16:9 vs. 16:10

[Deleted]

Hi guys,

I'm looking to get a new screen but I'm unsure about what type to chose.

16:9 (1920x1080) or 16:10 (1920x1200)?

What are the respective Pros and Cons of each and what do you personally prefer for gaming and watching the occasional movie, work, surfing etc?

[Saithes]

Well obviously 1920x1200 has more pixel space, but most are standardizing to 1920x1080. Honestly I'd just get whatever you can find that fits your actual budget and has good reviews. If you want a good 1920x1080 monitor with amazing color quality I'd look at Dell's U2311H.

[Fuzzykins]

You literally just smacked a hornet's nest. There's some people on these forums that have insane opinions on monitors.
There's no real drawbacks to each one, just how you feel about it. If you think you'll notice the resolution difference, 16:10, if not, just go with a run of the mill 16:9.

[Deleted]

Well I read that games were actually designed with 16:9 in mind and that, the picture size is fixed horizontally, but flexible vertically.

So 16:9 actually gives me a wider view than 16:10...which, while offering more pixels, is essentially just "zoomed in".

[Nab]

I personally prefer 16:9, I just like it that way. But you can't ask us what to buy, it's your decision.

[Deleted]

Running a 1920x1200 one.
Honestly, it's up to you. But as some pointed out, some games are made for 16:9 and will just zoom in to fill the whole screen, taking away some of the "wide" experience. Some games also display black boarders at the bottom and the top to make it 16:9 regardless (Though these are mostly older games, but one major title I had this issue with was Mirror's Edge).
I honestly don't mind, since it translates in a bigger browser and stuff aswell.

[Deleted]

Aren't basicly all standard 24 inch monitors 1920x1200?

There is pretty much no reason to have 1080 tbh unless you want less pixels.

[Prothall]

Aren't basicly all standard 24 inch monitors 1920x1200? There is pretty much no reason to have 1080 tbh unless you want less pixels.

Not all of them - mine's 1920x1080. I read that most monitor manufacturers are going to 1920x1080 from 1920x1200 because it simplifies the amount of different panels they have to make - they can use the same panel for a TV as for a monitor.

[Deleted]

Aren't basicly all standard 24 inch monitors 1920x1200?

There is pretty much no reason to have 1080 tbh unless you want less pixels.

Nope, most are 1920x1080 actually from what I see on local webshops.

[Asmekiel]

1920x1200 here.
While gaming or watching movies you'll get a black bar on the top and bottom of the screen, but since you are watching the movie/playing the game you don't even notice these. It also gives 120 extra lines of pixels, which ofcourse result in a larger on-screen part of sites/programs.

[Nellah]

I'm on a 24" 1920x1200, my wife is on a 23" 1920x1080. The monitors are sitting side by side, and there's no difference if you just sit down and start to use it. It's only comparing vertical screen real estate when playing in windowed mode at less than the monitor's max resolution that you notice it.

[Asmekiel]

I'm on a 24" 1920x1200, my wife is on a 23" 1920x1080. The monitors are sitting side by side, and there's no difference if you just sit down and start to use it. It's only comparing vertical screen real estate when playing in windowed mode at less than the monitor's max resolution that you notice it.

1920x1080 monitors usually are lower than 1920x1200 monitors of the same size. Some people like it being more wide, some don't.
Choosing between these two resolutions is indeed more of a "do I want it wider or not?"-opinion

[Xuvial]

For gaming I wouldn't go higher than 1680x1050 (16:10) because GPU-heavy games simply don't run smoothly at 1900x1080/1900x1200 unless you're running SLI/Crossfire setups. Also, 120hz monitors at those resolutions cost a fortune (atleast, for now). Fewer pixels = free performance boost
By GPU-heavy I mean Crysis/Warhead/Metro/Crysis2DX11 at 60+ fps @ high/max settings.

But if I had to choose, I would grab the 1900x1200. The width of 1080p screens is far too...stretched for my likes. 16:9 makes slightly more sense. But then, it's also kinda annoying when I get movies that literally look like this (# = black area):

########################
########################
[---------------------------------]
[---------------------------------]
[---------------------------------]
[---------------------------------]
########################
########################

I mean cmon that's just widescreen taken to stupidly wide proportions -_-
If you watch a TON of movies and don't do much gaming, go with a 1080p. If not, 1900x1200 all the way.

[Asera]

I prefer 16:10 myself, even though I use 16:9 screens. :/

[Cows For Life]

Before anyone says it as an argument for/against, most movies are not 16:9 aspect and are in fact much wider.

More pixels > fewer pixels.

[Xuvial]

Before anyone says it as an argument for/against, most movies are not 16:9 aspect and are in fact much wider.

More pixels > fewer pixels.

True, they are. Especially the HD/blu-ray versions. But in the context of the OP's post (1900x1080 vs 1900x1200), both are exactly the same width, the only difference is that on the 1900x1200 (i.e. 16:10) you'll just end up with more black area at the top and bottom.
If you watch lots of movies, you'll want them to "fill up" your monitor a bit more in fullscreen mode so go for a 16:9.

[Cyanotical]

I can't comment on aspect ratio, as mine is screwy (48:9), but I will say this, if you are getting a new monitor, go with a Dell, it's one of the few things they are still good at

[Xuvial]

as mine is screwy (48:9)

LOL that's just a triple-monitor setup going at 5760x1080, but it sounds so weird when you put it as 48:9...I was like "WTF 48:9?? *googles*"

[haxartus]

For movies definitely go with 16:9. You will still have black bars, but not that big as with 16:10. And if you are watching a true 720p/1080p video like these on youtube, you will not have black bars at all.

[Cows For Life]

True, they are. Especially the HD/blu-ray versions. But in the context of the OP's post (1900x1080 vs 1900x1200), both are exactly the same width, the only difference is that on the 1900x1200 (i.e. 16:10) you'll just end up with more black area at the top and bottom.
If you watch lots of movies, you'll want them to "fill up" your monitor a bit more in fullscreen mode so go for a 16:9.

I'd still take the larger amount of screen real estate unless movies are the only thing you use the computer for. Pixels are just too useful for almost anything on the desktop.