I completely agree.
To OP's question, the Asus VE278Q gets good feedback from users and it's on special here at Overclockers until tomorrow http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-029-AS
27" for gaming
- Thread starter neilo67
- Start date
I completely agree.
To OP's question, the Asus VE278Q gets good feedback from users and it's on special here at Overclockers until tomorrow http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-029-AS
Actually, display manufactuers can cut screen production costs when making 16:9 vs 16:10. The fact you can slap 1080P FULL HD OMG labels everywhere helps massively as well.
No,i could never go back to 24" ever
never had any problems,i dont get black borders like you have just shown
never had any problems,i dont get black borders like you have just shown
i guess its possible to stretch the display from 16:9 to 16:10 and you won't notice it because the difference is only slight compared to stretching a 4:3 to 16:9
Also i guess many games will support 16:10 displays too.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2011
- Posts
- 176
- Location
- Chester England
i have the dell 27" u2711 i think it is and amazing quality, i am well happy with it, but be aware for game like bf3 you might need to upgrade your gpu as it will need a beefier one and maybe more vram on it. 
16:10 vs 16:9
I'm posting this only because the OP already got an answer and acted upon it, so it doesn't matter if the discussion has already derailed to 16:10 vs 16:9 again. There was a successful troll here, everyone should remember how to react to them (as in DON'T).
Anyway, back to the off-topic: One positive thing going for 16:10 is older games (and emulators, while we're at it) and older tv series etc, which use 4:3. That leaves HUGE side bars on 16:9 (like Trana's own example so clearly shows)...
I'd recommend to leave 16:9 for TV's to watch movies at and 16:10 for everything else. 16:10 is a good compromise between the new material and the old material.
Furthermore (from Trana's own Windows 8 link):
"Microsoft discussed the new hardware recommendations for the upcoming Windows 8 tablets and slates today during the OS’s unveiling at the Computex trade-show in Taiwan. According to Microsoft Corporate Vice President Mike Angiulo Windows 8 devices manufacturers will have to follow strict hardware guidelines when building products similar to Windows Phone 7 OEMs right now."
Yeah, that's very close to our scenario, right? If Windows 8 for desktops couldn't deal with 16:10, I'd say there would be some major issues Microsoft would have to focus on in the very near future. So on the contrary, 16:10 will be better than 16:9 in desktop usage in virtually every scenario.
PS. Actually now that I think about it, I'm a little on-the-fence whether it's even now OK to respond to the baits...
I'm posting this only because the OP already got an answer and acted upon it, so it doesn't matter if the discussion has already derailed to 16:10 vs 16:9 again. There was a successful troll here, everyone should remember how to react to them (as in DON'T).
Anyway, back to the off-topic: One positive thing going for 16:10 is older games (and emulators, while we're at it) and older tv series etc, which use 4:3. That leaves HUGE side bars on 16:9 (like Trana's own example so clearly shows)...
I'd recommend to leave 16:9 for TV's to watch movies at and 16:10 for everything else. 16:10 is a good compromise between the new material and the old material.
Furthermore (from Trana's own Windows 8 link):
"Microsoft discussed the new hardware recommendations for the upcoming Windows 8 tablets and slates today during the OS’s unveiling at the Computex trade-show in Taiwan. According to Microsoft Corporate Vice President Mike Angiulo Windows 8 devices manufacturers will have to follow strict hardware guidelines when building products similar to Windows Phone 7 OEMs right now."
Yeah, that's very close to our scenario, right? If Windows 8 for desktops couldn't deal with 16:10, I'd say there would be some major issues Microsoft would have to focus on in the very near future. So on the contrary, 16:10 will be better than 16:9 in desktop usage in virtually every scenario.
PS. Actually now that I think about it, I'm a little on-the-fence whether it's even now OK to respond to the baits...
Unless you play games prior to 2005 more than 50 percent of the time the answer is easy!
16:9 is the obvious choice. 16:10 sucks for gaming in this time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
16:9 is the obvious choice. 16:10 sucks for gaming in this time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
Was in a certain PC shop today looking at their displays. Some observations purely about ratio -- and bear in mind I've come from using 4:3 then 16:10 screens.
At 24" and smaller, 16:9 looked silly. It looked squashed, and the overall impression was that of a much smaller monitor (compared to 16:10 variants).
At 27" 16:9 looked acceptable. The feeling of being vertically challenged was much less prevalent.
At 32" (TVs now), 16:9 looked really good. There was no longer any feeling of lacking height.
Obviously this is just one person's initial impressions, and I didn't actually use any of the displays (half of them weren't even running at native).
But I can quite happily and confidently say I would *not* use a 16:9 screen smaller than 27". They look too small. 16:10 looks much more "natural" at those sizes.
At 24" and smaller, 16:9 looked silly. It looked squashed, and the overall impression was that of a much smaller monitor (compared to 16:10 variants).
At 27" 16:9 looked acceptable. The feeling of being vertically challenged was much less prevalent.
At 32" (TVs now), 16:9 looked really good. There was no longer any feeling of lacking height.
Obviously this is just one person's initial impressions, and I didn't actually use any of the displays (half of them weren't even running at native).
But I can quite happily and confidently say I would *not* use a 16:9 screen smaller than 27". They look too small. 16:10 looks much more "natural" at those sizes.
Actually, it would be closer with:
"Unless you play games prior to 2005 OR use desktop applications more than 50 percent of the time, the answer is easy!"
Just to clarify: doing spreadsheets, writing a document, surfing the net. Those all (but not limited to) fall under the desktop usage. And don't generalize, not EVERY game after 2005 is designed for 16:9, whereas the great majority of older tv series, games (and emulators) really are only available in 4:3. Meaning the only way to watch them in 16:9 is to stretch or play with black borders.
It may also be you are under-estimating the amount of gaming people do with older games. When a new game in a serie comes out, people quite often play the older parts to bring the story back to mind. Furthermore, not everybody has the state-of-the-art machine in their use. But when they do upgrade, they want to try their old favorite games with some extra oomph to see how well the game should have performed.
16:9 is better for desktop applikation as well. Even Windows 8 is developed for 16:9.
Seriously. 16:10? ha ha ha
Do you seriously suggesting that? ha ha ha
It is like suggesting a horse instead of a car.
I get the feeling that you don't know that it is the year of 2011. You live in the past!
Seriously. 16:10? ha ha ha
Do you seriously suggesting that? ha ha ha
It is like suggesting a horse instead of a car.
I get the feeling that you don't know that it is the year of 2011. You live in the past!
Last edited:
Seriously. 16:10? ha ha ha
Do you seriously suggesting that? ha ha ha
It is like suggesting a horse instead of a car.
I get the feeling that you don't know that it is the year of 2011. You live in the past!
Actually if you want to use a car analogy...
16:9 is the red car with the alloy wheels, rear spoiler and 5.1 speaker system.
16:10 is the black car with a refined walnut dashboard, leather trim and a mini-bar in the back...
I.e. you pays your money, you makes your choice. Nothing more.
16:9 is better for desktop applikation as well. Even Windows 8 is developed for 16:9.
Seriously. 16:10? ha ha ha
Do you seriously suggesting that? ha ha ha
It is like suggesting a horse instead of a car.
I get the feeling that you don't know that it is the year of 2011. You live in the past!
No offence intended here, but you're so narrow minded it's unbelievable! Most desktop users would argue that 16:10 is a preferred ratio to be running at as you get more space on your desk to use (vertically).
In gaming, the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 is negligible. Saying you can see more on a 16:9 screen is absolute poppycock, as most, if not all games (FPS at least) will let you change the FOV on your screen, so it has no effect whatsoever. I could infact argue that you see less on your 16:9 screen than someone with a 16:10 screen as they have an extra 230 thousand or so pixels than you.
I'm all up for "arguments" when it's actually a discussion, but you don't bring anything to this thread whatsoever, perhaps even the whole forum.
Back to the original topic - that Hazro is a steal at that price!
pixel count
I think we all know he's talking about the pixels within same size range. Meaning for example that if it's 24", there are 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 resolutions most readily available, and between those the 16:10 has more pixels. In 27" and up, there is 2560x1600 vs 2560x1440, in which 16:10 again has more pixels.
I think we all know he's talking about the pixels within same size range. Meaning for example that if it's 24", there are 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 resolutions most readily available, and between those the 16:10 has more pixels. In 27" and up, there is 2560x1600 vs 2560x1440, in which 16:10 again has more pixels.
lol
I use this screen http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-001-HS&groupid=17&catid=1120&subcat=
Great screen for the price,never had any problems with my 16.10 love it
Sometimes I wonder if all 16:10 fan boys are women because you always mess up facts with emotions.
Your 27" 2560x1600 monitor only exist in your imagination.
16:9 is better for desktop applikation as well. Even Windows 8 is developed for 16:9.
Seriously. 16:10? ha ha ha
Do you seriously suggesting that? ha ha ha
It is like suggesting a horse instead of a car.
I get the feeling that you don't know that it is the year of 2011. You live in the past!
Troll much?
16:10 is better than 16:9, more pixels = more desktop real estate, there's really no argument to be had here. Fair enough you may have the odd border on a few games but does that really matter? I mean it would only be like playing on an inferior 16:9 monitor
besides which most games worth playing still support 16:10 anyway. I'm really struggling to understand what your problem is