16:9 vs 16:10; Extra Pixels worth the Extra $$$?

[s0matic]

This is more of a subjective question than an objective one, so I expect to get differing opinions.

I'm in need of a 2 in 1 solution, PC usage + Console gaming (PS3/360). However since I am using one monitor for both, I can say it will be used primarily for PC usage (60%) than console gaming (40%).

I'm looking at/narrowed it down to the following three LCD monitors:

ASUS VH222H 21.5" ~$150

ASUS VH242H 23.6"~$200

BenQ V2400W 24"~$300

The former two ASUS monitors are 16:9, and the latter BenQ is 16:10.

Since this will primarily be a PC monitor, ideally I would choose the BenQ, as it offers an extra 120 pixels of vertical resolution over the two ASUS models. However, since this monitor will be also used for gaming, input lag is important. Various sources place the ASUS models at ~3ms avg, while the BenQ is at 9-15 ms avg. In the end though, I may not see a difference between such response times, so this point of comparison is probably moot.

So the question is...

Is 120 extra pixels of vertical resolution worth the added ~$100-$150 expense?

If it helps to put a frame of reference on my purchase, I'll be upgrading from a 19" Samsung 940b (5:4 @ 1280x1024)

Any input or opinions would be much appreciated.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

http://www.displaywars.com/23,...-16x9-vs-24-inch-16x10

The choice is yours.

 

[s0matic]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
http://www.displaywars.com/23,...-16x9-vs-24-inch-16x10

The choice is yours.

Looking at that, I'm pretty I'll give my nod to the 24" 16:10. But I guess whether or not it's worth an extra $100 over the 23.6" 16:9 is what I'm debating.

Anyone with hands-on usage with both 16:9 and 16:10 monitors able to chime in?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: s0matic

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
http://www.displaywars.com/23,...-16x9-vs-24-inch-16x10

The choice is yours.

Looking at that, I'm pretty I'll give my nod to the 24" 16:10. But I guess whether or not it's worth an extra $100 over the 23.6" 16:9 is what I'm debating.

Anyone with hands-on usage with both 16:9 and 16:10 monitors able to chime in?

Im not going to get into the whole ratio debate here but considering that the 16:10 monitor is also a TN panel then just go for the cheaper 16:9 model. certainly dont get the 21.5 monitor unless you have great vision because everything will be quite tiny on it.

 

[BFG10K]

16:10 can display 16:9, but the reverse doesn't always apply. Get 16:10.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
16:10 can display 16:9, but the reverse doesn't always apply. Get 16:10.

well its not always that simple plus he is asking about value. do you really think that having those extra 120 lines is worth 50% more money?

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: BFG10K
16:10 can display 16:9, but the reverse doesn't always apply. Get 16:10.

well its not always that simple plus he asking about value. do you really think that having those extra 120 lines is worth 33% more money?

It'd 50% more money in this case. And no, it's not worth it.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: BFG10K
16:10 can display 16:9, but the reverse doesn't always apply. Get 16:10.

well its not always that simple plus he asking about value. do you really think that having those extra 120 lines is worth 33% more money?

It'd 50% more money in this case. And no, it's not worth it.

yeah I was already editing while you were quoting me. next time dont be so fast. lol

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: s0matic
This is more of a subjective question than an objective one, so I expect to get differing opinions.

I'm in need of a 2 in 1 solution, PC usage + Console gaming (PS3/360). However since I am using one monitor for both, I can say it will be used primarily for PC usage (60%) than console gaming (40%).

I'm looking at/narrowed it down to the following three LCD monitors:

ASUS VH222H 21.5" ~$150

ASUS VH242H 23.6"~$200

BenQ V2400W 24"~$300

The former two ASUS monitors are 16:9, and the latter BenQ is 16:10.

Since this will primarily be a PC monitor, ideally I would choose the BenQ, as it offers an extra 120 pixels of vertical resolution over the two ASUS models. However, since this monitor will be also used for gaming, input lag is important. Various sources place the ASUS models at ~3ms avg, while the BenQ is at 9-15 ms avg. In the end though, I may not see a difference between such response times, so this point of comparison is probably moot.

So the question is...

Is 120 extra pixels of vertical resolution worth the added ~$100-$150 expense?

If it helps to put a frame of reference on my purchase, I'll be upgrading from a 19" Samsung 940b (5:4 @ 1280x1024)

Any input or opinions would be much appreciated.

I went from 16:10 to 16:9 (Asus VW246H) and to be honest prefer the 16:9 res of my Asus,16:9 is great for consoles,gaming and films,I know 16:10(1920x1200 res) can do this if you drop res down to 1920:1080 ,but personally its not worth the extra money for 16:10 monitor on your list,also it looks like 16:10 is gradually being phased out for 16:9 since most of the monitor manufacturers seem to be pushing for 16:9 on their new models.

 

[yh125d]

I have that 23.6" asus, and I love it. I definitely prefer 16:9, both for movies and gaming. But to each his own

 

[Eureka]

I'd just go with 16:9. Its looking to be the new standard for widescreen monitors.

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: yh125d
I have that 23.6" asus, and I love it. I definitely prefer 16:9, both for movies and gaming. But to each his own

Just curious: why would you prefer 16:9 for gaming? The 16:9 screen provides a 10% narrower vertical field of view. You simply see less. Why would you welcome something like that?

I'd personally go for 16:10. 11% extra vertically is great to have both for desktop work and for gaming. Sure, you're going to get black borders when watching a 16:9 movie, but is that really so horrible?

 

[yh125d]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: yh125d
I have that 23.6" asus, and I love it. I definitely prefer 16:9, both for movies and gaming. But to each his own

Just curious: why would you prefer 16:9 for gaming? The 16:9 screen provides a 10% narrower vertical field of view. You simply see less. Why would you welcome something like that?

Because its a more cinematic experience. I just prefer it. It's not like I really need to see the ground a few feet in front of me or the clouds up above anyhow. Whats in front and to the left/right is usually more important

 

[Brunnis]

nm

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: yh125d
I have that 23.6" asus, and I love it. I definitely prefer 16:9, both for movies and gaming. But to each his own

Just curious: why would you prefer 16:9 for gaming? The 16:9 screen provides a 10% narrower vertical field of view. You simply see less. Why would you welcome something like that?

I'd personally go for 16:10. 11% extra vertically is great to have both for desktop work and for gaming. Sure, you're going to get black borders when watching a 16:9 movie, but is that really so horrible?

thats NOT true. properly implemented 16:9 will just add more to the sides and never lose anything from the top or bottom. using your logic we should all go to 5:4 which anybody with a clue knows is horrible after using any widescreen. its the aspect ratio not the number of pixels that determines what you see in a game.

 

[s0matic]

Thanks for all the input so far everyone. Based on the replies, I feel like I do agree the 16:10 panel is not worth the extra expense.

Originally posted by: Mem
...also it looks like 16:10 is gradually being phased out for 16:9 since most of the monitor manufacturers seem to be pushing for 16:9 on their new models.

That's what I'm afraid of. Given that the three panels I listed are all TN panels, none of them will be ideal for serious graphics work or the like. However, in the future when I can afford a non-TN panel for such work, I'd hope that some of them will still remain 16:10, as I see the extra pixels being more beneficial in that line of productivity and work.

That leads me to ask, do you think 16:10 will be completely phased out, even among the elite *IPS and *VA panels? It would definitely be a shame if it did (at least IMO.)

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: s0matic
Thanks for all the input so far everyone. Based on the replies, I feel like I do agree the 16:10 panel is not worth the extra expense.

Originally posted by: Mem
...also it looks like 16:10 is gradually being phased out for 16:9 since most of the monitor manufacturers seem to be pushing for 16:9 on their new models.

That's what I'm afraid of. Given that the three panels I listed are all TN panels, none of them will be ideal for serious graphics work or the like. However, in the future when I can afford a non-TN panel for such work, I'd hope that some of them will still remain 16:10, as I see the extra pixels being more beneficial in that line of productivity and work.

That leads me to ask, do you think 16:10 will be completely phased out, even among the elite *IPS and *VA panels? It would definitely be a shame if it did (at least IMO.)

You have some new panels coming out ie C-PVA info on new C-PVA, not to meantion Dell's e-IPS panel that you can get already,only a matter of time before we see 16:9 panels in these types,I think 16:10 will eventually be phased out but thats down the road and no time soon,so maybe wait for Samsung F2380?.. it says"Both models will be available from the end of June" or get a 16:10 IPS or VA panel.

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Brunnis
I'd personally go for 16:10. 11% extra vertically is great to have both for desktop work and for gaming. Sure, you're going to get black borders when watching a 16:9 movie, but is that really so horrible?

thats NOT true. properly implemented 16:9 will just add more to the sides and never lose anything from the top or bottom. using your logic we should all go to 5:4 which anybody with a clue knows is horrible after using any widescreen. its the aspect ratio not the number of pixels that determines what you see in a game.

True. Brainfart on my side. What you get with 16:9 is less detail, since there are fewer pixels vertically, but a wider field of view.

Either way, the same effect can be had by using a 16:10 screen and running it at 1920x1080 with 1:1 pixel mapping. The size will be very close to a 23.6" screen and the only real downside is the black borders at the top and bottom. A pretty fair trade-off, in my mind. But I guess that if you really don't mind having a worse desktop resolution and the price difference is that large, 16:9 might be the way to go. Over here, the price for a 24" 16:10 is about the same as a 24" 16:9 and that makes it a pretty easy choice.

 

[yh125d]

It's not a *worse* desktop resolution. Unlike most computer hardware aspect ratio will always be objective, and theres no right/wrong option

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: yh125d
It's not a *worse* desktop resolution. Unlike most computer hardware aspect ratio will always be objective, and theres no right/wrong option

I meant when you're actually at the desktop, doing things like surfing the web, photo editing, etc. In that case, there's no aspect ratio argument, like when gaming. 1920x1080 can simply hold less information than 1920x1200. There's no logic in why anyone would like to see less in that scenario.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: yh125d
It's not a *worse* desktop resolution. Unlike most computer hardware aspect ratio will always be objective, and theres no right/wrong option

I meant when you're actually at the desktop, doing things like surfing the web, photo editing, etc. In that case, there's no aspect ratio argument, like when gaming. 1920x1080 can simply hold less information than 1920x1200. There's no logic in why anyone would like to see less in that scenario.

You missed the whole point of this thread, which is the cost factor. 1920x1080 has brought us incredibly cheap monitors. You can now get a 24" 1920x1080 for the price you would have paid for a 22" 1680x1050 before. Think of that as FREE extra screen on the sides.

If you forget about cost, then yeah, most people will choose the extra pixels with 1920x1200. But in the case of the OP, there's a 50% increase in cost to get those 11% extra pixels. If cost is not a concern to you then by all means go for the more expensive 16x10 monitors.

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
You missed the whole point of this thread, which is the cost factor. 1920x1080 has brought us incredibly cheap monitors. You can now get a 24" 1920x1080 for the price you would have paid for a 22" 1680x1050 before. Think of that as FREE extra screen on the sides.

If you forget about cost, then yeah, most people will choose the extra pixels with 1920x1200. But in the case of the OP, there's a 50% increase in cost to get those 11% extra pixels. If cost is not a concern to you then by all means go for the more expensive 16x10 monitors.

Yeah, I guess I'm a little used to 16:9 and 16:10 screens being around the same price. Here in Sweden, 24" 16:9 and 16:10 screens are very close in price. For example, the BenQ V2400W is just 20% more than the ASUS VH242H. The BenQ G2400WD is actually slightly cheaper than the ASUS.

I've always considered vertical viewing space important when choosing screens, though, so at a $100 difference I'd still choose the 16:10. It's just not that much when buying something that you're probably going to use for several hours a day for at least a few years. But I can of course understand if people opt for the 16:9 alternative instead.