Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › 16:9 vs 16:10 IPS?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

16:9 vs 16:10 IPS? - Page 4

Poll Results: Which one?

 
  • 42% (30)
    Dell U2311H
  • 40% (28)
    Dell U2410
  • 17% (12)
    HP ZR24W
70 Total Votes  
post #31 of 92
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chunky_Chimp;13159258 
As far as accuracy, it's slightly ahead, though it's naturally capable of extended gamut compared to the ZR24w's standard gamut.

I'm just gonna go with the U2410, the range of ports is much better and btw since there are so many U2410 owners, can't I just take their calibration settings?
Vibrant Curiosity
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K Maximus IV GENE-Z 2x Galaxy 570 SLI Adata 1600 8GB (4x2) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Force GT 120 & Seagate 1TB 7200 Lite-On Blu-ray combo 620 + 2x Akasa Viper Windows 7 HP 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
U2711 Majestouch Ninja Tenkeyless Brown X-760 Mini P180 
MouseMouse PadAudio
G400 QcK Heavy Westone 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Nvidia GeForce 9400M 2 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 160 GB 5400rpm 
OSMonitor
Mac OSX 10.6 13.3" 1,280 × 800 
  hide details  
Reply
Vibrant Curiosity
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K Maximus IV GENE-Z 2x Galaxy 570 SLI Adata 1600 8GB (4x2) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Force GT 120 & Seagate 1TB 7200 Lite-On Blu-ray combo 620 + 2x Akasa Viper Windows 7 HP 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
U2711 Majestouch Ninja Tenkeyless Brown X-760 Mini P180 
MouseMouse PadAudio
G400 QcK Heavy Westone 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Nvidia GeForce 9400M 2 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 160 GB 5400rpm 
OSMonitor
Mac OSX 10.6 13.3" 1,280 × 800 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 92
Thread Starter 
Man now its down to the U2410 and U2311H, I really hate the black bars but then the U2410 has better colors
Vibrant Curiosity
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K Maximus IV GENE-Z 2x Galaxy 570 SLI Adata 1600 8GB (4x2) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Force GT 120 & Seagate 1TB 7200 Lite-On Blu-ray combo 620 + 2x Akasa Viper Windows 7 HP 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
U2711 Majestouch Ninja Tenkeyless Brown X-760 Mini P180 
MouseMouse PadAudio
G400 QcK Heavy Westone 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Nvidia GeForce 9400M 2 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 160 GB 5400rpm 
OSMonitor
Mac OSX 10.6 13.3" 1,280 × 800 
  hide details  
Reply
Vibrant Curiosity
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500K Maximus IV GENE-Z 2x Galaxy 570 SLI Adata 1600 8GB (4x2) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Force GT 120 & Seagate 1TB 7200 Lite-On Blu-ray combo 620 + 2x Akasa Viper Windows 7 HP 64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
U2711 Majestouch Ninja Tenkeyless Brown X-760 Mini P180 
MouseMouse PadAudio
G400 QcK Heavy Westone 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Nvidia GeForce 9400M 2 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 160 GB 5400rpm 
OSMonitor
Mac OSX 10.6 13.3" 1,280 × 800 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
Again, WHY do you think 16:9 is better than 16:10?
I think you mean the other way around.

I just think that 16:10 is a more aesthetically pleasing resolution. To me, 16:9 just feels too narrow.
post #34 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spandy87 View Post
16:10

I currently have a U2711, which is 16:9, and I'm returning it in favor of the ZR24W. Actually the U2410 would have been great if not for the dead pixels, black depth, and input latency. It has the best response time out of all of em, and you really do notice the lack of trailing.

Oh also, I'm primarily gaming, browsing, video editing, if that gives you an indication.


Do you prefer the XL4210T for gaming or the 2711??
post #35 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by NrGx View Post
I think you mean the other way around.

I just think that 16:10 is a more aesthetically pleasing resolution. To me, 16:9 just feels too narrow.
Yeah there we go. But you know. That is dependent on the size.

I'm not saying 16:9 is better. When the resolutions are what they are with modern displays, 16:10 often proves to be a higher resolution in the same resolution range. I would prefer a 26" 16:9 with a resolution of 2133x1200 (1200p 16:9) if the resolutions actually worked like that. Yet, 16:9 often proves to be lower, and I do not think the aspect ratio is worth the resolution loss


@OP: I'd recommend the U2410. Seems like the best choice here. Don't worry about black borders. You don't worry about bezels either, now do you? Black bars are just a little extra bezel the way I see it.
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
Again, WHY do you think 16:9 is better than 16:10?
In games you have to play in 1920x1080 anyway to get full FOV so 1920x1200 basically just adds black bars. For gaming or ordinary tasks 16:9 is to prefer cause you get more for the money.

I have a U2410 right now but my next monitor will be a 16:9 monitor. Either 1920x1080 or 2560x1440. It is just better for gaming and you don't have to pay for pixels you won't use.
Edited by Hydros - 4/17/11 at 4:06am
post #37 of 92
16:10. More pixels.

16:9 versions are usually cheaper though.
post #38 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydros View Post
In games you have to play in 1920x1080 anyway to get full FOV so 1920*1200 basically just adds black bars. For gaming or ordinary tasks 16:9 is to prefer cause you get more for the money.

I have a U2410 right now but my next monitor will be a 16:9 monitor. Either 1920x1080 or 2560x1440. It is just better for gaming and you don't have to pay for pixels you won't use.
Just so that you know, that was a typo. I meant why did he prefer 16:10 over 16:9

Of course you get more FOV with 16:9 but the diffence is minimal. I'd rather utilize all pixels.

Full FOV is a term that you should not use. The most FOV you can get in the consumer grade is x amount of these http://www.crvd.com/ (6000 dollar display) in lanscape eyefinity.

Assuming that you use a combination of eyefinity, matrox triplehead and SofTH, you can use any amount of these based on the amount of connections you have. I think, however that the realistic limit goes at 36 of these. After that, you need a mobo that can do more than 4x GPUs

So you shouldn't say full FOV

I have no real preferance here. But you don't have to letterbox anything while gaming with 16:10. You can just set it to full resolution and lose some FOV. Not that it matters. A lot of games allow you to change FOV
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Zant View Post
I have no real preferance here. But you don't have to letterbox anything while gaming with 16:10. You can just set it to full resolution and lose some FOV. Not that it matters. A lot of games allow you to change FOV
I know most with 1920x1200 monitors prefer it that way but I think FOV is more important. I dont letterbox everything but rather much actually.
post #40 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hydros View Post
I know most with 1920x1200 monitors prefer it that way but I think FOV is more important. I dont letterbox everything but rather much actually.
Why 1920x1080 then?

Why don't you just go and put it at 1920x600? That would provide extreme amounts of FOV. And yet you don't do it. Why is that? Because you don't want to lower the resolution too much. And that's what I think. I want the highest resolution possible here. That's why I'm going portrait eyefinity when I have the chance. For now, stuck with landscape monitors.
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
Toki
(10 items)
 
  
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
[i7 860] [XFX 5870] [4x2gb] [WD 500gb] 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
[W7] [HP LP3065 - CrossOver 27Q LED-P - Acer x243w] Ducky DK1087-CELLB Tenkeyless, MX Blue - Steels... [LC power 750W] 
Audio
[ATH-A700] + [Asus Xonar DG] 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › 16:9 vs 16:10 IPS?