What resolution are you playing games at?

[Wolves]

I am surprised anyone run in 16:10 resolutions. You loose Field of view!

16:9 is much better for games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

 

[OVerLoRDI]

1920x1200 @ 85hz

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I am surprised anyone run in 16:10 resolutions. You loose Field of view!

16:9 is much better for games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

You do lose a bit of field of view, but not a substantial amount. 16:10 monitors are superior for productivity and forum trolling. I'd take 16:10 over 16:9 considering that I don't ONLY game on my machine.

 

[GTSRguy]

2560X1440

I <33 it!

 

[mmaestro]

1600x900. Why? Because that's the monitor I own.

 

[Wolves]

16:9 is superior for work too imo. Much easier to multitask with a wider screen.

 

[gorobei]

48:10 is superior to 16:9 and much wider.

 

[pw38]

You do lose a bit of field of view, but not a substantial amount. 16:10 monitors are superior for productivity and forum trolling. I'd take 16:10 over 16:9 considering that I don't ONLY game on my machine.

As my system is a gaming/htpc 16x9 @ 1080p works best for me. I do agree though that 19x12 is nice for everything else.

 

[happy medium]

You guys do realize that the rest of the world would look something like this.....

1600x1200 or under -75&#37;
1080p- 23%
2500x1600-1.75%
over 2500x1600 .25%

This is Anandtech and most of us will be using 1600x1050+.

 

[WMD]

1680x1050 @ 120hz. 2560 x 1600 is nice but too slow with current hardware. When single vga cards are fast enough to render crysis 2 at 2560x1600 @ 120fps, I will upgrade to one of those.

 

[BathroomFeeling]

I'm surprised at the small handful for "lower than all of these", considering the widespread use of iPhones & other handhelds.

 

[NoQuarter]

I'm surprised at the small handful for "lower than all of these", considering the widespread use of iPhones & other handhelds.

I'm surprised at the handful of "lower than all of these" considering "less than 1680x1050" is an option and means the same thing.

 

[Soulkeeper]

2048x1536 = the best resolution

Also not in the poll ...

 

[zebrax2]

You guys do realize that the rest of the world would look something like this.....

1600x1200 or under -75%
1080p- 23%
2500x1600-1.75%
over 2500x1600 .25%

This is Anandtech and most of us will be using 1600x1050+.

Most of the rest of the world doesn't really play the games played by people in this forum

 

[pandemonium]

Where's the 4:3 love?

My Viewsonic G810 is still going strong and I have no intentions of retiring it until it stops working. Money well spent.

I chose less than 1680x1050 since this was the closest option for 1600x1200.

 

[BFG10K]

2560x1600, because I can.

 

[Will Robinson]

1920x1200 of Dell H-IPS goodness.
16:10 FTW

16:9 looks too skinny :thumbsdown_O

 

[ViRGE]

Where's the 4:3 love?

My Viewsonic G810 is still going strong and I have no intentions of retiring it until it stops working. Money well spent.

I chose less than 1680x1050 since this was the closest option for 1600x1200.

My love for 4:3 died with my 16x12 monitor. Its replacement was a 19x12 monitor since you can't get 16x12 anymore and 19x12 is perfectly usable as both a widescreen and 4:3 monitor.

And you should have picked 1680x1050 or even 1920x1080; 16x12 is 1.92MP, 16x10 is only 1.76MP, and 19x10 is 2.07MP. So 16x12 is technically closer to 19x10 than it is anything else. And thus ends today's lesson on why the largest volume for any given perimeter is a square.

 

[Borealis7]

poll fail. 1600x1200 4eva!

by which i mean until i get a 1080p 120Hz monitor...

 

[tviceman]

Interesting results, but not unexpected. 1920x1200 and 1920x1080p reigns supreme by far, and 1680x1050 is as common as ultra HD resolutions AND multi-monitor setups combined.

Which goes to show, hardocp releasing data game performance at 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 is a relatively uncommon resolution, and given that their performance figures are always borderline playable at the settings they run at, it just goes to show why I rarely visit their site first for information I want graphics performance.

 

[wanderer27]

What I'm curious about is what Monitors are being used to run at 2560 x 1600 and 1920 x 1200 @ 85Hz

 

[Herald85]

1900x1200 native res on both my laptop and desktop. I have to game at 1680x1050 on my lappy because the 8600m GT can't keep up. Higher res would be even better but not worth the cost for now imo.

 

[Pia]

16:9 is superior for work too imo. Much easier to multitask with a wider screen.

No way. Primary concern in multitasking is usable pixel count, and therefore area. While not directly related to ratio, in practice the 1200p and 1600p 16:10 screens are equally wide but taller than the 1080p and 1440p 16:9 screens, thus winning in area.

If anything, I'd argue that the theoretical best ratio for general productivity is 1:1, because that produces the maximum area for a given acceptable geometric distortion (of the viewing angle and the fact the screen is a flat surface). If more area was desired, you would add more screens of the same size. With the same argument, 16:10 screens are superior to 16:9 because they are closer to 1:1.

 

[Meghan54]

16:9 is superior for work too imo. Much easier to multitask with a wider screen.

I seriously doubt you really multitask at all. You work one task at a time and switch between tasks. You may have several tasks open, but humans are rather incompetent when trying to do two things at the exact same time.

 

[Malfeas]

1600X1200, its an older samsung 20" lcd. It still works and is good enough for me.