144hz/16:10/G-Sync/FreeSync?

mediamatt · 14 Feb 2016 at 20:25

Hi,

I am after a 24-27" Monitor with 144hz, 16:10 format and preferably G Sync or FreeSync

Any idea if one exists?

Matt

Poneros · 14 Feb 2016 at 21:07

There aren't and will be no 16:10 F/Gsync monitors.

Combat Fighter · 15 Feb 2016 at 22:33

Dead format

Labatyd · 20 Jul 2016 at 17:44

Sad but true, there is nothing available that meets your criteria. Until sloping brow Neanderthals with their inability to comprehend the Y-axis are no longer form the majority, this is unlikely to change. :/

chaparral · 20 Jul 2016 at 18:35

Why would you want a 16:10 (1920x1200 Resolution ) monitor ? :confused:

Surely a 16:9 2560x1440 Resolution monitor would much better

If it was a 30" 16:10 monitor you wanted I would understand as they have a 2560x1600 resolution

RidingTheFlow · 20 Jul 2016 at 19:02

There are some business monitors in 16:10, but no gaming monitors and I doubt there will ever be one since 16:10 hardly makes any sense for gaming.

Personally I also love to have more vertical space but I've found its easier just to get a larger 16:9 monitor.

Nasher · 20 Jul 2016 at 19:04

Yea a lot of games will give you black bars on a 16:10 screen since they don't support the resolution :/

I suspect it was dropped because it's easier to port 16:9 over from console, since that is what all TVs use.

Poneros · 21 Jul 2016 at 01:51

chaparral said:
Why would you want a 16:10 (1920x1200 Resolution ) monitor ?
Surely a 16:9 2560x1440 Resolution monitor would much better

If it was a 30" 16:10 monitor you wanted I would understand as they have a 2560x1600 resolution

16:10 is better than 16:9 imo, vertical space is so much harder to come by and helps with immersion more tbh.

kthula666 · 21 Jul 2016 at 02:10

I'm still using a Samsung 305T (2,560 x 1,600) its been a few years.

HACO · 21 Jul 2016 at 02:43

16:10 rocks for general PC use. Even 15:10 is good. Surface book is 15:10.

However all gaming are 16:9. Because of console ports.

JTrickle · 21 Jul 2016 at 15:14

Nothing stopping someone buying an inch or two bigger 16:9 screen and setting Windows to a 16:10 res.

Would cost you far less than a 16:10 limited production model would cost you now if (as said above) such a thing were forced to exist.

And with bezels thinner than they were years ago the 2 inch bigger screen wouldn't take up much more space than a yesteryear equivalent old 16:10 would have done.

Westie · 21 Jul 2016 at 21:49

21:9 all the way for gaming.

16:10 is dead in gaming monitors has been for years.. friend of mine had a 16:10 and it looked horrible..

chaparral · 23 Jul 2016 at 01:15

chaparral said:
Why would you want a 16:10 (1920x1200 Resolution ) monitor ?
Surely a 16:9 2560x1440 Resolution monitor would much better

Poneros said:
16:10 is better than 16:9 imo, vertical space is so much harder to come by and helps with immersion more tbh.

But a 16:9 2560x14440 monitor has more vertical space then a 16:10 1920x1200 monitor....

Labatyd · 24 Jul 2016 at 01:22

chaparral said:
But a 16:9 2560x14440 monitor has more vertical space then a 16:10 1920x1200 monitor....

No. Or at least not necessarily, resolution is not related to 'space', which in itself is an ambiguous term.