Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why there are more monitors at 2560x1440 than 2560x1600?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Vertical space is great for many tasks (coding, reading, web browsing, etc.). I would love a 2560x2560 monitor!
Most monitors now follow the TV aspect ratio of 16:9. I assume many manufacturers think the primary use is media consumption, which 16:9 is good for.
Most monitors now follow the TV aspect ratio of 16:9. I assume many manufacturers think the primary use is media consumption, which 16:9 is good for.
One of my projects is on medical imaging. That is why I considered getting a new laptop and buying a 4K monitors before I heard about scaling issues at least for Windows 10 users.
2560x1600 is 16:10 aspect ratio
2560x1440 is 16:9 aspect ratio
16:10 used to be the dominate aspect ratio for computer monitors around 2003 to 2008 as we moved away from 4:3.
However, something happened between 2008 and now, where 16:9 took over as the dominate aspect ratio for computer monitors. I assume it was simply economics of scale as TVs are 16:9 and companies wanted to use the same panels, tooling, etc.
For work I like a 16:10 primary monitor centered, and off to one side a second monitor at 3x4 (4x3 rotated) for documents and web pages.
For entertainment I like a single 21:9 monitor.
2560 x 1440 is 16:9 ratio, which is typically used for TVs. I think there are many more TVs built than computer monitors. And 16:9 displays movies without a black border at the top and bottom (which you wouldn't mind because it means you have more pixels when you do work). 2560 x 1440 is cheaper to build because there are more of them, marketing guys have convinced customers that they are doing them a favour by taking these pixels away by calling it "widescreen" instead of "crippled screen", so now 16:10 tends to be a lot more expensive than 16:9. Which reduces the number of sales again.
For computer users doing work with their computers, or who use it for browsing, facebook, and so on, 16:9 is a worse choice than 16:10. Call it victory of idiocy over common sense.
For computer users doing work with their computers, or who use it for browsing, facebook, and so on, 16:9 is a worse choice than 16:10. Call it victory of idiocy over common sense.
So companies make the same panels that can both be used as a computer and TV? What differenate the two? An extra TV tuner?
I used to think the differences in pricing of each screen ratio was influenced by how many LCD wafers could be cut from a single silicon die - so some screen shapes allowed the manufacturer to cut more monitor screens with less wastage.
Actually it doesnt work like that at all.
Was a nice thought anyway.
Actually it doesnt work like that at all.
Was a nice thought anyway.
These days, is it still better to buy a computer monitor than a large TV screen?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
This almost entirely answers the question.
Contrary to countless arguments made in justifying Apple pricing decisions, price still tends to rule the world's computer-buying behaviors.
Lots of posts in this thread wanting other aspect ratios right up until we would see the price of those screens. Then, most would react in shock and lose interest.
One problem with using TVs as monitors is that you would be hard pressed to find a native 1440 TV, let alone a native 1600. So first, your only choice is going to be 1080P or 4K. And while a 4K TV will do 1440, it is inferior to a native 1440 panel. We can argue this, but to my vision, it is clearly best to operate at a native resolution.
Using a 4K TV as a monitor has it's own set of problems as you have to make sure that it is capable of 60Hz at 4:4:4 Chroma Subsampling which would require HDMI 2.0. They are out there, but that increases the cost. Using Display Port is much better than HDMI, but few TV's have Display Port. If you are using a TV with a Mac, this is a particularly problematic issue as Apple's implementation of HDMI is limited to 30Hz. You could use an active Display Port to HDMI 2.0 adapter/cable, but again you are adding cost and hassle.
A second point, is that monitors are designed to be used with a computer, while TVs can be used. For example, if my computer goes to sleep, both a monitor and a TV will eventually shut off. When I wake my computer, the monitor wakes as well, but the TV has to be turned on. There are many other ways that TVs are not tailored to use with a computer.
Having said that, I have used TVs over the years for monitors, both 1080 and 4K. And I was relatively happy, but I finally bought a Dell 4K monitor and the experience is far, far superior to using a TV.