Gaming on 16:9 vs. 16:10

Kabob

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
2,130
For what I'm looking for 16:9 vs. 16:10 isn't that big of a deal, and considering the price difference I went with 16:9. I picked up the monitor yesterday, it's a hoss (yet light as a feather compared to the 21" CRT!). Getting used to having a WS monitor is going to be weird, my monitors have always been 4:3 since my first one in 1992...


(that's the old computer that barely has the horsepower to put the image up there!)
 

daveswantek

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
1,231
Looks right to me.
9 and 10 are the height of the image, but if you have a constant height then the width changes.

No; wrong fail. That is the point you do not have a constant height; Duh. 16 = 16 you know.

a 1080 screen just drops 120 rows of pixels, that is all there is to it; nothing more. the physical size varies depending on dot pitch only. Take a closer look at albovin's pics, there are black bars at the top and bottom of the NEC on the left. It is hard to see because of the black bezel. Those pixels are off and the resulting image is exactly the same as the 16 by 9 display on the right. Every pixel has the same orientation and value on both screens. You just got cheated out 1920 x 120 pixels period.

The OP decision says it all. "considering the price difference I went with 16:9".

Dave
 

limitedaccess

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
7,587
No; wrong fail. That is the point you do not have a constant height; Duh. 16 = 16 you know.

a 1080 screen just drops 120 rows of pixels, that is all there is to it; nothing more. the physical size varies depending on dot pitch only. Take a closer look at albovin's pics, there are black bars at the top and bottom of the NEC on the left. It is hard to see because of the black bezel. Those pixels are off and the resulting image is exactly the same as the 16 by 9 display on the right. Every pixel has the same orientation and value on both screens. You just got cheated out 1920 x 120 pixels period.

The OP decision says it all. "considering the price difference I went with 16:9".

Dave

This is bringing in resolution into the aspect ratio discussion. When comparing a 1920x1200 monitor to a 1920x1080 monitor you are really comparing the resolution, and the higher one is always superior in terms of resolution and screen area. A 1920x1200 monitor can display the same image as a 1920x1080 monitor if it drops down to that resolution (as it fits inside), but then it is displaying a 16:9 image still. SC 2 vertical FOV is fixed regardless of your resolution, and only the horizontal stretches to match it, it is a very strict fixed vert/hori+ game. And in reality most games are now moving in this direction. If this were not the case for instance how would 3x1 eyefinity work in landscape? You actually view more of the sides due to the aspect ratio being wider.

Also it is somewhat arbitrary to compare a 1920x1200 monitor directly to a 1920x1080 in the real world, if anything 1680x1050 monitors are actually closer in terms of price. You wouldn't say directly compare a 2560x1440 (16:9) monitor with a 1920x1200 either due to the price gap.
 
Last edited:

NCX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
6,224
Another one of these stupid threads.

The best gaming monitors on the market are all 16:9, this is fact. It's about the gaming performance (color presets, response time, backlight uniformity, contrast, refresh rate) not gaining an extra 120 pixels. If gaining a few more pixels is your priority you should start back at square one and do some research into performance.

IPS-Dell U2311H is the best IPS gaming monitor by far and it's 16:9
TN-Pretty much any TN released in the past year or so are better then the old 16:10 TN's.
VA-Eizo Foris FS2331 is 16:9, the only other good 16:10 panel recently released is the Eizo SX226W, which has 30ms of input lag which exlcudes it from gaming.
 

Cbshahji

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
1,951
i've seen lot of debates on all of them and honestly unless you are working for multi-million dollar company or doing some graphical work, 16:10 is just not worth the effort. yep users are picky and myself being front of the line(may be not but... what ya gonna do) i use my monitor for both office use and games and even though it's over 6 years old i never felt the need of upgrading it for either internet use or office use. yes i do have some trouble few times when i see the large images on here on their show off thread stickey and everywhere else but that's the only place i had to move the window side to side.

if i would get another monitor now i'm sure going for 16:10 not because i need it but because i'm lazy and tired specially coming home after long school day/hard day at work, less work i do is better.
 
Top