bryanW1995
Lifer
- May 22, 2007
- 11,144
- 32
- 91
In fact, it doesn't.
16:9 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
16:10 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels
16:9 monitors are more cheap to produce because it has the same format as TV:s. They can produce bigger numbers.
A little off topic, but then this is a arguement that I find is loosing it's merits over time.
When the 16:9 vs 16:10 vs 4:3 debaits started, it had merit in that the LCD TV's on offer and computer monitors was about the same diagonal size (so possibly the same production line).
Now days, you look around at the LCD TV's on offer and the sizes of them and they are not the same as the going LCD PC monitors. The PC ones are noticablly smaller.
The benifit of the cheaper prices due to the same production is lost. If the size of the TV's are getting bigger, then why are not also the PC monitors as well? In a year or two it will be the old argument of "lack of demand for that size" that will see PC monitors get more expencive for a given size as no one wants a TV of that size (so less benifit from mass production for cheaper pannels).
Even a year ago looking at what was on offer in the PC monitor market range, ignoring the one off designs like the Dell's, the top asking price was less than $500AU (at the time, about $400US IIRC). prices has continued to fall from that time except for the introduction of a few features that some people want. For the average day to day user, these are pointless.
Display port
120Hz
OLED
Unless manufactures come up with something soon to make getting a new screen worth it, very few I feel will change what they have now (excluding the screen dieing).
I'm running a pair of 4:3 19" screens I purchased second hand for $300 AU each 3+ years back. (when 16:9 was starting to take over IIRC).
Not seeing any thing I "must" upgrade to, and it is enoying.
You're thinking the wrong way around, it's bigger PC screens we need rather than smaller Tv's
(Yes I use a 40" TV 'cause there are no 40" "pc screens").
Well, i am dumping my 1920x1200 display for a 1920x1080 to match my other two displays for Surround/Eyefinity.16:9 is here to stay. I image the next step up from 2560x1600 will be 16:9 aspect ratio 2848x1600 or 2880x1620 32-33" screens. I actually doubt we'll see any 16:10 displays larger than 30" 2560x1600.
Beyond 1600 vertical pixels we don't really need much more height for immersion, but the relative success of Eyefinity and Surround have definitely shown the demand for more peripheral vision in gaming is there. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we headed in an even wider aspect ratio direction as screens get larger.
1.85:1 looks like it would be the next step. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)
2960x1600 sounds pretty awesome IMO.
Well, i am dumping my 1920x1200 display for a 1920x1080 to match my other two displays for Surround/Eyefinity.
Evidently Surround *requires matched* displays. OtOH Eyefinity will allow for 2 x 1920x1080 plus 1920x1200 as long as all 3 displays are set to 1080 resolution. Not so with Surround as the native resolutions must all match each other.
:'(
To be fair, that feature never worked quite right in XP. Haven't tried it in Vista/Win7.People are so dumb. They complain they can't see fonts right with small pixel pitch... uhh... use higher dpi fonts and they loot WAY better. But they're clueless, so the market continues to move in a direction that doesn't make sense.
you know that most 1920x1200 monitors can do 1920x1080 with 1:1 mapping, all you get are little black bars on top and bottom.
You must use three monitors who all have the same *native* resolution for Surround. Not for Eyefinity - as long as the three displays support a common resolution, you're good to go.you know that most 1920x1200 monitors can do 1920x1080 with 1:1 mapping, all you get are little black bars on top and bottom.
They complain they can't see fonts right with small pixel pitch... uhh... use higher dpi fonts and they loot WAY better. But they're clueless, so the market continues to move in a direction that doesn't make sense.
very true but will there be *any* 16:10 120hz monitors
Interesting thread. IMO, 1920x1200/1080 are both dead.
You should be looking at 2560x1600, which are available at sub-30" sizes. It'd be nice to see 24-27" panels settle in here and let the 30"+ push a bit higher.
Do you mean 2160P?Either way, the next standard resolution will be 2060p / unless somebody finds it funny to make it even wider (many of my 1080p's have black stripes on a 1080p TV .. wtf).