16:10 or 16:9 - which one to buy?

[Warrgarbl]

Hello everyone,

I am currently looking at a replacement for my aging 16:10 (1.680x1.050) Iiyama monitor. However I absolutely can't decide which aspect ratio I want to get.

The monitor will be mostly used for browsing and gaming, with some word processing and coding on the side. I do not watch movies on my PC, that is what a comfy sofa, Blurays and a Full HD TV are for.

I would basically prefer 16:10 because I find it to be the more balanced format, but games tend to have a lesser FOV than on a 16:9, which is something I actually noticed before. Some games are just TOO zoomed in on a 16:10.

What is your opinion on this?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

8:5 is very expensive these days. That's usually all it takes to convince people to buy 16:9. I prefer 8:5 myself but I can hardly justify spending double to get it.

 

[Warrgarbl]

Well, I suppose it depends on the budget you are having. I was thinking of spending ~400$ on either an Eizo Foris FS2333 in 1.920x1.080 or an Asus PB248Q in 1.920x1.200. Both are amazing IPS monitors with great color accuracy, but the Eizo is marketed towards gamers whereas the Asus is quick enough, but is marketed towards graphical work. It is basically a decision between those two.

For reference: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2012/review-eizo-foris-fs2333-bk.html

 

[Fourstaff]

The cheaper one, despite everyone saying that 16:10 is superior (and I agree), 16:9 became standard and I don't feel much disadvantage using either.

 

[ViperXTR]

i miss them 1440x900 and 1680x1050 days :O

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah, 8:5 was the VESA standard so most computer monitors used it. Then ATSC came along making 16:9 = HDTV and, due to the TV industry being a lot larger than the monitor industry and the panels being swappable between both indusries, economics dictated 16:9 win. 16:9 is, in no way, better for computer use than 8:5 but it is substantially cheaper.

If the monitors are about the same price and one is 1920x1200 and the other is 1920x1080, I would take 1920x1200 every time. The reason why is quite simple: 1920x1200 has over 200,000 more pixels than 1920x1080.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

8:5 is very expensive these days. That's usually all it takes to convince people to buy 16:9. I prefer 8:5 myself but I can hardly justify spending double to get it.

Dooooooooooooooon't. You know what you did.

Also

Yeah, 8:5 was the VESA standard so most computer monitors used it. Then ATSC came along making 16:9 = HDTV and, due to the TV industry being a lot larger than the monitor industry and the panels being swappable between both indusries, economics dictated 16:9 win. 16:9 is, in no way, better for computer use than 8:5 but it is substantially cheaper.

If the monitors are about the same price and one is 1920x1200 and the other is 1920x1080, I would take 1920x1200 every time. The reason why is quite simple: 1920x1200 has over 200,000 more pixels than 1920x1080.

+1

Why get less pixels?

 

[ne6togadno]

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_p2414h.htm
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2413.htm

 

[repman244]

with some word processing and coding on the side.

Don't even look at 16:9 go for 16:10.

 

[Warrgarbl]

Why get less pixels?

I dislike letterboxing. I can tolerate it in movies, but playing games in letterbox? Besides that, quality > quantity for me, and the Eizo seems like it should give the best picture quality.

 

[Warrgarbl]

If the monitors are about the same price and one is 1920x1200 and the other is 1920x1080, I would take 1920x1200 every time. The reason why is quite simple: 1920x1200 has over 200,000 more pixels than 1920x1080.

I get your point, however, having a lower resolution means more longevity for my system because less pixels to push equals longer lifespan for my GPU.

Like I said, I really like 16:10, but having a narrower field of view in games is something that bugs me A LOT. Are there ways of circumventing this?

 

[CowboyFromHell]

I dislike letterboxing. I can tolerate it in movies, but playing games in letterbox? Besides that, quality > quantity for me, and the Eizo seems like it should give the best picture quality.

I get your point, however, having a lower resolution means more longevity for my system because less pixels to push equals longer lifespan for my GPU.

Like I said, I really like 16:10, but having a narrower field of view in games is something that bugs me A LOT. Are there ways of circumventing this?

Ive not seen a game under 5 years old that doesnt support 16:10. ie there will be no letterboxing in games. Also, most games have an fov slider and if they dont, the fov can be changed in the console or ini files.

 

[Dent1]

I dislike letterboxing. I can tolerate it in movies, but playing games in letterbox? Besides that, quality > quantity for me, and the Eizo seems like it should give the best picture quality.

I've been running wide screen of years and you don't get letterbox in games. Never encountered letter box in games. The image will stretch across the entire screen at all times with no bars.

 

[DayKnight]

Sixteen:nine.

 

[Warrgarbl]

Ive not seen a game under 5 years old that doesnt support 16:10. ie there will be no letterboxing in games. Also, most games have an fov slider and if they dont, the fov can be changed in the console or ini files.

Good point. I'll have to have a look at some games like DOTA2 or Diablo III that seem to have a fixed FOV. Besides, if I change the FOV, won't the image get stretched?

I've been running wide screen of years and you don't get letterbox in games. Never encountered letter box in games. The image will stretch across the entire screen at all times with no bars.

Yes, of course you don't get letterboxing if you decide to game at a resolution that is not native and scaling is enabled. However, if you want to have a native resolution you will have to deal with letterboxing on a 16:10.

 

[Dent1]

Good point. I'll have to have a look at some games like DOTA2 or Diablo III that seem to have a fixed FOV. Besides, if I change the FOV, won't the image get stretched?


Yes, of course you don't get letterboxing if you decide to game at a resolution that is not native and scaling is enabled. However, if you want to have a native resolution you will have to deal with letterboxing on a 16:10.

I don't play around with scaling features. I leave Catalyst at default settings.

I always run my native resolution of 1440x900 and never get letterboxing.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

16:10 here and staying with it.

 

[Warrgarbl]

I don't play around with scaling features. I leave Catalyst at default settings.

I always run my native resolution of 1440x900 and never get letterboxing.

You see, the core of my problem and the point that I am trying to make is that many newer games tend to run at a fixed height. This means that a 16:10 gets the same vertical view port as a 16:9, which results in the sides getting cut off a little, therefore reducing the effective field of view. This is most likely due to the console ports that are commonplace today.

Some games allow for FOV adjustment, but many don't, which is when you would want to game in a letterbox, such as 1.920x1.080 on a 1.920x1.200 screen. This is something I do not like at all, and I think it is horrible design by whoever coded the games. If I play in 16:10 I should get a little more vertical fov and a little less horizontal fov and all would be well.

 

[CowboyFromHell]

Good point. I'll have to have a look at some games like DOTA2 or Diablo III that seem to have a fixed FOV. Besides, if I change the FOV, won't the image get stretched?

nope

 

[Warrgarbl]

But if you try to have the same field of view on a narrower monitor things should start to look a little thinner, shouldn't they?

 

[OC-Rage]

Hi go Get 16:10 very wonderful Quality 16:9 very old

 

[qubit]

Hello everyone,

I am currently looking at a replacement for my aging 16:10 (1.680x1.050) Iiyama monitor. However I absolutely can't decide which aspect ratio I want to get.

The monitor will be mostly used for browsing and gaming, with some word processing and coding on the side. I do not watch movies on my PC, that is what a comfy sofa, Blurays and a Full HD TV are for.

I would basically prefer 16:10 because I find it to be the more balanced format, but games tend to have a lesser FOV than on a 16:9, which is something I actually noticed before. Some games are just TOO zoomed in on a 16:10.

What is your opinion on this?

There's no clear-cut answer to this one, unfortunately.

I find the slightly letterboxed view (as in wide) you get with 16:9 better for gaming, while 16:10 is better for general purpose use on the desktop, so you have to decide which you want to get.

The thing to remember is that 16:9 is much more common and easier to get hold of. Also, a 120Hz monitor with a strobing backlight will massively improve your gaming experience by removing all motion blur along with the benefit of twice the temporal resolution. It will even enhance your desktop too. Unfortunately, these are only available in 16:9 format and usually 1080 resolution at the moment, so you don't get a choice. For me, that strobing backlight is the killer feature I can't do without so I've gone 16:9 on a 27" panel.

Note that whether you use a 16:9 or 16:10 monitor for gaming, you won't have to put up with letterboxing (as in black bars) because the games will support either aspect ratio at native resolution. On some very old games you may have to tweak an ini file perhaps, but that's all. The ancient Unreal Tournament dating from 1999 for example, runs just fine on 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 resolutions, no letterbox and native resolution.

8:5 is very expensive these days. That's usually all it takes to convince people to buy 16:9. I prefer 8:5 myself but I can hardly justify spending double to get it.

What resolution are you thinking of? I can't imagine you're thinking of 1280x1024 which is rather low nowadays.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ive not seen a game under 5 years old that doesnt support 16:10. ie there will be no letterboxing in games. Also, most games have an fov slider and if they dont, the fov can be changed in the console or ini files.

Cutscenes and videos are often letterboxed but the gameplay usually isn't. Even so, does it really matter? It's only about 0.4" on the bottom and 0.4" on the top on a 24" screen. I never notice it unless I explicitly look for it. Your eyes should naturally focus on the content, not the lack of content.


On the other hand, old school 4:3 VESA resolutions like 1600x1200 render much better on 1920x1200 than they do on 1920x1080 Yes, it is letterboxed on both screens but 1080 has to be stretched as well which results in...less than ideal results. If you run software that likes 1600x1200 frequently, that alone makes the 1920x1200 premium worth it.

What resolution are you thinking of? I can't imagine you're thinking of 1280x1024 which is rather low nowadays.

1920x1200 versus 1920x1080. 1280x1024 is 5:4.

 

[qubit]

1920x1200 versus 1920x1080. 1280x1024 is 5:4.

I know, but 1280x1024 is quite low nowadays, so I thought you might be thinking of a higher 5:4 resolution.

 

[Warrgarbl]

Here is am image that demonstrates the problem and why I still talk about letterboxing:

I'd have to run 16:9 letterboxed on a 16:10 screen to get the correct FOV. This is the kind of behaviour that is giving me a hard time deciding. Many games do it this way, and there are some games like Diablo 3 where you end up getting shot by invisible enemies because of the narrower FOV *that you can do nothing about*.

You have a point about the old resolutions though.

As I wrote earlier, my budget is ~400$. I want to stay at 24" or below because my desk isn't very deep and I have to sit relatively close to the monitor. Pixel density also never hurts. Image quality is very important for me.

Currently, I am torn betwen the Eizo Foris FS2333 (23", 1.920x1.080) and the Asus PB248Q (24", 1.920x1.200). Both are high quality IPS panels. The Eizo is marketed towards gamers, has no blurring and almost no input lag, whereas the Asus is for graphical work mostly, but according to PRAD will do well in games.

I have to admit that I am mostly indifferent to my FPS once I am past 30-40 fps. Anything more is purely optional for me. I personally prefer all eye candy @ 40 fps to less eye candy at 120fps. Besides, the ability to run games at 120fps in high resolutions comes at quite a price, gpu-wise.