16:9 as stable standart, I had NEC 22" with 16:10 and trust me, you don't want 16:10
Comment has been collapsed.
16:9 is the aspect ratio. Meaning you get 16 times the width for every 9 in height.
For most movies (16:9) this means they'll fill the screen without any black bars along the bottom and top of the screen. For games, it's not too bad as you can usually select what screen res you'll be playing in. However, has others have already noted, not all games give you the full supported selection from what your monitor can do. At least most games try to fit with the 'hd' format that is 720 or 1080, so you'll be wanting 16:9 to fulfil that role.
Otherwise, you might find games a bit out of shape or need to run with black bars at top and bottom.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually now that I think of it 1 game I played didn't support it so I went into the .ini file and changed it, worked fine then....
Comment has been collapsed.
Not all games support 16:9, either - some run only in 4:3 :P
OK, but seriously - 16:9 or 16:10 - it doesn't really matter. At worst, you'll be playing a game or two with some letterbox, which sounds bad, but actually isn't - when you focus on playing the game, you barely notice it, anyway.
However, here's a thing - with a 16:9 monitor, you can potentially run the game with a higher FOV (that is, unless the port of the game is complete crap) and that is an advantage, I wouldn't ignore.
Comment has been collapsed.
No can do - a screen as big won't simply fit at my working place.
Comment has been collapsed.
16:10 if you're doing anything other than watching tv shows and movie all the time.
Go for the famous Dell U2410. Otherwise, look for something with an IPS panel, avoid TN panels.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't mind some black bars when watching TV broadcasts (since they're mostly 16:9) then go with 16:10 for sure, but it's getting harder and harder to come by these days. 16:10 just offers more vertical viewing space when browsing the Internet or working.
As thereaganator said, if you can afford it, get the Dell U2410. If you want something a little cheaper, then go with the Dell U2412M. Both are IPS models, the latter using LED backlighting, however it's not quite as good in my opinion despite being newer.
The superiority of IPS comes down to colour reproduction (very accurate) and viewing angles (very wide). TN panels are faster, but don't match IPS for picture quality.
I have a Dell U2311H (23" IPS little brother of the U2410) myself and am very pleased with it. If I had the money at the time, I would have bought a U2410.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, Dell U2412M was my first choice. I surely don't have enough money to spend for superior models.
Thanks a lot for this substantial reply.
Comment has been collapsed.
When choosing between the U2412M and the U2410, I typically tell people to go for the U2412M. The kind of user that is unsure about their ideal IPS monitor is the kind of user that doesn't need the professional accuracy of the U2410. It's one of those "you'll know you need it" situations.
Comment has been collapsed.
16:9 monitors beat 16:10 monitors when watching 16:9 TV and movies. If that's most or all of what you'll be doing, 16:9 is the winner.
16:10 is better for everything else (office work, games, video editing, Internet browsing etc) so if one of those is your focus, or you're after a general all-rounder, get 16:10.
(16:9 is cheaper to manufacture, which is why it's been pushed so hard)
Comment has been collapsed.
Makes me sad that most screens are 16:9 nowadays, wish it was th other way around honestly.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the only thing you will ever do is watch movies, and you're certain you'll never do anything else 16:9. Otherwise 16:10.
Comment has been collapsed.
People always use the "movies" argument for 16:9 monitors and I don't know why. I can understand if it's TV broadcasts, but movies are almost always shot in a far wider ratio than 16:9, in other words, you'll always get top & bottom letterboxing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. But some people hate letterboxing and want to minimize it as much as possible. Also, there's a number of BR movies that come in 16:9 or have an option to show you pan&scanned 16:9
Comment has been collapsed.
I used both 16:9 and 16:10 and 16:10 is just better as a computer monitor.
My monitor is a 16:10 HP ZR24W. It's an IPS monitor but the model is 2 years old. Pretty nice as it has low input lag.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr24w.htm
Comment has been collapsed.
I would go for HP but they are kinda too expensive for me atm. Thanks for sharing though.
Comment has been collapsed.
16:9 doesn't beat 16:10 for watching movies(16:9) format there are thin black horizontal lines at the top and bottom, (slightly larger than the windows taskbar. Its not very noticeable either, if you get a 16:10 monitor you will never go with a 16:9 model,it's just too cramped vertically. I guess if you ONLY ever watch videos, but if you do web browsing its very noticeable.
I have both, the 16:10 is primary and 16:9 is secondary (its a replacement for a 1600x1200 that kept being shit and having it returned for warranty over a dozen times.)
I guarantee that the people who think 16:9 is better have NEVER had a 16:10 monitor, and I've never played a game that doesn't work on my monitor.
The only reason to get 16:9 is that it will be cheaper, but its an inferior resolution
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply, I shall consider this point.
Comment has been collapsed.
Love it, but after working behind a widescreen for a while I would say it's kinda in the past now.
Comment has been collapsed.
16:10, More room from computing and the same amount of room when gaming and movies.
Comment has been collapsed.
16:9 is better for multimedia stuff and 16:10 is better for productive stuff. When you play games it's better to have a 16:9, practically you won't see any difference but some games (only a few) don't support 16:10 resolutions.
BTW: Which resolutions do they have, I don't think there are many 16:10 monitors that have a better resolution as 1080p. It looks like 1920 x 1200 monitors are more expensive (at least on Amazon), maybe that could make a difference for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
7 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by UnbakedBacon
2,158 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by ipax11
870 Comments - Last post 40 minutes ago by sensualshakti
46,880 Comments - Last post 48 minutes ago by ManOman
0 Comments - Created 52 minutes ago by sensualshakti
18 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by devotee
15,478 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ricardobrat
26,679 Comments - Last post 3 seconds ago by Duststorm87
10 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Formidolosus
99 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by s4k1s
62 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by Mitsukuni
15,270 Comments - Last post 50 minutes ago by Agaster
49 Comments - Last post 50 minutes ago by DeliberateTaco
7,998 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by FranckCastle
Picking a new monitor as a replace for my old 5:4 19" Samsung. Any advice for any particular 24" model?
What's better, 16:9 or 16:10?
Commence the holy war!
Current choise: Dell U2412M
Thanks to everyone for responses and some actually useful pieces of advice.
Now continue the holy war! (If desired)
Comment has been collapsed.