Gaming on 16:9 vs. 16:10, benefits?

[Kabob]

Question, I'm looking at picking up a new monitor when I upgrade my computer (I've got a 21" CRT that is about to break my desk in half with it's girth). Traditionally what is more universally accepted, 16:9 or 16:10? I figure it'd be the later but I see alot of "1080p native" monitors. Do most games have settings for both? What do you gain/lose with either choice?

Thanks!

 

[Lonyo]

Depends on the game.
Both are pretty equally supported. Some games show you more with 16:9 (e.g. SC2), some show you more with 16:10.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com is a good resource for checking these things out. It sometimes also compares how games implement their widescreen mode (whether it adds or removes parts of the image when you go widescreen over 4:3)
I prefer 1920x1200 because it has more pixels, which means more non-gaming real estate. 1920x1080 is usually cheaper though.

 

[Kabob]

Awesome, thanks for the info!!!

Being that my primary goal for my next build will be cheap and SC2, methinks 16:9 will work just fine.

I found a guy locally who's got one of these like-new for $120, I may bite.

 

[toyota]

Awesome, thanks for the info!!!

Being that my primary goal for my next build will be cheap and SC2, methinks 16:9 will work just fine.

I found a guy locally who's got one of these like-new for $120, I may bite.

16:9 is better for a pure gaming monitor as it will give you the better fov in most cases compared to 16:10. however 1920x1200 (16:10) is the better compromise for those that need those extra 120 lines for other reasons. but as Lonyo said 1920x1080 monitors are cheaper and 1920x1200 is pretty hard to even find.

and yeah that monitor you linked to is pretty darn good for 120 bucks. so who is that local guy since I am also in Birmingham? you can just PM me if you dont want to say on here.

 

[Kabob]

Yeah, it will probably be a gaming/spare TV setup (in which case I suppose 16:9 will be even better).

 

[Kabob]

For what I'm looking for 16:9 vs. 16:10 isn't that big of a deal, and considering the price difference I went with 16:9. I picked up the monitor yesterday, it's a hoss (yet light as a feather compared to the 21" CRT!). Getting used to having a WS monitor is going to be weird, my monitors have always been 4:3 since my first one in 1992...

(that's the old computer that barely has the horsepower to put the image up there!)

 

[Hogan773]

So my question is......I have a 1600x1200 now.

I am not a gamer.

IF I went for a widescreen, I'd probably choose 1920x1200 just to get more internet surfing real estate (ie I don't want to DECREASE my horizontal lines to 1080 from my current 1200)

My question is - for internet surfing etc does the widescreen get you anything? Or are all the web pages generally designed to fit 4:3 and therefore you just have white space on the sides (like in the picture above)?

 

[Mem]

For what I'm looking for 16:9 vs. 16:10 isn't that big of a deal, and considering the price difference I went with 16:9. I picked up the monitor yesterday, it's a hoss (yet light as a feather compared to the 21" CRT!). Getting used to having a WS monitor is going to be weird, my monitors have always been 4:3 since my first one in 1992...

(that's the old computer that barely has the horsepower to put the image up there!)

Once you get use to WS you won't go back to boring 4:3, WS is great for gaming too .

 

[toyota]

So my question is......I have a 1600x1200 now.

I am not a gamer.

IF I went for a widescreen, I'd probably choose 1920x1200 just to get more internet surfing real estate (ie I don't want to DECREASE my horizontal lines to 1080 from my current 1200)

My question is - for internet surfing etc does the widescreen get you anything? Or are all the web pages generally designed to fit 4:3 and therefore you just have white space on the sides (like in the picture above)?

it really just depends on the site.

 

[Kabob]

Yeah, YouTube's front page is definitely NOT designed for WS (as my pic shows).

 

[blanketyblank]

So my question is......I have a 1600x1200 now.

I am not a gamer.

IF I went for a widescreen, I'd probably choose 1920x1200 just to get more internet surfing real estate (ie I don't want to DECREASE my horizontal lines to 1080 from my current 1200)

My question is - for internet surfing etc does the widescreen get you anything? Or are all the web pages generally designed to fit 4:3 and therefore you just have white space on the sides (like in the picture above)?

From what I've seen about web guides the recommended resolution for greatest compatibility is 1024 x 768 since that works with practically everything including most TVs.
My knowledge may be old though so not sure if this still holds true.

 

[Lonyo]

With the beautiful Windows 7 operating system, you can throw windows to the side of the screen with ease, and they will take up 50% of the screen, which means it's easy to have 2 websites open side by side, and usually they will function (some don't quite like the width).

 

[Murloc]

you can find 1920x1080 monitors everywhere.

I think that at the same price I'd go for a 1900x1200, because in most webpages it's vertical space that matters.
Even pages that adapt to widescreen will have enough horizontal space, 20 px don't make much of a difference.
120px in vertical matter though.

 

[toyota]

you can find 1920x1080 monitors everywhere.

I think that at the same price I'd go for a 1900x1200, because in most webpages it's vertical space that matters.
Even pages that adapt to widescreen will have enough horizontal space, 20 px don't make much of a difference.
120px in vertical matter though.

they are BOTH 1920

 

[KingFatty]

You are limited to 1080 vertical if you get a 1920x1080 widescreen.

You have more choices with 1920x1200. You can use all 1200 vertical pixels if you want, or you can drive the monitor at 1920x1080 (with letterboxing at top and bottom). So you have the best of both worlds if you go 1920x1200. But that's one of the reasons why 1920x1200 monitors are more expensive.

I'm running a 1920x1200 display, but when I play Starcraft 2, I use only 1920x1080 to display more of the battlefield. I don't even notice the letterboxing strips on the top and bottom (60 pixels tall each), your brain adjusts to ignore them. Also, you get a FPS boost because you are driving less 3D pixels. The reason SC2 displays more info in 1920x1080 (16:9) is because they "crop" the left and right sides off ("zoom in") when you drop down to 16:10 or 4:3, so you miss that part of the screen if you aren't running 16:9. Not all games do this - some FPS will enable you to see more of the top and bottom view by running 16:10 or 4:3, compared to 16:9.

It's a sad truth that most websites don't take advantage of widescreens (for example, the AnandTech Forums where I'm typing this message - lots of white space to the left and right of my text entry box for composing this post). You can compensate by running two browsers side-by-side, but that setup looks better on 1920x1200 than it does on 1920x1080 anyway, because 1920x1200 gives you more vertical space - and that's where the information is arranged for websites, in the vertical directions.

If you do any work, 1920x1200 is much easier to view 2-page full-spread facing pages (8.5x11" pages) because you have more vertical space to maximize the 2-page spread.

 

[Arkaign]

I have 1920x1200 26" Samsung at home now for my main monitor, and I work with 1920x1080s constantly for work. I hate the 16:9 aspect ratio for everything but movies, and even then, 2.35:1 films still have bars. Blargh.

 

[CuriousMike]

Mladin and Schwantz poster alert.

 

[Hogan773]

You are limited to 1080 vertical if you get a 1920x1080 widescreen.

You have more choices with 1920x1200. You can use all 1200 vertical pixels if you want, or you can drive the monitor at 1920x1080 (with letterboxing at top and bottom). So you have the best of both worlds if you go 1920x1200. But that's one of the reasons why 1920x1200 monitors are more expensive.

I'm running a 1920x1200 display, but when I play Starcraft 2, I use only 1920x1080 to display more of the battlefield. I don't even notice the letterboxing strips on the top and bottom (60 pixels tall each), your brain adjusts to ignore them. Also, you get a FPS boost because you are driving less 3D pixels. The reason SC2 displays more info in 1920x1080 (16:9) is because they "crop" the left and right sides off ("zoom in") when you drop down to 16:10 or 4:3, so you miss that part of the screen if you aren't running 16:9. Not all games do this - some FPS will enable you to see more of the top and bottom view by running 16:10 or 4:3, compared to 16:9.

It's a sad truth that most websites don't take advantage of widescreens (for example, the AnandTech Forums where I'm typing this message - lots of white space to the left and right of my text entry box for composing this post). You can compensate by running two browsers side-by-side, but that setup looks better on 1920x1200 than it does on 1920x1080 anyway, because 1920x1200 gives you more vertical space - and that's where the information is arranged for websites, in the vertical directions.

If you do any work, 1920x1200 is much easier to view 2-page full-spread facing pages (8.5x11" pages) because you have more vertical space to maximize the 2-page spread.

Yeah this is what I thought

Maybe I'll just stick with my Ultrasharp 1600x1200 for now.....I don't really watch movies on this that much

 

[toyota]

I dont know why KingFatty says Anandtech forums dont take advantage of widescreen because it does.


image hosting

 

[Hogan773]

oh in that case I'll go get a 1900x1200 :thumbsup:

 

[coreyb]

Depends on the game.
Both are pretty equally supported. Some games show you more with 16:9 (e.g. SC2), some show you more with 16:10.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com is a good resource for checking these things out. It sometimes also compares how games implement their widescreen mode (whether it adds or removes parts of the image when you go widescreen over 4:3)
I prefer 1920x1200 because it has more pixels, which means more non-gaming real estate. 1920x1080 is usually cheaper though.

SC2 shows more with 16:9 then 16:10 ? can you elaborate?

I use 1920x1200 and am wondering if I should switch resolutions here seeing as I play SC2 everyday!

 

[toyota]

SC2 shows more with 16:9 then 16:10 ? can you elaborate?

I use 1920x1200 and am wondering if I should switch resolutions here seeing as I play SC2 everyday!

any properly done(hor+) widescreen game will show more in 16:9 than 16:10. the wider aspect ratio simply adds more to the sides. eyefinity is just an extreme version of widescreen for those that want a really wide field of view.

 

[coreyb]

well im switching my sc2 res when I get home today. thanks

 

[AtenRa]

any properly done(hor+) widescreen game will show more in 16:9 than 16:10. the wider aspect ratio simply adds more to the sides. eyefinity is just an extreme version of widescreen for those that want a really wide field of view.

If both monitors run at 1920 lines vertical how does 16:9 adds more to the sides ???

Also, if you have a 16:10 (1920x1200) monitor you can run at 16:9 (1920x1080) or 16:10 (1920x1200) in games without loosing enything

 

[toyota]

If both monitors run at 1920 lines vertical how does 16:9 adds more to the sides ???

Also, if you have a 16:10 (1920x1200) monitor you can run at 16:9 (1920x1080) or 16:10 (1920x1200) in games without loosing enything

didnt we go through all this before in another thread? 1920 has nothing to with it as its the aspect ratio that determines what you will see on the screen in a game. please do a little research to see how the different aspect ratios work. not all 16:10 monitors and/or games can properly display 16:9 on a 16:10 monitor. some games get distorted slightly instead of just adding black bars.