Will 16:10 become Obsolete?

M

maverick786us

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
2,422
I am planning to buy a good 24 inch 1920 X 1200 Display in near future. I have few doubts which I would like you guys to clarify.

1) With industries fast moving from 16:10 to 16:9 - 1920 X 1200 to 1920 X 1080 (which is indeed a bad news for me and all our enthusiastic brothers in the message board) will 16:10 become Obsolete in future??

2) At 60Hz playing any game above 60FPS will be wastage (I might be wrong), Dell U2410 seems to be one of the best 24 inch displays, and yet it supports a maximum frequency of 60Hz.

Is U2410 the end of the road for 16:10 erra in 24 inch display? or is there any possibility that Dell might launch a 24 inch Display with 75Hz or more with this 16:10 aspect ratio?
Should I immediately grab U2410 with future possibility that 24-inch 16:10 displays might become obsolete and will be replaced by 16:9 (with U2410 the last of its type)
 
Last edited:
Aspect ratios don't become "obsolete". 1080 is popular because of high-def content. If you watch high-def video at your monitor's native resolution all that having a larger screen means is the black bars on the top and bottom are slightly thicker.

Games are a totally different animal; they don't run at a constant 60fps like TV broadcast signals or 24fps like movies. Gaming fps is constantly variable based on what your video card's capabilities are and is not directly related in any way to the refresh rate of your monitor. Vsync is disabled by default on almost everything.
 
Yes games don't have a fixed FPS, it all depends on how powerful the card is. If I spend a powerful card which produce more than 60FPS, but my display support only 60Hz, it will be a wastage, however if the display supports more than 60Hz then anything above 60FPS might make the gaming experience more realistic.
 
Monitor manufacturers don't consider gaming when designing monitors, at all, ever. Monitors that are good for gaming are accidents quickly discontinued. You may feel some disillusionment about that, much like those in downtown Seattle feel when they find out Verizon considers them to be "rural".

Even the recent 120Hz monitors are a symptom of the film industry's assumption that 3D films will save Hollywood (which is, of course, wrong). I think the writing is on the wall - if there are any 16:10 factory lines left running, they'll switch over to 16:9 in the near future.
 
evilsofa said:
Monitor manufacturers don't consider gaming when designing monitors, at all, ever. Monitors that are good for gaming are accidents quickly discontinued. You may feel some disillusionment about that, much like those in downtown Seattle feel when they find out Verizon considers them to be "rural".

Even the recent 120Hz monitors are a symptom of the film industry's assumption that 3D films will save Hollywood (which is, of course, wrong). I think the writing is on the wall - if there are any 16:10 factory lines left running, they'll switch over to 16:9 in the near future.
Click to expand...


And that would explain why PC games are lagging behind consoles, with Televisions you can have regresh rates upto 256Hz, and with displays just 60??
 
Like it matters what the TVs Refresh rate is. My 360 has trouble keeping a solid 30fps in many games if the action gets heavy. Throw a smoke grenade in MW2? 20fps.

And I dont see how having your FPS spike over 60 is "wasting". I usually limit my FPS to slightly below where it normally holds steady. I might not be getting 100fps, but keeping it solid keeps gameplay smoother than if it is bouncing all around.
 
maverick786us said:
And that would explain why PC games are lagging behind consoles,
Click to expand...
Excuse me?

I assure you that if you take a PC game and set the resolution to 720p, then max the graphics, that it will blow the doors off 360 or PS3 graphics and FPS wise.
 
maverick786us said:
And that would explain why PC games are lagging behind consoles, with Televisions you can have regresh rates upto 256Hz, and with displays just 60??
Click to expand...

TVs with ultra-high refresh rates just do it so that all the standard low refresh rates are even multiples of the display's refresh. Movies are at a 24Hz standard & TV is 30 or 60 so a 120Hz refresh can display all of them correctly - this doesn't mean that the device can actually take a 120Hz input.
 
To clarify what ameoba said, a 120Hz or 240Hz LCD TV will not take more than 60Hz from an external source such as a video card or a console game.

Also, no console game can send 120Hz to the TV. Googling on the subject was unproductive to me, besides an unconfirmed impression that the PS3 is limited to 30FPS.
 
I hope you also realize that most 360/PS3 games dont actually run at 1080p. They are run at 720p then stretched to fit the screen.
 
bigdogchris said:
Excuse me?

I assure you that if you take a PC game and set the resolution to 720p, then max the graphics, that it will blow the doors off 360 or PS3 graphics and FPS wise.
Click to expand...

Indeed it will, but if your monitor supports only 60Hz, then whats the point of playing any game above 60 FPS? With my present configuration I can play MW2 at 55 FPS, if I upgrade my card to 5850 1GB, I will be able to play that game at 95 FPS, but it will be of no use to me, because I will require a monitor having a refresh rates >= 95Hz
 
evilsofa said:
To clarify what ameoba said, a 120Hz or 240Hz LCD TV will not take more than 60Hz from an external source such as a video card or a console game.

Also, no console game can send 120Hz to the TV. Googling on the subject was unproductive to me, besides an unconfirmed impression that the PS3 is limited to 30FPS.
Click to expand...

ameoba said:
TVs with ultra-high refresh rates just do it so that all the standard low refresh rates are even multiples of the display's refresh. Movies are at a 24Hz standard & TV is 30 or 60 so a 120Hz refresh can display all of them correctly - this doesn't mean that the device can actually take a 120Hz input.
Click to expand...

CmaN3 said:
I hope you also realize that most 360/PS3 games dont actually run at 1080p. They are run at 720p then stretched to fit the screen.
Click to expand...


Despite all these drawbacks its sad that PC Gaming is lagging behind Console. I know there has been numerous debates in these messageboards in which people have argued that PC gaming is dead and Console gaming is rising

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1474880&page=2

I won't say that PC gaming is dead or going to die, but its lagging behind console for which I feel sad
 
evilsofa said:
Also, no console game can send 120Hz to the TV. Googling on the subject was unproductive to me, besides an unconfirmed impression that the PS3 is limited to 30FPS.
Click to expand...

facepalm2ly3.jpg
 
maverick786us said:
I won't say that PC gaming is dead or going to die, but its lagging behind console for which I feel sad
Click to expand...

People have been saying PC gaming is going to die for at least the last 20 yearsThen they see a new graphics card or a new PC-only game engine and change their tune for a few months.
 
maverick786us said:
Despite all these drawbacks its sad that PC Gaming is lagging behind Console. I know there has been numerous debates in these messageboards in which people have argued that PC gaming is dead and Console gaming is rising
I won't say that PC gaming is dead or going to die, but its lagging behind console for which I feel sad
Click to expand...

A.) My 360 has all it can do to keep a solid 30fps. Whats the point in having a 60hz monitor if my console can only display 30fps(and barely at that).

B.) Explain to me how PC gaming is dieing. Yes I can get 95fps at 720p, or I can jack it up to (real) 1080p, and play highest settings, with graphics that blow any console game out of the water, or ya know, if I wanted to , i could go 2560x1600. Again, blowing any console out of the water.

C.) Your a troll.
 
CmaN3 said:
A.) My 360 has all it can do to keep a solid 30fps. Whats the point in having a 60hz monitor if my console can only display 30fps(and barely at that).

B.) Explain to me how PC gaming is dieing. Yes I can get 95fps at 720p, or I can jack it up to (real) 1080p, and play highest settings, with graphics that blow any console game out of the water, or ya know, if I wanted to , i could go 2560x1600. Again, blowing any console out of the water.

C.) Your a troll.
Click to expand...


I never said its dying, its lagging behind consoles, which is the sad part
 
maverick786us said:
I am planning to buy a good 24 inch 1920 X 1200 Display in near future. I have few doubts which I would like you guys to clarify.

1) With industries fast moving from 16:10 to 16:9 - 1920 X 1200 to 1920 X 1080 (which is indeed a bad news for me and all our enthusiastic brothers in the message board) will 16:10 become Obsolete in future??

2) At 60Hz playing any game above 60FPS will be wastage (I might be wrong), Dell U2410 seems to be one of the best 24 inch displays, and yet it supports a maximum frequency of 60Hz.

Is U2410 the end of the road for 16:10 erra in 24 inch display? or is there any possibility that Dell might launch a 24 inch Display with 75Hz or more with this 16:10 aspect ratio?
Should I immediately grab U2410 with future possibility that 24-inch 16:10 displays might become obsolete and will be replaced by 16:9 (with U2410 the last of its type)
Click to expand...

Theyve been pushing 1080 / 16:9 monitors for sometime now.
I have no doubts 1920x1200 monitors are eventually going to become extinct, if not at the very least, very limited models produced.

I would grab that monitor while you can.
I was procrastinating on buying a BenQ 1920x1200 and when I waited too long, they were already out of production and it became extremely hard to find.
Sure there were a bunch of 1080s but I really didn't want to settle with that. I would much rather have 120 more vertical pixels than not. Bigger screen area is a plus too.
 
If you think 16:10 is going away just look at Lenovo or Dell's Vostro and Latitude notebooks. I don't think Lenovo has a single 16:9 notebook and there's only a single Vostro at that aspect ratio. For doing actual work, 16:9 isn't the best choice.
 
Cloud 69 said:
For doing actual work, 16:9 isn't the best choice.
Click to expand...
Completely agreed, but for other stuff larger 16:9 monitors can be pretty nice too, something about that wide effect and immersive FOV, maybe it's just my perception though...


OP i wouldn't split hairs so much, while some details are important of course i wouldn't let myself get bogged down by every single one of them. Research, make an educated purchase and enjoy.

And what others have been saying is true, i can personally verify that the ankle-biters have been announcing the upcoming death of PC gaming since at least 1997 and probably before that too. I don't pay attention to that ever-present chant anymore.
 
evilsofa said:
Educate me. What did I say to get the facepalm?
Click to expand...

The PS3 part. Wipeout is locked 60FPS. NGΣ and NGΣII are locked 60FPS. GT5 and Prologue are locked 60FPS. Ratchet is locked 60FPS (won't be in the future, says Insomniac, but all games in the series so far have been.) SFIV is locked 60FPS (sub-HD, but still.) Actually, all fighting games are 60FPS afaik. Tekken, BlazBlue, SC, KOF you name it. DMC4 is 60FPS on both consoles, though not locked iirc. Most 2D games are 60FPS, obviously.
 
So indirectly your suggestion is I should get Dell U2410 before its out of production. OK I will go for it, although its still bit pricy for me
 
Last edited:
Why would 16:9 take over?

I can only think of two objective reasons.
1) The same aspect ratio as TVs.
2) They are "cheaper".

1.
While true it doesn't really matter for most, the real point here is marketing which makes it sound good but there's not much to it. Although a completely different subject, what happens if TVs (like the new philips) switch to 21:9 or something similar? No, it will take quite some time but I have a hard time believing that monitors would follow and in that scenario theres barely anything that speaks for 16:9 anymore.

2.
This says more about the consumer than anything and I can't really express how tragic it is, it's just pathetic. Hopefully this reason will fade away just like the MHz myth among CPUs and similar - the diagonal length of a display is a terrible way to measure the size of a display (when different aspect ratios are available) just as the frequency is a terrible way to measure performance in a CPU.

Sure the 16:9 vs. 16:10 subjective debate is flaming hot but without at least one of the reasons above it wouldn't exist and the reasons above isn't that strong (or at least shouldn't be).

Given that I truly hope that 16:10 will stay for displays but I really don't have enough faith in the average consumer to really believe it (except for really high-end displays). Although it will take quite some time for 16:10 to die to 16:9 (if it does).

maverick786us said:
And that would explain why PC games are lagging behind consoles, with Televisions you can have regresh rates upto 256Hz, and with displays just 60??
Click to expand...

Thats just not related in any way.
TVs have high refresh rates so that they can interpolate motion. This isn't needed on a PC since there is no reason for a PC to guess whats between two images. It's also convenient to have a refresh rate that is modulo 24 etc. but it would probably just be easier to have an adjustable refresh rate that allowed for 24 Hz in the beginning...
 
Will 16:10 become obsolete? No. Will 16:10 cease being a size for mainstream monitors smaller than 26 inches? Yes.

I'd go as far as to say, unless you're willing to go with a limited number of 24 inch IPS panels, you're going to struggle to find 24 inch TN 16:10 displays by this time next year.

So screen sizes larger than 1080p aren't going away - you'll just probably have to pay more to get one.
 
is 4:3 obsolete? there's your answer

it still works and is supported, however 4:3 monitors are relatively rare and 16:10 or 16:9 displays are more prevalent

I think 16:9 for monitors makes more logical sense for two reasons:
- TVs and PC monitors can more or less be manufactured from the same panels, reducing costs
- TVs and PC monitors can be used more interchangeably (ever watched 2.35:1 on a 17" 4:3?), improving usage

yes 16:10 is "a bit more productive", but its really not that dramatic of a difference between "same size" (for example 2560x1440 vs 2560x1600, both are ridiculously large displays)

as far as the "TVs have high refresh rates", no, they have motion interpolation technology which compensates for variable framerate content (24, 30, or 60) without having to drive the monitor itself at 24 or 30 hz (which would look godawful) and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion or "real" refresh rates at that
 
It is already becoming much harder to find 16:10, especially retail. They will disappear except maybe for some high end direct order displays.
 
maverick786us said:
And that would explain why PC games are lagging behind consoles, with Televisions you can have regresh rates upto 256Hz, and with displays just 60??
Click to expand...

No it does not. Publisher greed and LOLPIRACY are teh reasons why PC gaming is falling off a cliff.
 
obobski said:
is 4:3 obsolete? there's your answer

it still works and is supported, however 4:3 monitors are relatively rare and 16:10 or 16:9 displays are more prevalent

I think 16:9 for monitors makes more logical sense for two reasons:
- TVs and PC monitors can more or less be manufactured from the same panels, reducing costs
- TVs and PC monitors can be used more interchangeably (ever watched 2.35:1 on a 17" 4:3?), improving usage

yes 16:10 is "a bit more productive", but its really not that dramatic of a difference between "same size" (for example 2560x1440 vs 2560x1600, both are ridiculously large displays)

as far as the "TVs have high refresh rates", no, they have motion interpolation technology which compensates for variable framerate content (24, 30, or 60) without having to drive the monitor itself at 24 or 30 hz (which would look godawful) and has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion or "real" refresh rates at that
Click to expand...

I am sorry to say it, but I think this is true. I was a diehard 4:3 user until I got a 24" 16:10 and now a 27" 16:10. What I have learned from the transition from 4:3 to 16:10 is that you just have to buy the next size up to get the vertical height you need.

I spent a good bit of time looking at the 27" imac at bestbuy the other day. The display size and dpi looked very usable to me. I think that the new 27" LG panel in the imac and soon to be in offerings from Dell and NEC says a lot about where the industry is headed.

Dave
 
Will 16:10 go away? I hope not. I just changed from a 21" to a 24" display at the desk where I write. After much thought and experimentation, I chose 24" because the 1200 pixel height allows me to get an entire Word page on screen at a zoom level that (just barely) is large enough to be used without eyestrain sitting at about arms length from the screen. If you're working with footnotes it's a huge advantage to have both the text and the footnote in sight, always.

So taller is better--16:9 would be a step backward. But I don't want to use 4:3 or turn the display to a vertical orientation because for both spreadsheets and photo work, widescreen and landscape orientation works better for me.
 
obobski said:
I think 16:9 for monitors makes more logical sense for two reasons:
- TVs and PC monitors can more or less be manufactured from the same panels, reducing costs
- TVs and PC monitors can be used more interchangeably (ever watched 2.35:1 on a 17" 4:3?), improving usage
Click to expand...

TVs and PC monitors are not the same sizes anyway. Is there a single TV panel that is used in a PC monitor? Will that ever change? (sure, small TVs for the kitchen, van, boat, whatever but is that market really large enough?) It's two completely different products with very different demands. TVs are low resolution displays meant to be watched from a distance while computer monitors are high resolution displays meant to be watched up close. TVs in general have better viewing angles since it's common for many people to watch the same thing on a TV but not that common when it comes to computer monitors.


as far as the "TVs have high refresh rates", no, they have motion interpolation technology which compensates for variable framerate content (24, 30, or 60) without having to drive the monitor itself at 24 or 30 hz (which would look godawful)
Click to expand...

Why would it look awful to drive a TV at 24 / 30 Hz?

The only reason I can think of is that it wouldn't make much PR sense to say that the monitor is capable of slow refresh-rates. Refresh rates has nothing to do with response time of the panel itself and ideally you wan't to update the display as often as the source.

That and of course that motion-interpolation wouldn't work but I'm not convinced that I'd even want that.
 
Last edited:
obobski said:
yes 16:10 is "a bit more productive", but its really not that dramatic of a difference between "same size" (for example 2560x1440 vs 2560x1600, both are ridiculously large displays)
Click to expand...

Try being a person PRODUCING 16:9 content on a computing platform and get back to us.

All of that area which is "annoying black bars" to is where toolbars, palettes and controls can go while maintaining unobscured full-pixel display of your content.

Another major professional area of graphics work, photography, works with 3:2 AR files (if dSLR, not medium format, anyways). More pixels is always better, and both 16:9 and 16:10 are "too wide" for 3:2 content, but 16:10 displays give you more vertical pixels. Photographers do a lot of work at 1:1, which means scaling is avoided whenever possible - more pixels is always better. Serious amateurs can't always afford the 30" resolutions out there and 1920x1200 is far more useful than 1920x1080 for a 3:2 (or even 4:3) photographer.

Similar consumer ignorance has led to almost all digital photo frames being 16:9 or 15:9 AR when there's absolutely no content to display on them at that AR unless you stretch and crop heavily. Compact digital cameras are 4:3, dSLRs are 3:2 - what idiots thought they should force 15:9 on all of us? A marketing department that already had 16:9 and 15:9 displays on the shelf from netbooks and portable media players, that's who. Sony's excellent line of 4:3 digital photo frames (DPF-D80, DPF-D100) seems to have disappeared back to 15:9, presumably because no one bought them. They were hot with serious photogs though. The best of these photo frames are usually only 800 pixels wide already and now I need to waste 1/3 of those pixels just displaying black - precious.

Of course most consumers leave their HDTVs set to "stretch" anyways regardless of the content being shown - these are the leaders of tomorrow who will set the direction of the products we're all forced to buy...
 
I personally think 16:10 displays are too tall when bigger than 24" or so when using them as a desktop display. Above 24", I would prefer a 16:9 display with a resolution higher than 1920x1080 - like those Samsung/Dells that have a 2048xwhatever res, or the new LG 2560x1440 panels. I would never purchase a 16:10 30" display because I feel that it is simply too tall for me to use properly, whereas a 27-30" 16:9 display with pixel density just as high would seem perfect to me.

I do not like the trend of 16:9 in smaller than 24" and on laptop displays, though.
 
maverick786us said:
I am planning to buy a good 24 inch 1920 X 1200 Display in near future. I have few doubts which I would like you guys to clarify.

1) With industries fast moving from 16:10 to 16:9 - 1920 X 1200 to 1920 X 1080 (which is indeed a bad news for me and all our enthusiastic brothers in the message board) will 16:10 become Obsolete in future??

2) At 60Hz playing any game above 60FPS will be wastage (I might be wrong), Dell U2410 seems to be one of the best 24 inch displays, and yet it supports a maximum frequency of 60Hz.

Is U2410 the end of the road for 16:10 erra in 24 inch display? or is there any possibility that Dell might launch a 24 inch Display with 75Hz or more with this 16:10 aspect ratio?
Should I immediately grab U2410 with future possibility that 24-inch 16:10 displays might become obsolete and will be replaced by 16:9 (with U2410 the last of its type)
Click to expand...

16:9 vs 16:10 is discussed here:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1366879&highlight=16x10+16x9


Future NEC's includes both standard and substandard formats/resolution:
61318889.jpg



1920x1200 dwarfs 1920x1080:
Child.jpg
 
16:10 is becoming obsolete. It is already in just a short year becoming obvious. The average consumer and even slightly informed consumers know NOTHING about any of this. And they are the people who really drive the market. They tend to get whatever is cheap and they are usually pointed to products by clueless best buy employees who do not know much of anything either. So while many of you have great arguments they are all meaningless because people who know what the heck they are talking about are not driving the economy. I would not care except that almost everyone only sells 1920x1080 resolution displays and I expect things will remain this way. If they were more like 16:10 displays where there were many choices for resolutions I would be OK with it. But I want the vertical resolution. I guess I will stick with my FW900 for a while. It does all 3 aspect ratios no problem.

You know what bothers me the most? Even with TV I have a 16:9 display most of the films I watch are still to wide to not have black bars. Which just makes my blood boil because we are spending all this time sacrificing vertical height for very little it is not like 16:9 is really the standard that everything will move too. I can probably expect only 30% of my content will fit my TV right for its lifespan and who knows after that. In fact one could probably say that this very issue may be part of the problem it is very difficult to find anything to watch that is not compressed or scaled in some form. This is probably part of why most consumers cannot tell the difference with anything. Even your cable HD is compressed. I guess only time will tell if we can actually get a heavy amount of pure 1080p content.
 
16:10 is already extinct in retail and sure 16:9 is going to be the dominant ratio, but I don't think that 16:10 is going to disappear.
 
Surly73 said:
Try being a person PRODUCING 16:9 content on a computing platform and get back to us.

All of that area which is "annoying black bars" to is where toolbars, palettes and controls can go while maintaining unobscured full-pixel display of your content.

Another major professional area of graphics work, photography, works with 3:2 AR files (if dSLR, not medium format, anyways). More pixels is always better, and both 16:9 and 16:10 are "too wide" for 3:2 content, but 16:10 displays give you more vertical pixels. Photographers do a lot of work at 1:1, which means scaling is avoided whenever possible - more pixels is always better. Serious amateurs can't always afford the 30" resolutions out there and 1920x1200 is far more useful than 1920x1080 for a 3:2 (or even 4:3) photographer.

Similar consumer ignorance has led to almost all digital photo frames being 16:9 or 15:9 AR when there's absolutely no content to display on them at that AR unless you stretch and crop heavily. Compact digital cameras are 4:3, dSLRs are 3:2 - what idiots thought they should force 15:9 on all of us? A marketing department that already had 16:9 and 15:9 displays on the shelf from netbooks and portable media players, that's who. Sony's excellent line of 4:3 digital photo frames (DPF-D80, DPF-D100) seems to have disappeared back to 15:9, presumably because no one bought them. They were hot with serious photogs though. The best of these photo frames are usually only 800 pixels wide already and now I need to waste 1/3 of those pixels just displaying black - precious.

Of course most consumers leave their HDTVs set to "stretch" anyways regardless of the content being shown - these are the leaders of tomorrow who will set the direction of the products we're all forced to buy...
Click to expand...

not a DCC pro, sorry, but from software engineering I can tell you, doesn't matter, called abstraction for a reason, generally don't need to worry about WHAT the end-user's resolution is

I do understand your frustration, and I'm not saying change is "easy", but at the same time, roll with it or get out basically, thats progress, always has been,
 
a 16:9 video will be bigger on a 20 inch 16:9 screen than a 20 inch 16:10 screen.

but for computer content it doesnt matter. 20 inches is 20 inches regardless of pixels.

16:9 should be a little bit faster in gaming, but 16:10 should give you more pixels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top