Your pick: 16:10 or 16:9?

[Aquinus]

I went from 1280x1024 to 1920x1200. Skipped 1080/16:9 so I have no comparison to go by. Sorry

16:10 was a thing way before 16:9 was. Either way, I appreciate the statement that you've only ever used one. We know (and hopefully like) what we've used.

Here are some comparative images. What people are losing with 16:9 displays:

Spoiler: Images

It's pretty minimal though. What do you actually feel that you're losing by this? It sure is less space but the real question is if it really makes a difference or not.

16:10 is for me. Extra height is what I like about 16:10 so I choose it over 16:9. 16:9 is not bad. but I prefer 16:10

Once again, I will pose this question to you. What do those 120 lines get you and is it enough to justify saying that 16:10 is better than 16:9? I think in reality few people really will care, even more so if it means getting a 1440p or 4k display. So considering the market, I think clinging on to an older standard for the sake of a few extra vertical lines at a particular horizontal resolution is a little insane since most panels now are 16:9 including those with resolutions north of 1920x1200.

It's worth noting I feel like I rarely get black lines with 1920x1080. Most video I watch will fill the entire panel. Either way, I still don't think either argument for or against is valid to say one is better than the other. The simple fact is that there is a lot of 16:9 content and support. It's the standard, it's where everything is going. They're not better or worse, they're just different. One has been adopted more than the other.

What's so difficult about understanding such simple sentence as "I can't see shit on 16:9 screen."? I just fucking can't, it's vertically so thin it's disturbing to my eyes. It looks like crap in games, and I don't even want to imagine how would I do ANY work on such monitor. I'd go apeshit within 5 minutes. No window of reasonable size will fit on that.

So you're crying over 120 lost lines? How about looking at the other 1080 of them? 120 is a lot skinnier than the rest of the display. That's not an excuse, that's being whiny. I'm not asking you to look at 1920x120 (yes, that's 120, not 1200) because that would be skinny.

Why would you want less choices???

If you think about it, you can definitely benefit from the extra screen estate when playing sports games like FIFA/PES and FPS games. (I don't play these though)

Try that at 1440p or 4k (if hardware could drive it) and I'm sure you'd change your mind.

 

[Naito]

I have a 16:10 VX2835wm right next to my 16:9 Philips. The 120px difference means nothing to me. Both are monitors. Both show content at a high enough resolution and quality. However, if I were to choose, 16:9 is preferred as more content is commonly found in that format. Otherwise, meh... panel quality, color reproduction, and more importantly response times and refresh rates mean the most to me when looking at purchasing monitors.

 

[Aquinus]

I have a 16:10 VX2835wm right next to my 16:9 Philips. The 120px difference means nothing to me. Both are monitors. Both show content at a high enough resolution and quality. However, if I were to choose, 16:9 is preferred as more content is commonly found in that format. Otherwise, meh... panel quality, color reproduction, and more importantly response times and refresh rates mean the most to me when looking at purchasing monitors.

This is the kind of response I want to be hearing more. It's less about the 120 lines you lose. It's more about the kind of panel you have. I must say, my new IPS panels kick the crap out of my old 28" TN screen which not only looks worse, but uses twice as much power as all 3 of my new ones. There is always a lot more to a display than an aspect ratio.

 

[Ja.KooLit]

16:10 is for me. Extra height is what I like about 16:10 so I choose it over 16:9. 16:9 is not bad. but I prefer 16:10

Once again, I will pose this question to you. What do those 120 lines get you and is it enough to justify saying that 16:10 is better than 16:9? I think in reality few people really will care, even more so if it means getting a 1440p or 4k display. So considering the market, I think clinging on to an older standard for the sake of a few extra vertical lines at a particular horizontal resolution is a little insane since most panels now are 16:9 including those with resolutions north of 1920x1200.

It's worth noting I feel like I rarely get black lines with 1920x1080. Most video I watch will fill the entire panel. Either way, I still don't think either argument for or against is valid to say one is better than the other. The simple fact is that there is a lot of 16:9 content and support. It's the standard, it's where everything is going. They're not better or worse, they're just different. One has been adopted more than the other.

.

Please read what I post before you ask me that question. I said I prefer 16:10. I never said 16:10 is better than 16:9.

 

[Aquinus]

Please read what I post before you ask me that question. I said I prefer 16:10. I never said 16:10 is better than 16:9.

...but why? Other than a tiny bit of space, what does it get you? Having a preference for one over another indicates that one is better than the other in some way. If both are equal, one would assume there would be no preference because there is no advantage to having one over the other so you're comment makes no sense.

 

[kn00tcn]

16:10 is closest to golden ratio, it's just the most pleasant rectangle

now if we're talking resolutions, 1920x1200 is clearly the most versatile:
-fits 1920x1080 content without scaling issues
-fits 1600x1200 content without scaling issues
-golden ratio
-if a game has hardcoded resolutions, it would most likely be fine since they top out at 1920x*, while i have seen reports of games where they break at 2560 or have overly blurry UI, etc

if we're talking productivity, 2560x1440 16:9 is more pixels than 1920x1200 16:10 for example, so you cant just say 16:9 is reducing space without directly comparing the same width

4:3 is pretty lame, but the real issue is that 5:4 is TERRIBLE, what were they thinking making 1280x1024...

as for real world game usage, the problem with 16:10 is when games lower the FOV, this obviously makes no sense, especially if there is a 'sister' resolution in 16:9 (like 1920x1200 & 1920x1080), what they need to do is just add more vertical while keeping the sides identical

21:9 makes no sense.... blurays are 1920x1080 right? so a 21:9 monitor 'should' be 1920x780... but the ones i keep seeing are 2560x1080?? welcome to blurry movies... i'll take the black bars on 1080 than scale the image! not all movies are in this wide format either

speaking of not making sense.. 1366x768 tvs!?!? yes let's mess up 1280x720 videos/console games for no reason... black bars or blurry overscan

anyway... no size is the end of the world, except for maybe 5:4

 

[Ja.KooLit]

...but why? Other than a tiny bit of space, what does it get you? Having a preference for one over another indicates that one is better than the other in some way. If both are equal, one would assume there would be no preference because there is no advantage to having one over the other so you're comment makes no sense.
View attachment 62163

Well I like my 30" 1600p. Ive seen 27" 1440 and I just dont like it. I have also tried playing in 1440p and I didnt want it. That is the reason why. I have 3 x 24" 1080p at work and I dont like working.

That is just me. and you dont have to push me on what you like and what you prefer. This is what I prefer and the OP is asking which one should I pick.

This thread is not about 16:10 vs 16:9. This is about what people wants to pick

 

[Aquinus]

Well I like my 30" 1600p. Ive seen 27" 1440 and I just dont like it. I have also tried playing in 1440p and I didnt want it. That is the reason why. I have 3 x 24" 1080p at work and I dont like working.

That is just me. and you dont have to push me on what you like and what you prefer. This is what I prefer and the OP is asking which one should I pick.

This thread is not about 16:10 vs 16:9. This is about what people wants to pick

...but people like you profess that it's worse but yet there is no explanation on why or what difference it makes. All I'm asking you to do is explain to me what it gets you at 16:9 does not but you don't seem capable of saying much beyond, that you just don't like it.

 

[buildzoid]

My favorite aspect ratio is 21:9 since it massively boosts FOV in games and covers a much more natural chunk of my vision(human eyes are something between 21:9 and 27:9). As for the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 at 1920 it's 120pixels which is about 10 lines of 12pt text. Really if you want to see a ton of text get a second monitor and run it in portrait much more cost effective.

 

[Ja.KooLit]

...but people like you profess that it's worse but yet there is no explanation on why or what difference it makes. All I'm asking you to do is explain to me what it gets you at 16:9 does not but you don't seem capable of saying much beyond, that you just don't like it.

Have you been reading my post or you just ignore them? I already post it that I do prefer 16:10 due to more height. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH???? and NOT VALID????

if for you is not enough reason, that is your problem not mine. BUT DO NOT PERSUADE me over 120 lines. THAT IS WHAT I WANT and that IS WHAT I PREFER

 

[kn00tcn]

...but people like you profess that it's worse but yet there is no explanation on why or what difference it makes. All I'm asking you to do is explain to me what it gets you at 16:9 does not but you don't seem capable of saying much beyond, that you just don't like it.

isnt this an enthusiast site? 'a few more pixels', 120 of them, is an increase, therefore it's 'better' in the purest definition

 

[Ja.KooLit]

isnt this an enthusiast site? 'a few more pixels', 120 of them, is an increase, therefore it's 'better' in the purest definition

thanks man.

 

[Rahmat Sofyan]

21:9 for me and it's look like more future proof for general users and for next couple years..

but in one condition, at least the screen size was 24" for 16 : 9 and 29" for 21:9

my next target was LG 34UM95

For comparison : 23" 16 :10 and 23" 16:9.

it's really depend on what your need..

 

[Aquinus]

isnt this an enthusiast site? 'a few more pixels', 120 of them, is an increase, therefore it's 'better' in the purest definition

The Pentium 4 has a long pipeline. That "big" pipeline is why the CPU failed. Lets not use a "one size fits all" mentality when it comes to what enthusiasts want.

Have you been reading my post or you just ignore them? I already post it that I do prefer 16:10 due to more height. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH???? and NOT VALID????

No it's not. You're saying you care about 9% of your screen more than the other 91%. Plus, you're just saying "ARGH OMG HEIGHT". That's not a really good example of why it's better. It's an example of how you can't articulate what it actually gets you. What does that height get you? So instead of professing that height is what you want, how about you explain to me what that height gets you instead of getting your panties in a bunch.

I'm saying neither is better, you're saying one is better than the other. I'm asking you to prove it and explain what you do where those 120 lines matter. Enlighten us. Don't just whine.

 

[Toothless]

I'm just here loving my monitors. All 16:9 and all different sizes. (1080p, 900p, and 720p.)

One day.. I shall move to all 1080p..

 

[Octopuss]

Have you been reading my post or you just ignore them? I already post it that I do prefer 16:10 due to more height. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH???? and NOT VALID????

if for you is not enough reason, that is your problem not mine. BUT DO NOT PERSUADE me over 120 lines. THAT IS WHAT I WANT and that IS WHAT I PREFER

I think he is just a troll or something. Or just plain stupid. I don't know, he just keeps babbling the same stuff over and over, not taking ANY answer for an answer. I'm done with this thread, there are only so many attempts to provoke me before it explodes.
P.S. I hate overusing of the word "whine" where it doesn't even apply.

 

[HammerON]

Alright, just respect each other's opinions, because that is all they are. If you cannot do so, then move along. Also, please watch the cussing. There are ways to express yourself without having to resort to cursing to make your point.
I switched to a 16:10 monitor almost 5 years ago and have no regrets.

 

[Shou Miko]

i have had 4:3, 16:10 and now 16:9 doing my life time and 16:10 was king in gaming when it came out, but everything has switched over to 16:9 even movies from 4:3 so i guess that 16:9 is the new standard until some else maybe not 21:9, comes and take this place.

 

[RCoon]

1:1 all day every day
1920p goodness.

 

[Toothless]

1:1 all day every day
1920p goodness.

I must know where to get this goodness. I want three with surround.

 

[RCoon]

I must know where to get this goodness. I want three with surround.

Pretty sure they're used for airtraffic control and similar such things. They're not exactly cheap either.

 

[XSI]

using both 16:10 laptop+monitor and 16:9 TV. don't care a lot about it. but I will go for 21:9 this/next year for sure.
either 2560x1080 or 3440x1440.

 

[zsolt_93]

I just went recently from 16:10 to 16:9. Mostly because i use it as a TV adn Full had looks better on a HDTV than on 16:10 especially that my 1680x1050 couldnt display that at all.

 

[Octopuss]

Alright, just respect each other's opinions, because that is all they are. If you cannot do so, then move along. Also, please watch the cussing. There are ways to express yourself without having to resort to cursing to make your point.
I switched to a 16:10 monitor almost 5 years ago and have no regrets.

I assume this was aimed at me (plus the cussing, which I agree on).
I am sorry, the guy was just pointlessly trying to wind others up. I don't like when someone tries to provoke me very much.

 

[Ja.KooLit]

No it's not. You're saying you care about 9% of your screen more than the other 91%. Plus, you're just saying "ARGH OMG HEIGHT". That's not a really good example of why it's better. It's an example of how you can't articulate what it actually gets you. What does that height get you? So instead of professing that height is what you want, how about you explain to me what that height gets you instead of getting your panties in a bunch.

I'm saying neither is better, you're saying one is better than the other. I'm asking you to prove it and explain what you do where those 120 lines matter. Enlighten us. Don't just whine.

lets stop it from here. all I can say again is that I said I prefer 16:10 due to height and thats what my eyes like. its like comparing a longer mouse to a normal mouse. For all people they use the standard mouse. But I prefer the longer mouse because thats what my hands like. 16:9 is the standard or even it is the widely used. Fine and dandy. I respect that. But I fall inlove with 16:10 when I start to use it. And I kept it that way. Then I figured oh it was the height that makes my eyes easier to work with. To play with. For all other people like you, you got used to 16:9 and you like it. Thats fine. I respect that. But I wont be bashing you guys who prefer 16:9 because thats what you like.

anyway, looking at your number of post and how long you've been in TPU, I know you more. you have keep pushing me that the height is not enough and telling me im just whining. well, look who's talking? You pushed people who prefer 16:10. so what. Cant you respect that?