Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

16:10 vs 16:9... same price but which to choose?

M

months

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 21, 2008
60
0
Toronto
So right now I'm looking at 22 inch monitors for my Unibody Macbook... there is a 16:9 at around $240 that I want, that has a resolution of 1920 x 1080, and then a 22 inch for around the same price that has a res of 1680 x 1050 (16:10).

I was always leaning towards 16:10, since the main reason I'm getting a monitor is not for watching movies, but so I can view more documents at the same time and surf the web, so I would need more vertical space.

BUT, since the prices are around the same for both ratios at the same size, why wouldn't I get the 16:9? It has more horizontal space AND 30 more pixels of vertical space. So I still have lots of vertical space while still getting a 16:9. What are your guys ideas about this?

Or should I just go upto 24 inch and get 1920 x 1200 resolution? It'll be more expensive but is it worth it?
 
i would recommend 16:9 - it's widely accepted and IMO - if you need more vertical space you can hide the dock (option+command+D)
 
months said:
there is a 16:9 at around $240 that I want, that has a resolution of 1920 x 1080, and then a 22 inch for around the same price that has a res of 1680 x 1050.

I was always leaning towards 16:10, since the main reason I'm getting a monitor is not for watching movies, but so I can view more documents at the same time and surf the web, so I would need more vertical space.
Click to expand...

The 22 inch with 1080 pixels of height has more vertical space than the one with 1050 pixels of height.

Physical dimensions have nothing to do with screen real estate.
 
KnightWRX said:
The 22 inch with 1080 pixels of height has more vertical space than the one with 1050 pixels of height.

Physical dimensions have nothing to do with screen real estate.
Click to expand...

Yea I know it does? I never said that the 16:10 1680 x 1050 had more vertical space than the 16:9 one? I say just after that that the 16:9 has 30 more pixels of vertical space?
 
I've got a 16:9 Dell 2208WFP and I love it. I'd never go to 16:10 (except for a projector, maybe) simply because nothing really is the 16:10 ratio.
 
months said:
Yea I know it does? I never said that the 16:10 1680 x 1050 had more vertical space than the 16:9 one? I say just after that that the 16:9 has 30 more pixels of vertical space?
Click to expand...

Then why do you need our advice ? You want vertical space, go for vertical space.
 
KnightWRX said:
Then why do you need our advice ? You want vertical space, go for vertical space.
Click to expand...

I was just wondering what everyones opinion on 16:10 vs. 16:9 was. I know that people normally go towards 16:10 if they don't normally watch movies on their computer, so I was wondering why wouldn't I go for 16:9 if it was at the same price and size screen size, AND had more horizontal and vertical pixels (since the advantage of 16:10 is supposed to be vertical pixels).
 
months said:
I was just wondering what everyones opinion on 16:10 vs. 16:9 was. I know that people normally go towards 16:10 if they don't normally watch movies on their computer, so I was wondering why wouldn't I go for 16:9 if it was at the same price and size screen size, AND had more horizontal and vertical pixels (since the advantage of 16:10 is supposed to be vertical pixels).
Click to expand...

The only reason people for for 16:10 over 16:9 is when you're comparing 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 resolutions. Of course the more vertical pixels is a given in that kind of setup and 16:10 is a winner there. No one would refuse a 16:9 monitor that has more pixels vertically and horizontally than a 16:10 if they knew about screen real estate.
 
KnightWRX said:
The only reason people for for 16:10 over 16:9 is when you're comparing 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 resolutions. Of course the more vertical pixels is a given in that kind of setup and 16:10 is a winner there. No one would refuse a 16:9 monitor that has more pixels vertically and horizontally than a 16:10 if they knew about screen real estate.
Click to expand...
Not true. If you work on your computer rather than just look at it, then 16:10 is superior to 16:9 for a number of reasons:
  • For the same width screen you have more vertical space, and thus, more display real estate.
  • Less scrolling of documents.
  • You can edit 16:9 video and maintain workspace above and below your content.
  • Adults who use computers to watch video fullscreen don't freak-out when they see black bars above and below their the video.
 
MisterMe said:
Not true. If you work on your computer rather than just look at it, then 16:10 is superior to 16:9 for a number of reasons:
  • For the same width screen you have more vertical space, and thus, more display real estate.
  • Less scrolling of documents.
  • You can edit 16:9 video and maintain workspace above and below your content.
  • Adults who use computers to watch video fullscreen don't freak-out when they see black bars above and below their the video.
Click to expand...

But the thing is, if I want to get to 1920 x 1200 I'm going to have to pay at least $100 more, since the monitor is going to have to go upto 24 inches. What I'm saying is that there are 22 inchers that are 1920 x 1080, and obviously that is better than the 16:10 version of 22 inches, which is 1680 x 1050. So if I pick the 1920 x 1080 22 incher, than it has more screen real estate than a 16:10 of that same size and price.
 
MisterMe said:
Not true. If you work on your computer rather than just look at it, then 16:10 is superior to 16:9 for a number of reasons:
  • For the same width screen you have more vertical space, and thus, more display real estate.
  • Less scrolling of documents.
  • You can edit 16:9 video and maintain workspace above and below your content.
  • Adults who use computers to watch video fullscreen don't freak-out when they see black bars above and below their the video.
Click to expand...

You didn't read my post at all. You said the same thing I did. How can my post be not true then ?

The OP presented a 16:10 monitor with 1680x1050 resolution vs a 16:9 monitor with 1920x1080 resolution.

My post clearly indicated that if the 16:10 monitor had 1920x1200 resolution, it would be the better choice, but this is not the case here, and thus people wouldn't choose his 1680x1050 monitor over the 16:9 if they knew about screen real estate.

You then proceed to say 16:10 is better overall for screen real estate and thus is that is the reason people choose. EXCEPT, this is not the case here at all.
 
All things being equal, just multiply the horizontal pixel count x the vertical pixel count. Whichever has the bigger number, that is the one I would pick.
 
spaceballl said:
All things being equal, just multiply the horizontal pixel count x the vertical pixel count. Whichever has the bigger number, that is the one I would pick.
Click to expand...

So a 2,304,001x1 resolution is better than a 1920x1200 resolution ? It's a bit more complicated than that, unfortunately.
 
16:10 is 'better' for computers, but in the example you provided the 16:9 is the superior choice.

A high res 16:9 is better than a low res 16:10

If you can find a 16:10 1920x1200 for the same price that would be the 'best' choice (speaking only about resolution)
 
Forget about the aspect ratio. Just choose the monitor with the most vertical pixels. This is the essential measure for text work.

I would say even a 20" 4:3 1600x1200 would be better than the monitors you presented. But they are not cheap because consumers buy widescreen.
 
cube said:
Forget about the aspect ratio. Just choose the monitor with the most vertical pixels. This is the essential measure for text work.

I would say even a 20" 4:3 1600x1200 would be better than the monitors you presented. But they are not cheap because consumers buy widescreen.
Click to expand...

I wish they would make a 1920x1440 4:3 monitor
 
akm3 said:
16:10 is 'better' for computers, but in the example you provided the 16:9 is the superior choice.

A high res 16:9 is better than a low res 16:10

If you can find a 16:10 1920x1200 for the same price that would be the 'best' choice (speaking only about resolution)
Click to expand...

Yea I was looking for a 16:10 1920x1200 in that price range, but that res just isn't available in 22 inches or less, so you have to go upto 24 inches, and for some reason the price jumps like $100 when you goto 24 inches
 
I'd be concerned with overall screen quality - and all those 22" are TN panels, so all will have the same issues, so my advice is to get the one with the highest pixel count. I'd rather have a TN panel at 1920x1080 than a TN panel at 1680x1050. As for aspect ratio, I can't think of any downsides to 16:9 as opposed to 16:10 if 1920x1200 isn't an option.
 
TheStrudel said:
I'd rather have a TN panel at 1920x1080 than a TN panel at 1680x1050.
Click to expand...
Good point. If the 16:10 monitor were to have a vastly superior panel, it could be worth getting. If they're both of comparable quality, then there should be no question: get the one with the largest resolution.
 
months said:
So right now I'm looking at 22 inch monitors for my Unibody Macbook... there is a 16:9 at around $240 that I want, that has a resolution of 1920 x 1080, and then a 22 inch for around the same price that has a res of 1680 x 1050 (16:10).

I was always leaning towards 16:10, since the main reason I'm getting a monitor is not for watching movies, but so I can view more documents at the same time and surf the web, so I would need more vertical space.

BUT, since the prices are around the same for both ratios at the same size, why wouldn't I get the 16:9? It has more horizontal space AND 30 more pixels of vertical space. So I still have lots of vertical space while still getting a 16:9. What are your guys ideas about this?

Or should I just go upto 24 inch and get 1920 x 1200 resolution? It'll be more expensive but is it worth it?
Click to expand...


Go for the highest resolution - regardless of ratios - if you want to fit most on the screen.

FWIW I use a 24" at 1920 x 1200 and I can't imagine going back to anything smaller.

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back