios, take a look. Dragon Age DR
 
Last edited:
@suiken_2mieu

I got it; I put my brain in backwards this morning. I don't know what the heck I was thinking. I KNEW what you just told me, but was too busy flying off the handle to care. Thanks for bringing me back to earth.
 
darklight_tr said:
@suiken_2mieu

I got it; I put my brain in backwards this morning. I don't know what the heck I was thinking. I KNEW what you just told me, but was too busy flying off the handle to care. Thanks for bringing me back to earth.
Click to expand...

Sorry the insane download of info haha. Widescreen gaming is my thing ahaha.
 
suiken_2mieu said:
Widescreen gaming is my thing ahaha.
Click to expand...

Me too. I was just going about my usual foaming at the mouth regarding 16:9, as I am getting tired of manufacturers pushing 1080P as if it is the only resolution that exists/there is no reason to release anything higher. This led me to my irrationally wrong conclusion that I stated above since I have seen 16:10, my preferred aspect ratio, pushed almost completely out of the market. This has also been a pain at work as many 16:9 monitors offer less vertical resolution than previous generation non-widescreen displays, which is less than ideal.

16:9 and 16:10 both have their merits. 2560x1600 gaming on a 30" display is just awesome.

Thank again for correcting me!
 
bearbear said:
sc2_fov36k6.gif


It's been discussed before, but with most games these days, the 16:9 ratio lets you see more because of the Hor+ scaling, like the in above Starcraft 2 example. However, I still prefer a 16:10 monitor as it's better for all purpose use. You can of course set your game (if it uses Hor+) to be in 16:9 ratio on a 16:10 monitor, which gives you the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

There is something wrong with this animation. Can you tell us what it is?

Hint; 9 and 10 is the difference in what?
 
darklight_tr said:
Me too. I was just going about my usual foaming at the mouth regarding 16:9, as I am getting tired of manufacturers pushing 1080P as if it is the only resolution that exists/there is no reason to release anything higher. This led me to my irrationally wrong conclusion that I stated above since I have seen 16:10, my preferred aspect ratio, pushed almost completely out of the market. This has also been a pain at work as many 16:9 monitors offer less vertical resolution than previous generation non-widescreen displays, which is less than ideal.

16:9 and 16:10 both have their merits. 2560x1600 gaming on a 30" display is just awesome.

Thank again for correcting me!
Click to expand...

I tell you there's nothing like having a vertical resolution of 2560 though. Put 3 30"rs side by side in portrait, and you can see for days. Or you can do the panorama and near encompassing effect of them in landscape.

daveswantek said:
There is something wrong with this animation. Can you tell us what it is?

Hint; 9 and 10 is the difference in what?
Click to expand...

So what? It moves to the left a bit.
 
so i loved my 16:10 and was set on keeping 16:10, it died prematurely and a 16:9 was on sale and 4" larger than a 16:10 at the same price. my eyes got completely used to the 16:9 ratio within a day, and movies, tv shows, etc are bigger.

so at a price point youll get a bigger desktop for a cheaper price with 16x9
not more pixels, but bigger and cheaper.
 
I was going over the same debate a couple years ago. I went with 1200p and really like that decision - 1080p does show more image in games with horizontal locked FOV (not sure if that's the technical term), but 1200p I find is a more pleasing aspect ratio for general tasks. Also, I upgraded to a triple-monitor setup recently and I think if I had 1080p monitors I'd feel like the view would be too wide and not tall enough, because 1200p feels just right for the height of the screens.

Just my two cents. I'm not a hardcore gamer enough to worry about the competitive edge of the increased view in certain games, and I like the extra pixels both for a crisper image and more space for non-gaming stuff like web browsing and video (I actually prefer the black bars on widescreen content - I guess it was being raised in front of a 4:3 TV).
 
Åndhrimnir;1036732998 said:
I was going over the same debate a couple years ago. I went with 1200p and really like that decision - 1080p does show more image in games with horizontal locked FOV (not sure if that's the technical term)
Click to expand...

Again?

18975978.jpg



Same FOV on both monitors.

Reaction?
"1080p does show more image".:eek:

It has been shown 100 times: same FOV in Hor+ games on both monitors.

Reaction?
"1080p does show more image".:eek:


Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig smile.:)

Guys, enjoy whatever you enjoy. LOL
 
daveswantek said:
There is something wrong with this animation. Can you tell us what it is?

Hint; 9 and 10 is the difference in what?
Click to expand...

Looks right to me.
9 and 10 are the height of the image, but if you have a constant height then the width changes.
 
oqvist said:
Optimum for me would be something like 16:11 for games. But yes it´s not a big issue
Click to expand...
I hope that someday they will invent 16:12 monitors! That's the FUTURE!!!



lol :p

Seriously though, 16:9 dominates, its what most games and media are going to be designed for in the near future. If you have a 16:10, the difference is minimal. If you're buying new, just get a 16:9 and enjoy riding on the bandwagon.
 
Ducman69 said:
I hope that someday they will invent 16:12 monitors! That's the FUTURE!!!



lol :p

Seriously though, 16:9 dominates, its what most games are going to be designed for in the near future. If you have a 16:10, the difference is minimal. If you're buying new, just get a 16:9 and enjoy riding on the bandwagon.
Click to expand...

You know, I used to game on a 16:12 back in the day. I think they were ahead of their time. lol
 
Despite what anyone wants you to believe, optimal aspect ratio is simply dependent on upon the content and usage.

I will say this though, multimedia and games tends to be moving towards wider and the 16:9 ratio, with fixed vert and +hor.

Please note that when discussing this you have to separate the idea of aspect ratio and resolution. For instance -
18975978.jpg


The 1920x1200 monitor is actually running in 1920x1080 with fixed aspect scaling. This basically shows that a 1920x1200 monitor is superior to a 1920x1080 in terms of resolution, as obviously 1920x1080 fits perfectly inside 1920x1200. However in practice the issue with this is you cannot find a x1080 and x1200 comparable in all other characteristics with only a proportionate increase in cost (due to resolution/screen area).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top