Thursday, April 12th 2012

1366 x 768 Most Popular Screen Resolution, Overtakes 1024 x 768: StatCounter

1366 x 768 pixels overtook 1024 x 768 as the most popular screen resolution worldwide, for computers, according to the latest statistics by StatCount. This new dominant screen resolution is a particularly important statistic for web-developers, as they can now make their designs more optimized for at least 1366 pixels-wide screens. 1920 x 1080 and 1680 x 1050 hold less than 5% of the market-share each. The growth of 1366 x 768 could have been propelled by dominance in the notebook market (across almost all market-segments), and entry-level PC monitor market. The interactive screen resolution stats graph can be found here.



The press-release by StatCounter follows.

Screen Resolution Alert for Web Developers
A major milestone in screen resolution sizes has been passed according to independent web analytics company, StatCounter. The company's research arm, StatCounter Global Stats reports that for the first time 1366x768 has become the most popular screen resolution worldwide, having overtaken 1024x768.

"The data reflects a continuing trend of users moving to larger screen resolution sizes," commented Aodhan Cullen, CEO, StatCounter. "The screen resolution size people are using is a critical factor for developers when it comes to web design, particularly in the case of fixed width web pages."

Since StatCounter began its tracking of screen resolution in March 2009, as a free service to developers and other users, 1024x768 has been the dominant screen size globally on the web (excluding mobile*). 1024x768 has fallen from 41.8% in March 2009 to 18.6% in March 2012. Over the same period 1366x768 has grown from 0.68% to 19.28%.The third most popular size is 1280x800 at 13%.

Cullen also said that while StatCounter Global Stats provides information on worldwide and regional trends, monitoring the specific screen resolutions being used to view individual sites is also very important.

StatCounter (http://statcounter.com/) provides free website traffic analysis. This allows web developers to capture screen resolution stats on their own and on their client websites in real time. Other information available includes search terms, download stats, exit links and other data.

StatCounter Global Stats data is based on over 15 billion page views per month (4 billion from the US) to the StatCounter network of more than three million websites.
Add your own comment

75 Comments on 1366 x 768 Most Popular Screen Resolution, Overtakes 1024 x 768: StatCounter

#1
Rowsol
So this is why websites like to use 1/3 of my screen...

A 1080p monitor is $150. No reason not to have one.
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
The average consumer doesn't want to spend >$100 on a monitor, and >$300 on a computer.

TPU is optimized for 4K screens, Eyefinity, and 3DVision Surround, btw. ;)
Posted on Reply
#4
JKnows
The sad thing we buy because laptops do not have other option. I hate 1366x768 resolution.
Posted on Reply
#5
Vulpesveritas
by: Rowsol
So this is why websites like to use 1/3 of my screen...

A 1080p monitor is $150. No reason not to have one.
Well, given that nearly every laptop sold in retail has a 720p screen with it, and most "normal people" buy laptops nowadays, and usually in retail, I can't really say it's surprising. Outside of business, art, and gaming, higher resolutions aren't exactly as much of a push. Especially for budget buyers.

So eh, not surprised. Plus smartphones are starting to have 720p screens too. With any device sub-4.8" having a retina display @ 720p, other than for marketing it would be a waste of processor resources for the most part to push past that resolution, so 720p may remain a norm for a while.
Posted on Reply
#6
specks
I am right on the spot. Im okay doing my stuff at this resolution
Posted on Reply
#7
Chevalr1c
I am still at 1280x1024, my laptop is 1440x900. Both 17"
Posted on Reply
#8
xBruce88x
yea i'm still using 1280x1024 as well, same on my laptop (thought it'll do 1400x1050).

@Vulpesveritas Wouldn't 1366x768 be 768p?
Posted on Reply
#9
hhumas
all mini notebooks use same resolution that is why its growing faster and faster
Posted on Reply
#10
RejZoR
by: Rowsol
So this is why websites like to use 1/3 of my screen...

A 1080p monitor is $150. No reason not to have one.
Actually there is.

A 1280x1024 or a 1366x768 screens can be powered by mid-high end graphic card for up to 200 EUR and it will last for literally years and you can play games with max possible settings no problem.

With 1920x1080 screen, you need a 300+ EUR card and you might already have problems in newer games which will have lower fps already. Yes, even 1080p will eventually get to the point of the above two resolutions, but it will take some more time.

I'm telling you this from my personal experience. I have a 1280x1024 screen and most will argue that it's too low res and too old. But i like it. Size doesn't bother me, but it just works and i can play EVERYTHING with my HD6950 at max possible settings. Most ppl were scared with Far Cry, Crysis series and latest Battlefield 3. I wasn't. I knew it would run easily with Ultra settings. And it did. With this screen i can simply watch everyone rushing for HD7970 and GTX 680 and just well, laugh. And i'll see if there will even be any need for HD8970 and GTX 780...

So, the first rule of cheap gaming, have a moderate resolution screen and you'll get through some high quality gaming much much cheaper. At the moment this resolution is 1366x769 and 1280x1024. Wide and boxed format, whatever you prefer. The biggest problem is they all rush for cheap 1080p screens and then complain how their games are slow...
Posted on Reply
#11
Kantastic
I'm on an 11.6" 1366x768 screen and think it's perfect. There's no way I'm getting a bigger laptop without at least 1600x900 like the Zenbook.
Posted on Reply
#12
rainwilds
Finally web designers can start making sites a little wider than the 1000px default.
Posted on Reply
#13
acerace
by: RejZoR
Actually there is.

A 1280x1024 or a 1366x768 screens can be powered by mid-high end graphic card for up to 200 EUR and it will last for literally years and you can play games with max possible settings no problem.

With 1920x1080 screen, you need a 300+ EUR card and you might already have problems in newer games which will have lower fps already. Yes, even 1080p will eventually get to the point of the above two resolutions, but it will take some more time.

I'm telling you this from my personal experience. I have a 1280x1024 screen and most will argue that it's too low res and too old. But i like it. Size doesn't bother me, but it just works and i can play EVERYTHING with my HD6950 at max possible settings. Most ppl were scared with Far Cry, Crysis series and latest Battlefield 3. I wasn't. I knew it would run easily with Ultra settings. And it did. With this screen i can simply watch everyone rushing for HD7970 and GTX 680 and just well, laugh. And i'll see if there will even be any need for HD8970 and GTX 780...

So, the first rule of cheap gaming, have a moderate resolution screen and you'll get through some high quality gaming much much cheaper. At the moment this resolution is 1366x769 and 1280x1024. Wide and boxed format, whatever you prefer. The biggest problem is they all rush for cheap 1080p screens and then complain how their games are slow...
I second this. With my aging PC, low res is more preferably.
Posted on Reply
#14
Derek12
my desktop: 1280x1024 perfect for me
my netbook: 1024x600 idem
Posted on Reply
#15
scooper22
yeah, let's get all back to 640x480 or even 320x200 :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Posted on Reply
#16
NC37
I spent a decade in 1280x1024...then I jumped to 1680x1050...oh it is such heaven!

If you must, you must, but you don't know the glory of high res till you've really used it and seen the difference. Heck mine isn't even high anymore! One of these days I'll shift to 1080 but for now, I'm content.
Posted on Reply
#17
TheLostSwede
Wow... talk about stragglers...
I'm running 2048x1152 + 1920x1200 and I feel like I always run out of space...
And no, I don't have a super powerful graphics card, but that "old" 6870 plays all the games I play just fine at 2048x1152...
Posted on Reply
#18
gumpty
Oh NOOOOOESSSS!!! This is TERRIBLE news!

There are so many websites currently optimised for width at 1024, which means my monitor can display two browser windows side by side perfectly.

Don't change this, developers. Please don't do it!
Posted on Reply
#19
TheLostSwede
by: gumpty
Oh NOOOOOESSSS!!! This is TERRIBLE news!

There are so many websites currently optimised for width at 1024, which means my monitor can display two browser windows side by side perfectly.

Don't change this, developers. Please don't do it!
I guess I'm not the only one with a 2048x1152 display then :toast:
Posted on Reply
#20
RejZoR
by: scooper22
yeah, let's get all back to 640x480 or even 320x200 :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Lets don't exaggerate things...

by: NC37
I spent a decade in 1280x1024...then I jumped to 1680x1050...oh it is such heaven!

If you must, you must, but you don't know the glory of high res till you've really used it and seen the difference. Heck mine isn't even high anymore! One of these days I'll shift to 1080 but for now, I'm content.
What glory? Only difference between my and your image is the physical size in inches diagonally. With all the horsepower to spare from the gfx card, i can use 4x FSAA easily, but most of the time i use even higher values. I have 16x AF enabled all the time by default for like ages. So the jaggies are total history and i see just a smooth detailed image.
Posted on Reply
#22
Isenstaedt
by: Chevalr1c
I am still at 1280x1024, my laptop is 1440x900. Both 17"
by: xBruce88x
@Vulpesveritas Wouldn't 1366x768 be 768p?
1280x1024 here too. I'm looking forward to get either a 1440x900 or a 1600x900 monitor on of these months.
Posted on Reply
#23
Goodman
by: RejZoR
Actually there is.

A 1280x1024 or a 1366x768 screens can be powered by mid-high end graphic card for up to 200 EUR and it will last for literally years and you can play games with max possible settings no problem.

With 1920x1080 screen, you need a 300+ EUR card and you might already have problems in newer games which will have lower fps already. Yes, even 1080p will eventually get to the point of the above two resolutions, but it will take some more time.

I'm telling you this from my personal experience. I have a 1280x1024 screen and most will argue that it's too low res and too old. But i like it. Size doesn't bother me, but it just works and i can play EVERYTHING with my HD6950 at max possible settings. Most ppl were scared with Far Cry, Crysis series and latest Battlefield 3. I wasn't. I knew it would run easily with Ultra settings. And it did. With this screen i can simply watch everyone rushing for HD7970 and GTX 680 and just well, laugh. And i'll see if there will even be any need for HD8970 and GTX 780...

So, the first rule of cheap gaming, have a moderate resolution screen and you'll get through some high quality gaming much much cheaper. At the moment this resolution is 1366x769 and 1280x1024. Wide and boxed format, whatever you prefer. The biggest problem is they all rush for cheap 1080p screens and then complain how their games are slow...
Are you kidding me?
I7@3.8ghz
6GB ram
6950
You wouldn't have any problems playing games at 1920x1080 , C'mon! what are still doing with a 4:3 monitor?
You actually loosing a lots of the extras games visual not to have it played in widescreen , i would never go back to 4:3 monitor as far as games & movies are concerned

With my system i can play Warhead full quality @ 1920x1080 & Crysis 2 a little less they both do about 30f/s which is fine by me but worst case scenario i could always choose a lower resolution even if not native res. it will still look great in games

Anyhow having a nice system like your it's shame not to have a better monitor to go with it...:ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#24
eidairaman1
Gimmer 1920x1200

by: Goodman
Are you kidding me?
I7@3.8ghz
6GB ram
6950
You wouldn't have any problems playing games at 1920x1080 , C'mon! what are still doing with a 4:3 monitor?
You actually loosing a lots of the extras games visual not to have it played in widescreen , i would never go back to 4:3 monitor as far as games & movies are concerned

With my system i can play Warhead full quality @ 1920x1080 & Crysis 2 a little less they both do about 30f/s which is fine by me but worst case scenario i could always choose a lower resolution even if not native res. it will still look great in games

Anyhow having a nice system like your it's shame not to have a better monitor to go with it...:ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#25
mtosev
man i hate 16:9 on pc monitors. 16:10 All The Way:):)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment