16:9 vs. 16:10

VirusType2

VirusType2

Newbie
Joined
Feb 3, 2005
Messages
18,189
Reaction score
2
I'm looking at buying a new monitor.

I use my computer for work, gaming and movies. What are the advantages of 16:9 and 16:10 for each of these activities?
 
I believe 16:9 is a cinematic aspect ratio, and 16:10 is a widescreen workstation ratio (as it gives you more vertical display). If you use your computer for work, I'd go with 16:10, provided it (or your videocard) has some sort of automatic letterboxing to prevent 16:9 pictures from being stretched to 16:10.
 
Thank you for the input. Yeah, my video player will observe the correct aspect ratio (adding black bars), so that's not an issue.
 
16:10, hands down.

No matter what you use your computer for, 16:10 is better. Even for movies, you can have your 16:9 videos fullscreen and have room at the bottom (or top) for the controls and such.

On a computer, resolution is king; 16:9 just loses you 1920x120 pixels.
 
Thanks. So, with 16:10, there won't be any issues with widescreen games stretching the aspect?
 
There shouldn't be. The width is the same, and your videocard takes care of letterboxing, so there should be no problem.
 
Uh, any game that has 16:9 resolutions is going to have 16:10. If anything they'll have 16:10. There's no such thing as a "widescreen game", just games that are compatible with wide screen (which is pretty much everything these days) and that definitely includes 16:10.

16:9 is not as prominent in the computer world as you seem to think. It's really just a video thing. I don't know why there are so many 16:9 computer monitors on the market.
 
I do like the idea of having more vertical resolution (16:10) for portrait display.

I've never used LCD or Widescreen for my computers, so I didn't want to make the wrong choice. The monitor I was looking at is 16:9, but I guess I'll look around some more.

What does this mean: (GTG)?

Also, I've heard about LCDs with 24 bit color and such. Any advice?
 
GTG is grey to grey response time, I can't remember how it's different from regular response time, but I remember the numbers were different.

I've got a 22.5" 16:10 monitor I bought a few months ago, it was an amazing upgrade from my 1280x1024 4:3. Newegg had a sale and it <$200 w/ free shipping.
 
xcellerate said:
GTG is grey to grey response time, I can't remember how it's different from regular response time, but I remember the numbers were different.
Click to expand...
Grey-to-grey is generally slower than black-to-white, since the colour signal has to be more precise (going to a specific voltage/charge/whatever instead of just maxing-and-mining the pixel's output as fast as possible). As such it's a more accurate representation of the monitor's response time.
 
OK, so I'd like a Samsung monitor with thin borders (because I may want multiple displays as close together as possible), somewhere around 24", 16:10 aspect, and a fast response time (something like 2ms) for gaming. Some other things I would be interested in would be a matte finish instead of gloss, anti-glare screen (if they aren't all like that now), and no extra crap like speakers.

Can anyone recommend something?

Is the new LED backlighting better? I believe that it lasts a lot longer, at the very least. I've rarely in my life seen a burnt out LED.
 
I'd personally go for a 16:9, because the $/pixel ratio is generally much better.
 
16:9 isn't terrible but 16:10 is a lot better for the vertical. And you are right, 16:9 is cheaper for them to make.
 
My video card won't be able to run the LCD monitor's native resolution during games.

The video card supports 2 monitors. If I have a 24" LCD and a 17" CRT both hooked up, I can switch to the 17" to play games. If I turn off the LCD during games, and just use the 17", it will get full processing power, right?
 
I have a 23" LCD LG monitor with 16:9 and I have no clue what the fuss is with 16:10. i heard it costs more and is only marginally better.

and for the above question ^ i believe any reduction in screen size will give you a greater processing speed. i usually run games in 1600:xxx? and it runs better than the native 1920:1080

like in L4D2 I get about 15-20 more fps when playing in a lower res. so when i went from the 19" square monitor to a 23" lcd widescreen my fps dropped like a rock.
 
Yeah, that's why I want to use a 17" monitor for gaming.

My question is rather stupid, I guess. And I could probably test it out just as fast.

I just want to know if I can switch to the second monitor (a smaller one) for games and if the GPU will treat the secondary monitor like it's the only one... Yeah, I think I just answered my own question.

Well, I'll just test it first. I just don't want to buy a monitor and have my games run like shit or look like shit (since I can't run them at the monitor's native resolution)


I always worry. I need a bigger monitor, but then I'd need a bigger video card, but then I would need a bigger power supply and possibly even a bigger case. But I need the monitor now.

But it's always the things I don't think of that become the problem so I don't know why I bother to ask about things I actually planned for...
 
Whichever monitor you have selected as your primary monitor will be the one used for games. If you don't have anything else going on on the other screen it won't slow down you games.

Also, you can always play your games on the LCD at a non-native resolution. It won't be as pretty, but likely better than the CRT you're using, and definitely nicer on the bigger screen. Just keep the aspect ratio the same.
 
I heard that 16:9 is specifically tailored to desktop publishing, as it comfortably fits a two-page spread. Note: that could be total B.S. - I dont' even remember where I heard it. I think any video game that supports widescreen will include both ratios, so from that angle, it might not matter. If you plan on watching movies on this same screen, 16:10 might better fit the widescreen option if you use that though.

If I were to buy a new screen, I'd probably get a 16:10 for this reason. I'm currently using 16:9, and it's been a delight so far.
 
I've been using 16:10 for 2 years now and not encountered any problems with any game, movie or application. Your computer will keep things in their correct ratios etc so you don't need to worry about that.

If you want the dual monitor setup with your 17" you'd have to designate your 17" as the primary monitor to play games on it. Your 16:10 monitor will stay on, and you'll still be able to see whatever you had active on that screen when you load the game. You wont be able to click across to that screen however without minimizing the game first, unless you play in windowed mode.

Also, if you're worried about not being able to run the game at the native resolution then you could run the game in a window on the new monitor, it might look a bit small though should you lower the resolution too far.
 
Vegeta897 said:
Well at least you got the right brand.

Er.. All monitors are 24 bit color. Do you mean 32? Sounds useless to me.

That's 5:4 :cool:
Click to expand...

I think he means that many TN-panel LCDs use 6-bit colors, instead of 8-bit.
 
Adabiviak said:
I heard that 16:9 is specifically tailored to desktop publishing, as it comfortably fits a two-page spread.
Click to expand...
I think you've got it backwards.

Ren.182 said:
If you want the dual monitor setup with your 17" you'd have to designate your 17" as the primary monitor to play games on it. Your 16:10 monitor will stay on, and you'll still be able to see whatever you had active on that screen when you load the game. You wont be able to click across to that screen however without minimizing the game first, unless you play in windowed mode.

Also, if you're worried about not being able to run the game at the native resolution then you could run the game in a window on the new monitor, it might look a bit small though should you lower the resolution too far.
Click to expand...
Oh. Useful information, thanks.

PvtRyan said:
I think he means that many TN-panel LCDs use 6-bit colors, instead of 8-bit.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what's all this about?
Quixoticism said:
Whichever monitor you have selected as your primary monitor will be the one used for games. If you don't have anything else going on on the other screen it won't slow down you games.

Also, you can always play your games on the LCD at a non-native resolution. It won't be as pretty, but likely better than the CRT you're using, and definitely nicer on the bigger screen. Just keep the aspect ratio the same.
Click to expand...
OK. Thanks.
 
Some example screenshots recreating the difference between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080. Smaller scale so you'd loose more lines of text than these show but it's the same percentage of space.

16:10 examples = 1600x1000
16:9 examples = 1600x900.

google pages side by side
16:9 LCD
16:10 LCD

hl2.net pages side by side
16:9 LCD
16:10 LCD

Which is why those not focusing on movies don't like the idea of 16:9. Not terrible but not ideal.
 
Hey Virus... I'm going to be getting a new monitor too soon probably, because I really need one as my CRT is shit and so blurry and it leaves no room on my tiny desk.

I'm going to be using all the information gathered in this thread to help my purchase too.

If you end up buying a particular one, let me know, maybe I'll get that one too. I'm looking for a 24"
 
Well, my search didn't go very well. I only found like 5 monitors at 16:10 that could be suitable for gaming: 2ms or whatever.

Also, they really are expensive, generally around $550 or so. I guess they are a different design, intended for publishers.

I'll probably just get a 16:9 TN panel for $300 or less. But I spent $500 in an hour yesterday catching up on bills and food, so I'll have to wait on the monitor for a few weeks or so.
 
Oh damn, yeah. I was just looking at newegg. The monitors I saw with reasonable prices were 16:9 apparently... all the 16:10 ones are insanely expensive. ouch.

I may just end up getting 16:9.

I have my eye on this one.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236049

It would be awesome to be able to play Red Dead Redemption on a new monitor on release day.


This seems to be the cheapest 16:10 24" offered on newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16824001393
 
I've never owned a LCD, so I don't know the difference 5ms and 2ms makes, but I imagine that it is pretty significant for high speed games.
 
VirusType2 said:
I've never owned a LCD, so I don't know the difference 5ms and 2ms makes, but I imagine that it is pretty significant for high speed games.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know.

Vegeta has this monitor, and he says this website is ofering it for under $300 including shipping. 24" 16:10

https://www.provantage.com/scripts/cart.dll/x/0/review


Found this thread talking about 5ms vs 2ms response rate.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/287168-33-noticeable

EDIT: nevermind vegeta does not have that monitor. he has a different one. misunderstanding.

Here it is reviewed though. http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/Displays/Samsung-2433BW.html
 
VirusType2 said:
I've never owned a LCD, so I don't know the difference 5ms and 2ms makes, but I imagine that it is pretty significant for high speed games.
Click to expand...

That's the response time, which is rated in milliseconds.
Lower numbers mean faster transitions and therefore fewer visible image artifacts.
5ms is the standard but you can go for a pricier 2ms LCD if you can afford it.
You wouldn't notice a ****ing difference if you ask me. It's just a marketing ploy.
Go for a cheaper, 5ms rated LCD monitor. I have yet to experience any issues with my 5ms 19' Hanns-G Monitor which i bought 2 years ago.
 
Don't worry about the GTG response when just looking at stats. Difference between 2 and 5ms is nothing and even 14ms might be similar depending on who is using it, who made the screen etc.

Look at reviews and see how the screen handles (not the specs on a retail site). GTG is just 1 of many transitions that could and do happen on the screen. A monitor with 2ms GTG could very well also have response times up to 30ms with other color changes. It's like looking at just the top speed of different cars to figure out which will be fastest around a winding track.
 
VirusType2 said:
I'm just seeing a white screen. I downloaded it and it's just a pixel. HEheh
Click to expand...

It was white screen for me too, but I hit load again, and this is what it was.

34rsinl.jpg
 
Thanks. I'm not sure exactly what it means.

The scales are gray level? 255 being white, 0 being black?
 
No clue my friend, it seems as if it doesn't have enough context. Though 0 would be black and 255 would be white... at least it should be. I don't know what the colors of the bars signify.
 
You simpletons. I figured it out easily.

For any one pixel, it shows how long it takes to change from one gray level (brightness, basically) to another.

So in other words, depending on the starting point and ending point for a pixel changing brightness, that's how long it takes.

However I could be completely wrong, but that's what I got from it.
 
Raziaar said:
No clue my friend, it seems as if it doesn't have enough context. Though 0 would be black and 255 would be white... at least it should be. I don't know what the colors of the bars signify.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The only thing I can gather is. Well, what I think what Asus is showing is that, the speed (in milliseconds) depends on the color of the pixels.. so when shopping for a monitor, 2ms GTG (gray to gray) doesn't tell the whole story and can be misleading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechnoHippyChic
Star Citizen
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
The Many Diversions of THC's Work Lunches
Replies
3
Views
2K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Steam news from DevGAMM Seattle Summit 2017
Replies
0
Views
16K
Barnz
B
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top