Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is 16:10 being phased out?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 153 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 16, 2011 11:06:33 PM

I've always preferred 16:10 to 16:9, but it seems most monitors being made are 1920x1080 as opposed to 1920x1200 anymore. I did plan on getting some 3D monitors in the future, but now I don't know.... Kind of sucks, thoughts?

More about : phased

a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 16, 2011 11:24:18 PM

There have always been fewer 1920x1200 monitors haven't there?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 16, 2011 11:27:36 PM

Nope. Several years ago, the standard sizes were all 16:10 - 1680x1050 was popular, and 1920x1200 was the next step up. 1920x1080 was pretty rare.

Oh, and I agree that it sucks. I significantly prefer 16:10. Fortunately, a lot of the high end monitors are still 16:10, but even in that segment, there are some 16:9 sneaking in.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 153 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 12:25:47 AM

jryan388 said:
There have always been fewer 1920x1200 monitors haven't there?


Yeah but it is getting rediculous. Is there even ONE 16:10 3D monitor abvailable yet?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 12:32:08 AM

16:9 is cheaper to produce and that's important when shaving $10 off the price of a cheap monitor can make or break your sales (especially considering how saturated the low-end market is). Naturally, it will replace 16:10 in time, or at least make 16:10 a niche aspect ratio only for high-end monitors where cut-throat pricing isn't important.
m
0
l
a c 153 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 12:37:11 AM

randomizer said:
16:9 is cheaper to produce and that's important when shaving $10 off the price of a cheap monitor can make or break your sales (especially considering how saturated the low-end market is). Naturally, it will replace 16:10 in time, or at least make 16:10 a niche aspect ratio only for high-end monitors where cut-throat pricing isn't important.


Yeah that what seems like is happening, it sucks really, I guess I'm spoiled but 16:10 seems soo much better to me.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
a c 128 C Monitor
January 17, 2011 12:39:43 AM

It's mostly only the 1200p due to being so similar in size to the 1080p. The larger resolution monitors will likely stay 16:10 until TV's start to use those resolutions (not likely anytime soon).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 12:58:16 AM

Helltech said:
Yeah but it is getting rediculous. Is there even ONE 16:10 3D monitor abvailable yet?

Part of the problem with that is that I think 1920x1080 120Hz is about the upper limit for dual link DVI. I think 1920x1200 120Hz is slightly too high (dual link DVI can't quite pull it off).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 12:58:58 AM

bystander said:
It's mostly only the 1200p due to being so similar in size to the 1080p. The larger resolution monitors will likely stay 16:10 until TV's start to use those resolutions (not likely anytime soon).

Not really...

Consider the new 27 inch 2560x1440 monitors that are starting to show up...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 12:59:47 AM

Yea, unfortunately people are already sold on 1080p being some amazingly high resolution when a 1st generation point-and-shoot digital camera could take higher resolution photos. There's no incentive for TVs to be any better even though some are enormous and should be 2-3x higher res.
m
0
l
a c 153 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 1:02:09 AM

randomizer said:
Yea, unfortunately people are already sold on 1080p being some amazingly high resolution when a 1st generation point-and-shoot digital camera could take higher resolution photos. There's no incentive for TVs to be any better even though some are enormous and should be 2-3x higher res.


Yeah like I see people using 30+ inch TV's as PC gaming monitors and it just looks silly running games in 1080p at that size.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 1:03:42 AM

It's the 50-inchers that make me want to puke.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 1:21:14 AM

Helltech said:
I've always preferred 16:10 to 16:9, but it seems most monitors being made are 1920x1080 as opposed to 1920x1200 anymore. I did plan on getting some 3D monitors in the future, but now I don't know.... Kind of sucks, thoughts?
Manufacturers are using the hype over 1080P TV's to push cheaper monitors as "True HD". End of story really, as a customer you're outnumbered by neophytes.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 1:58:04 AM

It's probably also easier for manufacturers to consolidate product lines instead of having 2 similar sized (in diagonal inches) which only differ in screen resolution.
m
0
l
January 17, 2011 2:08:31 AM

I suppose we'll be stuck with 1920×1080 being the new de facto standard for a while. That is listed as the largest resolution for blueray: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Video and I gather the next few years will see the mainstream migrating from DVD to blueray.

Even the many professionals that currently use 1920x1200 screens might be satisfied with their new 2560x1440s as that's still more pixels also in the vertical direction.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 2:34:55 AM

I definitely remember when the 16:10 aspect ratio was the standard. I still prefer having the extra height when working on mainstream projects.

cjl - I ran across several mainstream technical reviews of the Dell Ultrsharp u3011 which suggested that at a resolution of 2560 x 1600 a DisplayPort produced slightly better results than dual link DVI.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 3:22:47 AM

That's an interesting proposition - I don't notice any difference on mine, but it's difficult to compare, as my DisplayPort source is completely different than my dual link DVI source. I would think that dual link DVI should give exactly the same quality though, unless you're feeding it 10 bit color through displayport.
m
0
l
a c 153 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 3:23:43 AM

varis said:
I suppose we'll be stuck with 1920×1080 being the new de facto standard for a while. That is listed as the largest resolution for blueray: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Video and I gather the next few years will see the mainstream migrating from DVD to blueray.

Even the many professionals that currently use 1920x1200 screens might be satisfied with their new 2560x1440s as that's still more pixels also in the vertical direction.


Its not all about the workspace for me. I'd rather have a 16:10 2560x1600 if I was going to get a large monitor. From a gaming standpoint, and maybe its just how I look at the screen but 1920x1200 FOV looks so much better to me, it doesn't give me that "seasickness" feeling I get when looking at certain games in 1920x1080. This was extremely noticable when I was playing Singularity on a friend's computer as opposed to my own, there are obviously other examples but this was a more extreme case. Of course this really only matters in FPS games and I'm sure I'm in the minority when I can feel the difference, but it still matters to me.

So I'm sure when/if (probably never) I ended up getting a larger size screen I will still shoot for a 2560x1600. I'm sure my next upgrade will be 3D vision though, so I'm hoping eventually we will see some nice 16:10 3D monitors =].
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 3:38:33 AM

Helltech said:
Its not all about the workspace for me. I'd rather have a 16:10 2560x1600 if I was going to get a large monitor. From a gaming standpoint, and maybe its just how I look at the screen but 1920x1200 FOV looks so much better to me, it doesn't give me that "seasickness" feeling I get when looking at certain games in 1920x1080. This was extremely noticable when I was playing Singularity on a friend's computer as opposed to my own, there are obviously other examples but this was a more extreme case. Of course this really only matters in FPS games and I'm sure I'm in the minority when I can feel the difference, but it still matters to me.

So I'm sure when/if (probably never) I ended up getting a larger size screen I will still shoot for a 2560x1600. I'm sure my next upgrade will be 3D vision though, so I'm hoping eventually we will see some nice 16:10 3D monitors =].

I absolutely agree, which is why I have a U3011 :D 
m
0
l
a c 171 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 5:49:43 AM

5:4 FTW!

but seriously, there should just be one aspect ratio standard so all my games work properly. 16:9 is the standard for TV's as it will be for computer monitors and im happy with that so long as it doesnt change all the time.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 6:16:40 AM

Sadly even 30" monitors are shifting towards 16:9. Upgrading to Dell's latest offerings from one of their previous 30" monitors would mean a smaller desktop area :lol: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 6:28:28 AM

randomizer said:
Sadly even 30" monitors are shifting towards 16:9. Upgrading to Dell's latest offerings from one of their previous 30" monitors would mean a smaller desktop area :lol: 

Nope.

Dell's latest 30 is the U3011, which is still a 16:10 2560x1600 panel. You're probably thinking of the U2711, which is their new 27 inch 2560x1440.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 6:43:21 AM

I probably am.
m
0
l
January 17, 2011 7:59:23 AM

Helltech said:
From a gaming standpoint, and maybe its just how I look at the screen but 1920x1200 FOV looks so much better to me, it doesn't give me that "seasickness" feeling I get when looking at certain games in 1920x1080. =].


Wow. I was amazed when I read this. Had this exact conversation recently. The majority of the guys who had done a lot of gaming on 16:10 and then for what ever reason now used a 16:9 screen, mentioned things like occasional dizziness/head spins/nausea. Of the guys who had only ever played majority on 16:9, none had these kind of symptoms. Wondering whether increased refresh rates and lowered response times etc adds to the problem.

I was gaming on an old 24" 16:10 for years, and recently 'upgraded' to the samsung bx2450 which of course 24" but at 16:9... and months down the track it still doesn't feel right.
m
0
l
January 17, 2011 1:58:37 PM

I am not happy with this transition. I am currently gaming on a 22" at 1680x1050 and I would like to upgrade but going to a 24" at 16:9 really isn't going to get me any more vertical space. It sucks I am stuck looking at the much less popular 16:10 models. Not many choices there.
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 2:12:02 PM

Hmm I never knew 16:10 was a common ratio for monitors, but I wish it still was. When I bought my PC along with a new monitor, for ~$200 16:9 was the best I could do. I'm happy with my 24" 1080p monitor, but definitely I would have taken 1920x1200 had that been a real option.
m
0
l
a c 106 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 17, 2011 2:15:10 PM

Since HD TVs are 16:9 it's cheaper for LCD makers to manufacture one ratio rather than two. Making 16:10 ratio monitors made sense when LCDs were priced higher as they could charge more for the extra pixles. Now that LCD monitors have gotten alot cheaper and 16:9 LCD TVs more common it doesn't make financial sense to keep making a small number of 16:10 monitors for PC users
m
0
l
a c 358 U Graphics card
a c 195 C Monitor
January 17, 2011 2:16:37 PM

16:10 was standard before 16:9 came out.

I rather use a 16:10 monitor than a 16:9 monitor (I have both). It's worth the premium to me especially since I buy premium monitors anyway. Well except for that 16:9 monitor (Asus VK236H) since it was only going to be used about 4 hours per week, now it's down to 4 hours per month.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2011 5:25:18 PM

I went with a 16:10 monitor over a 16:9 and I definitely paid a premium. 1920x1080 is good for HD movies, but that is it. 1920x1200 is better for games, Word documents, Excel, and web browsing. 1080 is just too short pixel-wise for a 24+ inch monitor to be. Even at 16:10 I have extra space on the side of most web pages. It is a shame that 16:9 is taking over. I'm willing to continue paying premiums for my 16:10 monitors.

On a different note, monitors with any resolution over 1920x1200 are really expensive. I can't find any 2560x1600 that are less than $1,000. I hope the price of those will come down at some point.
m
0
l
a c 358 U Graphics card
a c 195 C Monitor
January 17, 2011 6:22:05 PM

Dougx1317 said:
I can't find any 2560x1600 that are less than $1,000. I hope the price of those will come down at some point.


They are expensive for three reasons:

1. All use IPS panels which are expensive to manufacture.
2. Due to higher pixel count, more material is required which increases costs.
3. Kinda of a niche market, since not as many are sold compared to small monitors. So slightly higher price for something that doesn't sell as fast.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 18, 2011 12:12:53 AM

The only reason I upgraded from a 22" 1680x1050 to a 23" 1920x1080 was because I went from a TN to an IPS that cost me less than the TN did. Dell U2311H FTW! Got it for $249 (normally $349), then I ordered a second one for a friend for the same price after the $100-off sale. Dell are very nice to repeat customers :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
January 18, 2011 5:04:36 AM

randomizer said:
The only reason I upgraded from a 22" 1680x1050 to a 23" 1920x1080 was because I went from a TN to an IPS that cost me less than the TN did. Dell U2311H FTW! Got it for $249 (normally $349), then I ordered a second one for a friend for the same price after the $100-off sale. Dell are very nice to repeat customers :) 

The U2311 is a spectacular monitor for the price, that's for sure. Definitely one of my top choices when recommending a monitor to people who don't want to spend a huge amount on a monitor.

(The dell coupons are nice too - I got my U3011 for $1350 including tax and overnight air shipping a couple months ago)
m
0
l
!