24'' 16:10 vs 27'' 16:9

MegaPigeon · 8 Sep 2011 at 22:04

So, given the similar price range of these monitors, and a similar size (in terms of desk space used, with about even height and a little more width on 16:10) which is the best bet for quality and practicality? Take into account both PC and Console gaming, Office work, Academic research (i.e. reading butt loads of journals and transcripts) etc.

Somnambulist · 8 Sep 2011 at 22:32

Obviously the 27" is bigger all round but the 24" has MOAR PIXELS!!!1 so more on screen, and I'm a 16:10 fan. I think 27" is pushing it for 1080p at short distances myself, I'd want a 2K res at that size. Is the 24" IPS and the 27" TN?

MegaPigeon · 8 Sep 2011 at 22:43

Somnambulist said:
Obviously the 27" is bigger all round but the 24" has MOAR PIXELS!!!1 so more on screen, and I'm a 16:10 fan. I think 27" is pushing it for 1080p at short distances myself, I'd want a 2K res at that size. Is the 24" IPS and the 27" TN?

I imagine so, yeah (they're a smilar price overall).

I'd ideally go for 24'' IPS at 16:10, but taking into account I plan on 360 gaming in addition to PC gaming, and that I typically end up typing a lot and have to read enormous journals online (I found that 16:10 isn't very good for multitasking in this regard) I'm somewhat stuck. I like the idea of being able to move something further to a corner of the screen out of view rather than keeping it directly in the centre of the screen at all times. And we all know what it's like playing 16:9 content on a 16:10 screen

Mr Krugga · 8 Sep 2011 at 23:09

Somnambulist said:
I think 27" is pushing it for 1080p at short distances myself, I'd want a 2K res at that size.

Do you have any idea what pixel density would be like in that case?

Stonedofmoo · 9 Sep 2011 at 07:14

MegaPigeon said:
And we all know what it's like playing 16:9 content on a 16:10 screen

By that do you mean Video? Curious as I have an older 16:10 screen and haven't noticed any problems at all, that being said I have a TV hooked out to the secondary output for video.

MegaPigeon · 9 Sep 2011 at 14:42

Stonedofmoo said:
By that do you mean Video? Curious as I have an older 16:10 screen and haven't noticed any problems at all, that being said I have a TV hooked out to the secondary output for video.

Mainly letterboxing. This isn't a problem with HD TV content or DVDs, but I certainly notice it in games that don't allow 16:10 resolutions. I've put up with it to an extent, but I know I wouldn't be able to stand it on a 360.

413x · 9 Sep 2011 at 22:51

I wouldn't want or have a 16:9 monitor if it wasn't 2560 res. Would prefer and have a 16:10 24in ..but I also have a 16:9 2560 :-P

MegaPigeon · 10 Sep 2011 at 03:18

On the subject of resolution, how do pixels appear on a 27'' screen running at 1080p/1200p from around 50cm? If there's a noticeable loss of clarity that would be a big put-off for me.

Trana · 10 Sep 2011 at 22:32

16:10 for console gaming is epic fail!

MegaPigeon · 11 Sep 2011 at 02:56

I decided to make a chart. As you do.

From the inside out;

Green: 22'' 16:10 (My current monitor)
Yellow:24'' 16:9
Blue: 24'' 16:10
Purple: 27'' 16:9
Grey: 27'' 16:10

Would anyone say this is generally accurate?

Also, from what I've seen 16:9 gives you the same vertical FOV as a 16:10, but you gain a good amount of horizontal FOV, even in the case of 1080p vs 1200p. Can anyone else vouch for this?

PCM2 · 11 Sep 2011 at 08:05

That's a nice little chart. Your 22 inch will be practically the same height as the 24 inch 16:9 (nowhere near as great a difference as you've shown). The 24 inch 16:9 should be a bit wider than it is relative to the 16:10 and you've shown the 27 inch 16:10 as wider than the 16:9 when it is actually a bit narrower. As a rule of thumb; the 16:9 monitor has the same additional screen area horizontally as the 16:10 does vertically.

The FOV depends on the game.

FrenchTart · 11 Sep 2011 at 09:51

Mr Krugga said:
Do you have any idea what pixel density would be like in that case?

Er...below that of monitors already available. Look at the res of the 27" HPs/Hazros/Dells.

Mr Krugga · 11 Sep 2011 at 12:00

FrenchTart said:
Er...below that of monitors already available. Look at the res of the 27" HPs/Hazros/Dells.

I don't have to look at anything, I have a HZ27WC right in front of me and any higher PPI would be just too dense at a normal viewing distance (say 2-3 feet).

3840x2160 isn't happening on 27" for a long time yet. That is 2.25 times denser than the 2560x1440 monitors.

Unless of course he meant the horizontal resolution which normally isn't quoted and he did it in a wrong way anyhow.

chaparral · 11 Sep 2011 at 12:04

Trana said:
16:10 for console gaming is epic fail!

Why would anyone buy a 16:10 monitor for only console gaming

413x · 11 Sep 2011 at 12:19

Mr Krugga said:
I don't have to look at anything, I have a HZ27WC right in front of me and any higher PPI would be just too dense at a normal viewing distance (say 2-3 feet)]

u2711 here and agree completely

HangTime · 11 Sep 2011 at 18:06

MegaPigeon said:
Would anyone say this is generally accurate?

Something is wrong because in your diagram, the 27" 16:9 is smaller than the 27" 16:10 in all dimensions. The hypotenuse must be the same length on each which means that the 16:9 monitor (purple) should be wider than the 16:10 (grey).

FoxEye · 11 Sep 2011 at 18:47

what's a 26" 16:9 like for pixel density? 1080 res?

FrenchTart · 11 Sep 2011 at 19:24

Mr Krugga said:
I don't have to look at anything, I have a HZ27WC right in front of me and any higher PPI would be just too dense at a normal viewing distance (say 2-3 feet).

3840x2160 isn't happening on 27" for a long time yet. That is 2.25 times denser than the 2560x1440 monitors.

Unless of course he meant the horizontal resolution which normally isn't quoted and he did it in a wrong way anyhow.

No, you just chose to purposefully misunderstand him.

Mr Krugga · 11 Sep 2011 at 20:23

FrenchTart said:
No, you just chose to purposefully misunderstand him.

No, you.