Is 1920x1200 really so much better than 1920x1080?
1920x1080 is for console peasants and normies.
>>54499197
No.
The difference is miniscule and you end up scrolling anyway when you get near the bottom of a 16:10 screen.
Yes, the difference is insanely apparent when you're switching between using x1080 and x1200 monitors.
Though overall monitor quality takes precedence.
>>54499197
Yes.
>>54499197
You get around 1920x120 more.
>>54499197
Comparing these two resolutions, yes it is.
>>54499285
>>>/r/pcmasterrace
>>54499292
maybe if you got add
>>54499197
Even 1680x1050 is better than 1920x1080
>>54499197
It's much better for portrait monitors, as it won't be as narrow.
yes
fuck people ditching 16:10
>>54499673
So it's kind of like having 2 monitors then?
resolution doesn't matter too much past 1080p, but 16:10 is loads better than 16:9
No because it makes monitors more expensive to produce don't you want affordable hd monitors?
>>54499933
I want monitors with a decent aspect ratio.
>>54499946
So 1920x1280 then?
>>54499961
1920x1920 would be better
>16:10
>can't watch 1080p video fullscreen with black borders or stretched images
>>54499976
Then 1920x2880 is even better, and you can still flip it to get a 2880x1920 3:2 display if you want.
>>54499961
That's a resolution
>>54499976
So is that.
1:1 is great for phones but for desktops 5:4 and 4:3 are best. 16:10 is acceptable
>>54500040
>That's a resolution
And you can easily calculate the aspect ratio from that specific resolution.
>>54500095
Then you should have.
>>54500004
16:10's a great aspect ratio for media. Better than 16:9 for watching 4:3 content and better than 4:3 for watching 16:9 content.
>>54499197
Yes, especially on laptops.
>>54500004
>black borders
not all "1080p" vids are actually 1080 high. most are less.
>>54499825
fucking how
>>54501074
16:10 > 16:9
>>54500149
Good Game Well Played
>>54499825
> fewer pixels in all directions
> better
>>54501351
lower pixel density > shittier aspect ratio
>>54499197
It's 120px better
>>54500186
This
I dig the black bars too for 16:9 videos, makes things more cinematic and shit
It's better, but 16:10 panels aren't worth the extra cost.
Also 5k screens only come in 16:9
Yes. Especially on tablets, where 16:9 is too unbalanced.
>>54499197
2560x1440 is better than 1920x1200 and cheaper
>>54501401
Pretty sure a 1080p phone has a higher pixel density than a 15" 1680x1050 laptop. Resolution and pixel density are only related in the context of screen size. If you don't know the size of the screen then you can't know the pixel density, regardless of resolution.
>>54499197
as some one who went from a 1920x1200 60hz display to a 1920x1080 144hz pwm backlit free display, losing the extra 120 pixels was worth it.
its not that much of a noticeable difference.
>>54503041
>Pretty sure a 1080p phone has a higher pixel density than a 15" 1680x1050 laptop. Resolution and pixel density are only related in the context of screen size
No fucking shit. A 20" 1920x1080 monitor has a higher pixel density than a 20" 1680x1050 monitor. My point is that I'd still go for the latter.
>>54503127
I gave you the benefit of doubt but I guess you really are just that retarded. It's one thing to get 16:10 when the resolution is greater, but getting it for the sake of having 16:10 is pointless and stupid.
>>54499197
For tablets maybe. Enjoy paying more for ultra rare 16:10 screens
>>54503196
Using a 16:9 monitor honestly pisses me off. There's so much horizontal space that I have absolutely no fucking use for, I'd rather it not be there and the resolution be slightly lower.
>>54503196
getting a 1080p phone is retarded. That shit is scaled to like the equivalent of 800x480, even on the big screens. If you're holding your phone 6 inches from your face so you can see the pixel lines you're doing it wrong.
Or are you one of those people that thinks a display with everything this size is super useful?
>>54503392
You're talking about the relationship between resolution pixel density without giving a screen size.
1080p on a 5 inch phone? Fairly useless.
1080p on a 6 inch phone? Pretty much a necessity. 720p simply doesn't cut it at that screen size.
>>54503425
>You're talking about the relationship between resolution pixel density without giving a screen size.
Because he's saying that at any phone size it's useless. And he's right.
>>54503457
Note 2 is blurry shit. Note 3 is crisp. Both use pentile so that isn't an excuse.
more LOC
>>54503036
2560x1600 30 inch screens are the best. I got mine used. Most high end business monitors are 16:10, and if you look around you can get them for a good price.
Even my phone is better than 1080p
I can't fathom being stuck with 1080p or worse.
I still see people post desktops of 1366x768, lol
>>54503692
They'll understand once they see their first high PPI monitor.
>>54503692
>Even my phone is better than 1080p
Holy fucking gimmick
>>54499811
>implying you read to the last visible line on screen before scrolling
quality shitpost
>>54500004
Team 16:10 mustard race here. Counterpoint: can watch 1080p and have control bar and/or taskbar on bottom of screen that doesn't obscure the video.
>>54499330
Klipsch is bad?
>>54503754
I'd be glad if I got a 5k monitor, but don't you have integrated graphics pushing it lol?
>>54503836
non-qualityfags just don't understand
>>54503871
>can watch 1080p and have control bar and/or taskbar on bottom of screen that doesn't obscure the video.
THIS.
No need to set your taskbar, menu bar, panels etc to "auto-hide" when you have that extra vertical space made just for them
16:9 is for TVs
16:10 is for PCs.
>>54503884
My laptop has Klipsch speakers and they're not bad but also not notably awesome. Even have an actual sound card not just onboard sound.
it's worse for gayming better for stuff that matters
>>54503886
5k iMacs come standard with a dedicated AMD GPU. 4k iMacs have integrated graphics however.
Wait until displayport can handle 5k resolutions on a single connection.
>>54503886
>non-qualityfags just don't understand
Anything over 720x1280 is nothing but a waste of battery.
800x600
>>54503917
18 hours screen on time with still 54 percent battery left.
Like I said, people that don't buy quality products just don't understand because they're only used to garbage.
>>54503984
>18 hours screen on time with still 54 percent battery left.
And it would be even longer without a gimmick-tier display.
>>54504004
It's not a gimmick, I look at my previous phone (720p 4.7 inch) and I can see all the fucking pixels and it's awful.
Same for 1080p like on my mom's iTurd 6s+, but obviously it's a little better.
My display is ok but my next phone will be 4k for sure
>>54499197
You can portrait mount it and still have a decent width. That being said, 16:10 monitors simply aren't manufactured to modern standards anymore (144fps, 4K etc) and you're missing out on a lot by sticking by this resolution.
Speaking of resolutions why does my monitor support virtual resolutions? Seriously 1440p on a 1080p screen is pointless
>>54504109
Does it pan or does it downscale?
If it downscales that's a nice thing because you can get free(at the expense of rendering at a higher resolution) antialiasing in vidya.
>>54504142
Whats pan? It still fits the screen if thats what you mean but it doesn't look that sharp, it just looks like when you open a png at 50percent with no filter
>>54499825
The only advantage is that they are cheaper. I have dual 1050s and love it.
16:10 Dell masterrace reporting in
Shits good, I was thinking of getting a 21:9 monitor next
>>54504315
Which one(s) do you have. I have 2 E228wfp (one is an E228wfpc but i cant find documentation for the difference but i think that its color calibrated better because the non c is really damn green.)
>>54504392
3x Dell WFP2709's
Are there black bars when watching anime on a 16:10 resolution?
>>54504406
Of course.
>>54504402
Those look nice. Seem to cost on average 5x what mine cost though so thats something. I do want to get a giant (27"-30") at some point though.
>>54504433
Lol wow. They're still worth $300 aud. I bought mine 3 years ago for $200 aud each from a liquidating office.
>>54503884
Fuck their stupid cable noise. Those $60 have good audio but the fucking cable noise.
The build quality is also ass. I went through like 3 of their $60 through warranty and now the left bud doesn't work. My brother got the x10 for $120 and those broke too
>>54499197
It's about 120 better
>>54503884
Klipsch IEMs are fucking terrible, at least the ones I have (S4)
>>54504188
The advantage is the aspect ratio.
>>54504185
>point sampling
lmao, your firmware is indeed fucking garbage. Just kill it with fire
>>54503871
tfw when 16:10 and switched to a 4k tv/monitor, this 55 inch 16:9 is pretty good. I would pay 30%+ more to get a 16:10 but I think 16:9 is good enough when we get into 4k.
>>54504454
Yeah, e228wfps go for ~$50USD including shipping on the low end of ebay. Its better than my 32" 1366 tv and 17" 1024 with dark spots by a mile at least.
tfw 256:135 on my main monitor, 5:8 on my secondary monitor
>all these pleb aspect ratios in here
1:1 master race
>>54504590
Great for phones, not for much else.
>>54499197
It's good for things like photoshopping, so you can say, edit a 1920x1080 image without any scaling.
>>54504590
Did you really buy one of those NEC monitors?
>>54504655
this is about the only use
>>54504983
moron
>>54504655
What image editor has zero margins on the left and right?
>>54505007
PS and a lot of the adobe software can be configured this way. IIRC it's called immersive mode or fullscreen mode.
>>54504590
Only guy I ever knew who used this was a literally autistic French Canadian teenager with Asperger's to top it off.
>>54500040
>1:1 is great for phones
>>54499197
No. Get WQHD.
>>54505518
Leaves room for a keyboard
i have a bunch of tolove-ru scans that i would like to make a wallpaper without cropping the good bits.
16:10 helps.
>>54505603
Or just go 16:9 use 7 for a virtual keyboard, which is what most phones do
>>54499197
1200p is better than 1080p because it have more pixels and it can display 1080p in 1:1 if you have a decent HDCP compatible monitor, while the 1080p can't.
Also, older games that don't have widescreen support can run at 1600*1200 on the 1200p while the 1080p have to go down to 1280*960.
>>54506094
Yeah but virtual keyboards are ass
Depends what you're using it for.
It's nice to be able to fullscreen a 1080p movie without having to maximize the window, for example.
Or if you have a vertical monitor setup like mine, it's great to have the little extra width for websites to display properly, which they don't always do if you flip a 1080p monitor vertical.
The whole debate between things like 16:10 vs 16:9 for gaming or looking at your desktop is so miniscule I don't really notice it, but for my personal uses, especially on the vertical monitor, I'll buy 16:10 every time, even though it costs me more.
>>54499197
Dunno man, I remember being pretty comfortable with 1280×1024 back in the day.
And I still seek a reasonable use for all that sideways space now (all the fucking narrow as fuck webzones leaving 2/3 of the screen fucking empty FUCK!).
Maybe I'll move me taskbar to the side?
>>54506094
I miss slide out keyboards...
>>54506316
I dont think i ever had a slide out phone. Flip yeah though
>>54501401
End your life
>>54503661
>2560x1600 30 inch screens are the best
Mah nigga.
I'm using an HP ZR30w that my work sold to me after they went with Dells.
>>54503884
I bought their desktop 5.1 system and it failed 3 times while under warranty. Their build quality is garbage.
It's slighty better for Web browsing and other vertically scrolling tasks.
It's worse for movies & media.
Also, if you have your taskbar/dock horizontally, you clearly do understand care about screen space efficientcy and should not care about this issue.
>>54500909
That doesn't mean 16:10 is wasting any less space.
Went the extra mile and got myself a 21:9 monitor
Pretty good for some things, terrible for others
>>54503911
>dedicated AMD GPU
You mean, 2012 Cape Verde chips that AMD rebranded about 4 times and wrote off already.
(Still better than the VLIW5 Evergreen chips they were shipping in laptops after AMD abandoned driver support from then on Windows)
>>54499330
>Physical difference
>Literally more space
>"placebo"
>>54500004
Buy a TV poorfag
oh wait you live with your parents
The extra 120 pixels are worth more than they seem, since there's a lot of fixed wasted space with interfaces and such, so you go from 900 (with luck) usable pixels to 1020.
It's quite noticeable, plus the advantages people have mentioned about 16:9 content + UI. It really does not make sense not to go 16:10, but retarded manufacturers killed it.
>>54504480
I recall liking my S4s, but they've been dead for a few years now.
>>54499197
1920x1200 = for actors
1920x1080 = for spectators
>>54507094
Meh, to me they sound terrible compared to every other device I own (even other IEMs).
It's not a question of price either, even the Koss Porta Pros sound better.
>>54503984
Which phone?
>>54499197
Just another one of those /g/ memes.
You'll get it and try to convince yourself that you needed it, or that it's much better than 1920x1080, but really, you probably won't even pay any mind to the differences it brings.
But hey, at least you can brag about it on /g/.
I have a 1920x1200 and need to uphrade because my viewing angles and color is shit. Who even sells a good 16:10 with high refresh/response time and all the bells and whistles of the 16:9s???
>>54499197
No, just get 1440p if you really need that real estate or 4k. All you are doing with 1200*1920 is giving yourself less space left to right, and up and down. And if you really need all the fucking vertical space possible, get dells new 5k monitor.
>>54499197
The Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display doesn't have this problem.
>>54501401
this has nothing to do with pixel density you down syndrome
>>54507022
That's still a dedicated GPU instead of the integrated GPU on the CPU. What is your point?
This pretty much covers it.
>"my display is 1080p/1440p/2160p..."
>the "p" represents a video format as in progressive video decoding
>it doesn't stand for pixels
>what you should be saying is "my display has a vertical resolution of 1080/1440/2160/etc pixels..."
>if you think saying "well you know what i mean..." is a proper response, you're wrong
>stupid fucking people will be the death of us all
>>54508863
>>the "p" represents a video format as in progressive video decoding
Yes, they are using 1080p to distinguish it from 1080i. What seems to be the problem?
>>54508863
autism at it's finest.
>there are people on /g/ who unironically think that 16:10 isn't obviously superior
/v/ really took over
>>54508854
>Comparing 1680x1050 to 1600x900 when
Why not compare it to 1440x900 then?
Why are you buying shitty laptops with 1600x900 resolutions anyway? Get something with 1080p or better
>>54508905
Even at higher resolutions, the difference remains and especially with laptops, where the screens are always fucking small, you're giving up centimetres of screen space for boarders.
>i check how many times i need to scroll a 4chan thread and make statistics about how it affects my efficiency to shitpost
>>54507105
Best analogy in this thread
Still no such thing as 16:10 144hz with gsync rite?
>>54508487
Dell
>>54503661
2560x1600 x 30in Mustard race reporting in.
It's an ancient panel but still good. (Dell 3007)
>>54508721
Yes it does you retard
>>54509869
That is what I use. I have two of them. The only thing I don't like about them is that they only have one input. For the Windows 7 VM I had to get a dual link DVI KVM switch so that I could switch between the VM and my host OS.
>>54503392
>>>>>>signing a space engine screenshot
>>54507357
lg g4
>>54507053
>Literally more space
Buy a bigger screen.
Dell U2515H or Dell U2415?
>>54499330
Does Horn Loaded even post any more.
1:1 > 5:4 > 4:3 > 16:10 > 16:9 > 21:9
>>54499197
absolutely, it's huge.
in fact, I'm still using a very shitty 10 year old display just because I can't fucking stand 1920x1080.
2560x1600 are stupidly expensive for whatever reason so I guess I'll be going for a 4k display next, even if it is 16:9.
>>54514006
you can get >>54509869
for like 200 dollars on fleabay
