Widescreen Gaming Forum

I had stated in another topic that the flood of less expensive 16:9 format monitors onto the marketplace could push the format up a bit on the forum here. I did some checking to make sure that they were as inexpensive as they appeared.

Looks like I was right, I compared the retail prices of two like sized (square footage) HP monitors and here is the result:

16:9 format - $157.90 per sqft. (total size was 1.58 sqft)
16:10 format - $169.32 per sqft.(total size was 1.53 sqft)

I'm moving to 16:9 before too long becaseu i've found 22" and 23" displays that run at a higher res than my current displays..... But i guess it helps that i could be saving $0.03 per square foot. OF course being priced as tehy are, theyr'e still TN displays.. but I'm poor and have to stick with what i can get. One I'm looking at has the odd resolution of 2048x1152 (i think)

Plus 16:9 looks much nicer, being wider.

Apple has a 23" 1920x1080 e-IPS coming out, though I haven't seen any prices yet. Dell's 22" e-IPS debuted at TN range prices as promised though, and has received rave reviews. The Dell is 1680x1050 though.

16:9 ratio monitor is always cheaper than 16:10 mainly due to the manufacture method produces less waste

I've wondered about this myself. Aside from cost, which is the better format? I myself have three 28" I-INC (16:10, 1920x1200 native.) monitors on a DTH2Go and they look great. By the time you figure in the bezel management I really don't know what it is on the side monitors. Probably somewhere around 4:3 I suspect.

I feel 16:9 is definitely better, esp for a multipurpose display that you watch movies on. There are more game resolutions in 16:10 aspect ratio, but LCDs are usually only used for two resolutions primarily anyway, the native one and one below it for more demanding games.

The only slight trade off I see is you would have to go a bit smaller in res for the secondary res option with a 16:9. For instance with a 1920x1200 you can use 1680x1050 as your secondary res, but with a 1920x1080 it would be 1280x720, quite a bit lower.

that is why you should get one 16:10 for work and 16:9 for multimedia

hehe

I don't even notice to be honest. 16:10 offers more than 16:9. Depending on your use. If your gaming, 16:10 might be better cause it is a generally more accepted.

that is why you should get one 16:10 for work and 16:9 for multimedia...

LOL, I'm so done with having two displays it's not even funny. It's also important to note that just like when 16:10 resolutions became common for PC gaming, more game resolutions for 16:9 will no doubt come as they catch on for PC gaming. In fact they're already coming, including 2048x1152.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010190020+1109946725&Configurator=&Subcategory=20&description=&Ntk=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

If your gaming, 16:10 might be better cause it is a generally more accepted.

It's just more common (so far), and much of the reason it came about in the first place was for office convenience, not gaming, such as perfectly fitting two 8.5"x11" documents side by side on the screen. I would argue whether they're more accepted. There are numerous players whom have been asking for 16:9 monitors for some time now.

Me, I'd like a 2048x1152 26" e-IPS before Xmas '09 please. The main thing 16:9 currently lacks is a resolution somewhere between 1366x768 and 1920x1080, it's quite a gap. Perhaps something like 1680x946 or 1706x960. Many games will adapt to setting custom resolutions like that anyway, esp well made PC games, so it's not that big a deal really.

Many games will adapt to setting custom resolutions like that anyway, esp well made PC games, so it's not that big a deal really.

Games that dont adapt to new resolutions well are not well made imo. Its actually easier to work with everything under the sun, Basically just checking the registry to see what resolutions are supported by the desktop and working dynamically with them.