Best display size.

Edited 1 year, 3 months ago

Poll: Best display size. (49 votes)

16:9 63%
16:10 37%

So I'm in the market for a new monitor and I was wondering what the ideal aspect ratio is for most of you. The one I'm currently using now is 16:10 and I'm probably going to get another one with that aspect ratio.

#1 Edited by Slaegar (740 posts) -

16:10 is better for screen space, but the demand for 16:9 has gone way up and 16:10 is quite low so not as many are made. As a result you can get a 16:9 monitor much cheaper within the same general size.

If you find a good price on good 16:10 monitor that's the way I'd go, but it can be a pain in the butt these days.

Also wouldn't that best display aspect ratio as opposed to size?

I'm a jerk I know.

#2 Posted by MikkaQ (10344 posts) -

I like 16:9 myself but all I do with computers is play video games and cut video so if you were coding or looking at text docs all day you might want a little more vertical space. I'd say it really depends on what you do with your computer time.

#3 Posted by TyCobb (1975 posts) -

16:10 because then I don't feel the need to rotate my monitor when working. It's only 120 pixel difference when comparing 1920x1080 and 1920x1200, but it sure is a noticeable 120 pixels.

#4 Posted by mikey87144 (1807 posts) -

@slaegar said:

16:10 is better for screen space, but the demand for 16:9 has gone way up and 16:10 is quite low so not as many are made. As a result you can get a 16:9 monitor much cheaper within the same general size.

If you find a good price on good 16:10 monitor that's the way I'd go, but it can be a pain in the butt these days.

Also wouldn't that best display aspect ratio as opposed to size?

I'm a jerk I know.

You're not a jerk. I missed it.

#5 Posted by Sticky_Pennies (2019 posts) -

16:9, because if you use a 16:10 monitor every video you will ever watch in fullscreen will be letterboxed.

Fuck letterboxing.

#6 Posted by zenmastah (994 posts) -

Ive had a couple of 16:10s and i did like them a lot, its just annoying if a game is not supported by that ratio and youre stuck with black bars..didnt mind it in videos that much. For anything other its a better ratio really.

Still had to vote 16:9 because i freaking love playing games downsampling from 4K..so good.

#7 Posted by CatsAkimbo (645 posts) -

I like 16:10, but aspect ratio isn't really what the deciding factor should be. For gaming specifically, you have two options:

  1. Extremely fast refresh rate/low input lag (the "pro-gamer" route)
  2. Huge, pretty screen

Option 1 is going to max out at 1920/X, and option 2 at 2560/x. Option 1 will be cheaper, but the image/color might not be as good as option 2. Option 2 gives way more screen real-estate for desktop applications, but is pushing so many more pixels that todays monitors will never have the input response-time of option 1.

I just bought a new monitor this week and was weighing those options. Some of the best in option 1 seem to be the ASUS VG248QE and one of the BenQ monitors. There's a lot more choices available for option 2, including some of the korean monitors that get quite cheap, but lack the fancy extras (they're essentially huge apple screens that weren't quite good enough for apple, so they throw the most basic components on and sell them).

#8 Posted by Omega_X (24 posts) -

16:9 is all anyone gaming really needs. 16:10 is nice for production because of the extra space. Personally, I would not recommend getting anything bigger than 1080P unless you want to do multi-screen scaling. A nice 1080p 25in IPS screen with a decent pixel density goes a long way.

#9 Posted by Jrad (624 posts) -

I like 16:10, but aspect ratio isn't really what the deciding factor should be. For gaming specifically, you have two options:

  1. Extremely fast refresh rate/low input lag (the "pro-gamer" route)
  2. Huge, pretty screen

Option 1 is going to max out at 1920/X, and option 2 at 2560/x. Option 1 will be cheaper, but the image/color might not be as good as option 2. Option 2 gives way more screen real-estate for desktop applications, but is pushing so many more pixels that todays monitors will never have the input response-time of option 1.

I just bought a new monitor this week and was weighing those options. Some of the best in option 1 seem to be the ASUS VG248QE and one of the BenQ monitors. There's a lot more choices available for option 2, including some of the korean monitors that get quite cheap, but lack the fancy extras (they're essentially huge apple screens that weren't quite good enough for apple, so they throw the most basic components on and sell them).

Yeah, I ran into this issue while shopping for monitors. I wanted a fast 1440p monitor, which they don't actually make. So it was either blazingly fast 1080p 120Hz TN or beautiful and big 1440p IPS. I went with 1440p and I don't regret it at all. Maybe gaming at 120Hz is 'better', I don't know -- but the screen real estate 1440p offers is simply fantastic, the colors are amazing, and the games do look incredible. If your system can handle 1440p I think it's probably the best choice. I'm not a 'pro gamer' but I play a shit ton of Dota 2 and honestly you're going to be more limited by latency than the ~6ms difference in response times between good IPS and TNs.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.