1080p LCD resolutions - 16:9 set to 16:10?

[TheRealMrGrey]

I am trying to decide between 16:9 and 16:10 aspect ratio monitors. I like the idea of having the full 1080p resolution for movies, but I'm worried about my graphics card being able to handle 1920x1080 frame rates in games. I have an 8800 GTS (g92) 512MB.

It has occurred to me that it might be possible to change the resolution on a 1920x1080 down to 1680x1050 for gaming. However, I don't simply want to squeeze a 1920x1080 picture into fewer pixels and make the picture look narrower than it is supposed to look, I want the monitor to render 1680x1050 without distortion. I don't mind black borders down the sides of the screen.

Does anyone know whether modern TN monitors can accomplish this? The two 1080p monitors I'm considering are:

Dell S2409W
Asus VH236H

Other suggestions are welcome. Thanks!

 

[kylebisme]

I don't know of any of any 16:9 monitors that will pillarbox 16:10, but you can just run 16:9 resolutions instead, 1600x900 for example sake. Also, if you set your video drivers to do fixed aspect ratio scaling, your card will pillarbox or letterbox as needed, and will do a far better job at scaling in general than most LCD monitors anyway.

 

[NoQuarter]

Eh, my Dell P2310H 1920x1080 monitor pillarboxes the display if I select 1650x1080 without having to change anything. This keeps it at native display without having to do any scaling or stretching.

I gotta admit the 16:9 ratio was weird at first since it's such a long display but movies are awesome on it. I have a feeling the 16:10 might look better with 3 a monitor setup though.

Anyway it's a TN monitor and Dell like the one you are looking at. I'd actually be surprised to see a modern display that can't do this..

 

[aclim]

1080p/1920x1080 = 16:9

1920x1200 = 16:10

on my monitor if I lower the res to another 16:10 it doesnt add any borders. mine is native 1920x1200 tho

 

[TheRealMrGrey]

Thanks for the input. I noticed that not all monitors are able to display at an undistorted, non-interpolated resolution while reading this review of the Samsung P2370 by PRAD :

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/review/2009/review-samsung-p2370.html#Introduction

From this article, I think they are saying the ability to display at non-interpolated resolutions is "1:1". The P2370 then, for example, cannot simply turn off some of its pixels and display 1680x1050 within a smaller area of its screen (which is what I was hoping for).

 

[Fallen Kell]

Some monitors have a hardware scaler chip installed to scale the input image up to a higher resolution. Mine has a DCDi chip which does this. Its a 24" 1920x1200 Gateway LCD which anandtech did a review of about 2.5 years ago now (FPD2485W). Later firmwares of this monitor fixed a lot of the issues anandtech saw initially (strange scaling with odd resolutions, and a minor banding issue). I can also set it to do a 1:1 pixel mapping of any resolution smaller than 1920x1200 and it will center it with black pillowbox around the image (i.e. no scaling).

 

[SmCaudata]

Some monitors have a hardware scaler chip installed to scale the input image up to a higher resolution. Mine has a DCDi chip which does this. Its a 24" 1920x1200 Gateway LCD which anandtech did a review of about 2.5 years ago now (FPD2485W). Later firmwares of this monitor fixed a lot of the issues anandtech saw initially (strange scaling with odd resolutions, and a minor banding issue). I can also set it to do a 1:1 pixel mapping of any resolution smaller than 1920x1200 and it will center it with black pillowbox around the image (i.e. no scaling).

I have the 21" gateway that has the same deinterlacer. I'm pretty sure my new Dell 24" can do it as well.

I personally prefer 16:10 for all purpose computing and would rather have the black bars when watching movies than when gaming as I watch videos on my computer for about 2% of it's use. If the 1920x1200 monitors are too big/expensive then I'm sure a 16:9 will be just fine.

 

[TheRealMrGrey]

It is looking like I agree with the 16:10 comment. I've pretty much decided to go with a 16:10 because I want higher frame rates in games at high quality. I am now deciding between:

LG W2286L
Asus VW224U

Both have 2ms response times, though the Asus is significantly cheaper.

 

[yottabit]

I have a 23" acer 1080p being driven by my laptop and for games that are too demanding for it I'll run it at 1360x768 (a 16:9 resolution) and the scaling isn't too noticeable, unless you are playing some kind of game with lots of text. I don't consider myself terribly picky though.

 

[dud]

I am in a similar situation. I have a Delll Precision M90 with a native resolution of 1920x1200. I'm trying to find a good buy on a monitor with the same NR. There are a number of choices at Newegg (about 20) ... but not nearly as many choices as I would have if I went with a 1920x1080.