Your pick: 16:10 or 16:9?

[nexus_a]

I've always considered 16:9 a stupid aspect ratio for a computer. 16:9 on TVs is totally reasonable, but on monitors you read less (books and webpages), do less (editing images and documents) and see less (games). It seems that the manufacturers just wanted to cheap out on material cost by switching to 16:9.

This is my complaint: It's so hard to find a good 16:10 monitor now. They are also much more expensive because of supply and demand.
Last week I wanted to buy the 16:10 Eizo EV2455, but disappointed to know it is much more expensive than the 16:9 EV2450. ($4180 VS $2980 in HKD which is about USD540 VS USD384.) Well, I convinced myself to buy EV2455 at last. Is the extra space worth $156? I think so. Though my friends think I'm stupid and said I should go with 16:9.

As you know the PC market is contracting so manufacturers are reluctant to make new computer monitors. (Where is my high-DPI monitor dammit!) Almost all smartphones are 16:9. Even high-end Apple products are moving from 16:10 to 16:9. Really?! I am afraid that when everyone moves on to 4K in the future, 16:10 would disappear and there won't be choices anymore.

What do you think?

 

[MxPhenom 216]

The industry is changing to 16:9, and I just recently switched from 1920 x 1200 16:10 to 2560 x 1440 16:9 and can see why. Embrace the change, 16:10 has been declining for a few years now.

 

[rtwjunkie]

The industry is changing to 16:9, and I just recently switched from 1920 x 1200 16:10 to 2560 x 1440 16:9 and can see why. Embrace the change, 16:10 has been declining for a few years now.

I didn't realize 1440 was also 16:9. If I had sat down and figured it I guess it would have been obvious, but for some reason I just assumed it was also one of the 16:10's.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

More is better. 2560x1600

 

[erocker]

It doesn't really matter. Both aspect ratios are supported by everything and it comes down to personal preference. I have no preference.

 

[nexus_a]

The industry is changing to 16:9, and I just recently switched from 1920 x 1200 16:10 to 2560 x 1440 16:9 and can see why. Embrace the change, 16:10 has been declining for a few years now.

Actually I've been using 16:9 monitors since 2006. Before that I had a 1024*768 LCD monitor. I bought one immediately after buying 60GB PS3 on launch day in Hong Kong (good times haha). After using a 16:10 monitor this month however, I wanted to go back to the golden ratio. I've been reading a lot and gaming less recently, so this ratio is much better.

I prefer more horizontal space. 21:9 I am waiting for you.

I voted for 16:9, obviously.

I added the option!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

8:5 is definitely better but the price makes it prohibitive these days.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

When doing ratios, you're always supposed to reduce it as far as it will go. 16:10 is erroneous.

 

[Sir B. Fannybottom]

I actually love my ultrawide, but a looot of game's menus are fucked up because they are made with 16:9 in mind. Its still a very nice experience

 

[nexus_a]

8:5 is definitely better but the price makes it prohibitive these days.

True. It's a real struggle when you have two identical monitors but different ratios to choose from. Most people nowadays don't even know/care about the existence of 16:10 because of $$$.

 

[P4-630]

4:3 ok ok, just kidding.... 16:9 then, this seems the most widely used standard

 

[Sasqui]

I've always gone with 16:10... choice between 1080 vertical vs. 1200? More exercise for the scroll wheel, and we all know how wasteful MS windows are at the top.

 

[Red_Machine]

16:10 is only good for desktop stuff these days; the majority of games either cut off the side of the screen to fit, or letterbox it. You don't get the benefit anymore. Which is a shame, because I love the extra pixels.

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

16:10 is only good for desktop stuff these days; the majority of games either cut off the side of the screen to fit, or letterbox it. You don't get the benefit anymore. Which is a shame, because I love the extra pixels.

What majority of games? Every game I play is 2560x1600 and it never scales. Meaning running 2560x1600 native.

 

[Disparia]

I couldn't choose one aspect ratio across all resolutions.

Love my 1920x1200 monitor, I find it superior to 1920x1080. Legacy games that are locked or simply look better in 4:3 will fit nicely, all the way up to 1600x1200. Movies obviously aren't a problem since 1080 fits within and I prefer it for work and general use. I know that first reason isn't a biggie anymore, but it was nice to have at the time I bought the monitor, many years ago. Warcraft III is a good example as you can force a widescreen resolution, but it's better in 4:3.

With that said, I'll probably go 21:9 next time. It's an appealing ratio IMO, for both work and play.

 

[Red_Machine]

What majority of games? Every game I play is 2560x1600 and it never scales. Meaning running 2560x1600 native.

That's just my experience with a 1920x1200 monitor.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

I voted 16:10 because that what I use. (1920x1200)

 

[Octopuss]

16:9 makes me see fuck all. Can't use it. Just can't.

 

[Aquinus]

16:9 makes me see fuck all. Can't use it. Just can't.

I voted 16:10 because that what I use. (1920x1200)

8:5 is definitely better but the price makes it prohibitive these days.

I love how people can explain why they like 16:10 better.

All in all, my old Dell laptop was 1920x1200, my last display used to be 1920x1200, and the difference between them is a little less vertical space, nothing more, nothing less. All in all, I don't feel that there is much of a difference between the two. I don't tend to find myself missing 120 rows of pixel at the bottom, even more so when I have 3 monitors worth of desktop space and when most games and videos fit nicely into 16:9. If you're so worried about regaining that much desktop space, then maybe your monitor layout is just bad but I can't think of any truly tangible reasons why I would prefer 16:10 (1920x1200) over 16:9 (1920x1080). I'm using 16:9 because that's what's cheaper and more common, that is all. Now 21:9 sounds really cool as I tend to prefer horizontal space, but it's such a weird resolution and I suspect that for many uses, it will look and feel strange.

So simple response is: I use 16:9 because it's common, it's cheap, and it works. I don't lose sleep over 120 rows of pixels at night. If I didn't upgrade my displays, I would still have a 1920x1200 display, but that was because when I bought that, 16:10 was "the thing to get" and prices reflected that.

 

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

I love how people can explain why they like 16:10 better.

All in all, my old Dell laptop was 1920x1200, my last display used to be 1920x1200, and the difference between them is a little less vertical space, nothing more, nothing less. All in all, I don't feel that there is much of a difference between the two. I don't tend to find myself missing 120 rows of pixel at the bottom, even more so when I have 3 monitors worth of desktop space and when most games and videos fit nicely into 16:9. If you're so worried about regaining that much desktop space, then maybe your monitor layout is just bad but I can't think of any truly tangible reasons why I would prefer 16:10 (1920x1200) over 16:9 (1920x1080). I'm using 16:9 because that's what's cheaper and more common, that is all. Now 21:9 sounds really cool as I tend to prefer horizontal space, but it's such a weird resolution and I suspect that for many uses, it will look and feel strange.

So simple response is: I use 16:9 because it's common, it's cheap, and it works. I don't lose sleep over 120 rows of pixels at night. If I didn't upgrade my displays, I would still have a 1920x1200 display, but that was because when I bought that, 16:10 was "the thing to get" and prices reflected that.

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

 

[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

 

[Octopuss]

I love how people can explain why they like 16:10 better.

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.

 

[MilkyWay]

I personally prefer 16:10 and i liked it when i had a 1680×1050 TN panel. Upgrading i had to go to a 16:9 panel as that was my price range for an LED lit IPS panel.
If i remember Bioshock didn't originally support 16:10 resolutions and had to be patched later on.

Ideally i would have a landscape and portrait panel next to each other with both on stands or arms that can turn.

 

[Tonduluboy]

I Wish all the monitor company STOP producing 16:10 monitor and all the game reviewer stop using 16:10 (like TPU hehe)...

On steam statistic 33% Gamers using 16:9, while less than 2% using 16:10.
Other non gaming Site 9% using 16:9, and only 1.7% using 16:10 (3% using 16:10 in 2012)

Well my wish was already granted

 

[Ja.KooLit]

I Wish all the monitor company STOP producing 16:10 monitor and all the game reviewer stop using 16:10 (like TPU hehe)...

On steam statistic 33% Gamers using 16:9, while less than 2% using 16:10.
Other non gaming Site 9% using 16:9, and only 1.7% using 16:10 (3% using 16:10 in 2012)

Well my wish was already granted

Why would you wish them to STOP producing? its their choice and it is consumer choice. I was part of the 16:10 users but I never wish that they will stop producing 16:9. Most steam users use 16:9 and the most common reason is the availability and price. Price is the major factor. If 16:10 is same price as 16:9, I am certain that there will be more 16:10 users.

 

[nexus_a]

I Wish all the monitor company STOP producing 16:10 monitor and all the game reviewer stop using 16:10 (like TPU hehe)...

On steam statistic 33% Gamers using 16:9, while less than 2% using 16:10.
Other non gaming Site 9% using 16:9, and only 1.7% using 16:10 (3% using 16:10 in 2012)

Well my wish was already granted

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)