# Your pick: 16:10 or 16:9?



## nexus_a (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2015)

More is better. 2560x1600


----------



## erocker (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> 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.



Blue-Knight said:


> I prefer more horizontal space. 21:9 I am waiting for you.
> 
> I voted for 16:9, obviously.


I added the option!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 26, 2015)

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


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 26, 2015)

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


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2015)

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


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

Red_Machine said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2015)

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


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 26, 2015)

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


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 26, 2015)

Octopuss said:


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





ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


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





FordGT90Concept said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

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 (Jan 26, 2015)

Tonduluboy said:


> 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)
> ...



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 (Jan 26, 2015)

Tonduluboy said:


> 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)
> ...


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)


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 26, 2015)

ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


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


16:10 was a thing way before 16:9 was. Either way, I appreciate the statement that you've only ever used one. We know (and hopefully like) what we've used.


Blue-Knight said:


> Here are some comparative images. What people are losing with 16:9 displays:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Images


It's pretty minimal though. What do you actually feel that you're losing by this? It sure is less space but the real question is if it really makes a difference or not.


night.fox said:


> 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


Once again, I will pose this question to you. What do those 120 lines get you and is it enough to justify saying that 16:10 is better than 16:9? I think in reality few people really will care, even more so if it means getting a 1440p or 4k display. So considering the market, I think clinging on to an older standard for the sake of a few extra vertical lines at a *particular horizontal resolution* is a little insane since most panels now are 16:9 including those with resolutions north of 1920x1200.

It's worth noting I feel like I rarely get black lines with 1920x1080. Most video I watch will fill the entire panel. Either way, I still don't think either argument for or against is valid to say one is better than the other. The simple fact is that there is a lot of 16:9 content and support. It's the standard, it's where everything is going. They're not better or worse, they're just different. One has been adopted more than the other.



Octopuss said:


> 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.



So you're crying over 120 lost lines? How about looking at the other 1080 of them? 120 is a lot skinnier than the rest of the display. That's not an excuse, that's being whiny. I'm not asking you to look at 1920x120 (yes, that's 120, not 1200) because *that* would be skinny.



nexus_a said:


> 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)


Try that at 1440p or 4k (if hardware could drive it) and I'm sure you'd change your mind.


----------



## Naito (Jan 27, 2015)

I have a 16:10 VX2835wm right next to my 16:9 Philips. The 120px difference means nothing to me. Both are monitors. Both show content at a high enough resolution and quality. However, if I were to choose, 16:9 is preferred as more content is commonly found in that format. Otherwise, meh... panel quality, color reproduction, and more importantly response times and refresh rates mean the most to me when looking at purchasing monitors.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2015)

Naito said:


> I have a 16:10 VX2835wm right next to my 16:9 Philips. The 120px difference means nothing to me. Both are monitors. Both show content at a high enough resolution and quality. However, if I were to choose, 16:9 is preferred as more content is commonly found in that format. Otherwise, meh... panel quality, color reproduction, and more importantly response times and refresh rates mean the most to me when looking at purchasing monitors.


This is the kind of response I want to be hearing more. It's less about the 120 lines you lose. It's more about the kind of panel you have. I must say, my new IPS panels kick the crap out of my old 28" TN screen which not only looks worse, but uses twice as much power as all 3 of my new ones. There is always a lot more to a display than an aspect ratio.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 27, 2015)

night.fox said:


> 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





Aquinus said:


> Once again, I will pose this question to you. What do those 120 lines get you and is it enough to justify saying that 16:10 is better than 16:9? I think in reality few people really will care, even more so if it means getting a 1440p or 4k display. So considering the market, I think clinging on to an older standard for the sake of a few extra vertical lines at a *particular horizontal resolution* is a little insane since most panels now are 16:9 including those with resolutions north of 1920x1200.
> 
> It's worth noting I feel like I rarely get black lines with 1920x1080. Most video I watch will fill the entire panel. Either way, I still don't think either argument for or against is valid to say one is better than the other. The simple fact is that there is a lot of 16:9 content and support. It's the standard, it's where everything is going. They're not better or worse, they're just different. One has been adopted more than the other.
> 
> .



Please read what I post before you ask me that question. I said I prefer 16:10. I never said 16:10 is better than 16:9.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2015)

night.fox said:


> Please read what I post before you ask me that question. I said I prefer 16:10. I never said 16:10 is better than 16:9.


...but why? Other than a tiny bit of space, what does it get you? Having a preference for one over another indicates that one is better than the other in some way. If both are equal, one would assume there would be no preference because there is no advantage to having one over the other so you're comment makes no sense.


----------



## kn00tcn (Jan 27, 2015)

16:10 is closest to golden ratio, it's just the most pleasant rectangle

now if we're talking resolutions, 1920x1200 is clearly the most versatile:
-fits 1920x1080 content without scaling issues
-fits 1600x1200 content without scaling issues
-golden ratio
-if a game has hardcoded resolutions, it would most likely be fine since they top out at 1920x*, while i have seen reports of games where they break at 2560 or have overly blurry UI, etc

if we're talking productivity, 2560x1440 16:9 is more pixels than 1920x1200 16:10 for example, so you cant just say 16:9 is reducing space without directly comparing the same width

4:3 is pretty lame, but the real issue is that 5:4 is TERRIBLE, what were they thinking making 1280x1024...

as for real world game usage, the problem with 16:10 is when games lower the FOV, this obviously makes no sense, especially if there is a 'sister' resolution in 16:9 (like 1920x1200 & 1920x1080), what they need to do is just add more vertical while keeping the sides identical

21:9 makes no sense.... blurays are 1920x1080 right? so a 21:9 monitor 'should' be 1920x780... but the ones i keep seeing are 2560x1080?? welcome to blurry movies... i'll take the black bars on 1080 than scale the image! not all movies are in this wide format either

speaking of not making sense.. 1366x768 tvs!?!? yes let's mess up 1280x720 videos/console games for no reason... black bars or blurry overscan

anyway... no size is the end of the world, except for maybe 5:4


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 27, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> ...but why? Other than a tiny bit of space, what does it get you? Having a preference for one over another indicates that one is better than the other in some way. If both are equal, one would assume there would be no preference because there is no advantage to having one over the other so you're comment makes no sense.
> View attachment 62163



Well I like my 30" 1600p. Ive seen 27" 1440 and I just dont like it. I have also tried playing in 1440p and I didnt want it. That is the reason why. I have 3 x 24" 1080p at work and I dont like working.

That is just me. and you dont have to push me on what you like and what you prefer. This is what I prefer and the OP is asking which one should I pick.

This thread is not about 16:10 vs 16:9. This is about what people wants to pick


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2015)

night.fox said:


> Well I like my 30" 1600p. Ive seen 27" 1440 and I just dont like it. I have also tried playing in 1440p and I didnt want it. That is the reason why. I have 3 x 24" 1080p at work and I dont like working.
> 
> That is just me. and you dont have to push me on what you like and what you prefer. This is what I prefer and the OP is asking which one should I pick.
> 
> This thread is not about 16:10 vs 16:9. This is about what people wants to pick


...but people like you profess that it's worse but yet there is no explanation on why or what difference it makes. All I'm asking you to do is explain to me what it gets you at 16:9 does not but you don't seem capable of saying much beyond, that you just don't like it.


----------



## buildzoid (Jan 27, 2015)

My favorite aspect ratio is 21:9 since it massively boosts FOV in games and covers a much more natural chunk of my vision(human eyes are something between 21:9 and 27:9). As for the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 at 1920 it's 120pixels which is about 10 lines of 12pt text. Really if you want to see a ton of text get a second monitor and run it in portrait much more cost effective.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 27, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> ...but people like you profess that it's worse but yet there is no explanation on why or what difference it makes. All I'm asking you to do is explain to me what it gets you at 16:9 does not but you don't seem capable of saying much beyond, that you just don't like it.



Have you been reading my post or you just ignore them? I already post it that I do prefer 16:10 due to more height. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH???? and NOT VALID????

if for you is not enough reason, that is your problem not mine. BUT DO NOT PERSUADE me over 120 lines. THAT IS WHAT I WANT and that IS WHAT I PREFER


----------



## kn00tcn (Jan 27, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> ...but people like you profess that it's worse but yet there is no explanation on why or what difference it makes. All I'm asking you to do is explain to me what it gets you at 16:9 does not but you don't seem capable of saying much beyond, that you just don't like it.


isnt this an enthusiast site? 'a few more pixels', 120 of them, is an increase, therefore it's 'better' in the purest definition


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 27, 2015)

kn00tcn said:


> isnt this an enthusiast site? 'a few more pixels', 120 of them, is an increase, therefore it's 'better' in the purest definition


thanks man.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Jan 27, 2015)

21:9 for me and it's look like more future proof for general users and for next couple years..

but in one condition, at least the screen size was 24" for 16 : 9 and 29" for 21:9

my next target was LG 34UM95






For comparison : 23" 16 :10 and 23" 16:9.






it's really depend on what your need..


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2015)

kn00tcn said:


> isnt this an enthusiast site? 'a few more pixels', 120 of them, is an increase, therefore it's 'better' in the purest definition


The Pentium 4 has a long pipeline. That "big" pipeline is why the CPU failed. Lets not use a "one size fits all" mentality when it comes to what enthusiasts want.


night.fox said:


> Have you been reading my post or you just ignore them? I already post it that I do prefer 16:10 due to more height. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH???? and NOT VALID????


No it's not. You're saying you care about 9% of your screen more than the other 91%. Plus, you're just saying "ARGH OMG HEIGHT". That's not a really good example of why it's better. It's an example of how you can't articulate what it actually gets you. What does that height get you? So instead of professing that height is what you want, how about you explain to me what that height gets you instead of getting your panties in a bunch.

I'm saying neither is better, you're saying one is better than the other. I'm asking you to prove it and explain what you do where those 120 lines matter. Enlighten us. Don't just whine.


----------



## Toothless (Jan 27, 2015)

I'm just here loving my monitors. All 16:9 and all different sizes. (1080p, 900p, and 720p.)

One day.. I shall move to all 1080p..


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 27, 2015)

night.fox said:


> Have you been reading my post or you just ignore them? I already post it that I do prefer 16:10 due to more height. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH???? and NOT VALID????
> 
> if for you is not enough reason, that is your problem not mine. BUT DO NOT PERSUADE me over 120 lines. THAT IS WHAT I WANT and that IS WHAT I PREFER


I think he is just a troll or something. Or just plain stupid. I don't know, he just keeps babbling the same stuff over and over, not taking ANY answer for an answer. I'm done with this thread, there are only so many attempts to provoke me before it explodes.
P.S. I hate overusing of the word "whine" where it doesn't even apply.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 27, 2015)

Alright, just respect each other's opinions, because that is all they are. If you cannot do so, then move along. Also, please watch the cussing. There are ways to express yourself without having to resort to cursing to make your point.
I switched to a 16:10 monitor almost 5 years ago and have no regrets.


----------



## puma99dk| (Jan 27, 2015)

i have had 4:3, 16:10 and now 16:9 doing my life time and 16:10 was king in gaming when it came out, but everything has switched over to 16:9 even movies from 4:3 so i guess that 16:9 is the new standard until some else maybe not 21:9, comes and take this place.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 27, 2015)

1:1 all day every day
1920p goodness.


----------



## Toothless (Jan 27, 2015)

RCoon said:


> 1:1 all day every day
> 1920p goodness.


I must know where to get this goodness. I want three with surround.


----------



## RCoon (Jan 27, 2015)

Toothless said:


> I must know where to get this goodness. I want three with surround.



Pretty sure they're used for airtraffic control and similar such things. They're not exactly cheap either.


----------



## XSI (Jan 27, 2015)

using both 16:10 laptop+monitor and 16:9 TV. don't care a lot about it. but I will go for 21:9 this/next year for sure.
either 2560x1080 or 3440x1440.


----------



## zsolt_93 (Jan 27, 2015)

I just went recently from 16:10 to 16:9. Mostly because i use it as a TV adn Full had looks better on a HDTV than on 16:10 especially that my 1680x1050 couldnt display that at all.


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 27, 2015)

HammerON said:


> Alright, just respect each other's opinions, because that is all they are. If you cannot do so, then move along. Also, please watch the cussing. There are ways to express yourself without having to resort to cursing to make your point.
> I switched to a 16:10 monitor almost 5 years ago and have no regrets.


I assume this was aimed at me (plus the cussing, which I agree on).
I am sorry, the guy was just pointlessly trying to wind others up. I don't like when someone tries to provoke me very much.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 27, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> No it's not. You're saying you care about 9% of your screen more than the other 91%. Plus, you're just saying "ARGH OMG HEIGHT". That's not a really good example of why it's better. It's an example of how you can't articulate what it actually gets you. What does that height get you? So instead of professing that height is what you want, how about you explain to me what that height gets you instead of getting your panties in a bunch.
> 
> I'm saying neither is better, you're saying one is better than the other. I'm asking you to prove it and explain what you do where those 120 lines matter. Enlighten us. Don't just whine.



lets stop it from here. all I can say again is that I said I prefer 16:10 due to height and thats what my eyes like. its like comparing a longer mouse to a normal mouse. For all people they use the standard mouse. But I prefer the longer mouse because thats what my hands like. 16:9 is the standard or even it is the widely used. Fine and dandy. I respect that. But I fall inlove with 16:10 when I start to use it. And I kept it that way. Then I figured oh it was the height that makes my eyes easier to work with. To play with. For all other people like you, you got used to 16:9 and you like it. Thats fine. I respect that. But I wont be bashing you guys who prefer 16:9 because thats what you like. 

anyway, looking at your number of post and how long you've been in TPU, I know you more. you have keep pushing me that the height is not enough and telling me im just whining. well, look who's talking? You pushed people who prefer 16:10. so what. Cant you respect that?


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 27, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> I assume this was aimed at me (plus the cussing, which I agree on).
> I am sorry, the guy was just pointlessly trying to wind others up. I don't like when someone tries to provoke me very much.



no I think he was aiming at my post that I got abit emotional.

@HammerON I apologized.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2015)

Octopuss said:


> I assume this was aimed at me (plus the cussing, which I agree on).
> I am sorry, the guy was just pointlessly trying to wind others up. I don't like when someone tries to provoke me very much.





night.fox said:


> lets stop it from here. all I can say again is that I said I prefer 16:10 due to height and thats what my eyes like. its like comparing a longer mouse to a normal mouse. For all people they use the standard mouse. But I prefer the longer mouse because thats what my hands like. 16:9 is the standard or even it is the widely used. Fine and dandy. I respect that. But I fall inlove with 16:10 when I start to use it. And I kept it that way. Then I figured oh it was the height that makes my eyes easier to work with. To play with. For all other people like you, you got used to 16:9 and you like it. Thats fine. I respect that. But I wont be bashing you guys who prefer 16:9 because thats what you like.
> 
> anyway, looking at your number of post and how long you've been in TPU, I know you more. you have keep pushing me that the height is not enough and telling me im just whining. well, look who's talking? You pushed people who prefer 16:10. so what. Cant you respect that?


Fine, I'll drop it, but both of you are basically saying "Because my eyes like it," which is like saying "my car is better than the other one on the lot because it's blue". It's a not a good argument and it yet still doesn't explain what it gets you. I can understand someone getting something like a 1:1 monitor or a 4:3 for very good reasons, but to complain about something like 9% of the "lost" height is insane.

Since, none of you can describe the tangible differences and are getting angry while doing so, I would conclude that saying crap like:


Octopuss said:


> I think he is just a troll or something. Or just plain stupid. I don't know, he just keeps babbling the same stuff over and over, not taking ANY answer for an answer. I'm done with this thread, there are only so many attempts to provoke me before it explodes.
> P.S. I hate overusing of the word "whine" where it doesn't even apply.


makes me question that you actually have an answer to my question. So how about not calling me a troll and actually explaining yourself. I want to know what it gets you but all you two can say is that you like it more. I don't care that you like it more, I care why you think that's the case.


night.fox said:


> But I fall inlove with 16:10 when I start to use it. And I kept it that way. Then I figured oh it was the height that makes my eyes easier to work with.


...but yet you never say what you do where that 9% instead in height actually gets you anything. You say it's nice for your eyes, that's dandy, but I don't see how a tiny bit of monitor space is going to change that and I'm trying to coax that answer out of you. People have perferences for a reason and I'm trying to get a reason other than "because I do" out of you and you and Octopuss are getting super unhappy because I'm not happy with non-detailed answers.


Octopuss said:


> I am sorry, the guy was just pointlessly trying to wind others up. I don't like when someone tries to provoke me very much.


You wouldn't have gotten yourself angry if you just answered my question instead of getting pissed off and yelling at me, hence why I said you were whining. Once again, tell me what those 120 lines gets you. I'm not asking a hard question and it's on topic. Either answer it or say you don't have an answer, but don't profess you have an answer but fail to actually articulate it.

Saying that you prefer something because you do is not an appropriate discussion like statement for a thread like this to be completely honest. No one cares what you prefer if you can't truly explain why.


----------



## nexus_a (Jan 27, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> You wouldn't have gotten yourself angry if you just answered my question instead of getting pissed off and yelling at me, hence why I said you were whining. Once again, tell me what those 120 lines gets you. I'm not asking a hard question and it's on topic. Either answer it or say you don't have an answer, but don't profess you have an answer but fail to actually articulate it.


I hope you realise people got angry after you posted in the thread. You should have worded yourself better because it seems to me you are provoking people.

On 1920x1200 you get 230400 more pixels. 2560x1600 you get 409600 more. Everything except watching movies or gaming on consoles can benefit from that.
If you don't read and don't edit stuff, and don't care about scrolling I can understand why you think the 120 lines is no big deal. I don't think my explanation will convince you anyway.


----------



## Maban (Jan 27, 2015)

I'm not about to read all the propaganda on these three pages, but I will say that 16:10 is obviously better for productivity (word processing, browsing, blah blah blah). For movies it doesn't really matter, the letter-boxing on a 16:10 isn't going to bug you too much. But for games it's a matter of preference. The first thing you should know about 16:10 in games is that the rendered image will have the same height (though with 120px better detail) as 16:9 but the sides will be cut off. It's unfortunate but it's true in almost all games. For single-player games, you probably won't care, but that extra width that 16:9 provides is very helpful in online games. I have a 1920x1200 monitor but in DOTA I use 1920x1080 because it provides more width.

I would personally never buy a 1920x1080 monitor for my main monitor but I would definitely buy a 2560x1440 for a good price. I'd prefer 2560x1600 though.

I can fit an entire 1920x1080 page in my browser.


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 27, 2015)

lol he's still raving about not getting an answer despite getting it numerous times in numerous ways.
Why don't you write the answer for us so you are happy with the reasoning?
Some people are just incredible. But hey, I forgot we were on the internet.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 27, 2015)

I voted 16:19


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2015)

nexus_a said:


> I hope you realise people got angry after you posted in the thread. You should have worded yourself better because it seems to me you are provoking people.


I think you missed this post which made before I entered the thread, which I replied to. Tell me again, who is getting angry?


Octopuss said:


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


How about the immediate follow up?


Octopuss said:


> 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.





Octopuss said:


> lol he's still raving about not getting an answer despite getting it numerous times in numerous ways.
> Why don't you write the answer for us so you are happy with the reasoning?
> Some people are just incredible. But hey, I forgot we were on the internet.


That's because your bitching and moaning and not giving me a real answer other than you can't see the other 1080 lines because you're butt hurt.


Maban said:


> I have a 1920x1200 monitor but in DOTA I use 1920x1080 because it provides more width.


What do you mean by that? You still only have 1920 pixels going from side to side. You mean wider with respect to height? I'm a little confused.


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 27, 2015)

I think you don't even understand what butthurt means. It's used in _slightly_ different context.

I've just realized I have so much room in my ignore list in this forum. It's time to feed it.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jan 27, 2015)

Move along guys, last warning. Its just monitors, no need to get all fired up. 

As for my preference, the cheaper one wins my monies. 16:10 is slightly better for games, 16:9 slightly better for movies.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 27, 2015)

I shall give an answer.  As the comparitive images several posts above indicate, 16:9 nets one slightly more real estate right to left.  As a gamer, that is more important to me than 120 lines top to bottom.  The loss of those has never hurt my office use productivity either.  Besides that, 16:9 being the most common, it is easy to see movies full screen and 16:9 resolution is almost the default for games now, so I have less fussing with game settings when starting.  That's my detailed explanation as to why I prefer 16:9.


----------



## Maban (Jan 27, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> What do you mean by that? You still only have 1920 pixels going from side to side. You mean wider with respect to height? I'm a little confused.



This is how it works in every single modern game. Open them both in a tab then switch between them. Edit: switched to JPEG. They were massive.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> I shall give an answer.  As the comparitive images several posts above indicate, 16:9 nets one slightly more real estate right to left.  As a gamer, that is more important to me than 120 lines top to bottom.  The loss of those has never hurt my office use productivity either.  Besides that, 16:9 being the most common, it is easy to see movies full screen and 16:9 resolution is almost the default for games now, so I have less fussing with game settings when starting.  That's my detailed explanation as to why I prefer 16:9.


I thank you for the description. I would like to say this is the kind of answer I've been looking for in general. Why someone prefers one, what they use it for, and why someone feels it is better for those purposes.

I will apologize for angering people, but I really just want some constructive discussion what what use cases are better for different ratios. Not just simplying repeating what they voted for in the poll.


Maban said:


> This is how it works in every single modern game. Open them both in a tab then switch between them.


Ohhhhh. I never noticed that. Very interesting, thanks for contributing.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jan 27, 2015)

Maban said:


> This is how it works in every single modern game. Open them both in a tab then switch between them.



They look the same to me. I must be getting pretty old 

Side Note: I love Dota (2). Playing with some teammates will leave you raging so hard that you want to punch the screen, whatever monitor you are using.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 27, 2015)

Fourstaff said:


> They look the same to me. I must be getting pretty old
> 
> Side Note: I love Dota (2). Playing with some teammates will leave you raging so hard that you want to punch the screen, whatever monitor you are using.


 
Look at the wall on the right and the column on the left.  1920x1080 (16:9) gets you more of the scene, more akin to the way our own eyes work (or should, in your case, LOL).


----------



## Maban (Jan 27, 2015)

You'd be surprised at how much of a difference the extra width makes in DOTA. It can make the difference between winning a battle and getting raged at by Russians because you failed miserably.


----------



## Lopez0101 (Jan 27, 2015)

To me, the 16:9 shows more of _everything_. Even vertically there is more than in the 16:10 res. It looks like the HUD scales larger in 16:10 and covers more space.


----------



## Aquinus (Jan 27, 2015)

I will chime in and say that I do have some HD video where the ratio is wider than 16:9 which means black bars on 16:9. It would be interesting to see how some of it would compare side-by-side on a 16:9 versus a 21:9 (or similar).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 27, 2015)

Tonduluboy said:


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


I wish they'd stop producing 16:9 monitors. 8:5 has always been more appropriate for computer use ( feet viewing distance).  The only reason why 16:9 is taking over is because of mass production for TVs (lower price per unit).




Fourstaff said:


> 16:10 is slightly better for games, 16:9 slightly better for movies.


I disagree.  8:5 can not only show your 1080p movies 1:1, it can also show the play, pause, fast forward, title bar, etc. without covering said 1080p.  TV versus monitor.


----------



## buildzoid (Jan 27, 2015)

The few movies I remember watching on my 2560x1080 both scaled perfectly with no black bars or blurring. However I was streaming them in 720p not 1080p since my internet is terrible.


----------



## T.R. (Jan 27, 2015)

nexus_a said:


> The price range is ¥117,609 to ¥134,058. Which is $18835 to $21474.


Correctly, it is priced at 117,609 JPY, equals about 998 USD at the moment.

Anyway, now I'm using FHD display, it is sufficient for media consumption, but I would like WUXGA (or SQFHD; 1920 x 1920) display, because it has a better user experience for media creation work.


----------



## qubit (Jan 28, 2015)

I voted 16:10. This provides a nice, wide expansive view of my desktop, especially at 1920x1200. I've currently got 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 monitors of similar physical size side by side and it's surprising just how much difference it makes to one's perception.

I've always found 16:9 a bit too letterboxy and wasn't keen on it, but I've been surprised that it looks better for gaming than 16:9. I don't like it all that much for TV.

Oh, I like 21:9 monitors for the novelty and would love to have one to play around with.

Ultimately, if you just wanted to maximise desktop real estate regardless of resolution you would use a 1:1 monitor, but they wouldn't be comfortable to use and are not even available to buy.


----------



## SK-1 (Jan 28, 2015)

I love my 1920x1200 16:10. My work monitor is 1080p 16:9 so I have a daily reminder.


----------



## NorthboundOcclusive (Jan 28, 2015)

nitpicking about resolutions and pixels nonwithstanding, 16:10 is (to quote wikipedia) closer to the golden ratio, and one could argue that it's more aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## nexus_a (Jan 28, 2015)

T.R. said:


> Correctly, it is priced at 117,609 JPY, equals about 998 USD at the moment.
> 
> Anyway, now I'm using FHD display, it is sufficient for media consumption, but I would like WUXGA (or SQFHD; 1920 x 1920) display, because it has a better user experience for media creation work.


Google gave me Chinese Yuan instead of Japanese Yen... I don't know why I didn't notice that. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## kn00tcn (Jan 29, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> The Pentium 4 has a long pipeline. That "big" pipeline is why the CPU failed. Lets not use a "one size fits all" mentality when it comes to what enthusiasts want.
> 
> No it's not. You're saying you care about 9% of your screen more than the other 91%. Plus, you're just saying "ARGH OMG HEIGHT". That's not a really good example of why it's better. It's an example of how you can't articulate what it actually gets you. What does that height get you? So instead of professing that height is what you want, how about you explain to me what that height gets you instead of getting your panties in a bunch.
> 
> I'm saying neither is better, you're saying one is better than the other. I'm asking you to prove it and explain what you do where those 120 lines matter. Enlighten us. Don't just whine.


there's no need to be that dense or binary...

1200 pixels is MORE than 1080 pixels, i'm not comparing a different unit of measurement like you are with penitums, the correct analogy is a 2ghz pentium4 is faster than a 1.5ghz pentium4, which is obviously true as you have more of the same unit

50fps is more than 45fps, there is nothing around this fact, but nobody said 45fps (or 1080 pixels) is suddenly obsolete

do i have to explain why 'more is better' even though that explains itself?

your windows taskbar is a fixed amount of pixels height, your browser addressbar is a fixed amount of pixels height, every website you go to has designs that are a fixed amount of pixels height.... see the problem? things take up a FIXED amount of space on the screen, so if you have a larger amount of pixels on your screen, you can fit more on it, by definition this = better

now it seems in our society, people are taught to have an inferiority complex, companies are always pressuring users into getting the better faster stronger device every year, or to compare their neighbor's house/car/wife/posessions

life is full of compromises, in fact i actually cant stand seeing people asking 'yo what's the best gfx card' or 'what's the best laptop for gaming', why? because the best is like $5,000+ & completely irrelevant to that person's needs, nor were they planning to spend that much

1920x1080 is still 'fine', just because it's relatively 'worse' than 1920x1200 doesnt mean it's bad:
-it still fits 1080p video content 1:1
-it's still rectangular which is more pleasant than square
-it's still 1920 wide, so that old saying of 'fit 2 word documents side by side' applies
-the low end IPS variant has become so cheap that you can find it in so many 20-24" 1080p monitors, so there are great low cost choices
-games are well tested & usually are correct unless they're really old 4:3 games

so if 1:1 scaling is a big concern (& it should be if you watch blurays or console games), then *1920x1080 & 1920x1200 are in a league entirely of their own*, where x1200 is only better if you have OS usage or old 1600x1200 games

everything else is junk with the 1:1 concern, especially the unfortunate 1680x1050 where not only do you end up with FOV issues in some games, but 1080p content is now blurry or cropped (notice how this is also 16:10, yet it's now 'must avoid' on my choices)


----------



## qubit (Jan 29, 2015)

RCoon said:


> 1:1 all day every day
> 1920p goodness.


Wow, I didn't know such an animal existed! This is 26.5" diagonal so of course the problem would be that sat on my desk it would be far too high, so I'd be looking up and down a lot, making for uncomfortable viewing.

Is it just me, but there appears to be an optical illusion where there monitor seems taller than it's wide. Even the screenshots on the website seem to be like this. Check out the website and let me know what you think.

http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/index.html


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 29, 2015)

*shrug* Looks square to me.

Edit: I think I would prefer 4:3 over 1:1 though.  There is such a thing as "too tall."



kn00tcn said:


> ...where x1200 is only better if you have OS usage or old 1600x1200 games


1920x1200 is always better unless you absolutely hate 120 pixels of letterboxing.  If you don't mind or don't watch 1080p content much, 1920x1200 is always better (all else being equal).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 29, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> It is not just you. It does not appear square to me as well.





FordGT90Concept said:


> *shrug* Looks square to me.





I am undecided  .. I need a bit longer to make my mind up .   







16 :16 for me,        always has been,          always will be.


----------



## qubit (Jan 30, 2015)

Nah, 17:17 is much better.


----------



## xorbe (Jan 30, 2015)

Rocking 1920x1200 and _2560x1600 _-- which is glorious, btw.


----------



## SaltyFish (Jan 30, 2015)

Voted 16:10.

1920x1200 can be considered better than 1920x1080 because of the higher pixel count in the same way that people praise 2560x1440 and 2560x1600. As a side note, 16:10 does retro-gaming better. 1920x1200 can display older 4:3-only games at 1600x1200 (a common resolution), something 1920x1080 can't. Most older games don't have a 1440x1080 setting and the next steps down are 1280x1024 (technically 5:4 but some 4:3 games supported it), the uncommon 1152x864, and the ubiquitous 1024x*768*. The highest common 4:3 resolution is 2048x1536 which fits in 2560x1600 but not 2560x1440.

As others have mentioned, 16:9 overtook 16:10 for mainstream computer monitors because of the whole convergence thing with TVs saves manufacturers money on production costs. 16:10 monitors these days are predominantly the realm of professional graphics editing. It skyrockets the price more due to the need for accurate color reproduction and makes buying 16:10 monitors financially painful. At least you know you're getting a technically nice monitor. There's also less choice in 16:10. You can find a 27-inch 2560x1440 monitor easily but there's no 27-inch 2560x1600 monitor; they only start at 30-inch.


----------



## Octopuss (Jan 30, 2015)

The only situation when I'd think about buying 16:9 monitor would be 120Hz IPS panel, if it was only available with this ratio.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 30, 2015)

I'm a bit surprised that there is alot who wants or prefer 16:10. Even the price is abit high compared to 16:9.

For example, here in korea, I bought the korean 1600p 30" monitor for the reason that it is easy for me to get after service. The price of those are 500 usd compared to 300-350 usd for the 1440p 27" so for the price of 2 1600p, I could get 3x1440p here. But I still chose the 1600p because 3 (eyefinity or sorround) doesnt seem to be too wide due to additional height compared to 3x 1440p. I saw 3x1440p and it is too wide for my vision.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 30, 2015)

SaltyFish said:


> There's also less choice in 16:10. You can find a 27-inch 2560x1440 monitor easily but there's no 27-inch 2560x1600 monitor; they only start at 30-inch.


Out of curiousity:
2560x1440 27" = 108.79 PPI
2560x1600 30" = 100.63 PPI
The 30" has lower pixel density.  It should be closer to 28" to match.



night.fox said:


> I'm a bit surprised that there is alot who wants or prefer 16:10. Even the price is abit high compared to 16:9.


Most people want 8:5 but end up buying 16:9 because it is so much cheaper.  If the prices were within a reasonable amount of each other, only people that believe the "HD" marketing will buy the inferior monitor...but that's crazy thoughts because 1920x1200 is as good as dead for the consumer market.  There may be hope for higher resolutions yet.


----------



## nexus_a (Jan 30, 2015)

night.fox said:


> I'm a bit surprised that there is alot who wants or prefer 16:10. Even the price is abit high compared to 16:9.
> 
> For example, here in korea, I bought the korean 1600p 30" monitor for the reason that it is easy for me to get after service. The price of those are 500 usd compared to 300-350 usd for the 1440p 27" so for the price of 2 1600p, I could get 3x1440p here. But I still chose the 1600p because 3 (eyefinity or sorround) doesnt seem to be too wide due to additional height compared to 3x 1440p. I saw 3x1440p and it is too wide for my vision.


Ah, so you are from S Korea, no wonder. Samsung and LG make so many TVs that they barely make monitors other than 16:9 and 21:9 ones (which is a shame, since I loved Samsung's 16:10 Syncmaster). When people talk about 16:10 I only think of HP, Dell, Asus, Apple and Eizo (which I am glad to pay a premium price for).


----------



## Mussels (Jan 30, 2015)

i'd be shocked about the poll saying 16:10, except this is TPU where the diehards who cant abandon their odd aspect ratio just. wont. give. up!


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 30, 2015)

nexus_a said:


> Ah, so you are from S Korea, no wonder. Samsung and LG make so many TVs that they barely make monitors other than 16:9 and 21:9 ones (which is a shame, since I loved Samsung's 16:10 Syncmaster). When people talk about 16:10 I only think of HP, Dell, Asus, Apple and Eizo (which I am glad to pay a premium price for).



Well, I live in S Korea but I am not korean. My wife is korean. You'd be surprised here the availability of 1600p monitors. Although they are A- panels, I bought it cause like I said, its easy for me to get service since I dont have to worry about huge shipping fee for service. My crossover monitors are still alive for almost 3 years now and 1 year for the other 2 and I never have problem yet. (hopefully it will last for long) well my old 1050p 24" korean (joyoontech) is still alive even it is already 8 years and I am still using it from time to time.



Mussels said:


> i'd be shocked about the poll saying 16:10, except this is TPU where the diehards who cant abandon their odd aspect ratio just. wont. give. up!



Its not about giving up. I think. Its about getting used to it. I mean I have 1600p wherein I could change to any 16:9 res (except 1440p for the reason I dont know). So yeah why should I give up? Sure thing HD movies are optimized for 16:9 res but I never use my monitor to watch movie anyway. I have a big 65" Smart TV in my living room to watch those HD movies.


----------



## nexus_a (Jan 30, 2015)

Mussels said:


> i'd be shocked about the poll saying 16:10, except this is TPU where the diehards who cant abandon their odd aspect ratio just. wont. give. up!


I am actually a bit shocked too, since I expect 70% of people voting 16:9, but maybe it's just a preference, not what people will buy exactly. I have had many 16:9 monitors. It's this time I really want to settle down and invest in a good 16:10 one.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jan 30, 2015)

If 8/4.5 is going to be better supported than 8/5 then the former would be preferable.


----------



## ZoneDymo (Jan 30, 2015)

See less? im sorry but I dont think you know exactly how aspect ratio's work.
Hell used to be with 2 games (think one of them was Bioshock) that 16:9/10 was just 4:3 with the top and bottom cut off so with 4:3 you actually saw more.
The aspect ratio has little to do with the content visible, that is all up the the maker.
Resolution also has a lot to do with visible content.

Personal opinion, I dont know why we have 16:9 and not just went for 16:8 right away, a 2 to 1 ratio, seems to make more sense in my opinion and it would not be that much wider.


----------



## xorbe (Jan 30, 2015)

Some websites are such a pain on 4:2.25, even after Firefox hid the status bar and menu bar in an attempt to free up vertical pixels.  Even the tab bar and url box are optionally hidden to free up vertical pixels.


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 1, 2015)

People are "Shocked" that a monitor with more pixels is favored lol. Shocked has lost a lot of its UMPH!


----------

