16:9 vs 16:10

Mabu said:
The bolded part is completely, 100% wrong. 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are THE EXACT SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS WIDE.. FOV in games is something else entirely, but seriously, you need to stop posting blatantly false information when it comes to this topic.
Click to expand...
we are talking about games so 16:9 IS a wider fov than 16:10 in hor+ games.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
fine, how about vert- games, is there a combination of vert- and hor+? a game that can scale both ways? like BF2 for example ,doesn't that give you both vertical and horizontal scaling?
Click to expand...
You mean like a game that ignores the overall ratio, but just goes purely by resolution? The more resolution on a single axis, the more gameworld on that axis?

I don't think i've seen any games like that.
 
cannondale06 said:
what a senseless and rude comment to make because I already made it clear that I was referring to a monitor just for gaming and that was the context. if you need a 1920x1200 monitor for "work" then by all means get one. and I am almost 40 years old so don't assume someone needs to grow up and get a job just because you don't like what they said.
Click to expand...

You missed this part "As far as the whole argument goes.". That means the thread in general.

What garbagemule said was not dissrespectful. He corrected something you had wrong. I chimed in because I own the displays you refered to, and it is obvious that you have not worked with them directly.

Computers can do amazing things. Gaming is only a small part of that. A lot of people in here are cutting them self short with respect to experience and pixels.
 
So to all the 16:9 lovers.....two questions for you.

1) If games were optimized for 16:10, would you like that more? Is it simply the game designers choice (instead of physical aesthetics) which makes you like 16:9 more?

2) What is considered too short and fat for you? 16:8? 16:7? What if they changed the standard again? Would you just roll with the punches? At what point does it become too unwieldy for text pages? For me, 16:10 is the limit... but I suppose some people don't have as much of an aversion to vertical scrolling as I do.
 
daveswantek said:
You missed this part "As far as the whole argument goes.". That means the thread in general.

What garbagemule said was not dissrespectful. He corrected something you had wrong. I chimed in because I own the displays you refered to, and it is obvious that you have not worked with them directly.

Computers can do amazing things. Gaming is only a small part of that. A lot of people in here are cutting them self short with respect to experience and pixels.
Click to expand...
I have used plenty of 1920x1200 monitors. and you chimed in and took what i was saying out of context. it would be like me going into a car forum where someone happened to to be talking about 0-60 of two models and me saying there is more to a car than straight line acceleration. well of course there is but that person was just discussing that aspect of the car at with someone. you made it sound like I was saying gaming was the most important when that was not what I was saying.
 
Valnar said:
So to all the 16:9 lovers.....two questions for you.

1) If games were optimized for 16:10, would you like that more? Is it simply the game designers choice (instead of physical aesthetics) which makes you like 16:9 more?
Click to expand...

1) No. because you need much horizontal space in games. Especially platformgames and first person/third person games.
 
Last edited:
Oled said:
1920x1200 usually cost 50-80 percent more.

1680x1050 cost the same as 1920x1080.
Click to expand...
no one seemed to debate this, is this true? I don't know how to check because I don't know which monitors may be considered equal quality.

1920x1080's do seem cheaper, but i was never sure if they were generally the same quality as cheap 1920x1200's.
 
cannondale06 said:
the wider the aspect ratio the more you see on the sides for properly(hor+) done widescreen games.
Click to expand...

Very, very interesting opinion on what a properly designed game is. What you are stating here is basically that a properly designed game is one that gives players with certain equipment an advantage over others. I don't think it's unfair to state that a properly designed render engine is one that compensates for a narrower screen by increasing the FOV vertically while decreasing it horizontally. Let me assure you that hor+ is not chosen because it's "good" - it's chosen because it's hella easy to implement :)

Hor+ is one of the worst things to happen for PC monitors, because since gamers (apparently) don't know how to force anamorphic scaling, the demand for 16:9 is higher in the gaming world, which unfortunately seems to dictate the course of a lot of hardware. The result? Less options for us, the consumers. And which option is being phased out? The better option (for anything outside of gaming). Why? Because the 16:9-counterparts to the 16:10 monitors have less pixels, and are the cheaper cut. Simple as that.

On another note, I don't understand the idea of abstracting away resolutions from the discussion, as they are pretty much THE reason people are upset with 16:10 being phased out. The fact of the resolution pairs dictates that 16:10 yields more pixels, because the resolutions appear to be "ver+", if you will.

If you are going to discuss purely aspect ratios and no resolutions, physical dimensions or pixel density, you can't objectively conclude anything, because the hard facts are based on exactly these things. People need to stop going "Nerrr why are you even discussing resolutions when this is about aspect ratios?", because it makes no sense not to consider resolutions in the debate.

Oled said:
1) No. because you need much vertical space in games. Especially platformgames and first person/third person games.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean horizontal, but even so, it doesn't really answer the question. The question was, if games were optimized for 16:10, would you prefer 16:10 over 16:9? Here, I assume he means black bars on 16:9 screens if you want the same FOV. And of course you would then prefer 16:10 over 16:9. As we've already established, your only concern with any ground is black bars, and that's the only thing you've been able to cling to because that IS a personal issue.

cannondale06 said:
no its not really bad at all. its actually pretty good because the wider the aspect ratio the wider the view for games. that is the main point of going "widescreen" after all.
Click to expand...

No, overall hor+ is a bad thing. It's the cheapest, simplest solution to the problem of Field of View because the market is shifting from 4:3 to 16:9. So instead of putting 16:9'ers at a disadvantage, game developers are catering to the 16:9'ers and putting everyone who don't know how to force anamorphic scaling on their games at a disadvantage. The consequence of this laziness from game developers is, like I said, a seemingly required phase-out of "the better option" for any other use than gaming.
 
Last edited:
serpretetsky said:
no one seemed to debate this, is this true? I don't know how to check because I don't know which monitors may be considered equal quality.

1920x1080's do seem cheaper, but i was never sure if they were generally the same quality as cheap 1920x1200's.
Click to expand...

1680x1050 TN - $130
1920x1080 TN - $150
1920x1200 TN - $300

1680x1050 IPS - $250
1920x1080 IPS - $250
1920x1200 IPS - $450
 
hor+ is proper in my opinion because when you want a widescreen then you want a wider view of course. well hor+ gives you that because the wider the aspect then the wider the view while keeping the height the same.

but yeah we should just go back to 4:3 or better yet 5:4 and just run games in anamorphic with huge black bars. heck maybe they can make a 2560x2048 res just so you can have a better pixel pitch and be more accurate on that tallscreen monitor. elevator simulator games will become all the rage...
 
You already said hor+ is a proper render engine strategy. I argued why it isn't. Compensating for lack of width by increasing vertical FOV for 4:3 is superior to hor+, but like I also said, it's not quite as easy to implement as hor+.

And I'm still failing to see why gaming is the only concern for you in a discussion of generality?
 
garbagemule said:
You already said hor+ is a proper render engine strategy. I argued why it isn't. Compensating for lack of width by increasing vertical FOV for 4:3 is superior to hor+, but like I also said, it's not quite as easy to implement as hor+.

And I'm still failing to see why gaming is the only concern for you in a discussion of generality?
Click to expand...
because that is what this part of 16:9 debate was about. perhaps you will notice that if you look at the comments I and some others were replying to for the last couple pages. I am not debating some of that other stuff since it is common sense. you are only seeing what you want to see because I have said that small black bars on a 16:10 monitor are not an issue. you keep trying to make an argument where one doesn't exist. keep finding silly reasons to hate 16:9 all you want but at the end of the day they are a good choice for people just like 16:10 is for many people. I have way more gripes with monitors themselves than the small differences between those two aspect ratios.
 
I don't find silly reasons to hate 16:9. I have a Dell U2311H myself, which is 16:9. I've tried to justify my purchase, but the fact remains that I'm at a loss when it comes to productivity. I would have been better off with a 16:10 monitor, simply because it's better for all purposes aside from playing video games and watching movies, at which is the same as 16:9.

I'm debating the semantics in your improper use of the word "proper" (hehehe pun). "Sufficient" would probably have made more sense, I think.

Still, all the gaming-related arguments make it sound like gaming is the "end all, be all" for usages of PC monitors. My big problem with this is that gamers do not represent the entire PC monitor user-base, and I think it's horrible that the industry is shifting towards removing the better option for purposes other than gaming.
 
right before I bought my first 1920x1080 monitor, I bought my parents a 22 inch 1680x1050 monitor because that met their needs perfectly. I always try and find the best monitor based on a person's needs no matter what those needs are. a monitor is something most people do not upgrade for quite a while. in fact my old crt is still kicking, lol.
 
My old AOC 7Klr CRT started smelling really burnt, so I had to tell my brother to invest in a new monitor. He refused until the day my dad came into his room and smelt it :p
 
garbagemule said:
My old AOC 7Klr CRT started smelling really burnt, so I had to tell my brother to invest in a new monitor. He refused until the day my dad came into his room and smelt it :p
Click to expand...
lol, that reminds me that I need to replace the smoke detector batteries...
 
I think the problem with this argument of 16:9 vs 16:10 is that you almost always take resolution out of the picture. Aspect ratio is nothing without resolution, who in their right mind would take a 1280x720 screen over a 1920x1200 just because the 1280x720 has a wider field of vision in horizontal plus games? That's ludicrous.

On top of that, any screen with a decent amount of pixels can use any aspect ratio. Anamorphisism is not a bad thing. The real thing is buy a display with most resolution you can afford. Because at the end of the day, people use PC's for lots of things. Work, Play and sometimes a mix of both.

So you ask which aspect ratio is better? It's never a cut and dry answer. They make options because different people need different things.

If you asked me: "Would you buy a 2560x1920 (4:3) monitor over a 2560x1440 (16:9)?" I'd say "yes" because I could also just do some scaling to get what ever aspect I needed.

For those who feel that not using the 100% screen space at once is wasted space, you probably use it at other times than when playing games or movies (desktop work) and Vice Versa.

This is a pointless argument. Just go buy what you can afford according to your needs just like every other PC purchase you make.
 
suiken_2mieu said:
If you asked me: "Would you buy a 2560x1920 (4:3) monitor over a 2560x1440 (16:9)?" I'd say "yes" because I could also just do some scaling to get what ever aspect I needed.
Click to expand...

The only 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions which this is really relevant for is 1680x1050 vs 1920x1080 and also 1600*900 vs 1440*900 because they are similarly priced.

When we discuss 1920x1200 the choice is "would you buy a 1920x1200 monitor over two 1920x1080 monitors?".

What some people dont get is that just because 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 sound similar they are not the same. Its not like that you get pixels for free just because you buy 16:10. The comment that you get more pixels with 16:10 is ridicolous because no matter how you look at it you get more pixels if you buy 16:9 instead of 16:10. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.

* If you have a very small budget the choices are a 1600*900 or a 1440*900 monitor. Buy 16:9 and you get more pixels.
* If you have a small budget the choices are 1920x1080 or 1680x1050. Buy 16:9 and you get more pixels.
* If you have medium budget the choices are (1920x1080 and a secondary monitor 1920x1080) or a 1920x1200. Buy 16:9 and you get more pixels.
* If you have large budget the choices are (2560x1440 + 1920x1080 + 1920x1080) or 2560x1600. Buy 16:9 and you get more pixels.

More pixels and especially multiple monitors is important for efficiency so therefor 16:9 is far better than 16:10 without any doubt.
http://www.seattleits.com/blogs/far...ncrease-efficiency-of-computer-network-users/


/Oled
 
Last edited:
Oled said:
When we discuss 1920x1200 the choice is "would you buy a 1920x1200 monitor over two 1920x1080 monitors?".
Click to expand...
I've said this before regarding IPS panels - by choosing the two 1080 monitors, you'd downgrade to edge-lighting, 6-bit+FRC and a panel made in China. Regardless of resolution, backlit monitors have always been a good deal more expensive in comparison to edge-lit monitors (IPS or not). So it's not really possible to make a one-to-one comparison.

More pixels and especially multiple monitors is important for efficiency so therefor 16:9 is far better than 16:10 without any doubt.
http://www.seattleits.com/blogs/far...ncrease-efficiency-of-computer-network-users/
Click to expand...
I assume the comparison regarded an 18" (old standard, used 1280x1024) a 24", 1920x1200 and 2x20"1600x1200 - i.e. 3200x1200. But I completely lost your point, unless one is on a budget of course. Then 4x20" old UXGAs of craigslist would be far better than 16:9 or 16:10 by that logic (?)
 
Last edited:
@Oled
Your argument is so flawed I don't even know where to start... Two 1920x1080 monitors will not give me more vertical space than a 1920x1200 monitor, and like tk-don says, if I chose two 1920x1080 monitors for the same price as a 1920x1200, I'd be getting two bad monitors instead of one good monitor. Your comparisons are ridiculous. You said yourself that 16:10 monitors are 50-80% more expensive (numbers that you obviously pulled out of your ass, but now I'll use them against you) than similar 16:9 monitors, ergo, there's no way you can put together a set of 1920x1080 monitors for the same price as a same-quality 1920x1200 monitor. I'll leave the basic mathematics involved as your homework before you make another post of absolute twaddle.

Edit: An important point in case: If my issue with 1920x1080 is that I'm missing out on useful vertical space, what good is it to get one or two more of that same monitor? I'll still be scrolling up and down just as much - the only difference is that now I can spread the documents that need scrolling up and down in over more monitors. Portrait mode, you say? 1080 is not enough horizontal space - in fact, it is 200 pixels less than my old 1280x1024 monitor, which was just about right when it came to web surfing. Furthermore, 1920 pixels wide still isn't enough to split the screen down the middle without problems with horizontal space. The problem with the 1920 resolutions is that they don't have enough pixels to really make side-by-side work easy.
 
Last edited:
garbagemule said:
@Oled
Two 1920x1080 monitors will not give me more vertical space than a 1920x1200 monitor
Click to expand...

Not intresting. The 120 pixels is nothing compared to the increased amount of pixels with the 16:9 alternative and also multiple monitors. Two 1920x1080 monitors are far more efficient than a 1920x1200 monitor.

1600x900 > 1440x900
1920x1080 > 1680x1050
1920x1080 x 2 > 1920x1200

No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.
 
Last edited:
Again....other than full screen games, what else needs all that horizontal space? Even with 16:10 I tend not to run business apps full screen because nobody reads left to right that wide. 16:10 is pushing it. 16:9 is just reduckulous.

Take away the game argument and you have nothing. Price does not matter because people are always willing to pay for a good product. I buy monitors as frequently as I buy speakers for my stereo - not often. It's the rest of the guts that get upgraded yearly.
 
Oled said:
Not intresting. The 120 pixels is nothing compared to the increased amount of pixels with the 16:9 alternative and also multiple monitors. Two 1920x1080 monitors are far more efficient than a 1920x1200 monitor.
Click to expand...
I don't understand how you can possibly believe this drivel yourself. Are you just saying this to stir shit up? It makes no sense. The 120 pixels mean quite a good amount of extra lines of code, documentation or website visible.

Oled said:
No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.
Click to expand...

If my budget is one good 16:10 monitor, I can't get two good 16:9 monitors for that same price. Your argument is null and void, especially by the fact that two 16:9 monitors won't give me the vertical space that I'm lacking. No matter what your budget is, you will always end up with a lower vertical resolution if you buy 16:9 instead of 16:10. And for pretty much any task, that's a minus :)

You can keep trying, but so far, I've refuted all your irrational and inconsistent arguments. If you don't want to come across like someone who is full of shit, you really need to knock it up a notch.

So tell me, are you going to either admit that 2x 16:9 is more expensive than one same-quality 16:10, or are you going to admit to have pulled the "16:10 is 50-80% more expensive than 16:9" numbers out of your ass? Which is it, because the combination of the two does not compute. And are you going to admit to have absolutely no knowledge of work-related tasks, or are you going to keep blurting out bullshit about the 120 extra vertical resolution not being useful?
 
Last edited:
@garbagemule

You are not scientific. We know from scientific articles that more pixels and multiple monitors is very important for efficiency. Therefor 16:9 is far better than 16:10 because you get more pixels and possability to buy more monitors.

1600x900 > 1440x900
1920x1080 > 1680x1050
1920x1080 x 2 > 1920x1200

Your thoughts on the importance of vertical space, resolution and multiple monitors goes in contradiction to what we know from scientific articles. The problem with you is that you just talk with your personal believes as reference. You dont have any sources and you also neglect facts. This is the Hardforum. If you claim something you need to back it up with something.

As said. Scientifically we know that more pixels and multiple monitors is important for efficiency! Therefor 16:9 is far better than 16:10 because you get more pixels and possability to buy more monitors. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.
 
Last edited:
Oled said:
Therefor 16:9 is far better than 16:10 because you get more pixels and possability to buy more monitors. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.
Click to expand...
Tragically incorrect.
 
Oled said:
The only 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions which this is really relevant for is 1680x1050 vs 1920x1080 and also 1600*900 vs 1440*900 because they are similarly priced.

When we discuss 1920x1200 the choice is "would you buy a 1920x1200 monitor over two 1920x1080 monitors?".

What some people dont get is that just because 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 sound similar they are not the same. Its not like that you get pixels for free just because you buy 16:10. The comment that you get more pixels with 16:10 is ridicolous because no matter how you look at it you get more pixels if you buy 16:9 instead of 16:10. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.

* If you have a very small budget the choices are a 1600*900 or a 1440*900 monitor. Buy 16:9 and you get more pixels.
* If you have a small budget the choices are 1920x1080 or 1680x1050. Buy 16:9 and you get more pixels.
* If you have medium budget the choices are (1920x1080 and a secondary monitor 1920x1080) or a 1920x1200. Buy 16:9 and you get more pixels.
* If you have large budget the choices are (2560x1440 + 1920x1080 + 1920x1080) or 2560x1600. Buy 16:9 and you get more pixels.

More pixels and especially multiple monitors is important for efficiency so therefor 16:9 is far better than 16:10 without any doubt.
http://www.seattleits.com/blogs/far...ncrease-efficiency-of-computer-network-users/


/Oled
Click to expand...

There are some truths to this for the smaller budgets, but multiple monitors really becomes a personal preference and really depend on what you do.

I use a 2560x1600 and a 1680x1050 rotated, rather than 3x1080p (i've tried both), even though the 3 1080ps offer more pixels, and even though I could game in 2d surround with them. I still prefer the one larger monitor because for the tools I use it let's me see a whole bunch more stuff. Even for gaming I prefer 1 large 16:10 to 3 small 1080p's in surround, even though apparantly I'm missing out on FOV. At the end of the day a lot of this becomes personal preference and there is no right answer.
 
I actually went up in vertical resolution a bit when I switched from a 27.5" 1920x1200 16:10 hannspree TN to a 27" 2560x1440 16:9 cinema display. Yes I could have got an over-aggressive AG coated 2560x1600 for a bit more but I prefer the 27" size,pixel density and clarity. The point still stands that you can in some cases go up in vertical while going to from 16:10 to 16:9 :p
...
..I already said that x1200 isn't a big sticking point anymore since the days of single monitor desktops are far behind me, so I agree with Oled (the nickname), +60px/+60px is negligible by comparison. I'm actually considering adding three 27" 120hz 1080p screens for eyefinity sometime next yr if there is one out I think is good enough. Otherwise two more cinema displays. Either way a bunch of 16:9 27" screens and a shitload of desktop space. I'll still have two 900x1440 (portrait mode, $110 each) screens in the mix too. :D
..
...If you *really* need documents and coding I highly recommend flipping one or more monitors into portrait mode, as it is much more suitable to the aspect ratio. You would get a lot more vertical for your money than the +60/+60 of x1200 vs x1080 rez you keep touting -- more like +420 /+420 top/bottom (vs a x1080 high) if you flipped any 1920x rez into portrait., or +180/+180 top/bottom flipping any 1440x rez into portrait (vs x1080 high rez). Even vs x1200 high it would be +360/+360 top/bottom and +120/+120 top/bottom respectively using screens in portrait mode.
..
..
 
elvn said:
...If you *really* need documents and coding I highly recommend flipping one or more monitors into portrait mode, as it is much more suitable to the aspect ratio. You would get a lot more vertical for your money than the +60/+60 of x1200 vs x1080 rez you keep touting -- more like +420 /+420 top/bottom (vs a x1080 high) if you flipped any 1920x rez into portrait., or +180/+180 top/bottom flipping any 1440x rez into portrait (vs x1080 high rez). Even vs x1200 high it would be +360/+360 top/bottom and +120/+120 top/bottom respectively using screens in portrait mode.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you never did any programming in your life. Side scrolling is much worse than vertical scrolling. In this case a 16:10 is much better due to the additional width.

Try it sometime
 
Valnar said:
Price does not matter because people are always willing to pay for a good product. I buy monitors as frequently as I buy speakers for my stereo - not often. It's the rest of the guts that get upgraded yearly.
Click to expand...
whoah there. You best be careful with that assumption.
 
Oled said:
@garbagemule

You are not scientific. We know from scientific articles that more pixels and multiple monitors is very important for efficiency. Therefor 16:9 is far better than 16:10 because you get more pixels and possability to buy more monitors.
Click to expand...

I've asked you before not to bullshit me. Why do you keep doing it? We know from studies that dual-monitor setups can improve efficiency, yes. You are correct. "We" also know (I put "we" in quotation marks, because you don't have any experience with real world usage of PC monitors, whereas I and many others here have) from studies and personal experience that vertical screen space is precious, due to the immense amount of vertical scrolling we do in every single basic task. The more vertical space we have on our monitors, the less scrolling we have to do, and the better overview we get of our documents. You have again been proven wrong, and I can keep doing this forever.

Oled said:
1600x900 > 1440x900
1920x1080 > 1680x1050
1920x1080 x 2 > 1920x1200
Click to expand...

This is as scientific as saying "2 small glasses of cheap, horrible tasting cola is better than one big glass of Coke (or Pepsi, if you swing that way)". If you enjoy the horrible tasting cola, then by all means, get the two small glasses and get more of it. But if you like something that actually tastes good, go for the bigger glass of the good stuff with a smile on your face :) I'll respond this way:

1920x1200 > 1920x1080
2x 1920x1200 > 2x 1920x1080

There you go, now it makes sense.

Oled said:
Your thoughts on the importance of vertical space, resolution and multiple monitors goes in contradiction to what we know from scientific articles.
Click to expand...

No, it does not. My thoughts on the importance of vertical space and resolution are the only logical conclusion to draw from scientific studies and the personal experiences people in the field report. You use your computer for gaming and trolling here, so you wouldn't know of real world applications.

Oled said:
The problem with you is that you just talk with your personal believes as reference. You dont have any sources and you also neglect facts. This is the Hardforum. If you claim something you need to back it up with something.
Click to expand...

I have backed up every claim with either logical, irrefutable reasoning or scientific studies. You back up everything you say with either zealous ramblings, or links to studies you haven't read. All you read is the headline, and it always ends up biting you in the ass.

Oled said:
As said. Scientifically we know that more pixels and multiple monitors is important for efficiency! Therefor 16:9 is far better than 16:10 because you get more pixels and possability to buy more monitors. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.
Click to expand...

I still need you to choose to admit that either 16:10 being 50-80% more expensive than 16:9 are numbers you pulled out of your ass, or that you can't get two same-quality 16:9'ers for the price of one 16:10. Which is it?

"Scientifically" we know that 16:10 is better than 16:9 for every single purpose outside of gaming and movies, in which 16:10 is equal to 16:9, if you don't have blackbarophobia. I'm sorry, but you have no case.
 
daveswantek said:
Sounds like you never did any programming in your life. Side scrolling is much worse than vertical scrolling. In this case a 16:10 is much better due to the additional width.

Try it sometime
Click to expand...

What he said. 1080 pixels is just not enough for anything nowadays. Not even web browsing, unless it is strictly forum posts or API documentation. 16:9 is too wide to work well with PDFs in portrait mode. 16:10 is way better for this purpose. Notice how A4 is actually squarer than 16:10, and thus much squarer than 16:9. It really doesn't matter how you twist and turn it, for purposes other than gaming, the extra vertical pixels are very, very useful.

The only resolution pair where the effects of aspect ratio diminish is 2560x1600 vs. 2560x1440. Obviously, 2560x1600 provides more screen real estate, but at these resolutions, splitting the screen in two yields a width of 1280 pixels, which is excellent. I'd say vertical resolution isn't as impossible here, but notice how 1280x1600 is actually much closer to A4 dimensions than both 16:9 in portrait mode, and 1280x1440.

I realize it's getting harder and harder to justify 16:9-fanboyism, and the only real arguments left are personal preference due to inexperience with 16:10, the ridiculous mental disorder that is blackbarophobia, and much more interesting - price. It seems as if the only real reason to get 16:9 over 16:10 is that 16:9 is cheaper. I realize that for gamers who spent most of their budget on huge graphics cards, 16:9 is more appealing, but for people who use their computers for any kind of work, there is no doubt that 16:10 is the better option, if one cares about productivity and optimizing efficiency.
 
garbagemule said:
We know from studies that dual-monitor setups can improve efficiency, yes. You are correct. "We" also know (I put "we" in quotation marks, because you don't have any experience with real world usage of PC monitors, whereas I and many others here have) from studies
Click to expand...

The studies that have been shown in this thread show that amount of pixels and multiple monitors increase efficiency. Nothing more. Nothing less. Vertical vs horizontal space are not even mentioned in the studies.

Your $500 16:10 vs $250 16:9 comparisons are totally unintresting. Especially when discussing efficiency. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9. Therefor based on the facts posted in this thread it is far more efficient to buy 16:9 and not 16:10.
 
Last edited:
Oled said:
Your $500 16:10 vs $250 16:9 comparisons are totally unintresting. Especially when discussing efficiency. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.
Click to expand...

$500 you say? That's funny, because over on NewEgg, as of the time of this post, they're actually selling brand new, non-refurbed 1920x1200 monitors for less than $300.00.

Here's one.
And here's another.
 
Mabu said:
$500 you say? That's funny, because over on NewEgg, as of the time of this post, they're actually selling brand new, non-refurbed 1920x1200 monitors for less than $300.00.

Here's one.
And here's another.
Click to expand...

Actually, know what's even funnier? If I were to buy a U2311H, which is 1920x1080 direct from Dell right at this moment, it would cost me $320.

Wait, what's going on here? A 1920x1080 monitor costing MORE than a 1920x1200 monitor? You mean, I'm actually getting MORE pixels for LESS money? That's.......just.......not possible.......




....by Oled's logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top