16:10 vs 16:9 - 16:9 better generally for gaming?

Different games handle different aspect ratios differently but 16:9 is the most common so is more likely to be handled well. I know that for Starcraft 16:9 is the best ratio, not sure about other games.

Edit: To be honest both will be fine for almost all games :)
 
Last edited:
I much prefer 16:10 for gameing and all other uses.the only thing thats slightly better on 16:9 is movies.
 
niko said:
I much prefer 16:10 for gameing and all other uses.the only thing thats slightly better on 16:9 is movies.
Click to expand...

Why? When the FOV on the 16:9 is generally (at least for FPS games) a better fit , quite literally letting you see more/better?
 
16:9 better FOV for gaming:

Usually, yes. Apparently most (not sure what percentage) modern games, especially FPS, are indeed HOR+. But for older games (mostly pre-2005) and especially old console emulators (which are always 4:3), 16:10 is miles better than 16:9. But if you're concerned with HOR+, then you should be going for a 21:9 monitor, while you're at it.

Furthermore, if you're looking at the 24" range for example, then the 16:10 monitors are usually 24.1", whereas 16:9 monitors are 23.6", even if they're both advertised as 24" (or at least it used to be so, you'd have to check before buying). And while this is only a difference of half an inch, look how it stacks up: http://displaywars.com/24,1-inch-16x10-vs-23,6-inch-16x9

In other words, you can get, even with black borders, pretty much the same viewable area displaying a 1920x1080 image on the 24.1" 16:10, like you would get from a 23.6" 16:9 using the whole area. And they have pretty much identical pixel pitch, too. (about 0.6% difference, if my calculations are correct)

But the common downside comes from the fact that 16:10 usually brings a price premium. Though they're usually better quality monitors, too. In addition to being slightly bigger in size. On the other hand, if you can find similarly priced (and featured) 16:10 and 16:9 monitors on the same size category, then 16:10 should definitely be the better choice.

And indeed, this is even without into taking account the superiority of its desktop benefits.

But in any case, if you're concerned with HOR+ games, then I would suggest you go for a 21:9 monitor. Otherwise, 16:10 is better, but also pricier (at least usually).
 
aatu said:
Furthermore, if you're looking at the 24" range for example, then the 16:10 monitors are usually 24.1", whereas 16:9 monitors are 23.6", even if they're both advertised as 24" (or at least it used to be so, you'd have to check before buying). And while this is only a difference of half an inch, look how it stacks up: http://displaywars.com/24,1-inch-16x10-vs-23,6-inch-16x9
Click to expand...
That image is why I can't explain why a FPS game on a 16:9 and 16:10 monitor wouldn't look the same except for the 16:10 showing MORE vertically!?

Instead you seem to get the 16:9 showing MORE than the 16:10?

Confused! The 16:10 should show more... But the 16:9 does!


aatu said:
But in any case, if you're concerned with HOR+ games, then I would suggest you go for a 21:9 monitor. Otherwise, 16:10 is better, but also pricier (at least usually).
Click to expand...
Tempting to go 21:9 but I'd be concerned:-
a) About performance - 50% bigger than a regular 1080p monitor.
b) Compatibility/issues.
 
NeilFawcett said:
Instead you seem to get the 16:9 showing MORE than the 16:10?

Confused! The 16:10 should show more... But the 16:9 does!
Click to expand...

As aatu mentioned most games nowadays use 'HOR+' scaling. This means that the Field Of View does not scale according to resolution in game but rather aspect ratio with a horizontal bias. The vertical aspect ratio is fixed under 'HOR+' but the horizontal scales according to the horizontal part of the aspect ratio. 16:9 is a 'wider' aspect ratio than 16:10 and games using HOR+ scaling will show you more of the game world horizontally on 16:9. 21:9 takes this even further by giving you an 'ultra widescreen experience'' and showing even more of the game world on most modern titles.

I have tested 16:9, 16:10 and 21:9 models. I do quite like the 'ultra wide' FOV advantage to be honest, but the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 is fairly easy to adapt to really. The difference isn't all that huge.
 
I'm royally confused.... I'd prefer to get the extra screen space with a 16:10 (1920x1200), but want the better FOV for games.

Here's an image showing the better FOV on 16:9 - http://cdn.overclock.net/7/7f/7f8a6...-mich-mal-interessieren-aspect-ratio-tmn.jpeg

That said, here's an image which implies NO difference - http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1507/18975978.jpg

I just don't get why the 16:10 can't display the same image horizontally, and MORE vertically... ie: Be better than the 16:9, not worse!
 
Like I said earlier:
If you use black borders on a 16:10 monitor, you get EXACTLY the same image you would get from a 16:9 monitor. In essence, you're displaying the 16:9 image inside the 16:10 monitor, you're simply not using all the available space (meaning the black borders on the top and bottom).

But even if you used native 1920x1200 (full display area, but losing a bit of horizontal FOV) and compared it to the 1920x1080 image of the same scene, you probably wouldn't even notice the difference in the heat of the battle.

As for the WHY:
It's just how the programmers designed the game. Some game designers opt for "VER-", which makes 16:10 and 4:3 monitors display more data, instead.
 
aatu said:
Like I said earlier:
If you use black borders on a 16:10 monitor, you get EXACTLY the same image you would get from a 16:9 monitor. In essence, you're displaying the 16:9 image inside the 16:10 monitor, you're simply not using all the available space (meaning the black borders on the top and bottom).
Click to expand...
OK... and these "black borders" to make it 16:9 format are introduced/set by the monitor or the game? ie: What do you tell "16:9 please"?
 
For black borders (a little more thorough details):
Basically you select the 1920x1080 from the game. And either select 1:1 from the monitor (or "Unscaled" or "16:9" or something similar, depends on the manufacturer and model), or go to the GPU settings and there you can select something like "front" and "back" resolutions or something like that, usually in the advanced settings. By this, you're telling the GPU to send 1920x1200 data to the monitor (back), but the system/GPU itself asks the game to calculate only 1920x1080 (front), and then puts it on the 1920x1200 frame, with black borders.

But before you go changing anything, it's better to first just try selecting the 1920x1080 resolution from the game, as the above settings might actually be the default.

Can't check the actual terms atm, as I'm on Linux writing this. Would have to reboot. They might also be different terms for nVidia and AMD. And the "back" and "front" might have actually been the other way around, not sure.

The back and front resolutions can actually bypass the 1:1 pixel mapping requirement from the monitor, as long as the monitor doesn't try to automatically eliminate black borders by stretching the image, even when it's getting full 1920x1200 data. But don't fear, that should never happen (might happen with TVs, but rarely on monitors, I think).

But for consoles, the 1:1 pixel mapping is indeed useful, as you can't configure back and front resolutions with them. (edit: But then again, not all console games support 1920x1080, they might be 720p, which leaves black borders not only to top and bottom, but also to left and right.)
 
Last edited:
aatu said:
For black borders (a little more thorough details):
Basically you select the 1920x1080 from the game. And either select 1:1 from the monitor (or "Unscaled" or "16:9" or something similar, depends on the manufacturer and model), or go to the GPU settings and there you can select something like "front" and "back" resolutions or something like that, usually in the advanced settings. By this, you're telling the GPU to send 1920x1200 data to the monitor (back), but the system/GPU itself asks the game to calculate only 1920x1080 (front), and then puts it on the 1920x1200 frame, with black borders.

But before you go changing anything, it's better to first just try selecting the 1920x1080 resolution from the game, as the above settings might actually be the default.

Can't check the actual terms atm, as I'm on Linux writing this. Would have to reboot. They might also be different terms for nVidia and AMD. And the "back" and "front" might have actually been the other way around, not sure.

The back and front resolutions can actually bypass the 1:1 pixel mapping requirement from the monitor, as long as the monitor doesn't try to automatically eliminate black borders by stretching the image, even when it's getting full 1920x1200 data. But don't fear, that should never happen (might happen with TVs, but rarely on monitors, I think).

But for consoles, the 1:1 pixel mapping is indeed useful, as you can't configure back and front resolutions with them. (edit: But then again, not all console games support 1920x1080, they might be 720p, which leaves black borders not only to top and bottom, but also to left and right.)
Click to expand...
So why can't you just enable 1:1 on the monitor and what ever resolution you select in the game, it just sends to the monitor which is then displayed with the appropriate black borders?

So if you have a superwide 2560x1080 monitor, set to 1:1 pixel mapping , and set your game to 1920x1080, it would just put black bars left/right and display the 1920x1080 pixels?
 
Yes, it would indeed do that. But I'm not sure why you would want to do that on a 2560x1080 monitor, that's the opposite of what people want to do with those monitors...?

If the game is HOR+, then 21:9 will display a lot more information. I'm in a hurry atm, so I don't have the time to calculate the actual numbers, but here's a rough sketch:
- with 16:10 vs 16:9, you lose about 7% of horizontal data (16:9 showing more)
- with 16:9 vs 21:9, you lose about 30% of horizontal data (21:9 showing more)

Someone can calculate how far off I am, but that's the ballpark, I think.

As for how useful/essential/necessary that extra data is (in both cases), that's another thing entirely. We used to be fine with 4:3 games, mind you...
 
So my main reason for going 16:9 (1920x1080) is the FOV in games.

But as already mentioned, if I bought a 16:10 monitor (1920x1200) could I 1:1 pixel map this and tell games to run at 1920x1080? Thus giving me exactly the same image as the 16:9 would have?

Do games generally spot you have 1920x1200 so also offer 1920x1080 as an option?
 
1) Yes and yes.

2) From what I've understood, games using DirectX will ask Windows for usable resolutions. Of the offered resolutions, only one will be the native one, others will be interpolated (or if the interpolation is prevented at GPU level, they will be black-bar'd). You will most probably also be offered the most common 4:3 resolutions, like 1024x768. As for will the game recognize the native resolution by itself, I don't know. But it also shouldn't matter, as 99% of modern games will offer the 1920x1080, in any case. I'd say you would have a hard time finding a modern game that DIDN'T offer 1920x1080.
 
So there is absolutely no reason to choose a 24" 16:9 (1920x1080) monitor over a 24" 16:10 (1920x1200) monitor when all you have to do is:-
1) Set the monitor to 1:1 pixel mapping
2) Select 1920x1080 in game

And the result will therefore be identical in FOV and probably physical size (give or take a 1cm) to what the 16:9 monitor would have displayed? - http://displaywars.com/24,1-inch-16x10-vs-23,6-inch-16x9

This way (as you mentioned above) you'll get the benefits of better FOV in games running at 16:9, but the benefits of a 16:10 desktop?
 
Last edited:
PCM2 said:
You lose a bit of physical width. A 24" 16:9 monitor is actually a full 24", not 23.6". Some are 23.6", some 23.8" - but plenty are a full 24". http://displaywars.com/24,1-inch-16x10-vs-24-inch-16x9 And being IPS those 'black bars' are anything but black. It's not a compromise everybody would want to make. But if you are OK with it then that's good.
Click to expand...

Well, it's either a Dell P2414H (16:9 1920x1080 23.8") or a 24/24.1 inch 16:10, like an Asus VS24AHL or (expensive) Dell U2413.

The Dell P2414H and Asus VS24AHL are near enough the same price (low £200s), but the U2413 is nearly £300.

http://displaywars.com/24,1-inch-16x10-vs-23,8-inch-16x9


Your comment about those (non) black bars are very valid for a 16:10 so have me thinking 16:9 again :(
 
Massive advantage of the 16:10 screen is that it also natively supports 4:3 @ 1600x1200 meaning no scaling when playing older games that don't support wide screen resolutions. Can't say I noticed any difference in horizontal fov between 16:9 & 16:10 though, just extra height top & bottom. Much prefer 16:10 both in games and in windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom