16:9 or 16:10 WHAT WOULD YOU DO ?

[Anna17]

Ill keep it short

Last Thursday i went out and bought this monitor form Best Buy

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/ol...&cp=1&id=1218061081362

I thought it would be good for gaming but the resolution isn't that good and my games are very stretched, especially Medieval 2 total war. I believe this is because of the extreme 16:9 Wide screen ratio.

I am planning on returning this to best buy on Monday and pick up this 16:10
Gateway monitor while it is on sale.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/ol...oduct&id=1211587387624

What do you guys think?


Thank you for reading this and will appreciate any reply
xx

 

[Jumpem]

Get something with the proper 1920x1200 resolution.

 

[novasatori]

1920x1080 is what I would pick

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: novasatori
1920x1080 is what I would pick

For a tv maybe, but not for a PC.

 

[iahk]

I'd go for 16:9 too.

I have a feeling the market isn't going to be split between 16:10 and 16:9 anymore. Alot of monitors coming out now are 16:9.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: novasatori
1920x1080 is what I would pick

For a tv maybe, but not for a PC.

Having used an HDTV as a PC monitor for over two years, Id say 16:9 for 1280x720 or 1920x1080.

Loving it!

 

[Bateluer]

If you're primarily going to be using it for a PC, then go with the 16x10 1920x1200 monitor.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: Anna17
Ill keep it short

Last Thursday i went out and bought this monitor form Best Buy

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/ol...&cp=1&id=1218061081362

I thought it would be good for gaming but the resolution isn't that good and my games are very stretched, especially Medieval 2 total war. I believe this is because of the extreme 16:9 Wide screen ratio.

I am planning on returning this to best buy on Monday and pick up this 16:10
Gateway monitor while it is on sale.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/ol...oduct&id=1211587387624

What do you guys think?


Thank you for reading this and will appreciate any reply
xx

You sure you didn't just have the wrong resolution selected in Medieval 2? 1920x1080 should show up in the list of resolutions in the game's options menu.

 

[T9D]

Well I'd get a 22" either way. So I guess the 16:10 for this choice.

If all things being equal I'd go with 16:9 though (you're only showing a 20" for that option however)

 

[hans030390]

16:9, just to match up with widescreen televisions. That, and if you hook at console up to it, it will display in the proper aspect ratio. A lot of newer PC games support 16:9 resolutions...and if not, usually display drivers have scaling options available.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

Originally posted by: Jumpem
Get something with the proper 2560x1600 resolution.

Fixed.

 

[AdamK47]

16:9 without a doubt. If you've noticed, 16:10 is slowly being overtaken by 16:9 in the PC monitor market. 16:9 makes more sense with developers concentrating on multiplatform games. I've been using a 37" LCD TV as my main monitor with a native resolution of 1920x1080. Games and movies look great on it.

 

[imported_Imp]

Using a 1920x1200 monitor, it's nice. The extra 120 pixels are useful, but honestly, if they wanted to standardize everything to 1920x1080, I'd support it.

I use 1:1 mapping with my PS3, and even when browsing, everything looks fine. Due to the small dot pitch of x1200 computer monitors, you end up making text bigger and zooming in often, which wastes that extra real estate anyways. Also, they could do away with a lot of the Windows toolbars to give more vertical space.

My next monitor will probably be a 32"/37" TV or a 27" monitor.

 

[funboy6942]

Doesnt a 16:10 monitor display a 16:9 image anyway? I have it as my desktop 22" Hannspree monitor and my Epson HC 700 front Projection TV, and get the best of both worlds, a 16:9 image in games, tv, and movies, and 16:10 image when ever I want to make use of the larger screen image. I just make sure I set my stuff right and I dont have ANY problems with my images looking wrong at all on either set. The only I guess "bad" would be a black bar on the upper and lower part o the screen in 16:9 display, but Im not effected or dwell on seeing that, its never bothered me at anytime on a $:3 set, or any other set. I do however like the extra space I can get when I can play a game in full 16:10 res though

But OP you dont need to look for someone to tell you what YOU must like, get what you like, and what looks good to you. Why must you make a thread asking others for their opinion as to what YOU should get, what do you like thats good to your eyes and get it

 

[coloumb]

What would jesus do?

 

[Rastus]

that Hanspree monitor has a native resolution of 1600 X 900. If your video card and the game you are running both support that resolution, that is where you should run it. Any other resolution just won't look right.

Taking it back to get something else is what I recomend as that is a laptop display in a desktop frame. It was made for Sony Viao Z series lappies.

 

[TidusZ]

You can always stretch video a little bit if you can't stand the black bars. Of course if you're nitpicky about the black bars you might be nitpicky about the stretch too. But then you'd probably be nitpicky about lower res in games and less desktop space. I guess you lose.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
If you're primarily going to be using it for a PC, then go with the 16x10 1920x1200 monitor.

I would go 16:10 1920x1200 personally, if your monitor does 1:1 pixel mapping either via LCD or drivers then 1920x1080 is not an issue and you then can do both with 1920x1200 monitor.


Btw there are new 16:10 LCD models coming out, so far from mainstream going to 16:9 anytime soon.

 

[cbn]

I would take 16:10 all things being equal but I think if manufacturers go 16:9 then should compensate by increasing resolution--->http://www.newegg.com/Product/...StoreType=&srchInDesc=

While 1920x1080 is 10% less area than 1920x1200 in the vertical plane, 2048 x 1152 is actually slightly more total area than 1920x1200.

 

[cbn]

Just wondering if 2048 x 1152 resolution would be available in most PC games as an option. (It is a 16:9 resolution that offers slightly more pixels than 1920x1200)

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: novasatori
1920x1080 is what I would pick

For a tv maybe, but not for a PC.

more and more monitors are coming out in 16:9, most games now are console ports with 16:9 fixed aspect

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Just learning
Just wondering if 2048 x 1152 resolution would be available in most PC games as an option. (It is a 16:9 resolution that offers slightly more pixels than 1920x1200)

Very few will have it, but you can always use 1920x1080 pixel mapped.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Just learning
Just wondering if 2048 x 1152 resolution would be available in most PC games as an option. (It is a 16:9 resolution that offers slightly more pixels than 1920x1200)

Very few will have it, but you can always use 1920x1080 pixel mapped.

So you would just select 1920x1080 and run in a non-native resolution?

I hope these higher 16:9 resolutions catch up. In fact I am already wondering what the 16:9 equivalent of 2560x1600 would be with these smaller pixels?

2048x1152 is a lot of pixels for a screen measuring only 23 inches in the 16:9 diagonal.

 

[n7]

No, as i said, 1920x1080 pixel mapped.

That means you set that in your graphics drivers, & it gives you exactly 1920x1080 pixel for pixel with the extra space as black bars around the sides.

2560x1440 is 16:9, & honestly, 16:9 can go screw itself.

I'm so tired of seeing so much vertical pixel space being lost all the time because of stupid aspect ratio marketing.

We can have 1280x800 or 1280x720. Yay for lost space

Same crap with 1680x1050 vs. 1600x900.

1920x1200 or 1920x1080.

It's complete garbage.

For PC use, losing height is not an advantage, it's stupid.

The only reason 16:9 is good at all is for movies, & ffs, movies aren't actually 16:9 anyway; there are still black bars.

They used the same garbage reasoning when pushing 4:3 out in favor of 16:10, now it's 16:9.

Pure stupidity.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: n7
No, as i said, 1920x1080 pixel mapped.


2560x1440 is 16:9, & honestly, 16:9 can go screw itself.

I'm so tired of seeing so much vertical pixel space being lost all the time because of stupid aspect ratio marketing.

We can have 1280x800 or 1280x720. Yay for lost space

Same crap with 1680x1050 vs. 1600x900.

1920x1200 or 1920x1080.

It's complete garbage.

For PC use, losing height is not an advantage, it's stupid.

The only reason 16:9 is good at all is for movies, & ffs, movies aren't actually 16:9 anyway; there are still black bars.

They used the same garbage reasoning when pushing 4:3 out in favor of 16:10, now it's 16:9.

Pure stupidity.

First of all thanks for the instructions on how to pixel map. (I really appreciated that)

But why would 16:9 be a disadvantage if the lost 10% vertical was replaced with more pixels in the horizontal? (This is the big advantage of 2048x1152, it is not a loss of pixels like 1920x1080 is)

Yes I do agree vertical distance marketing is a scam (for example advertising a 16:9 monitor as 22" is misleading because the monitor actually looks much smaller than a 22" 16:10 monitor)

With respect to those monitors I linked earlier stuffing 2048x1152 pixels in a space measuring only 23" 16/9 is quite impressive. Wouldn't this be the equivalent size of a 21" conventional monitor?