Wile E
Power User
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2006
- Messages
- 24,318 (3.71/day)
System Name | The ClusterF**k |
---|---|
Processor | 980X @ 4Ghz |
Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12 |
Cooling | MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360 |
Memory | 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T |
Video Card(s) | Evga GTX 580 |
Storage | Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB |
Display(s) | HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS |
Case | Technofront Bench Station |
Audio Device(s) | Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750 |
Power Supply | ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W |
Software | Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4 |
You are right in only one aspect. And that is Windows desktop applications. As i said, in games or movies, the wider the screen the MORE information you have displayed on your screen . Here the resolution in irrelevant, the ratio is making the difference.![]()
There is no difference, because the 4:3/16:10 monitor can display the 16:9 image 1:1 on the screen. No scaling of any kind. So again, the 4:3/16:10 monitor is superior in abilities. It can do the wide content as well as the taller content.
Lets use 1920 monitors 1080p (1920x1080) content to keep it simple and realistic.
16:9 = 1920x1080. Perfect fit.
16:10 = 1920x1200. Will display 100% the same image as the 1080p monitor at the same quality with a 60px black bar on top and bottom. Quality is 100% unchanged.
4:3 = 1920x1440. Will also display the 100% identical image, but with 180px bar on top and bottom. (Though none of these exist in the wild.)
If horizontal resolutions remain constant, the 16:10 and 4:3 are superior in abilities. They do absolutely everything a 16:9 monitor does with the exact same quality, and are capable of more when you aren't watching 16:9 content.
And if games are your argument, you can just set it to 16:9 if you want, as the 4:3/16:10 screen is capable of displaying an unaltered 16:9 image. Or, you can just tweak the FOV. Point remains though, that the 16:10 and 4:3 are capable of absolutely everything the 16:9 is. So my point still stands.