Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Peripherals

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· AMD Video Cards
· Nvidia
· Displays
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

View Poll Results: Which aspect ratio for games?
16:9 33 32.67%
16:10 44 43.56%
4:3 7 6.93%
Who cares? 17 16.83%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-19-2011, 01:35 AM   #1
Wolves
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 35
Default Which aspect ratio for games? 16:9, 16:10 or 4:3?

16:9, 16:10 or 4:3?

-edit
Read following article. It explains why 16:9 is the best aspect ratio for games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_o...in_video_games

Last edited by Wolves; 05-01-2011 at 06:13 AM.
Wolves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 05:02 AM   #2
supremor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 266
Default

Its generally accepted that 16:9 is the "best" if all you're concerned about is gaming since it gives you the widest FOV (shows more of the game world) in games that properly implement widescreen (pretty much every new game does this but there are exceptions for which you can always turn to the widescreengaming forum). Personally I've never owned a 16:9 monitor and have been gaming on 16:10 for years with no complaints.
supremor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 07:22 AM   #3
Rifter
Diamond Member
 
Rifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,501
Default

16:9 will give you the best FOV and thus allow you to see more of the game, giving you an advantage in competative games over 4:3 or 16:10 users. However if not playing competativly i dont see it mattering much what aspect ratio you use.
__________________
i7 930 @ 4.2Ghz 1.35V -- Asus P6X58D-E -- Noctua NH-D14 -- Corsair XMS3 6GB 1600Mhz
SLI GTX 460 860Mhz -- Intel 120GB G2 SSD -- 2 x 1TB Seagate 7200.12 1TB in RAID 0
Corsair 850w TX PSU -- Corsair 600T case -- WD Green 2TB -- Seagate LP 2TB

Oppan Gangnam style all up in this mother!
Rifter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 10:01 AM   #4
corkyg
Elite Member
Super Moderator
Peripherals
 
corkyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Posts: 24,951
Default

The best would be whichever format the game was written to.
__________________
CorkyG - Tucson, AZ

“Excuses are the nails used to build a house of failure” - Don Wilder
corkyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 12:43 PM   #5
Griffinhart
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,073
Default

IMHO, there is not much of advantage between a 1920x1080 or a 1920x1200 display while gaming. The horizontal view for FPSs are the same, which is where the highest advantage over 4:3 displays exist.

In MMO's or games where you have a ton of customizable UI elements the slightly more resolution of the 1920x1200 display is nice, though nothing earth shattering.

On the otherhand, I HATE 1920x1080 displays for general windows usage. Working with Remote Desktop sessions larger than 1024x768 is a pain. Every extra bit of desktop helps for apps like photoshop. It's a shame that most displays are simply the same panels used in TV's.

My personal gaming and general use preference is a 24" or greater 1920x1200 IPS display. I'm currently using a Dell 2407 IPS display and an Acer GD235hz (23.5" 120hz 3D LCD) on the same PC, and the Dell is, by far, the better monitor. The Acer is really just there for when I want to play 3D games on occasion. Everquest 2 looks pretty phenominal in 3D.
__________________
Gaming Rig:Intel i7 3770/32GB Corsair DDR3/256 GB Samsung 830 SSD/1.5TB WD Caviar Black/680 GTX/Windows 8 Pro
Media Center:Intel Q6600/4GB DDR3-1600/2TB WD Black/Ceton InfiniTV 4/Windows 7 Enterprise
Tablet:MS Surface Pro - 128GB
Griffinhart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 02:52 PM   #6
Cerb
Elite Member
 
Cerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 17,026
Default

#4: Whatever aspect ratio the monitor is. I think 16:10 is the best balance for 1st and 3rd person games following a single unit, with taller ARs being preferable for most others (assuming it doesn't sacrifice visible space in a way that is unrecoverable, like SC2 does).

So, most importantly: FOV settings should be adjustable by the end user .
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crono View Post
I'm 90% certain the hipster movement was started by aliens from another galaxy who have an exaggerated interpretation of earth culture(s).
Cerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 04:24 PM   #7
EliteRetard
Diamond Member
 
EliteRetard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,979
Default

With soultions like eyefinity and surround view they NEED to bring back 4:3. Its far superior for most tasks and 3+ can be linked together for increased FOV for those who want it. Using widescreens together to make ultra widescreen is just to much.

Who wouldnt buy a 24" 1920x1440 monitor if it were available (even with a small price premium over 19x10/12)? Three 1920x1440 monitors at say ~300$ each could actually give those 30" screens a run for their money.

20-22" monitors could use the 1600x1200 resolution instead of 1680x1050. That would make an excelent option for 3x setups...should be cheaper than 19x10/12 and require less horsepower to run while still giving you the verticle resolution you need on top of the FOV advantage. Also requires a little less desk space.
EliteRetard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2011, 12:17 AM   #8
EliteRetard
Diamond Member
 
EliteRetard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,979
Default

So nobody disagrees with me then? Is this just like glossy crap...nobody freakin wants it but thats all they make?
EliteRetard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2011, 12:27 AM   #9
Wolves
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EliteRetard View Post
With soultions like eyefinity and surround view they NEED to bring back 4:3. Its far superior for most tasks and 3+ can be linked together for increased FOV for those who want it. Using widescreens together to make ultra widescreen is just to much.

Who wouldnt buy a 24" 1920x1440 monitor if it were available (even with a small price premium over 19x10/12)? Three 1920x1440 monitors at say ~300$ each could actually give those 30" screens a run for their money.

20-22" monitors could use the 1600x1200 resolution instead of 1680x1050. That would make an excelent option for 3x setups...should be cheaper than 19x10/12 and require less horsepower to run while still giving you the verticle resolution you need on top of the FOV advantage. Also requires a little less desk space.
Not many would buy such monitor because it would be really poor for multimedia.

You will never get more vertical FOV than with 16:9. It would just cause the gamedevelopers problems.
Wolves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2011, 02:19 AM   #10
EliteRetard
Diamond Member
 
EliteRetard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,979
Default

It can handle full 1080p 1:1 no problems. Or 720p on the smaller screen. But seriously, how many people willingly run full HD widescreen content on their monitors? Its all youtube and stuff like that. Even if you did, the extra verticle space would allow you to place a toolbar etc without covering your content.

"You will never get more vertical FOV than with 16:9. It would just cause the gamedevelopers problems."

Simply untrue, I get more verticle view in games with my CRT running 19x14 compared to 16x12 or 12x9. But thats not the point, the point is that verticle space is very usefull for EVERYTHING other than gaming. If the only thing you use your computer for is gaming, then throw it away get a fucking console and a TV.

And Im not saying stop making widescreen monitors...there simply needs to be a choice. But especially now with multimonitor support from video card companies you can use a 4:3 monitor for the superior productivity benefits and have another two or more if you like to have that ultra wide FOV.

And I think most would agree, 3-19x14 is better than 3-19x10...no matter if you get more verticle view or not. If nobody cared about resoltuion then we would all be running 16x10...its got just as many pixels tall as 19x10.

We certainly have the horsepower available to run these resolutions too...
EliteRetard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 05:59 AM   #11
Wolves
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 35
Default

Great article on this subject.

"Field of view in video games (FOV in games, or field of vision in video games) is the extent of the observable game world that is seen at any given moment.[1]
The field of view (FOV) in a video game could change dependent of monitor aspect ratio and resolution dependent of the image scaling method used by the video game. In computer games and modern game consoles the FOV normally increases with a wider aspect ratio. The monitor resolution only effects the FOV in a few older computer games.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_o...in_video_games
Wolves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 08:22 AM   #12
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
 
bunnyfubbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 12,225
Default

I guarantee the vast majority who vote for anything other than 16:9 do so because they own a monitor of a different aspect ratio and largely prefer that ratio for reasons other than gaming.


For those of us who can enjoy the best of both and be less biased, 16:9 is the far better aspect for the vast majority of games because it allows for a naturally wider FOV. I'd even argue that 16:9 is a rather modest aspect ratio when it comes to game, and that we could go much wider for an ideal setup.

We can force just as wide a FOV on 16:10 or 4:3 but that results in a fisheye effect that can be disorienting and cause more harm than good.

We can also balance the FOV so that we see equal amounts of the game world where 16:9 gives us the widest FOV whilst 16:10 and 4:3 increasingly reveal more of the vertical. Again, the problem there is that human vision is naturally far wider on the horizontal than the vertical so the resulting game environment on a narrower FOV is naturally less immersive (not to mention of far less strategic advantage for the vast majority of games)
__________________
i7 3930K @ 4.7GHz + XSPC Raystorm/EX280/D5 | ASUS Sabertooth X79 | EVGA GeForce GTX780 | 4x4GB Samsung Green DDR3 @ 1866 CAS9 1.5v | 2x256GB Samsung 830 RAID-0 | 3 x 1.5TB Hitachi 7K3000 RAID-0 | 2 x 3TB Seagate 7200.14 RAID-0 | Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1 x64 | Creative X-Fi Titanium HD | Seasonic Platinum-1000 | Silverstone FT02B-WRI | BenQ XL2420T | Dell U2711 | Filco Majestouch-2 Tenkeyless Cherry MX Red | Razer Abyssus + Goliathus Speed | Beyerdynamic MMX300 / Astro A40 2013
bunnyfubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 04:37 PM   #13
evilspoons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 312
Default

WTF would I want to bring 4:3 back for?

To get a screen with this width and 4:3 aspect ratio would make it too tall for natural human vision when putting the monitor on an average desk. (Looking up and down constantly is bad ergonomics.)

evilspoons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 08:07 AM   #14
FalseChristian
Diamond Member
 
FalseChristian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oshawa, ON, CA
Posts: 3,312
Default

I really miss my 21" Viewsonic P225F 1600x1200 at 85hzt. My 22" doesn't even come close in color reproduction or size.
__________________
Core i5 2500K @ 4.635GHz (103x45) 1.360v-Asus P8Z68-V/Gen3 (BIOS 3402)-16GB Kingston VR DDR3-1333Mhz @ 1600MHz 1.65v-2 EVGA GTX 760 2GB (1215/7600) ACX SLI-750w Cooler Master GXII-RealTek on-board sound-Intel Onboard 1Gb Ethernet-Rogers Cable Internet 325Gb/second-2x3TB Seagate 7200 SATA 6 HD-3TB SG Barracuda SATA 6-3TB SeaGate USB 3.0 EHD-22" Samsung SyncMaster 2253BW 1920x1080 67Htz-Windows 10 Pro (10130)
FalseChristian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 02:06 PM   #15
EliteRetard
Diamond Member
 
EliteRetard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,979
Default

LOLz the only 2048 LCD...and I can fit 34% more on my CRT in 75% less space. Corse if I could get an even bigger CRT I totally would have. In a 24" size thatd be 2560x1920. I would totally pay $1000 + for that.

You can keep your lower resolution 30" and "bad ergonomics". I wont have to look up or down on my screen and Ill have more work space and the same or better gaming experience. Along with near instant response time and better color acuracy. Oh and if I ran into an ultra intense game that I couldnt max out at that resolution, I could simply lower it with absolutely no image degredation. Also allows me to play all my older games with no stretch or weird issues...because I can run 800x600 if I wanted to.

Of corse your argument is that no such monitor exists...and thats exactly what Im complaining about. Display technology simply stoped advancing and slid terribly backwards for years. The slide /may/ have stopped now, but it will be years more before they get back to where they started. I will be keeping my monitor untill then...but in the mean time they NEED to offer 4:3 monitors for people who want them, and there are plenty.
EliteRetard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 09:42 AM   #16
evilspoons
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 312
Default

I feel you may be confusing "4:3 monitors" with "CRT monitors". They made widescreen CRTs, but the ultimate reason CRTs were mostly 4:3 ratio is physics. It's very difficult to deflect an electron beam accurately into square corners. Early TVs even had rounded corners.

Let's not forget the godawful flicker and poor image quality on text unless you had them set up EXACTLY perfectly... and then there's the power consumption.

As for the image quality thing, just set your video card to always output your LCD's native resolution and then do the scaling internally ("use NVIDIA scaling with fixed-aspect ratio" for NVIDIA cards). Yes, pixels may not match up, but on games with movement the difference is damn near impossible to point out.

(I am incredibly picky about this sort of thing. I know instantly when it's reverted to the "use my display's built-in scaling" setting.)
evilspoons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 09:36 AM   #17
Slaanesh
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 71
Default

Speaking about 4:3 CRT monitors; I'm still using my trusty Iiyama 19" CRT 16x12 monitor and I LOVE it. Still, I would finally like to upgrade to a flatscreen display with more screen real estate.

Is there already an LCD display which has the same superb image quality as my CRT, without noticeable lag? Price doesn't matter, but I want to make NO concessions concerning IQ.

Usage is about 75% gaming, 25% general usage.
Slaanesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 10:07 AM   #18
Wolves
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 35
Default

I hope you 16:10 people enjoy the black bars in Witcher 2!
Wolves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 11:36 PM   #19
Ramses
Platinum Member
 
Ramses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 2,640
Default

Viewing this on my ancient GDM-5410 SUN that is still kicking along at probobly close to fifteen years old now, 4:3 is just fine. Sometimes I run two. I use a pair of wide LCD's at work, it's OK but I really prefer a flat, square screen. Especially as pretty as these are. I've been thinking about a pair of 4:3 19" LCD's to reclaim some desk space at home, but will keep the SUN for gaming with my modest hardware at sane resolutions.
If I were to buy one of these bizzare (for a guy that had monochrome screens on his first boxes way back) resolution widescreens I'd likely have to have better hardware to play games at native resolution on them. I think Best Buy and the like decided everyone would "like" widescreen myself, all the hard core old school computer guys I know sneer at them, just like glossy laptop screens. They are very "consumer" if you will.
That's just my personal opinion and observation though.
__________________
Many things we do naturally become difficult only when we try to make them intellectual subjects. It is possible to know so much about a subject that you become ignorant.
Mentat Text Two
Ramses is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 05:17 AM   #20
shortylickens
No Lifer
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 57,516
Default

4:3

For those of you who failed geometry, a square has more surface area than a rectangle.


(4:3 is not a square, but you get the idea).
__________________
] Non-offensive signature goes here [
shortylickens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 02:45 PM   #21
moriz
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 196
Default

Not true. A square has larger surface area to dimensions, but does not actually mean that it has more surface area always. Case in point, a 27" 16:9 monitor has more surface area than a 21" 4:3.
moriz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 03:26 PM   #22
Emultra
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shortylickens View Post
4:3

For those of you who failed geometry, a square has more surface area than a rectangle.


(4:3 is not a square, but you get the idea).
Human vision is a lot closer to widescreen than 4:3. Our hFoV is something like 160.
__________________
Asus P8P67 EVO | 2500K | Gigabyte WF2 GTX 670 | Corsair Vengeance 2x4 GB | Samsung Syncmaster 2233rz 120hz
Emultra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 05:30 PM   #23
Ramses
Platinum Member
 
Ramses's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 2,640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moriz View Post
Not true. A square has larger surface area to dimensions, but does not actually mean that it has more surface area always. Case in point, a 27" 16:9 monitor has more surface area than a 21" 4:3.
I think the point was more to a 21" 4:3 VS a 21" 16:9. Like-ish VS like-ish.
__________________
Many things we do naturally become difficult only when we try to make them intellectual subjects. It is possible to know so much about a subject that you become ignorant.
Mentat Text Two
Ramses is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 08:22 AM   #24
TheUnk
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shortylickens View Post
4:3

For those of you who failed geometry, a square has more surface area than a rectangle.


(4:3 is not a square, but you get the idea).

FOV is what matters in gaming, not surface area.

For those of you who don't understand aspect ratios in relation to FOV, 16:9 > 16:10 > 4:3.
TheUnk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 12:42 PM   #25
Throckmorton
Lifer
 
Throckmorton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 16,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnk View Post
FOV is what matters in gaming, not surface area.

For those of you who don't understand aspect ratios in relation to FOV, 16:9 > 16:10 > 4:3.
There are a lot of myths that get perpetuated on this forum... One of them is that games maintain vertical FOV and scale horizontal FOV.

No.... it depends on the game. Some scale both so the overall FOV stays the same, some scale vertical only. Battlefield 2 is an example of a game that maintains horizontal FOV and scales vertical.
__________________
K&N air filter = 45x as much dirt in your engine (working link)
http://i52.tinypic.com/50lf0y.gif
"It has already been proven that the concept of a "living wage" is a liberal fantasy." - Patranus
Throckmorton is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Alpha 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.