Consider it elaborated. Starcraft 2 works with a fixed height, so the further you go from a square, the more width you get, the more you see on your screen.
Consider it elaborated. Starcraft 2 works with a fixed height, so the further you go from a square, the more width you get, the more you see on your screen.
your question is sort of flawed simply because 16:10 is becoming rapidly phased out in the consumer LCD panel market. i find the 16:10 aspect to be superior in every way but you simply cannot buy a 16:10 gaming monitor. pretty much the only one left is the 2233rz. 1650x1080.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001311
but it's only $40 cheaper than the newer generation of 120hz panels that are 1920x1080, so it can hardly be recommended.
120HZ is the future and only way to play FPS on, so TN is the only way to go and they are only produced in 16:9 aspect with no sign 16:10 will return.
if you don't flinch at spending $550 or more and you dont play FPS game (RTS, MMO are okay) then take a look at the professional grade IPS monitors, you will get superior color and viewing angles and the refresh rate and input lag won't be an issue for those games.
Consider it elaborated. Starcraft 2 works with a fixed height, so the further you go from a square, the more width you get, the more you see on your screen.
Anyone ever tried sc2 with eyefinity? Or said otherwise is there a limit or do eyefinity users just get a rather big advantage?
I mean in normal online play this is possible as are macros and other stuff compared to "live" pro players. What to they play on 16:9?
But in general 1920x1080 is pretty crappy for anything else than a few games. However 2560 x 1440 seems resonable to me also very rare and expensive. You get more vertical real pixels than in 1920x1200 but still profit in sc2 or other games.
Qbah
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2005
- 3,754
- 10
- 81
For people that still have problems understanding, take 1280x720 vs 1920x1080 as an example - do you expect to see 50% more in every dimension on the 1920x1080 screen? No. The number of pixels doesn't matter. It's all about the aspect ratio. You will still see the same "window" in both cases, but with less details (less pixels available to show the world). FoV in modern games is not per-pixel-fixed. The resolution doesn't matter. Only the aspect ratio does. You go 5:4 -> 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9 with 16:9 being the widest one in usual LCD monitors.
In Starcraft 2 you will see the same world in:
16:9 -> 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080, 2560x1440
16:10 -> 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600
4:3 -> 1024x768, 1600x1200
5:4 -> 1280x1024
So yeah, 1280x720 will show a bit more of the map than 2560x1600
In Starcraft 2 you will see the same world in:
16:9 -> 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080, 2560x1440
16:10 -> 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600
4:3 -> 1024x768, 1600x1200
5:4 -> 1280x1024
So yeah, 1280x720 will show a bit more of the map than 2560x1600
For people that still have problems understanding, take 1280x720 vs 1920x1080 as an example - do you expect to see 50% more in every dimension on the 1920x1080 screen? No. The number of pixels doesn't matter. It's all about the aspect ratio. You will still see the same "window" in both cases, but with less details (less pixels available to show the world). FoV in modern games is not per-pixel-fixed. The resolution doesn't matter. Only the aspect ratio does. You go 5:4 -> 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9 with 16:9 being the widest one in usual LCD monitors.
In Starcraft 2 you will see the same world in:
16:9 -> 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080, 2560x1440
16:10 -> 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600
4:3 -> 1024x768, 1600x1200
5:4 -> 1280x1024
So yeah, 1280x720 will show a bit more of the map than 2560x1600
not of a webpage though.
and I can't stand sc2 anyways, the entire time I want to do nothing but zoom out further but it won't let me. Can't let you control too much of the screen at once can we!!!?
- Sep 5, 2004
- 15,248
- 0
- 76
Interesting, good info! For my needs, as much as 120Hz refresh would have been awesome, it's more than I'd need. My budget was pretty tight and I am (thus far) very happy with my monitor (although it looks only so-so on my 5+ year old build).
Is there any difference between LCD TVs and LCD computer monitors these days? ie there is a 28" Hannspree "TV" which is 1920x1200. Is that basically the same thing as the Hanns-G (same company) "Monitor" that is 1920x1080 (but probably the TV has speakers and TV tuner inside while the monitor does not).
Is there any reason I can't hook an HDMI into that "TV" and it will work as a monitor?
Does anyone know if they still sell 25"-class 1920x1200s? I see some of the ones referred in an earlier thread are discontinued on Newegg. Wondering if I should pick one up at Amazon or something before they all disappear? Or have they already disappeared?
I believe the LCD TV's actually run at 24Hz or 30Hz with upscaling to 60Hz plus they usually have Tuner hardware as well.
@ 25.5" you could look at this:
http://computers.pricegrabber.com/f...tor-Black/m712782353.html/st=product/sv=title
I just picked one up a week or so ago.
Quite a change coming from a CRT, but it's got a pretty sharp picture.
KingFatty
Diamond Member
- Dec 29, 2010
- 3,034
- 1
- 81
I dont know why KingFatty says Anandtech forums dont take advantage of widescreen because it does.
image hosting
I was specifically referring to AnandTech's text entry box for composing this response. It is narrow in the center of the screen (causing unnecessarily excessive text wrapping during text entry). It is not intuitive to compose your text entry in such a very narrow window so unlike the wideness your entry will actually be viewed in later. But there is always Preview Post.
I agree that browsing the forum normally uses the full width of widescreen displays - reflowing the text to fit the width.
Another problem with some forums is when someone posts a very wide picture, the forum will be reformatted so that all text is reflowed to the full width of the wide picture. So if your screen is too narrow to fit the full width of the picture, you have to scroll side-to-side for that picture and all the text postings in that thread. But I guess lots of forums are now re-sizing stupidly wide pics automatically to avoid this annoyance.
Note to people trying to play SC2 in 16:9 using a monitor that is not natively 16:9:
When I used a 1600x1200 monitor (Samsung 204b), Starcraft 2 did not present the option of using a 1600x900 resolution. I was able to cause that option to appear in SC2 by adding that resolution somewhere in control panel display settings or something within windows (can't remember the details). So don't be discouraged if you don't see any 16:9 resolutions within SC2, you only need to do a bit of editing in windows (outside of starcraft 2) to cause your preferred 16:9 resolution to appear in SC2. At worst, you can modify the EDID information your monitor is reporting to windows so that windows will be convinced your 1600x1200 monitor can also support 1600x900 (with letterboxing at top and bottom).
To my knowledge you cannot go wider than 16:9 in SC2, no eyefinity no SoftTH. If you do, Blizzard will likely ban you for obtaining an unfair competitive advantage.
- Sep 5, 2004
- 15,248
- 0
- 76
Well I just carried my 25" Hannspree LCD TV down here to my computer - plugged it in (it has a VGA port) and voila - 16:9 25" monitor!
So I'm testing some different websites and I agree - it appears the World Wide Web is still living in 4:3 time. Nearly all the sites I visit just have the info down the center of the page.
Soooo, I guess I'm not in too much of a hurry to upgrade from my Dell Ultrasharp 2001FP 20". Its got 1600x1200 and looks nice. If I were a gamer, or if I watched a lot of widescreen movies on the PC, I'd be in a bigger rush. As was already posted, Anandtech forum does fill out the page. But I am intrigued by that Asus for $289.....but I'm not really getting anything more than I already have for web surfing resolution though (1200 vertical on both). The overall look on the desk is cooler with more screen real estate though.
I got mine a little over a week ago from NewEgg for $252 after rebate, but they're not listed anymore for some reason . . .
Walmart had them for $282 too, but they also no longer list them.
Looks like they're really clearing them out so I got mine just in time apparently.
I was looking at the Dell U2410 also, but for the money and the issues it has, it just wasn't worth it.
There's just not a perfect LCD unfortunately
.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
I disagree with you saying that "120hz is the only way to play FPS"...people were gaming on LCD's well before 120hz panels were around. What exactly am I missing out on by running a 60hz LCD?
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
Consider it elaborated. Starcraft 2 works with a fixed height, so the further you go from a square, the more width you get, the more you see on your screen.
it should be noted that in that example the 16:10 resolution actually has more pixels while having a smaller FOV (field of view)...
The amount of pixels you have only affect the FOV in 2d games. In 3d games the FOV is affected only by the aspect ratio, and more pixels translate merely into a smoother, better looking image.
It should be noted that some 2d games look amazingly 3d, but are still 2d sprite games.
I got mine a little over a week ago from NewEgg for $252 after rebate, but they're not listed anymore for some reason . . .
Walmart had them for $282 too, but they also no longer list them.
Looks like they're really clearing them out so I got mine just in time apparently.
I was looking at the Dell U2410 also, but for the money and the issues it has, it just wasn't worth it.
There's just not a perfect LCD unfortunately
.
I'm in!
Just ordered from Amazon....289 less 30 rebate = 259.
I dont NEED a new monitor but since I'll be building SB system next week, I figure I might as well treat myself (and be able to use the current monitor for the old desktop as a kid's computer or whatever). I've sort of gotten used to this 25" 16:9 TV over the past 24 hours so I don't think the ASUS will be "too big". Can always push it back a few more inches on the computer desk.
Basically I wanted to jump on getting this 1920x1200 resolution since apparently it's going the way of the dodo....and at $250 I'll bite
I've been thinking of going from a Dell 2007WFP@1680x1050 to 1920x1200. The Dell is Samsung S-IPS, but all I really do is game and surf the Internet, watch online vids etc. It sounds like for that stuff, TN panels are fine. I pretty much just play single player games, so not sure the response/lag times are that important to me. I would like to be able to have a higher framerate with V-sync on though. What to do, what to do...
120Hz has more factors than 60 including 24 which is important for movies. That means it's smoother when your frame rates plunge below 60 since you can use 40 instead of say 30.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,362
- 136
My bad,
I wanted to say that with a hor+ you can have the same vertical FOV in both 16:9 or 16:10, you will see exactly the same vertical area. The difference is that in 16:9 it will be in full screen but in 16:10 you will have two black bars on the top and bottom of the screen (if you dont want the pictures to be stretched).
IMO for RTS games like SC2 (I havent played it) if we have a vert- FOV and 16:10 its better because we have more horizontal area than 16:9 and we dont loose a lot in the vertical.
In shooters like BF2142 and BF BC2 at first it seams to be better to have a 16:9 but depends on the map. In a city map when you have enemies inside or on the roof of tall buildings i would say that 16:10 is better because you have more horizontal area.
Anyway, IMO i find 16:10 better in desktop/browsing cause of the bigger horizontal area and in games i dont mind if it is a little stretched.
I've got the Samsung T260HD @ 1920x1200 and am worried if I have to replace it in the future. The 1200 res is becoming 'extinct' in favor of 1080, and is very hard to find now. But I dont want to go to 1080 ever (I dont watch movies on my PC). May have to dole out big bucks for a 2560x1600 screen on my next upgrade.
16:10 gives you more real estate. IMO its much better for ANYTHING you do.....it's just very hard to find now days.
Qbah
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2005
- 3,754
- 10
- 81
So many confused people... Why are you people linking resolution to aspect? It just so happens that the most common 16:9 resolution is 1920x1080 - it doesn't mean that you should see less because it's not 1920x1200.
How would you do it anyway? You go from 5:4 to 4:3 and do a vert+. Then from 4:3 to 16:10 and do a vert+. And then suddenly going from 16:10 to 16:9 gives hor- ? Makes no sense.
The Starcraft 2 gif confuses people too it seems because they think the height is pixel-fixed. No it's not - this is just to show the FoV for the most common and supported aspect ratios. Playing any modern game at the same aspect ratio and different resolutions doesn't change the field of view. When viewing a mountain range in the background, you will still see the same mountain on the most left and most right at both 1920x1080 and 1280x720 or 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 (the 16:9 resolutions will show a bit more of the mountain range). Same for 1024x768 and 1600x1200 (you will see the least of the mountain range but the same width on those two screens). In all cases, when the usual approach is taken, you will see the same clouds on top and the same road on the bottom. The only difference you will see between two different resolutions and same aspect ratio is the detail - the higher the resolution, the more detailed the objects will be (less pixelated).
Note this is ONLY for modern gaming. A desktop is a per-pixel fixed environment - the more pixels you can squeeze on the screen, the more area you have usable. It is nothing alike a modern 3D game (it's like an old sprite-based game).
How would you do it anyway? You go from 5:4 to 4:3 and do a vert+. Then from 4:3 to 16:10 and do a vert+. And then suddenly going from 16:10 to 16:9 gives hor- ? Makes no sense.
The Starcraft 2 gif confuses people too it seems because they think the height is pixel-fixed. No it's not - this is just to show the FoV for the most common and supported aspect ratios. Playing any modern game at the same aspect ratio and different resolutions doesn't change the field of view. When viewing a mountain range in the background, you will still see the same mountain on the most left and most right at both 1920x1080 and 1280x720 or 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 (the 16:9 resolutions will show a bit more of the mountain range). Same for 1024x768 and 1600x1200 (you will see the least of the mountain range but the same width on those two screens). In all cases, when the usual approach is taken, you will see the same clouds on top and the same road on the bottom. The only difference you will see between two different resolutions and same aspect ratio is the detail - the higher the resolution, the more detailed the objects will be (less pixelated).
Note this is ONLY for modern gaming. A desktop is a per-pixel fixed environment - the more pixels you can squeeze on the screen, the more area you have usable. It is nothing alike a modern 3D game (it's like an old sprite-based game).
Last edited:
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
You're correct, for 16:10 you commonly have:
1280 x 800
1440 x 900
1680 x 1050
1920 x 1200
2560 x 1600
A 16:10 Aspect gives me more vertical space so I can have more lines of text or more Excel Rows on the screen at one time as compared to 16:9.
16:9 would give me a slightly wider screen yielding more text characters per line or more Excel Columns per screen.
I wanted and went with 1920 x 1200 because I wanted to have as many Pixels as possible.
More Pixels per given area give a sharper image - it's almost like free AA.
I would have preferred 2560 x 1600 (or even greater), but there are almost no Monitors at that resolution, and the ones there are have astronomical prices.
Not picking on you Qbah, just expanding on your post to help clear a little of the confusion.
Only if you're using vsync and double buffering.
I, for one, always use D3DOverrider, which allows triple buffering in DirectX games that don't support it natively, and it works well. When my framerate dips, it can dip to 57, or 56, or 55, etc. Not 30.
And no, it doesn't add any additional problems or lag (that I can notice).Let me try to clarify, I have used a CRT @ 100hz or 120hz (varying based on resolution) for FPS gaming since 2000. So you are correct that they weren't around, in LCD implementation, but they have existed for 10 years in CRT market. Some players still use CRTs because the sacrifice to 60hz is too much to bear until now. This is only for a small sector of gamers-- When I say FPS I mean the competitive FPS genre (CS tournaments, Quake, ect). The framerate smoothness makes an incredible difference in player performance. So that's why I say there is no alternative for a 120hz monitor if you play FPS genre. What you are missing out on is 60 frames, so makes a big difference in games that need twitch hand reflexes.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter