16:10 vs 16:9

[nyfirefly11]

So, I know that native 16:9 is generally better for watching movies or HD content, but what about gaming? Does it make a difference?

And is a 1920x1200 16:10 much better than 1680x1050 16:10?

Thx!

 

[nitromullet]

Not really much of a difference between the two. For a PC monitor I prefer 16:10 because I like the extra vertical real estate for desktop use, but that is really just personal preference.

And is a 1920x1200 16:10 much better than 1680x1050 16:10?

More pixels is always better IMO, but you have to consider that 1920x1200 screen will require a level of commitment to video card upgrades to keep new games running smoothly with the eye candy turned up.

 

[Wreckage]

I would get 16:10 for gaming, you can still run videos in 16:9 you just get the black bars is all. (Which I don't notice once I get into a movie)

 

[nyfirefly11]

Thx! So if I went with a 16:10 at 1920x1200, will a 4830/4850 do for now? (FSX, other light gaming)

 

[Painman]

Another week, another 16:9 vs 16:10 thread...

Look Firefly, I can see that you're new here, so Welcome and all that stuff, but... Argh.

...And to answer your most recent question, 4870 1GB/GTX 260 as a minimum baseline.

 

[nyfirefly11]

sorry, I did some searching but clearly missed the previous threads...

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: Painman
Another week, another 16:9 vs 16:10 thread...

Look Firefly, I can see that you're new here, so Welcome and all that stuff, but... Argh.

...And to answer your most recent question, 4870 1GB/GTX 260 as a minimum baseline.

minimum baseline if you require max in game settings. Lesser cards will drive the display fine on medium game settings.

I really am growing tired of people that think everybody has to have the best of everything. Many people don't care if they have to lower a couple settings to play a game especially if it means they can save a hundred bucks. A 4830 is a beast of a card for medium settings @ high res.

Does everybody need a 911 turbo when there is no speed limit above 65-75 in the US?

I myself am not really am medium kind of guy but there sure are plenty of them out there. Kind of why I went with a Hayabusa last time it came to getting a new 2 wheeler

 

[Painman]

Heh, don't be sorry. It's an active, though rather argumentative sub-forum! I'm not decrying your posting of the question... just what might become of it based upon recent history.

Very opinionated bunch we have here @ AT video so have yourself a :beer:, find yourself a comfy seat, and be sure to chase whatever you swallow with a big grain of salt (ask the bartender for complimentary Halite granules if none are already available at your table).

Enjoy your stay

 

[Painman]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
[minimum baseline if you require max in game settings. Lesser cards will drive the display fine on medium game settings.

I really am growing tired of people that think everybody has to have the best of everything. Many people don't care if they have to lower a couple settings to play a game especially if it means they can save a hundred bucks. A 4830 is a beast of a card for medium settings @ high res.

Does everybody need a 911 turbo when there is no speed limit above 65-75 in the US?

I myself am not really am medium kind of guy but there sure are plenty of them out there. Kind of why I went with a Hayabusa last time it came to getting a new 2 wheeler

Is $200 that unreasonable? If you shop well, that's what a 4870 1GB will cost you, as well as a 260 c216. They both offer a shitload of performance for the price point, and that's a very reasonable price point.

"Best of Everything"? No comment.

 

[BassBomb]

There is no way 1920x1080 beats 1920x1200 so get the 16:10

 

[nyfirefly11]

Thanks everyone....I just came across the LCD thread...amazing, but at 350 pages I needed a drink

I was thinking about the ASUS VW266H, on sale at the egg. http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16824236047

It's huge...not sure I need one that big, but seemed like a good deal. If not, I was considering a smaller Asus (at 1680x1050)

 

[AzN]

16:9 is better if you like watching TV shows, movies etc on your computer.

For games I don't see much of a difference. You get a little bit more wider view. For computer work 4:3 monitors are probably the best.

Difference from 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 in real PC environment is you get to view 3 extra lines. 1920x1080 is also less taxing on your video card.

Personally I had a 16:10 monitor and upgraded to a 1920x1080. I'm not looking back. I get to watch all my HD tv shows at full screen.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache

Originally posted by: Painman
Another week, another 16:9 vs 16:10 thread...

Look Firefly, I can see that you're new here, so Welcome and all that stuff, but... Argh.

...And to answer your most recent question, 4870 1GB/GTX 260 as a minimum baseline.

minimum baseline if you require max in game settings. Lesser cards will drive the display fine on medium game settings.

I really am growing tired of people that think everybody has to have the best of everything. Many people don't care if they have to lower a couple settings to play a game especially if it means they can save a hundred bucks. A 4830 is a beast of a card for medium settings @ high res.

Does everybody need a 911 turbo when there is no speed limit above 65-75 in the US?

I myself am not really am medium kind of guy but there sure are plenty of them out there. Kind of why I went with a Hayabusa last time it came to getting a new 2 wheeler

Heck I play everything on high settings except for GTA4 on my 8800gts. I'm running 1920x1080 BTW.

 

[yh125d]

Totally personal preference. I watch a lot of movies and game at 16:9, and I prefer it over 16:10 for both purposes. 16:9 is also a little easier on your GPU

 

[TidusZ]

I ran 1920x1200 no a 8800gt for a long time, only thing that didnt run amazing is crysis. Now I have a 295, and crysis runs amazing too. The 8800gt can certainly handle most games though, and u can get one for ~100 cdn now. The 4830 is faster, slightly.

 

[nOOky]

Honestly, I have a 1 gig 4870 and an 8800GTS512 each driving a 1920 x 1080 monitor. I can't tell any difference in most games I play, Cod4/5, L4D,TF2, etc. If you sit and watch the fps while gaming the 8800 certainly drops lower, but seat of the pants I can't tell the difference. I have Crysis but never play it, I suspect there are quite a few out there who recommend a certain card to run that game well, but don't actually play it themselves.

 

[nyfirefly11]

what happens if i get a 1920x1200 before I upgrade my very old x700 card...will it work at all (at least browsing the interweb)?

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: nyfirefly11
what happens if i get a 1920x1200 before I upgrade my very old x700 card...will it work at all (at least browsing the interweb)?

Is that a real question? A radeon 7500 could do web browsing at that resolution.

As for games, 1080 or 1200 won't matter, they will both be awful with your card.

 

[nyfirefly11]

yeah, real question... figured as much, but wanted to confirm.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: Painman

...And to answer your most recent question, 4870 1GB/GTX 260 as a minimum baseline.

thanks for the joke

As was already stated above, you can just turn down detail or other settings. I run 1920x1080 with a 9600GT that I bought for $54

 

[DerekWilson]

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: nyfirefly11
what happens if i get a 1920x1200 before I upgrade my very old x700 card...will it work at all (at least browsing the interweb)?

Is that a real question? A radeon 7500 could do web browsing at that resolution.

As for games, 1080 or 1200 won't matter, they will both be awful with your card.

well ... it could do it via analog, as it wouldn't have had a dvi port back then ...

if the x700 has a single-link dvi port and you want to do digital ... well, you may or may not run into trouble with that ...

it'll definitely work via the analog signal though.

 

[nyfirefly11]

yeah, it has dvi, but i've been using analog anyway, b/c i was having trouble with the dvi. I have a dell 1901fp, which is pva, so a good panel, but prob time for an upgrade.

 

[edplayer]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
Does everybody need a 911 turbo when there is no speed limit above 65-75 in the US?

No, but it should be the minimum baseline

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Azn
Personally I had a 16:10 monitor and upgraded to a 1920x1080. I'm not looking back. I get to watch all my HD tv shows at full screen.

I'm a little bit confused by this logic. With 1920x1200, you still get 1920x1080 playback but the top and bottom are letter boxed. If you had two displays with the same pixel pitch, but one was 1920x1200 and the other 1920x1080, your 1080p image would be the exact same size.

I know it's a matter of personal preference (so I'm not passing judgment), I'm just somewhat surprised that one would 'upgrade' to 16:9 just to have an otherwise identical image meet the edge of the screen.

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Azn
Personally I had a 16:10 monitor and upgraded to a 1920x1080. I'm not looking back. I get to watch all my HD tv shows at full screen.

I'm a little bit confused by this logic. With 1920x1200, you still get 1920x1080 playback but the top and bottom are letter boxed. If you had two displays with the same pixel pitch, but one was 1920x1200 and the other 1920x1080, your 1080p image would be the exact same size.

I know it's a matter of personal preference (so I'm not passing judgment), I'm just somewhat surprised that one would 'upgrade' to 16:9 just to have an otherwise identical image meet the edge of the screen.

Some people (myself included) don't want the letterboxes. I plan to stay with 16:9 unless they stop making 1920x1080 monitors