16:9 or 16:10?

Skeeter

Skeeter

Skeeter

Caporegime
Joined
8 Mar 2007
Posts
37,146
Location
Surrey
Specifically looking at 22" monitors for gaming.

18 months ago nearly all widescreen monitors were 16:10, but now it appears the balance has swung and the majority have gone to 16:9. Whats the best bet for gaming?

In my opinion:

16:10 - been around longer, supported by pretty much all modern games, many older ones, and pleanty of hacks if not. Look to be rarer now than 16:9

16:9 - Full 1080p HD, but with that there are more pixels in a 16:9 resolution, needed more graphic cars power, and theres the higher chance games wont support 16:9 resolutions?

Are my opinions correct? I will be needing a new graphics card if I buy a couple of 22" monitors, which is why the more pixels comment comes in.

What are peoples thoughts/experiences?
 
Yes, there are more pixels in a 22in 16:9 1920x1080 monitor compared to a 22in 16:10 1680x1050 monitor. However, please bear in mind that the actual screen area is larger with the 16:10 monitor.

This also means that the pixels are much smaller on the 16:9 fullHD one. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your eyesight - personally I find 1920x1080 too small on a 16:9 22in monitor - perhaps you find it OK.

Also, if you do a lot of web viewing, text work then please also note that a 16:10 22in is quite a bit taller than a 16:9. This will also affect gaming as there is more screen space vertically (and less on the sides) on a 16:10.

Personally, I swear by 16:10 monitors for gaming, web browsing and work. However, if I wainly watched videos/movies with my machine then I would prefer a 16:9 monitor as the videos are made in this aspect ratio.
 
Ive got a 22" 1080p 16:9 monitor attached to my HTPC for media, so I dont watch HD content on my PC.

However, 16:9's are cheaper and more common than 16:10, which leads me to belive 16:10 is a dying ratio...
 
Its not exactly dying, there's no reason not to get one for a PC other than price, if you go from a 22" 1650x1050 to a 24" 1080p one you'd be seeing font and icons at the same actual size, but you would have more desktop width.

Also Windows 7 seems much better with high resolution monitors.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say 16:10 is dying. Perhaps at the budget end of the market it is - mainly because companies can advertise "1080p" and "FullHD" and make loads of sales.

However, at the higher end of the market 16:10 is still the king and will likely remain so as the customers demand it. For example, the new HP ZR24w S-IPS monitor became available this week, which is another great monitor in the 16:10 camp.
 
Cmndr_andi, your comments about "more screen space top and bottem" isnt strictly true, as there are actually more pixels in a HD monitor than a 16:10...

Id love a 24", in which case I would most definately get HD, but my budget is..... tight, and so is my available space if I want 2...

I use 2 1440x900's at home and a 1280x1024 wt work and cant say ive ever yerned for more vertical space...

But do all games support 16:9?
 
Skeeter said:
Cmndr_andi, your comments about "more screen space top and bottem" isnt strictly true, as there are actually more pixels in a HD monitor than a 16:10...
Click to expand...

*gets out ruler*

Sorry, it is true. I don't measure things in pixels.

But do all games support 16:9?
Click to expand...

Anything released in the last few years does. Generally, if a game supports a 16:10 resolution it should support a 16:9 one.
 
If im measuring things in what I can see on screen, then yes, there is more space on a 16:9. Im not disputing the physical size of the screen being smaller, aswell as the pixels, but as long as what I see on the screen is governed by the number of pixles, 16:9 is more.

Good to hear games support 16:9. Ive never really noticed, but cant say ive had any issues with widescreen on any game at 16:10 for quite a few years.
 
Thats fair enuf - I can see how you define screen size that way. Though please bear in mind that there are only 30 more vertical pixels on a 1080p 22in screen compared to a 1680x1050 22in one and the 1680x1050 is physically taller - so to me the 16:10 one looks bigger in the vertical direction. If you see things differently then that's cool.

When I first swicthed to wide-screen the first game I had problems playing was Battlefield 2. However, with a "widescreen fixer " program this was remedied, here is a link tio the program - it works with other games too (they are listed on the website). However, with the most recent patch even BF2 got native wide-screen support, I imagine many older games have received similar updates given the prevalence of wide-screen monitors.
 
Grr....

I knew I shouldnt have asked on here! Lol.

I now want a 24" HD monitor!

My choices then look to be a 16:10 22" within budget, or a 16:9 24" over budget...

:(

I suppose I should buy a new graphics card first.
 
I have a 16:10 on one PC and 16:9 on the other (both 22")
If you plan to do any gaming at all then the 16:10 is defo the way to go. The additional vertical height makes a massive difference.
 
Skeeter said:
Cmndr_andi, your comments about "more screen space top and bottem" isnt strictly true, as there are actually more pixels in a HD monitor than a 16:10...
Click to expand...

What do you mean more pixels on an HD V a 16:10..

24inch 16:10 is 1920x1200, 24inch HD is 1920x1080.. Thats less pixels.

16:10 is better for "work" as it gives room for 2 A4 documents side by side + a small margin for control buttons etc.

Overall I prefer the 16:10's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom