what's with all the 16:9 monitors now a days?

[Homer Simpson]

seems like everything is moving from 16:10 to 16:9 especially in the 24" range. from a gaming perspective, i want more pixels. 1920x1200 is better than 1920x1080 IMO. wasnt the reason monitors were 16:10 in the first place because "they" (monitor mfgs? microsoft? game devs?) felt the extra screen space was warranted for computer use? now they are giving us less space for "HD". i dont get it.

 

[AzN]

It just makes sense for movies, consoles, etc... 16:10 was more of a stop gap between 4:3 to widescreen. It also cost cheaper for the display manufacturers to produce 16:9 over 16:10.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I agree that 16:9 makes sense in the laptop market (great for watching movies and TV on the go) and the budget monitor market, but for 23-27" screens I'd also much rather have 1920x1200 pixels than 1920x1080.

God help us if/when the first 2560X1440 30" screen hits!!

 

[INGlewood78]

One word...Marketing.

The avg consumer is more familar with "Full HD" or "1080p." Given the choice between a 1920 x 1200 vs a 1920 x 1080 (full HD!) monitor, most consumers would pick the full HD. More familiar = more profit.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Once I see 16:9 PVA/IPS 24+" panels, that will be the death knell for affordable 16:10. Meanwhile I just bought 2 U2410's and wanting a 3rd so I can run WoW in 3 screen glory on my 5870 lol. (I also use them for photo editing btw lol)

 

[crisium]

It is cheaper to use the same manufacturing that TV's use for monitors. Earlier they purposely differentiated them, but with the economy as it is it makes more sense to drive costs down and just make them the same.

I like 16:10 because you can watch a 16:9 show and still have room for menus. It also gives a bit more vertical space that is useful for word documents and web pages. But for gaming 16:9 has provided the most viewing range in FPS for a while now. Other genres are being optimized for it as well.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Yeah I have a 22" 16:10. Definitely prefer it over the 16:9 my wife has. The extra room does help.

 

[akugami]

I think the move from 16:10 (which I prefer) to 16:9 is purely for streamlining manufacturing and cost cutting. It's cheaper to cut the same size glass for TV's as well as computer monitors rather than having different lines for different sized glass panels.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

how is having 80 extra rows of pixels (up and down) that much better for gaming? If anything, 16:9 is better for gaming as it will have a wider FOV, while the few more pixels in 1920x1200 could possibly better for regular work productivity (although again, the difference in pixels here really is pretty negligible)

Originally posted by: INGlewood78
One word...Marketing.

The avg consumer is more familar with "Full HD" or "1080p." Given the choice between a 1920 x 1200 vs a 1920 x 1080 (full HD!) monitor, most consumers would pick the full HD. More familiar = more profit.

Except most 1920x1200 monitors will be advertised as being "full HD" because they can display 1080p without scaling...

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Yeah I have a 22" 16:10. Definitely prefer it over the 16:9 my wife has. The extra room does help.

haven't really heard of any 22" monitors being 1920x1200...that being said I'm going to assume you're running 1680x1050, of which if your wife is running 16:9 she'll need to be on screen 1600x900 or less, otherwise 1920x1080 is obviously larger than 1680x1050 in every way and not at all like the situation we have with 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080 where the width resolution is the same

 

[mejobloggs]

16:10 is far better for computer use imo. I can't find a decent 16:10 24" anywhere that the price doesn't give me a heart attack

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
how is having 80 extra rows of pixels (up and down) that much better for gaming? If anything, 16:9 is better for gaming as it will have a wider FOV, while the few more pixels in 1920x1200 could possibly better for regular work productivity (although again, the difference in pixels here really is pretty negligible)

Originally posted by: INGlewood78
One word...Marketing.

The avg consumer is more familar with "Full HD" or "1080p." Given the choice between a 1920 x 1200 vs a 1920 x 1080 (full HD!) monitor, most consumers would pick the full HD. More familiar = more profit.

Except most 1920x1200 monitors will be advertised as being "full HD" because they can display 1080p without scaling...

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Yeah I have a 22" 16:10. Definitely prefer it over the 16:9 my wife has. The extra room does help.

haven't really heard of any 22" monitors being 1920x1200...that being said I'm going to assume you're running 1680x1050, of which if your wife is running 16:9 she'll need to be on screen 1600x900 or less, otherwise 1920x1080 is obviously larger than 1680x1050 in every way and not at all like the situation we have with 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080 where the width resolution is the same

http://www.displayblog.com/200...lor-gamut-lcd-monitor/

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
how is having 80 extra rows of pixels (up and down) that much better for gaming? If anything, 16:9 is better for gaming as it will have a wider FOV, while the few more pixels in 1920x1200 could possibly better for regular work productivity (although again, the difference in pixels here really is pretty negligible)

I tihnk you mean 120 rows of pixels.

I still think having more vertical resolution is better for work/productivity, so 1200 will always be better than 1080.

Those 'higher than HD' screens at 2048X1152 do sound interesting to me though...

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
how is having 80 extra rows of pixels (up and down) that much better for gaming? If anything, 16:9 is better for gaming as it will have a wider FOV, while the few more pixels in 1920x1200 could possibly better for regular work productivity (although again, the difference in pixels here really is pretty negligible)

I tihnk you mean 120 rows of pixels.

I still think having more vertical resolution is better for work/productivity, so 1200 will always be better than 1080.

Those 'higher than HD' screens at 2048X1152 do sound interesting to me though...

I cant believe we dont have some 2560x1440 inch monitors yet. I think Apple has a 27inch iMac with that res but thats about it as for as I know.

 

[yh125d]

I actually prefer my 1920x1080 23.6" for office work, surfing, gaming, and movies. I don't care much for 16:10

 

[LCD123]

I still don't understand why people make a big deal about 120 more vertical pixels! 24" 1920x1200 monitors now cost $350 or so while their 1920x1080 parts cost around $225! 16:9 is better for the eyes! If you really need higher resolution, the 2560x1440 monitors should be out soon and cost way less than the 2560x1600 parts which appear to be on their way out. Of course I have no interest in such high resolutions, im happy with my 32" 1360x768

 

[fffblackmage]

While holding viewable diagonal length to be 24", 16:10 is has 5% more viewable area (about 259 in^2 vs 246 in^2) and about 11% more pixels than 16:9 (2.304 M vs 2.073 M pixels). I love my 1920x1200 26" LCD.

However, I believe games typically have wider viewing angles under 16:9. Ideally, 16:9 is better for gaming in that sense, but I spend most of my time on my computer doing normal tasks like homework, web surf, etc, so 16:10 is preferable.

 

[mrzed]

Just got upgraded at work to a 22" 1920x1080 monitor (from a 19" 1280x1024). I prefer it to the 1680x1050 I'm on now (more pixels) and do not care at all that the aspect ratio is the same as my TV (also a monitor).

Works well for my office work, I'm already fine with gaming on my tv. In both cases better than a 4:3 monitor. Compared to 16:10, why quibble over slight differences?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
how is having 80 extra rows of pixels (up and down) that much better for gaming? If anything, 16:9 is better for gaming as it will have a wider FOV, while the few more pixels in 1920x1200 could possibly better for regular work productivity (although again, the difference in pixels here really is pretty negligible)

I tihnk you mean 120 rows of pixels.

I still think having more vertical resolution is better for work/productivity, so 1200 will always be better than 1080.

Those 'higher than HD' screens at 2048X1152 do sound interesting to me though...

I meant 60, up and down. 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 screen will be letter boxed with two rows of 60 pixels each

I just think that difference is trivial for work/productivity, because that extra area will be good for only a task bar or two, it really isn't getting you all that much more.

Ideally we'd have monitors with a pixel density of 300ppi and OSes that were resolution independent. If that were the case and we had two monitors with equal screen area I'd pick the 16:9 one over the 16:10 not just for the increase FOV for gaming but also for work as well as the wide screen would be better suited for working with things side by side.

 

[coreyb]

I'll never go below 1920x1200.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Originally posted by: coreyb
I'll never go below 1920x1200.

Bought my Samsung 2493HM about 2 years ago for like $430 (which was on sale and extremely cheap at the time) and its 16:10. Everyone else now is getting 16:9 and it bugs the hell out of me when I use one. It feels extremely small for even the same size..

 

[Painman]

I suppose I could get used to 16:9, but my 16:10 display isn't going anywhere for a good while yet. And, I do appreciate the extra real estate when I've got a bunch of windows open. No such thing as too much real estate on the desktop.

 

[boran]

I also prefer 1920x1200, that way if you play an "old" non widescreen game you can play it at 1600x1200 which is a rather standard res. whereas 1400x1080 is a bit less standard. If you go on a retr-binge from time to time that matters.

 

[Mem]

I went from 20" (1680x1050 16:10) to 24" (1980x1080 16:9) and actually like 16:9 1080p ,its so compatible with everything and I'm very happy with that res and format.


I guess they are trying to make it the standard now which when you look at how compatible it is then I can see why,I think 16:10 will be eventually phased out.

 

[hans030390]

16:10 is better if it can display a 16:9 signal without stretching it. However, it's much easier to find an inexpensive 16:9 monitor for console gaming compared to an inexpensive 16:10 that has proper scaling.

 

[0roo0roo]

yea its probably cheaper to cut one size glass.
only issue is at smaller sizes 16:9 is too short. but with bigger screens there really is no issue.