• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Gaming Monitor 1920X1200 vs 1920X1080

Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
163 (0.08/day)
Likes
9
Location
Italy
Processor I7 920
Motherboard Rampage II Gene
Cooling Liquid
Memory 4GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) HD6970
Display(s) 24" LCD 1920X1080
Audio Device(s) X-FI Xtreme Music
Power Supply Corsair HX520W
Software W7 Ultimate 64BIT
#1
Can you tell me what resolution is more suitable (more graphic quality) for Gaming?
 
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
4,966 (1.59/day)
Likes
1,511
System Name i7-PC / HTPC / iMac
Processor i7 3820 / Phenom II 940
Motherboard GIGABYTE G1.ASSASSIN2 / M3A79-T Deluxe
Cooling Corsair Hydro H100i / Scythe II (HS only)
Memory G.SKILL Trident X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1600mhz / 4GB DDR2 1066 (@800) Corsair Dominator
Video Card(s) GB Radeon HD 7950s 3GB / GB Radeon HD 7950s 3GB
Storage 2x 80GB Intel X-25, 2x600gb SATA, 1x1tb 5400RPM storage /1x600GB, 3x500GB,1x160,1x120 SATA
Display(s) 1x 27" Yamakasi / Vizio 42" HDTV
Case Lian Li Lancool PC-K58 / Antec 900
Audio Device(s) HT Omega Striker 7.1 / Onboard and HDMI from ATi Card
Power Supply PC Power & Cooling 750W / 610W
Software Ubuntu / Windows 8.1 Pro / OS X / PHPStorm / Gaming
#2
technically speaking, more pixels = better quality. in reality, it enables you to have better quality.

so 1200 would offer the ability to have more vertical pixels, which has the ability to give better visual quality - but in the end it depends on the game, and whether it was designed for 16:9 and gives options for fov, etc - otherwise all it will do is stretch the picture for more pixels, which WILL NOT give you better quality.

1200 is technically better but 1080 is the standard, which gives benefits of it's own. in most cases there is a simple workaround like black bars to stop it from stretching, so if money isn't the issue and you want to be able to get better quality while understanding you may have to fiddle with some options or even ini files to get all the games you want to work optimally, then 1200 would be the option. i went 1080.
 
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
2,083 (0.49/day)
Likes
267
System Name Not named
Processor Q6600 @ 3.65ghz 1.4375v w/Ultra 120 Extreme
Motherboard Asus P5K-E/WIFI-AP P35 (Pencil Mod)
Cooling 4x 120mm 1x 200mm fans
Memory 8GB DDR2 G.Skill @511mhz (5-5-5-15)
Video Card(s) Asus 7870
Storage Hitachi Deskstar 7K500 500GB SATA2
Display(s) 22Inch Samsung 2220WM
Case Antec 900
Audio Device(s) AuzenTech HDA X-PLOSION 7.1 DTS / Z-5500 logitech
Power Supply Corsair Tx750 watt
#3
I went 1200. It's fantastic. Even things like web browsing is better. Those extra 120px are absolutely noticeable.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
3,099 (0.66/day)
Likes
812
System Name TheReactor
Processor i7 6700k @ 4.95ghz - delid
Motherboard ASUS Maximus VIII Genie z170
Cooling EK EVO NIckle/Pump, 2xBlackIce GTX 240's
Memory 32GB G.Skill 3200Mhz Cas 14
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 980ti Gaming 6G
Storage Samsung 960 EVO 500GB
Display(s) HP ZR30W - 2560X1600
Case Corsiar 550
Audio Device(s) on board
Power Supply Antec Quattro 1000W
Mouse Logitech G502
Keyboard Corsair Gaming k70
Software Windows 10 Pro 64bit
#4
Can you tell me what resolution is more suitable (more graphic quality) for Gaming?
There are 2,073,600 pixels on a 1920x1080 and 2,304,000 on 1920x1200.

Is better in every way for gaming FOV. Only bad thing is the added stress on your hardware. More to render, more pixels to manage. The more you have the better the image, and also higher resolutions tend not to need so much Anti-Aliasing.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,576 (0.65/day)
Likes
510
Processor Mysterious Engineering Prototype
Motherboard Intel 865
Cooling Custom block made in workshop
Memory Corsair XMS 2GB
Video Card(s) FireGL X3-256
Display(s) 1600x1200 SyncMaster x 2 = 3200x1200
Software Windows 2003
#5
Depending on your GPU, your budget, and if you are using the PC only for gaming, you might want to consider a 1600x900 or 1680x1050. Your GPU might be able to give you a better quality picture on these resolutions than a higher resolution.

I would never choose for such a low resolution, because I use my PC for work, productivity, reading PDFs etc. and want more pixels for better screen and font readability and more of an A4 page on the screen at a time.

I would go for a 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 and run it at a lower resolution so that my GPU could cope. The monitor would take care of the scaling, so you set your gaming resolution to (say) 1280x800 and get nice fast gameplay.

So what's your budget, and do you use your PC just for gaming?
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
4,001 (1.32/day)
Likes
1,652
Location
Sarasota, Florida, USA
System Name Awesomesauce 4.3 | Laptop (MSI GE72VR 6RF Apache Pro-023)
Processor Intel Core i7-5820K 4.16GHz 1.28v/3GHz 1.05v uncore | Intel Core i7-6700HQ @ 3.1GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-X99-UD5 WiFi LGA2011-v3| Stock
Cooling Corsair H100i v2 w/ 2x EK Vardar F4-120ER + various 120/140mm case fans | Stock
Memory G.Skill RJ-4 16GB DDR4-2666 CL15 quad channel | 12GB DDR4-2133
Video Card(s) ASUS ROG Strix A8G Gaming GTX 1080 @ 2075/1368 boost | NVIDIA GTX 1060 6GB +200/+500 + Intel 530
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 500GB + Seagate 3TB 7200RPM + others | Kingston 256GB M.2 SATA + 1TB 7200RPM
Display(s) Acer G257HU 1440p 60Hz AH-IPS 4ms | 17.3" 1920*1080 60Hz wide angle TN notebook panel
Case Fractal Design Define XL R2 | MSI
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z | Realtek with quad stereo speakers and subwoofer
Power Supply Corsair HX850i Platinum | 19.5v 180w Delta brick
Software Windows 10 Pro x64 | Windows 10 Home x64
Benchmark Scores GTX 1080 please?
#6
I have used 1920*1080 displays for several years and don't care about the 16:9 vs. 16:10 debate. 16:10 monitors are less common these days and are typically more expensive than their 16:9 counterparts. Many games these days are console port trash so they tend to work great with 16:9 monitors, so that's why I have used them. I currently own a $320 ASUS VG236HE 23" 120Hz monitor and it's the best monitor I have ever owned (even though it is glossy TN panel it seems vastly better than the generic TN monitors everyone gripes about).

I still have a 2005 Samsung SyncMaster 940BW at work and while it is 16:10 it's a measly 1440*900 19" monitor and I would easily replace it with a 1080p monitor in a heartbeat.
 

Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
14,878 (3.45/day)
Likes
5,411
System Name A dancer in your disco of fire
Processor i3 4130 3.4Ghz
Motherboard MSI B85M-E45
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo
Memory 4 x 4GB Crucial Ballistix Sport 1400Mhz
Video Card(s) Asus GTX 760 DCU2OC 2GB
Storage Crucial BX100 120GB | WD Blue 1TB x 2
Display(s) BenQ GL2450HT
Case AeroCool DS Cube White
Power Supply Cooler Master G550M
Mouse Intellimouse Explorer 3.0
Keyboard Dell SK-3205
Software Windows 10 Pro
#7
I have used 1920*1080 displays for several years and don't care about the 16:9 vs. 16:10 debate. 16:10 monitors are less common these days and are typically more expensive than their 16:9 counterparts.
This and this. Cheap 1920x1200 are like €200 here and you can get a pretty decent IPS 1920x1080 for that.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
163 (0.08/day)
Likes
9
Location
Italy
Processor I7 920
Motherboard Rampage II Gene
Cooling Liquid
Memory 4GB DDR3 1600
Video Card(s) HD6970
Display(s) 24" LCD 1920X1080
Audio Device(s) X-FI Xtreme Music
Power Supply Corsair HX520W
Software W7 Ultimate 64BIT
#8
I do not make a problem of money or performance of the vga, but simply the monitor (and its aspect ratio) more suitable for video games, saw that the exclusive use is gaming.
I read around that is important the native aspect ratio of the game, which is for most of them 16:9. This dont has particular problems in 1920x1200 but can lead to a slight loss of vision (the sides) or the complete picture but with black bars above and below






 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,576 (0.65/day)
Likes
510
Processor Mysterious Engineering Prototype
Motherboard Intel 865
Cooling Custom block made in workshop
Memory Corsair XMS 2GB
Video Card(s) FireGL X3-256
Display(s) 1600x1200 SyncMaster x 2 = 3200x1200
Software Windows 2003
#9
I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10 and 16:12

16:9 is more letterbox than 16:10. But you cannot think of 16:10 as less, cutting off the sides. No. 16:10 is everything and all 16:9 offers PLUS extra pixels/FoV up and down. It's simple. They are both 1920 in the x. One is 1080 in the y, the other 1200. Clearly, one can show MORE than the other. The gif/flash is faking/falsifying the results by pretending the y is the same but x is less. How disingenuous is that?! Horizontal FoV (measured as an angle) has changed between screenshots!
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
9,788 (2.23/day)
Likes
3,777
Location
Manchester, NH
System Name Working on it ;)
Processor I7-4790K
Motherboard MSI Z97
Cooling Be Quiet Pure Rock Air
Memory 16GB 4x4 G.Skill CAS9 2133 Sniper
Video Card(s) Intel IGP (Dedicated GPU TBD)
Storage WD 320 / 500KS / 500KS / 640KS / 640LS / 640LS / 640LS / 1TBFAEX and a NAS with 2x2Tb WD Black
Display(s) 24" DELL 2405FPW
Case Rosewill Challenger
Audio Device(s) Onboard + HD HDMI
Power Supply Corsair HX750 (love it)
Mouse Logitech G5
Software Win 7 Pro
#10
so 1200 would offer the ability to have more vertical pixels, which has the ability to give better visual quality - but in the end it depends on the game, and whether it was designed for 16:9 and gives options for fov, etc - otherwise all it will do is stretch the picture for more pixels, which WILL NOT give you better quality.
That about sums it up. Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 11.1% more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor. The horizontal FOV will be the same.

It's also a heck of a lot nicer when working with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, you'll see 11.1% more of a page.

I have TWO 1920x1200 monitors at home, one is actually a Samsung 27" 1080p HDTV (which scales a 1080p signal nicely to fill the screen). I'd ALWAYS take 1920x1200 given the choice.

I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10
Me too. With a 16:10 PC monitor, the entire width will be filled up, assuming it's an application running at full resolution.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,675 (0.60/day)
Likes
298
Location
London
System Name Jaspe
Processor i7 3820 4.4Ghz
Motherboard BIOSTAR TPower X79
Cooling Thermalright Archon Rev. A
Memory 16Gb G.Skill Ripjaws 1866mhz
Video Card(s) AMD 290X
Storage Crucial M500 WD 600Gb Velociraptor
Display(s) AOC Q2778VQE
Case In Win GRone
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Antec Signature 650
Software Windows 10 Home
#11
Go 1920x1200, good luck finding one. It's better for gaming and can display 1920x1080 movies but a 1920x1080 monitor cannot display 1920x1200 :D
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
620 (0.19/day)
Likes
156
Location
Michigan, USA
System Name Black Box
Processor Intel i7 3770K
Motherboard AsRock z77 Extreme 6
Cooling Thermalright Venemous X
Memory 2 x 8GB Crucial Ballistix
Video Card(s) 2 x GTX 480
Storage A-Data 128GB SSD, Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB
Display(s) HANNspree 25" 1080p 2ms
Case Lian Li PC-9F
Audio Device(s) Creative XFI
Power Supply PC Power & Cooling Silencer MKII 750w
Software Win 7 pro x64
#12
That about sums it up. Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 20%more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor. The horizontal FOV will be the same.

It's also a heck of a lot nicer when working with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, you'll see ~20% more of a page.

I have TWO 1920x1200 monitors at home, one is actually a Samsung 27" 1080p HDTV (which scales a 1080p signal nicely to fill the screen). I'd ALWAYS take 1920x1200 given the choice.



Me too. With a 16:10 PC monitor, the entire width will be filled up, assuming it's an application running at full resolution.
It's not 20% more it's only 10% more.
 

erocker

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
42,369 (10.18/day)
Likes
18,018
Processor Intel i7 8700k
Motherboard Gigabyte z370 AORUS Gaming 7
Cooling Water
Memory 16gb G.Skill 4000 MHz DDR4
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 1080
Storage 3 x Samsung Evo 850 500GB, 1 x 250GB, 2 x 2TB HDD
Display(s) Nixeus EDG27
Case Thermaltake X5
Power Supply Corsair HX1000i
Mouse Zowie EC1-B
Software Windows 10
#13
I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10 and 16:12

16:9 is more letterbox than 16:10. But you cannot think of 16:10 as less, cutting off the sides. No. 16:10 is everything and all 16:9 offers PLUS extra pixels/FoV up and down. It's simple. They are both 1920 in the x. One is 1080 in the y, the other 1200. Clearly, one can show MORE than the other. The gif/flash is faking/falsifying the results by pretending the y is the same but x is less. How disingenuous is that?! Horizontal FoV (measured as an angle) has changed between screenshots!
I've seen this person post on other forums with the same false argument. The true way to look at 16:10 vs. 16:9 and comparing 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200 would be to show a 1920x1200 picture and remove 60 pixels from both the top and bottom of the 1920x1080 picture.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
9,788 (2.23/day)
Likes
3,777
Location
Manchester, NH
System Name Working on it ;)
Processor I7-4790K
Motherboard MSI Z97
Cooling Be Quiet Pure Rock Air
Memory 16GB 4x4 G.Skill CAS9 2133 Sniper
Video Card(s) Intel IGP (Dedicated GPU TBD)
Storage WD 320 / 500KS / 500KS / 640KS / 640LS / 640LS / 640LS / 1TBFAEX and a NAS with 2x2Tb WD Black
Display(s) 24" DELL 2405FPW
Case Rosewill Challenger
Audio Device(s) Onboard + HD HDMI
Power Supply Corsair HX750 (love it)
Mouse Logitech G5
Software Win 7 Pro
#14

Kwod

New Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
548 (0.16/day)
Likes
45
Location
Australia
System Name Crysis 3
Processor i3570+CM 212
Motherboard ASUS P8Z77 V
Cooling Antec 1100+3 fans
Memory 2x8gig 1600 Corsair
Video Card(s) Saphire 7950 Vapour X
Storage Samsung 250g 840
Display(s) 26in LCD 1920x1200 8 bit+37in 1080p HDTV
Case Antec 1100
Audio Device(s) Xonar DG+Z5500D
Power Supply Antec 650 Hi current
Software W7 64
#15
The panel quality and type are FAR more important than the meager diff between 1200 and 1080 pixels.
I've yet to see a TN panel come anywhere near my 4yr old 8 bit Acer 25.5in LCD.
TN panels{one's I've had a chance to fiddle with} are faint and lack depth and detail.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,286 (0.93/day)
Likes
527
Location
Burlington, VT
Processor Intel i5-2500k
Motherboard MSI P67A-GD65
Cooling Deep Cool Gammax 400
Memory 8GB (4x2GB) G.Skill Ripjaws X DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 1060 Windforce OC 6GB
Storage Samsung EVO 850 256GB / WD Caviar Black 1TB
Display(s) Acer GD235HZbid 120hz LCD
Case Rosewill Challenger Mid-Tower
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair 650W 650-TX
Software Windows 10
#16
Aren't there some games that experience inexplicable performance decreases at a particular Aspect Ratio? I remember Bulletstorm was one such example where using a 4:3 or 16:10 resolution made the game borderline unplayable at launch. I think it was since patched in the case of Bulletstorm, but it's something to consider.

Get the 24' Dell UltraSharp IPS, you won't be disappointed :p
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
620 (0.19/day)
Likes
156
Location
Michigan, USA
System Name Black Box
Processor Intel i7 3770K
Motherboard AsRock z77 Extreme 6
Cooling Thermalright Venemous X
Memory 2 x 8GB Crucial Ballistix
Video Card(s) 2 x GTX 480
Storage A-Data 128GB SSD, Samsung Spinpoint F3 1TB
Display(s) HANNspree 25" 1080p 2ms
Case Lian Li PC-9F
Audio Device(s) Creative XFI
Power Supply PC Power & Cooling Silencer MKII 750w
Software Win 7 pro x64
#17
Try again bud.

1200 / 90% = 1080.

1200 x 90%= 1080

1200x.9=1080

Or 1080/1200=.9

:toast:

EDIT: If it was 11.1 then the aspect ratio would be 16:11.1 ;)
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,576 (0.65/day)
Likes
510
Processor Mysterious Engineering Prototype
Motherboard Intel 865
Cooling Custom block made in workshop
Memory Corsair XMS 2GB
Video Card(s) FireGL X3-256
Display(s) 1600x1200 SyncMaster x 2 = 3200x1200
Software Windows 2003
#18
That about sums it up. Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 11.1% more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor. The horizontal FOV will be the same.

But with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, you'll see 15% more of a page.
Fixed.

On productivity tools, ie applications, you get the taskbar 32px, the windows title 32px, the menu bar 32px, the icon shortcuts 32px for one row, 64px for two rows. In MS Word 2003 you get the top margin 32px and bottom footer bars 64px. In MS Excel 2003 you get cell entry and column headings bar 64px and the tabs and calc footers 64px.

This means a 1080y actually gives the user "working space" of 1080-32-32-32-64-64-64=792px.
Whereas a 1200y gives the user "working space" of 1200-32-32-32-64-64-64=912px

The difference is 120/792 or 15%. If your screen shots 32 lines of text in MS Word 2003, or 32 rows in Excel 2003, that is equivalent to another 5 lines of text or 5 rows!

With MS Office 2007+, the ribbon bars add another 64px making the difference 17%

Email clients are similar to MS Office 2003. You will see another 5 emails on each screen.

NOBODY would go for 1080 over 1200 if they use productivity software.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,700 (0.76/day)
Likes
1,364
Location
Minnesota
System Name I Dub Thee Infinity
Processor Intel Core I7-3930K
Motherboard EVGA X79 Classified
Cooling Corsair H80
Memory 16GB GSkill Trident X
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC+
Storage SanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB, OCZ V2 180GB, 2x Toshiba X300 5TB RAID 0
Display(s) Acer XB270HU
Case Cooler Master HAF X
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi Titanium + Sennheiser HD 598 + Klipsch ProMedia 2.1
Power Supply EVGA 850W G2
Mouse Razer Naga 2014
Keyboard Gigabyte Osmium Cherry MX Brown
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#19
I thought cutting off the sides then enlarging going from 1080 to 1200 was game-specific, but I just tried it with a few games and they all do it... What the hell man? Do any games have a vertical FOV option?

TF2 1920x1200
TF2 1920x1080
TF2 1600x1200

AOE3 1920x1200
AOE3 1920x1080
AOE3 1600x1200

Skyrim 1920x1200
Skyrim 1920x1080
Not sure what the deal is with the time of day or weather change here. I didn't do a 16x12 for Skyrim.

Stalker 1920x1200
Stalker 1920x1080
Stalker 1600x1200

These were all full-sized images. I have no idea why imageshack has since re-sized them.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
9,788 (2.23/day)
Likes
3,777
Location
Manchester, NH
System Name Working on it ;)
Processor I7-4790K
Motherboard MSI Z97
Cooling Be Quiet Pure Rock Air
Memory 16GB 4x4 G.Skill CAS9 2133 Sniper
Video Card(s) Intel IGP (Dedicated GPU TBD)
Storage WD 320 / 500KS / 500KS / 640KS / 640LS / 640LS / 640LS / 1TBFAEX and a NAS with 2x2Tb WD Black
Display(s) 24" DELL 2405FPW
Case Rosewill Challenger
Audio Device(s) Onboard + HD HDMI
Power Supply Corsair HX750 (love it)
Mouse Logitech G5
Software Win 7 Pro
#20
1200 / 90% = 1080.

1200 x 90%= 1080

1200x.9=1080

Or 1080/1200=.9
You're looking at the inverse

1200 is 111.1% of 1080

1080 is 90.0% of 1200

I thought cutting off the sides then enlarging going from 1080 to 1200 was game-specific, but I just tried it with a few games and they all do it... What the hell man? Do any games have a vertical FOV option?

TF2 1920x1200
TF2 1920x1080
TF2 1600x1200

AOE3 1920x1200
AOE3 1920x1080
AOE3 1600x1200

Skyrim 1920x1200
Skyrim 1920x1080
Not sure what the deal is with the time of day or weather change here. I didn't do a 16x12 for Skyrim.

Stalker 1920x1200
Stalker 1920x1080
Stalker 1600x1200
That settles it, at least for those games... it appears the FOV is better with a wider aspect ratio.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
4,001 (1.32/day)
Likes
1,652
Location
Sarasota, Florida, USA
System Name Awesomesauce 4.3 | Laptop (MSI GE72VR 6RF Apache Pro-023)
Processor Intel Core i7-5820K 4.16GHz 1.28v/3GHz 1.05v uncore | Intel Core i7-6700HQ @ 3.1GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-X99-UD5 WiFi LGA2011-v3| Stock
Cooling Corsair H100i v2 w/ 2x EK Vardar F4-120ER + various 120/140mm case fans | Stock
Memory G.Skill RJ-4 16GB DDR4-2666 CL15 quad channel | 12GB DDR4-2133
Video Card(s) ASUS ROG Strix A8G Gaming GTX 1080 @ 2075/1368 boost | NVIDIA GTX 1060 6GB +200/+500 + Intel 530
Storage Samsung 840 EVO 500GB + Seagate 3TB 7200RPM + others | Kingston 256GB M.2 SATA + 1TB 7200RPM
Display(s) Acer G257HU 1440p 60Hz AH-IPS 4ms | 17.3" 1920*1080 60Hz wide angle TN notebook panel
Case Fractal Design Define XL R2 | MSI
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z | Realtek with quad stereo speakers and subwoofer
Power Supply Corsair HX850i Platinum | 19.5v 180w Delta brick
Software Windows 10 Pro x64 | Windows 10 Home x64
Benchmark Scores GTX 1080 please?
#21
I thought cutting off the sides then enlarging going from 1080 to 1200 was game-specific, but I just tried it with a few games and they all do it... What the hell man? Do any games have a vertical FOV option?

TF2 1920x1200
TF2 1920x1080
TF2 1600x1200

AOE3 1920x1200
AOE3 1920x1080
AOE3 1600x1200

Skyrim 1920x1200
Skyrim 1920x1080
Not sure what the deal is with the time of day or weather change here. I didn't do a 16x12 for Skyrim.

Stalker 1920x1200
Stalker 1920x1080
Stalker 1600x1200
This is why I don't bother with the screen ratio debate. I simply went with a 1080p 16:9 monitor a couple years ago because it was affordable to do so. The main game I play happens to be Team Fortress 2 (which I also play competitively), and I have ~3100 hours total in it. Your testing proves that TF2 at 16:9 is superior to the other aspect ratios, and I'd imagine this is applicable to most if not all other Source based games, and that is what matters to me.

There are 169 1080p monitors and 20 1200p monitors currently available on Newegg. 1080p monitors start at $109 and 1200p monitors start at $280. Being snobby and paying a ton more for a probably outdated 1200p monitor just because "it's 10% taller" is a rather crappy argument. In fact, for slightly above the price of the cheapest Samsung 24" 5ms 1200p monitor, you can get a 23" ASUS VG236HE which is a fantastic 2ms 1080p monitor that has a 120Hz dual-link DVI input and the nicest TN panel I have ever seen. 5ms TN panels are so 2005, and I would not drop $300 on one.

How about some pros and cons for 16:9 monitors?

Pros:
Cost effective, lots of models on the market.
Standard aspect ratio for HD movies released on consumer mediums. (seriously, guys, everyone considers scaling evil, so how is scaling your 1080p movie to 1200p suddenly acceptable?)
Most games support 16:9 well, since many are ported from consoles played on 16:9 TVs.
No black bars on fullscreen 16:9 content, which is basically most entertainment content nowadays.
Potential ~10% performance increase in games (because you have to render 230,400 extra pixels on a 16:10 display, and chances are your game will still chop off your sides to fill the extra height up).
3D or 120Hz models readily available.

Cons:
Less desktop "height" (but if you have some document fetish and are so concerned with 120 pixels of height being gone, you should really consider a professional 27/30 inch monitor if you are scared of zooming out).

If you're doing any work that you are going to gripe about not having enough space to work with, get a higher resolution monitor. Plain and simple.
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
53 (0.02/day)
Likes
15
System Name The Wimley Special
Processor C2D E8400
Motherboard GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P
Memory 4gb DDR2 800
Video Card(s) 1gb 5870
Storage WD Caviar Black 640gb
Display(s) Samsung XL2370
Case Antec Something or Other :P
Power Supply Corsair TX650
Software Vista 64 bit
Benchmark Scores SuperPi 1M 11.08 seconds
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,576 (0.65/day)
Likes
510
Processor Mysterious Engineering Prototype
Motherboard Intel 865
Cooling Custom block made in workshop
Memory Corsair XMS 2GB
Video Card(s) FireGL X3-256
Display(s) 1600x1200 SyncMaster x 2 = 3200x1200
Software Windows 2003
#23
If you're doing any work that you are going to gripe about not having enough space to work with, get a higher resolution monitor. Plain and simple.
Consumer 1080 killed the workstation star. Just where did all those 2048 x 1536 TFTs go? Because that is what I want... 3 of them... side by side.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
1,528 (0.49/day)
Likes
324
Location
Canada/Québec/Montreal
System Name Main PC
Processor PII 925 @3.724GHz (266x14) 1.525v NB 2660 1.425v
Motherboard Gigabyte AM3 GA-890XA-UD3 (790x+SB850)
Cooling Scythe Mugen 2 rev.B
Memory Hyperx 8GB (2x4) 1600@1418 8-7-7-20-27-1t
Video Card(s) Sapphire 6850 Stock (Max Overclock 1030/1200)
Storage 1x1TB WD Green / 1x1TB Seagate
Display(s) LCD Samsung 24" 16:9
Case Cooler Master HAF 912
Audio Device(s) On-Board HD
Power Supply CM 750w GX |3.3v@25a|5v@25a|12v@60a
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
Benchmark Scores later...
#24
16x9 is wider than 16:10 but 16:10 are higher in heights

See here-->http://www.displaywars.com/24-inch-16x10-vs-24-inch-16x9

It's all about what you like the most i guess?
16x9 are cheaper to make than 16:10 so they cost less & that is why 16:9 is the norm now

As for me i like it wider but still 16:9 is not wide enough for me i would like more...

I would like something like 21:9 or 21:10 it would be so :cool: maybe in 10 years from now?
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,294 (1.11/day)
Likes
509
Processor Intel Core i9 7900X delidded @ 4.7Ghz 1.2v
Motherboard ASUS Rampage VI Extreme
Cooling EK-Supremacy EVO, EK-CoolStream PE 360, EK-CoolStream PE 240, EK-DDC Pump/X-RES 100
Memory Corsair Vengeance RED LED 32GB(8GBx4) DDR4 3400MHz
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FE ( EK 1080TI Waterblock./ Backplate )
Storage Samsung 950 Pro NVME 512GB, 2x 850 Evos 1TB, WD Black 1TB
Display(s) Samsung S27B970 27" Wide PLS Monitor - 2560 x 1440
Case Corsair Carbide Air 540
Power Supply Cooler Master Vanguard Series 1000W
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores http://www.3dmark.com/fs/12778735
#25
Last edited by a moderator: