Lack of 16:10 options is DEPRESSING

BenWah

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
80
It seems like 16:10 monitors haven't been updated for years.
There are so few options.
None with 120hz or other common options.

16:10 is having a resurgence on laptops now, but nothing for desktops.
Is there really no hope for us?
 

criccio

Fully Equipped
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
13,107
You're stuck in the past if you think they'll be coming back. There is no reason for manufacturers to produce in that aspect ratio outside of niche professional level displays.
 

Commander Shepard

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
4,709
Dell brought back 16:10 for their 2020 XPS laptop displays. They look great, but we won't see mainstream use of 16:10, again.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,746
Dell has also just released several 16:10 displays for their professional line (Ultrasharp). Including a new 24" 1920x1200 and a 32" 4k MicroLED with 2000 zones. But if you're looking for gaming displays, you're going to be eternally DEPRESSED. Considering all games are basically formatted for 16:9, you want things that in the consumer space aren't designed together.
 
Last edited:

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,537
Ya I just bought a new Dell XPS 17" with 16:10 3840x2400.
 

xykreilon

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
93
I don't fuss much over aspect ratios. I use a 4:3 monitor as my primary and have no issue shifting over to my laptop's 16:9 display. My primary display was a 16:10 2009 LCD for years up until this summer. My childhood laptops both had 16:10 displays. Yet, I don't particularly prefer them.

I'm very picky about my displays (very very few modern displays can match the motion clarity of CRTs, and the ones that at least get close are either very expensive OLED TVs with immense input latency or moderately expensive LCD monitors with poor black levels. So, my primary display is still a G90f), but aspect ratio variance has never really been a concern of mine. Part of that might be that I can easily change the GUI of my DE and Pale Moon for different ratios, whereas most people are stuck with the more static Windows/Mac and Chrome/Firefox browsers. I use vertical tree tabs, which gives saves a lot of vertical screen space, something that is of course lacking on a 16:9 display when compared to 4:3 or 16:10 displays with equivalent screen areas.
I also am not bothered by letterboxing in videos. I can use the extra space for bias lighting right in the screen (mpv extensions are awesome).
 
Last edited:

fist003

n00b
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
22
yeah, really miss using a 16:10 monitors. annoying have to scroll down just to see that last bit
 

xykreilon

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
93
Cue Tom Hanks "what year is it?"

Like... seriously?
370694__1680236.jpg

:^)
 

xykreilon

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
93
That's inaccurate. $1400 oled from LG has 10ms input latency. That's not high. I can agree it is expensive but relative to other gaming displays it's not.
Do you have examples? 10ms is close to ten times the latency of most modern mid range to high end gaming displays I've seen.
mpv-shot0329.jpg

Even if your examples are that low and you just don't think 10ms is all that big a difference, it is for me. I play rhythm games where every little bit can help. My laptop's display has about 13-15ms, yet transitioning to the 0 of my CRT is still a big jump for what I do.
Regardless, 10ms is top-tier for a TV.
 
Last edited:

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
9,777
I really feel that the only reason 16:10 existed at all is because it made for an easier transition for someone coming from a 4:3 monitor. 16:10 was something of an intermediate step, with a typical 1920x1200 display being able to accommodate programs designed for 1600x1200 much more easily than a 1080p monitor. Also, for some, 16:9 just seemed a bit too wide at first.
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
861
the closest thing to 16:10 are the ultrawide 24:10 37.5" (38") displays. perfect aspect ratio, imho, even better than 16:10. Doesn't feel squashed at all, like the shitty 16:9 do, just perfect.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,958
Just turn a 1080p vertical and its better for word docs lol bout all you can do or get an asus proart display or whatever they are called now
 

xykreilon

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
93
Trust me there's no point getting into it with a guy who thinks display technology stopped improving 30 years ago.
I don't think that at all. I just think mistakes were made in deprecation of specific types (darn you Applied Nanotech Inc. and your bogus patents).
No CRT has a color gamut remotely in the league of modern premium displays, and of course resolution is an issue as well. The 4k IPS display on my laptop with 155% RGB runs circles around 101% RGB of my ViewSonic in terms of color fidelity. The 1808x1356 max res of the ViewSonic is nothing compared to 3840x2160, and it very much shows in photos and videos. However, these advantages have nothing to do with my laptop's screen being an LCD panel and everything to do with it just simply being over 18 years newer. It took a decent amount of time for LCDs to match CRTs in terms of colors, let alone surpass so greatly. If SED displays weren't killed off by stupid patents, the modern display market would be vastly different (and better) than it is today.

That said, there is still no modern display that can, all at the same time:
- Display perfect blacks
- Have motion clarity as good as CRTs
- Have response times at or below 1ms

Until that happens, for me, there will still be a practical place for CRTs. We have been getting much much closer since 2019. Still, it'll likely be awhile before I can have a nice sub 30" display that can do all of the above sitting on my desk.
 

criccio

Fully Equipped
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
13,107
That said, there is still no modern display that can, all at the same time:
- Display perfect blacks
- Have motion clarity as good as CRTs
- Have response times at or below 1ms

I think what's happened is most people just don't care enough anymore since what we have now looks so good. You could give me the most expensive CRT for desktop use ever made and it'll sit powered off next to my 3440x1440 ultrawide. They're dinosaurs.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,171
Do you have examples? 10ms is close to ten times the latency of most modern mid range to high end gaming displays I've seen.
View attachment 286533
Even if your examples are that low and you just don't think 10ms is all that big a difference, it is for me. I play rhythm games where every little bit can help. My laptop's display has about 13-15ms, yet transitioning to the 0 of my CRT is still a big jump for what I do.
Regardless, 10ms is top-tier for a TV.

The chart you're showing is additional time over CRT delay (which is not 0), the 10 ms for the LG OLEDs is total time.
 

xykreilon

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
93
The chart you're showing is additional time over CRT delay (which is not 0), the 10 ms for the LG OLEDs is total time.
Huh? That's just.... wrong. CRTs do have 0- they're analog. Those gaming monitors all have less than 1 as well. I'm not sure what's leading you to think the numbers represent the relative difference from a CRT and not the literal response times of each monitor.
 

aeliusg

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
771
CRTs do have on the order of nanoseconds of processing lag, because they don't really do any processing. That's not to say that the signal is going from your PC to the screen at that speed - that's still limited by the refresh rate and display timings. Which is I think where people get the whole CRTs have lag too thing. So yeah a CRT at 60 hz has more "lag" than a TN 240 hz LCD because the latter is pumping out four frames to the CRT's 1.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,171
Huh? That's just.... wrong. CRTs do have 0- they're analog. Those gaming monitors all have less than 1 as well. I'm not sure what's leading you to think the numbers represent the relative difference from a CRT and not the literal response times of each monitor.

You're comparing different things. If you measure a "lagless" 120hz CRT the same way it would be 8 ms.
 

aeliusg

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
771
AFAIK the RTings input lag numbers are accurate: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/cx-oled#page-test-results They use a custom board with a photodiode and synced output so they can capture the average lag on all parts of the screen. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag The number comes to around 10 ms for 4K120. You can see that it is 13 ms for 1080p60, where if you were to look at the total lag it would have to be higher than 16.7 ms. Eminently playable still for 99.9% of games. Those numbers for the gaming monitors are pretty low. Is that from a video xykrelion?

Edit: You can see for the X940E at 120 Hz they take the average display lag (timestamp 1:29).
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/sony/x940e#page-test-results 1080p120 lag is 14 ms. So the average display lag - half the frame time is the processing lag + transition time (not G2G). Considering the LG OLED has effectively a zero pixel transition time it's safe to say the processing lag is actually around 6 ms total (10 display - 4 half frame time).
 
Last edited:

xykreilon

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
93
You're comparing different things. If you measure a "lagless" 120hz CRT the same way it would be 8 ms.
CRTs do have on the order of nanoseconds of processing lag, because they don't really do any processing. That's not to say that the signal is going from your PC to the screen at that speed - that's still limited by the refresh rate and display timings. Which is I think where people get the whole CRTs have lag too thing. So yeah a CRT at 60 hz has more "lag" than a TN 240 hz LCD because the latter is pumping out four frames to the CRT's 1.
Ahhh, now I think I see what's going on.
The chart I posted compares how long the displays respond to a keypress sent to a custom game running at 1000fps. I think sharknice is thinking of tests where the fps is capped at the monitor's refresh rate.
Does that clear things up?
 

aeliusg

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
771
I prefer the way TFTCentral breaks down lag. The RTings times are actually confusing since they are relative. So yeah the lag for the CX is actually only 6 ms which is not bad at all (pic unrelated).
1602180907867.png
 

xykreilon

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
93
I prefer the way TFTCentral breaks down lag. The RTings times are actually confusing since they are relative. So yeah the lag for the CX is actually only 6 ms which is not bad at all (pic unrelated).
View attachment 286755
6ms is certainly beyond excellent for a TV. We definitely live in the golden age of couch gaming (though, I could be cheeky and try to say CRT projectors are top tier. But, c'mon, how many people just have a home theater? It's just kind of apples to oranges, TVs to projectors).
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
377
I really feel that the only reason 16:10 existed at all is because it made for an easier transition for someone coming from a 4:3 monitor. 16:10 was something of an intermediate step, with a typical 1920x1200 display being able to accommodate programs designed for 1600x1200 much more easily than a 1080p monitor. Also, for some, 16:9 just seemed a bit too wide at first.
I disagree - the industry wanted 16:9 for media consumption and mass production - which worked b/c so many just used monitors / TVs to watch content, not do work. But the problem with 16:9 is the lack of vertical real estate - which is valuable for those of us who work in text / spreadsheets. The industry's response was to try to force people into larger monitors - but those of us who use 16:10 really hate going to 16:9 because retaining vertical work space incurs a significant upgrade/ cost.

Take for instance my HP ZR24W - a fantastic 24 inch IPS display. I've got about 16" of vertical screen space -- whereas the typical 16:9 only has 14. May not seem like much, but it matters when reading / writing. To get a larger monitor that retains the vertical space I like, I need to go up to a 32 - which at 16:9 will give me 18 inches vertical (27 inch monitors only give 15). But the cost of a good 32 (which, IMO justifies also grabbing 4k) is astronomical.

This is one of those cases where the industry looked at where they money went, and it was casuals that drove it, rather than people who appreciate a proper workspace and knew what that meant.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,765
LCDs have a lot of lag, but given the right source it's not unbearable. My samsung TV is decidedly not a gaming monitor, and when I hook up low res consoles to it the lag is unbearable. But if you use a native resolution and get the scaler out of the way, it's much closer to 0.

For example, if I hook my NES or Wii directly to the composite input, it takes close to a second after making some user input to see motion on the display. That's bad. But if I scale it up and convert it to hdmi first with an external scaler (and not one of those cheap chinese composite/component->hdmi boxes), the lag is almost nonexistant– I don't think I could measure it with my eyes.

tl;dr, get a 5:4 display. They're pretty awesome.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,171
I disagree - the industry wanted 16:9 for media consumption and mass production - which worked b/c so many just used monitors / TVs to watch content, not do work. But the problem with 16:9 is the lack of vertical real estate - which is valuable for those of us who work in text / spreadsheets. The industry's response was to try to force people into larger monitors - but those of us who use 16:10 really hate going to 16:9 because retaining vertical work space incurs a significant upgrade/ cost.

Take for instance my HP ZR24W - a fantastic 24 inch IPS display. I've got about 16" of vertical screen space -- whereas the typical 16:9 only has 14. May not seem like much, but it matters when reading / writing. To get a larger monitor that retains the vertical space I like, I need to go up to a 32 - which at 16:9 will give me 18 inches vertical (27 inch monitors only give 15). But the cost of a good 32 (which, IMO justifies also grabbing 4k) is astronomical.

This is one of those cases where the industry looked at where they money went, and it was casuals that drove it, rather than people who appreciate a proper workspace and knew what that meant.
istockphoto-465147712-1024x1024.jpg


you're welcome
 

xykreilon

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
93
I disagree - the industry wanted 16:9 for media consumption and mass production - which worked b/c so many just used monitors / TVs to watch content, not do work. But the problem with 16:9 is the lack of vertical real estate - which is valuable for those of us who work in text / spreadsheets. The industry's response was to try to force people into larger monitors - but those of us who use 16:10 really hate going to 16:9 because retaining vertical work space incurs a significant upgrade/ cost.

Take for instance my HP ZR24W - a fantastic 24 inch IPS display. I've got about 16" of vertical screen space -- whereas the typical 16:9 only has 14. May not seem like much, but it matters when reading / writing. To get a larger monitor that retains the vertical space I like, I need to go up to a 32 - which at 16:9 will give me 18 inches vertical (27 inch monitors only give 15). But the cost of a good 32 (which, IMO justifies also grabbing 4k) is astronomical.

This is one of those cases where the industry looked at where they money went, and it was casuals that drove it, rather than people who appreciate a proper workspace and knew what that meant.
I agree the casual market is largely what killed off 16:10, and that 16:10 is generally more handy if you don't want to spend extra desk space and/or money for a 16:9 display with enough vertical real estate. But, what you said here doesn't really define why you disagree. GotNoRice asserted the notion that 16:10 was a compromise for those used to 4:3, not that 16:10 was a compromise in general. So, given your stance that vertical screen space is valuable for power users, did casual users drive the transition from 4:3 to 16:10 even before 16:9? Or is there more to it?
 

xykreilon

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
93
LCDs have a lot of lag, but given the right source it's not unbearable. My samsung TV is decidedly not a gaming monitor, and when I hook up low res consoles to it the lag is unbearable. But if you use a native resolution and get the scaler out of the way, it's much closer to 0.

For example, if I hook my NES or Wii directly to the composite input, it takes close to a second after making some user input to see motion on the display. That's bad. But if I scale it up and convert it to hdmi first with an external scaler (and not one of those cheap chinese composite/component->hdmi boxes), the lag is almost nonexistant– I don't think I could measure it with my eyes.

tl;dr, get a 5:4 display. They're pretty awesome.
No offense, but you probably don't notice just because you play games that don't have their experiences hampered that much by lag (which is most games, really). I'm fairly certain no Samsung LCD TV has input lag under 30ms, and that's being rather generous.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,885
It seems like 16:10 monitors haven't been updated for years.
There are so few options.
None with 120hz or other common options.

16:10 is having a resurgence on laptops now, but nothing for desktops.
Is there really no hope for us?

I agree with you that 16:10 is the best aspect ration by far for productivity. 16:9 comes nowhere near it.

That said, since 16:9 panels are mass produced for TV and consumer monitor purposes, and its cheaper to produce things in volume, 16:10 panels simply won't be able to be price competitive, thus very few manufacturers are even bothering to make them, as they don't think they will sell enough of them (and they are probably right).

It's disappointing, but with a few notable exceptions, 16:10 is pretty much dead and has been for almost 10 years.

Just get a huge honkin 43" 4K. The productivity disadvantages of 16:9 are less noticeable on very large high resolution screens.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,171
Uh...

Do you not have multiple windows open side by side?

That is a crutch, not a solution = creates other problems

Do you have an actual real world example of where 16:10 is superior to 16:9? Like a screenshot and explanation?

It seems like a purely subjective opinion that 16:10 is superior. The only arguments I've heard are "you have more vertical space" and you can use that same logic to show that 9:16 is superior to 16:10.
 

DarkSideA8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
377
I agree the casual market is largely what killed off 16:10, and that 16:10 is generally more handy if you don't want to spend extra desk space and/or money for a 16:9 display with enough vertical real estate. But, what you said here doesn't really define why you disagree. GotNoRice asserted the notion that 16:10 was a compromise for those used to 4:3, not that 16:10 was a compromise in general. So, given your stance that vertical screen space is valuable for power users, did casual users drive the transition from 4:3 to 16:10 even before 16:9? Or is there more to it?

There is, of course, more to it. I left a bunch unsaid / implied for the sake of brevity. My disagreement was toward the notion that 16:10 was a compromise / transitional size designed to aid 4:3 CRT users in moving to flat panels. 16:10 was actually preferred by people who worked in web design, and generally worked on their computers - but for gamers and videophiles, the 'black lines' were a complaint. The industry originally made 16:9 panels for film viewing and casual users, and 16:10, while wanted by computer (work) users, went away because industry wanted to save money and have the panels made the same as they were for TVs.

But people are pushing back against the ubiquitous 16:9, lately. Especially in laptops with (relatively) small screens.

"...​
Back in the day (until around 2003), every PC display was produced in the almost-square 4:3 aspect ratio. Not coincidentally, that’s the same aspect ratio of old-school TVs. At the time, when multitasking wasn’t really a thing and nobody watched video on their PCs, 4:3 was a perfectly acceptable ratio.​
Things changed, though, as users began to multitask by placing windows side-by-side — hence, the 16:10 aspect ratio was introduced to create a wider display that was more conducive to multiple windows. A number of PC makers (most notably, Apple) adopted the new ratio, at least initially. However, a funny thing happened — TVs started transitioning to 16:9, a wider aspect ratio that’s not as tall as 16:10 and has become the standard ever since (in spite of the fact that theatrical films are released in 21:9). PC makers followed.​
 

criccio

Fully Equipped
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
13,107
Uh...

Do you not have multiple windows open side by side?

That is a crutch, not a solution = creates other problems
A crutch? A crutch for what? Its an option.

Hard disagree. I've now got a vertical secondary or tertiary monitor at work and at home and I can't live without them. Works really well for Outlook at work and stacking Discord/Steam friends/Afterburner logs at home without having to turn my head further away from my main display which is already an ultrawide.

I really can't pinpoint what your problem is because every argument you have has solutions.

Not to mention, there were brand new 16:10 displays mentioned in this thread and on Newegg.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,934
16:10 makes sense for laptops due to their form factor, namely fitting a keyboard and trackpad which ultimately determine the size of the lid.

But for desktop displays it hasn't made sense for a good time. 27" at 1440p and higher res just doesn't need to be taller vertically. There's plenty of room for content.

My last 16:10 display was a 30" 2560x1600 screen. I swapped it for a 27" 2560x1440 one. Not only was the 27" sharper, it was a better overall size for me.
 

criccio

Fully Equipped
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
13,107
16:10 makes sense for laptops due to their form factor, namely fitting a keyboard and trackpad which ultimately determine the size of the lid.

But for desktop displays it hasn't made sense for a good time. 27" at 1440p and higher res just doesn't need to be taller vertically. There's plenty of room for content.

My last 16:10 display was a 30" 2560x1600 screen. I swapped it for a 27" 2560x1440 one. Not only was the 27" sharper, it was a better overall size for me.

Yeah, i still use my old Dell 3008WFP at work and don't miss the extra 160 pixels at all when I go home to me PG348Q. I just don't even think about it.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,885
Do you have examples? 10ms is close to ten times the latency of most modern mid range to high end gaming displays I've seen.
View attachment 286533
Even if your examples are that low and you just don't think 10ms is all that big a difference, it is for me. I play rhythm games where every little bit can help. My laptop's display has about 13-15ms, yet transitioning to the 0 of my CRT is still a big jump for what I do.
Regardless, 10ms is top-tier for a TV.

I suspect this is mostly placebo effect. Just like with extreme high frame/refresh rates and the people who claim 96khz/32bit audio sounds better than 44.1khz/16bit audio. Marketers want to sell products, social media influencers are keen to make money, so they push this crap, and people believe them, and once they believe them the human brain is such that it confirms the bias, whether the effect is there or not. Monkey brains suck.

In human factors research typical human test subjects experience anything below 100ms as instantaneous.

Now, those of us who play lots of games have probably trained ourselves to be more sensitive to it than the typical human being, but nowhere near as sensitive as you suggest.

I used to play my games on a 4k Samsung JS9000 TV. In PC mode it had an input lag of 46ms as measured by rtings, and it felt pretty atrocious. Luckily it had a "game mode" which lowered the input lag down to about 25ms (also measured by rtings), and that was below the threshold of detection for me. I experienced no lag at all with that setup.

Based on my personal experience on my system in the titles I played, I would argue there is little to no benefit of reducing monitor input lag below 25ms.

That said, we also have to keep in mind that input lag is additive. The monitor is just one part of it. The Operating system API, GPU drivers, GPU render pipeline (not to mention SLI, SLI is brutal for input lag, and oinly goes up the more GPU's you add), inherent frame time frame time in rendering, GPU post processing, Game engine architecture, link between the GPU and the CPU, USB chipset, and even the mouse all have their own latencies, and they all add up.

I think the above explains why some people are much more sensitive than others. For whatever reason, they have a more laggy mouse to Displayport chain, and because of this, the additional monitor input lag is sufficient to push them over the edge of detectability.

My system above was (and still is) a fast single GPU on a efficient high speed CPU.

As an example, lets say 50ms of overall system lag is the threshold for a highly sensitive gamer. (I made this up to illustrate the point, I have no data to support it) Someone with an SLI system will have much more inherent input lag, than someone with a fast single GPU. For the person with the fast single GPU, having a monitor 25ms lag may not push them over that 50ms threshold, and thus thye don't notice any detectable lag. For the person with SLI - however - their SLI is already resulting in a bunch of lag, so adding even a screen with 10ms may push them over the edge.
 
Top