Which Do You Prefer For Gaming: 16:9 Or 16:10?

Which do you prefer: 16:9 or 16:10?

  • 16:9

    Votes: 65 33.5%
  • 16:10

    Votes: 129 66.5%

  • Total voters
    194

Gordroth

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
113
If I've heard right, 16:9 is still considered the "norm", and from some recent experiences, I've realized that you actually see a good deal more horizontally (though still trying to wrap my mind around how/why) with 16:9 than with 16:10, which is far better, IMO, than seeing an extra inch in height.

I've also heard, however, that 16:10 was eventually to become the "new norm" at some point, though I don't know the truth to the rumor of monitor manufacturers going in that direction.

So, since I've played with both 16:9 and 16:10 and definitely realized I prefer 16:9, I was curious as to what others prefer.

Some people might not really notice a difference, because everyone is different, but I notice a definitive difference that definitely brought me back to using 16:9... how 'bout others?
 
Last edited:
16:10 shows the same width as 16:9, but it also shows more height.

1920x1200 is 16:10
1920x1080 is 16:9

Same width, different height.
 
16:10 is typically more pixels. Which one shows more just depends on how the game is set up, but I still prefer more pixels to less.
 
16:10 is better. It's a 12oz can of coke vs 16oz. I'm told 16:9 became prevalent because it's cheaper to manufacture that's it. It isn't a popularity contest.

In 2011 Bennie Budler, product manager of IT products at Samsung South Africa, confirmed that monitors capable of 1920x1200 resolutions aren't being manufactured anymore. “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”[8]

I can tell you with certainty one area you would see a massive difference in is in HOR+ multi monitor resolutions. When I got my first eyefinity setup I went from my Soyo 24" 1920x1200 to three dell 24"s 1080p. The whole setup is shrunk. I gave it a couple weeks and went out and bought 3 16:10 panels. Massive difference. Obviously I can't you what to feel, but I think you've just gotten accustomed to 16:9. Put twos monitor on your desk. One a 16:10 and one a 16:9. Load up an FPS like SS or counter-strike on each monitor. You'll see a massive difference between the two.
 
16:10 shows the same width as 16:9, but it also shows more height.

1920x1200 is 16:10
1920x1080 is 16:9

Same width, different height.

wrong wrong and more wrong.

Do not confuse res and ar.

One has a longer horizontal ( 16:9 ) one has a higher vertical. ( 16:10 ) That is the only difference.

This is a easy choice for me. Because 16:9 is supported properly in games while 16:10 is barely supported properly in any games if any.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I don't care. However, if given the choice, I wouldn't care. Now where is the option for that?
 
16:10 shows the same width as 16:9, but it also shows more height.

1920x1200 is 16:10
1920x1080 is 16:9

Same width, different height.

I'm no guru, but yes, actually there is a difference.

I started another thread where I actually posted screenshots, and in 16:9, for some reason, you can see more side-to-side, where as 16:10 shows more height and cuts off 1"+ hor.

There's like an inch difference horizontally, minimum, in what I see between my 16:9 monitor and 16:10.

So, I don't get it. I made direct comparisons.

wrong wrong and more wrong.

Do not confuse res and ar.

One has a longer horizontal ( 16:9 ) one has a higher vertical. ( 16:10 ) That is the only difference.

This is a easy choice for me. Because 16:9 is supported properly in games while 16:10 is barely supported properly in any games if any.

- So 16:9 does show more side-to-side (hor) then?

- Could it be because games don't often support 16:10 so it doesn't quite render what you're seeing correctly/totally?

Because, I'm telling you, both my wife and I have seen a noticeable difference, so we both cant be nuts, and she has perfect vision.
 
Last edited:
Aspect ratio and resolution are two separate specifications. The only thing the aspect ratio tells you is the ratio of horizontal pixels to vertical pixels, and conveys no information regarding the absolute amount of pixels.

As for what aspect ratio will display more, this is completely dependent on the program and content being displayed. It is not correct to generalize any aspect ratio as being able to display more.

In terms of gaming the trend currently is to display with a fixed vertical view, and so you will display more with a higher horizontal resolution (what people refer to as hor+). This is why landscape eyefinity/surround currently will tend to display the largest field of vision in games. While theoretically you can display more on screen with more pixels, this is simply not the prevalent method of doing things.

In terms of the comparison of 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 and 2560x1440 vs 2560x1600 monitors, of course the higher resolution is better in terms of resolution, especially since you can 1:1 scale to 16:9 on with the 16:10 resolution monitor. But this is due to the resolution advantage, and not the aspect ratio. Also in terms of actual availability you are not going to find a 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 (same with 2560x1440 vs 2560x1600) of comparable quality in other aspects in the same price range, if at all. This isn't due to manufactures worrying about costs, this is because the majority of consumers have different priorities. I can tell you for certain that gamers will place a much higher priority in spending on their CPU and GPUs for instance.
 
Last edited:
16:10 shows the same width as 16:9, but it also shows more height.


Wrong.



This^

what you're preferring is worse lol


Wrong.



16:10 is typically more pixels. Which one shows more just depends on how the game is set up, but I still prefer more pixels to less.


Bingo, u got it right! Except I would write 16:10 is more pixels (all the time, not typically). Which one shows more totally depends on the game.

Widescreengamingforum used to have a good article on it but I can't find it. The most common way is called Hor+ where your vertical view stays the same and the horizontal view changes (depends on aspect ratio). Since most games use this now you would see more field of view with a 1920x1080 monitor vs. a 1920x1200 monitor.
 
16:9 for several reasons:

1. It takes less horsepower to get good framerates
2. It's the new standard
3. Many console ports run only in 16:9 (and this will be even more common in the future)
4. 16:9 monitors are much cheaper and more common than 16:10
 
Bingo, u got it right! Except I would write 16:10 is more pixels (all the time, not typically). Which one shows more totally depends on the game.

pixels are based on resolution not AR. You confused AR and res too :p

A higher res will give more pixels. Not AR.
 
16:10 is better. It's a 12oz can of coke vs 16oz. I'm told 16:9 became prevalent because it's cheaper to manufacture that's it. It isn't a popularity contest.



I can tell you with certainty one area you would see a massive difference in is in HOR+ multi monitor resolutions. When I got my first eyefinity setup I went from my Soyo 24" 1920x1200 to three dell 24"s 1080p. The whole setup is shrunk. I gave it a couple weeks and went out and bought 3 16:10 panels. Massive difference. Obviously I can't you what to feel, but I think you've just gotten accustomed to 16:9. Put twos monitor on your desk. One a 16:10 and one a 16:9. Load up an FPS like SS or counter-strike on each monitor. You'll see a massive difference between the two.

that, 1920x1080 IS the new norm. 1920x1200 is the past.

for gaming I prefer 1920*1080. everything else, 1920*1200.
 
Bingo, u got it right! Except I would write 16:10 is more pixels (all the time, not typically). Which one shows more totally depends on the game.

This is highly dependent on how you choose to assign groupings and categories. I assume a lot people are fixated on the fact that x1200 and x1080 monitors for instance have the same horizontal resolution of 1920, but that is basically arbitrarily assigning them into the same category and saying 16:10 has the higher resolution. x1200 and x1080 for one are not in the same price category for instance if other factors of qualities are comparable.

It is best to just completely separate the concept of aspect ratio and resolutions.
 
pixels are based on resolution not AR. You confused AR and res too :p

A higher res will give more pixels. Not AR.


Sorry, U are right. I wrote it out too quickly.

In this specific example

1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080

The 16x10 ratio has more pixels and has nothing to do with AR. Sorry if I confused anyone.
 
Well, it seems that more people are actually leaning toward 16:9 with reasonable (and some of the reason) explanations as to why.

I'm telling you... my wife and I are running the exact same systems, all hardware, built 'em myself as usual, so I'd know...

I've screenshots from Saints Row: The Third (and other games) of us standing in the same exact spot, and I switched monitors: on the 16:9 monitor, there is a 1"+ difference in how much can be seen horizontally, where as the 16:10 monitor cuts of 1"+ horizontally, and only adds height, which I don't think most people care about.

Cars don't make taller windshields... it's side-to-side, field of view, that people want and matters most.

I cant explain it, but I'll get screenshots up in this thread to prove it... same exactly hardware, but 16:9 @ 1080 shows more horizontally than 16:10 @ 1200... same in-game settings, with the obvious exception of the resolution.
 
I'm fine with both. Given the choice, though, I'll choose 16:9. Wider displays just seem more aesthetically pleasing to me.
 
I'm no guru, but no, actually it doesn't.

I started another thread where I actually posted screenshots, and in 16:9, for some reason, you can see more side-to-side, where as 16:10 shows more height and cuts off 1"+ hor.

There's like an inch difference horizontally, minimum, in what I see between my 16:9 monitor and 16:10.

So, I don't get it. I made direct comparisons.

Before people get too confused, there's 3 different things at play here.

1. Resolution
2. Aspect Ratio
3. Field of View (FOV)

Firstly, FOV is what determines how much you see in the game world, and how the game sets its FOV depends on how the developers set it up. Most people think hor+ is "best", and if a game is hor+, a wider aspect ratio (higher number) will result in a wider FOV and you seeing more as the horizontal FOV is dependant on the aspect ratio. If the game is vert-, the horizontal FOV is fixed, so regardless of aspect ratio you get the same amount of horizontal information, but lower aspect ratio will give you a larger vertical FOV. The developers could also do something weird like making FOV dependant on resolution rather than aspect ratio (I think some old games did this? None are coming to mind, certainly no recent games).

So then aspect ratio. Aspect ratio just tells you the ratio of horizontal space to vertical space. so 16:10 is 16 across for 10 height, 16:10 = 1.6. 16:9 = 1.78, which is a higher aspect ratio, all it means is the ratio of horizontal to vertical is larger for 16:9 (basic fractions, make the number on the bottom smaller and the number as a whole increases ;)). As far as "viewable area" is concerned, an aspect ratio closest to 1 gives you the largest area for a given screen size. So a 24" 16:10 has more AREA than a 16:9. However, that's just pure AREA, it doesn't determine how much you see in the game world, that's determined by FOV, and also some people (maybe most? I've never seen a survey on the matter :p) prefer more horizontal space to vertical space.

Lastly you have resolution, which tells you how many pixels make up the area as defined by your screen size (22", 24", 27", etc) and your aspect ratio (16:9, 16:10, etc). 16:9 screens are usually made by using the same horizontal pixels and less vertical pixels for a given screen size... there's no inherent requirement for this, its just the way its done in most situations. Resolution rarely (if ever) has anything to do with the amount of information you see in games (ie. the FOV). HOWEVER, for desktop applications, higher resolution DOES let you see more since the text/toolbars/etc used by Windows is designed to fit within a certain number of pixels, so more pixels = more information. Sometimes games do this with their text as well, so a lower resolution on the same sized screen (less dots-per-inch, DPI) often makes the HUD larger, but it usually doesn't affect the FOV... however this is just how games are made, in reality any link between FOV and either resolution or aspect ratio is caused purely by how the developers decided to implement their FOV, there's no physical limitation to determine FOV one way or another.

There's a few different ways the game COULD calculate FOV, and its arguable which is best. However, since most games tend to be hor+ and most gamers seem to want hor+, which means horizontal FOV is dependant on aspect ratio, that would mean a higher aspect ratio (16:9) would result in a larger FOV and more information on screen. For the few games that are vert-, it means horizontal FOV is fixed, and the vertical FOV increases as aspect ratio decreases, so a lower aspect ratio (16:10) would be better.
 
wrong wrong and more wrong.

Do not confuse res and ar.

One has a longer horizontal ( 16:9 ) one has a higher vertical. ( 16:10 ) That is the only difference.

This is a easy choice for me. Because 16:9 is supported properly in games while 16:10 is barely supported properly in any games if any.

I'm not confused one bit but I think you might be.

1920 and 1920 are the SAME
1200 is MORE than 1080

Where did I say I was talking about anything other than resolution there?

I love how these threads always turn into nitpick threads. :rolleyes:

Play with what you want, I prefer more pixels than a screen thats narrow and wide like my HDTV.

16:10 is supported fine in every AAA title I've seen. I remember a thread where people swore DA2 didnt support it, but oh look, it was right there in the options menu if you actually looked.

ME3 supports it fine too btw. ;) (go ahead now and nitpick how what it shows on screen is "skewed" or "not right" because it doesnt match a 16:9 just cause you want to be right somehow). :D
 
Before people get too confused, there's 3 different things at play here.

1. Resolution
2. Aspect Ratio
3. Field of View (FOV)

You also forgot its a pissing match about people who prefer one over the other and HAVE to be right in their choice so they shit on anyone else who prefers the other options.

Thats all these threads turn into. "Well you're worse off than me cause you can't see those few pixels due to the scaling/AR/FOV and I can!!!!!" Um, big whoop?

Play with what you want and let others do the same. There's no right or wrong, just picky people who think their choice is the "right" one. (hint - it's not, its just what you or I prefer!) :D
 
You also forgot its a pissing match about people who prefer one over the other and HAVE to be right in their choice so they shit on anyone else who prefers the other options.

Thats all these threads turn into. "Well you're worse off than me cause you can't see those few pixels due to the scaling/AR/FOV and I can!!!!!" Um, big whoop?

Play with what you want and let others do the same. There's no right or wrong, just picky people who think their choice is the "right" one. (hint - it's not, its just what you or I prefer!) :D

I think a lot of the arguments come down to the fact people don't actually understand FOV isn't inherently attached to either aspect ratio or resolution and its purely a game design choice.

But yeah, personally my ideal world is just where the developers let gamers choose their own FOV and then the whole argument becomes moot, people can just pick whatever aspect ratio and resolution they want when they buy their monitor, then the "how much they see" which is controlled purely by the game, comes down to the choice of the gamer rather than anything else.

There's no "right" or "wrong", it should be up to the gamer... vert-, hor+, high aspect ratio, low aspect ratio the whole thing is stupid, the game developer doesn't know how far I like to sit from the monitor/TV and how sensitive I am to low-FOV-motion-sickness or high-FOV-fisheye... we should just be able to set it ourselves.
 
It honestly makes no difference to me for gaming.

I could see where you might want x1200 for productivity, but I would say more games probably support x1080.
 
after spending 4 years staring at a 1920x1200 display i can't stand using 1080p displays..
 
Been thinking about this for a while. Trying to weigh up the pros and cons of switching from a 30" 2560x1600 screen to 27" 1920x1080 120hz.

Pros -
Better performance at native resolution
Better contrast ratios with LED
Higher refresh
3D capable
Better resolution support in games
Better GTG response rate

Cons -
Less screen real estate
Lower resolution

In terms of aspect ratio, I guess it's not the be all and end all when you consider the other major factors of modern LCDs. I'd put more value in IQ, colour reproduction, brightness & contrast ratio, response rate, refresh rate etc.

I need to get some hands-on time with some of these new 120hz displays to see if the switch is justified.

Anyone else made a switch from 30" to one of the newer 120hz gaming screens?
 
It seems I was wrong. My bad.
From the other thread:
StarCraftRatiosFixed.gif
 
I am old school baby! Ditching Eyefiniyty & NVSurround and going 4x3!
 
I do programming/web browsing/gaming all on the same computer, so 16:10 because of that. If I was purely considering gaming, I don't think I'd care nearly as much as I would if I was purely considering programming or web browsing, as it doesn't make nearly as big of a difference. If I had to choose purely for gaming though, I'd say 16:9 would narrowly win out just because of the Hor+ implementation that most games have these days. If I was going eyefinity though, I think I'd want 3x16:10.
 
Personally, I don't care. However, if given the choice, I wouldn't care. Now where is the option for that?

That would be my choice.
If someone notices a difference in a game due to the aspect ratio alone, then that's down to the game, not the display.
 
I actually went from a 1920x1200 25.5" to a 1920x1080 23". Granted, the smaller one is IPS and WAY better, but still. Didn't bother me a bit. I sit about a foot and a half away from the monitor, and frankly 25.5" seemed too big anyway.

2560x1600 is 16x10 so if you are getting a 30" monitor you don't have a choice.

There are quite a few 2560x1440 27" displays, though.
 
I prefer the wider aspect ratio of 16:9. When a wider aspect ratio than 16:9 comes out I will use it, but I hate eyefinity, has to be a single display.
 
It seems I was wrong. My bad.
From the other thread:
StarCraftRatiosFixed.gif

Yup, the image above pretty much sums it up for most games. I don't recall any games where it was programmed so that 16:10 actually gave the same wide view as 16:9.

16:9 is also a widespread standard and it's what developers optimize games for nowadays.
 
Yup, the image above pretty much sums it up for most games. I don't recall any games where it was programmed so that 16:10 actually gave the same wide view as 16:9.

16:9 is also a widespread standard and it's what developers optimize games for nowadays.

only 2 i remember off the top of my head is ET:QW and supcom/supcom:FA. if i remember correctly both have a 16:9/16:10 option in the settings and both give the correct width and extra 120 vertical pixels.
 
Back
Top