16:10 monitor is the idea size for all purposes. As programs has it's tool bar on top, status bar at the bottom, and usually you have the task bar at the bottom as well. The extra height doesn't make you feel boxed-in with your software (limited work space). 16:9 monitor advantage of that SELECT movies won't have a small black bar at the bottom and at the top. The rest all with, as every movie is film in many different aspects ratio, depending what the director wants. Games won't be affected. It's been countless years since games fully support 16:9, and 16:10 games, without any hacking. It was true back in 2001-2005 as most people still used CRT non-wide screens, but not anymore. You should not see any FPS drop by going from 1920x1080 to 1920x1200, assuming you have a decent Nvidia or ATI graphic solution, which you perfectly do. Heck with that GPU, you should be able to play games at 2560x1440 and even higher no problem (60fps+), if you wanted to (with the right display).
As above. If you do find a game that doesn't support your resolution, just google "nameofgame widescreen" and you're sure to find a fix for it.
16:10 is far superior IMO. When you are reading things, it means less scrolling. When you are viewing non-widescreen stuff, you get a bigger area. If you have a non-widescreen games, it will scale better (as an example, a 1920*1200 screen can also be a 1600*1200 screen with borders). Apart from cost, there is no good reason to give up the extra pixels.
Great thread. I need to choose from dell u2711(2560x1440) v u3011(2560x1600) There afew hundred quid price difference for 160 extra pixels vertically. Difficult to judge as I cant find anywhere that stocks them to go to to see them in real life
I've always hated 16:9 screens. They are OK as long as you are watching movies, but as soon as you want to read something they feel cramped. The reason 1080 screens are so popular is that people recognize the number from the TV industry (where 1080 is decent). The standard made for computers are actually better...
Just to look at other sites to get a mixture of opinion, and I think 16:10 does 'win' the debate, especially after I saw these images. >Another Website< Thanks for the help guys and girls!
The difference between the first and last three images on that site will be exaggerated because the 16:10 shots has the task bar hidden, and the 16:9 has it showing. As for my current choice, its currently 23.6" 1080 (16:9) screen and I couldn't be happier with it. Also, I can't say that I notice any of the issues that people are mentioning about lack of space, although that is probably more to do with moving from a laptop screen.
There is no doubt that 16:10 is technically better than 16:9. The numbers speak for themselves. The only discussion is really whether or not it's worth the price difference. (Unless we look at high-end displays which often only come in a 16:10 flavor) edit: mpe91: Fantastic avatar.
I've added the emphasis to the quote, as it's the crucial factor IMO. I bought the Dell U2410 last month - certainly not one to consider unless you've got a spare £450 to hand. But I bought it because of the resolution - 1920x1200. Some older games I still play don't support widescreen resolutions - C&C Generals being a good example. But it does support 1600x1200 - a resolution the U2410 can handle natively as it has an aspect mode that maintains the correct aspect radio with the necessary black bars on the sides. Some of the older C&C games only go up o 1024x768 but will still fill the same 4:3 part of the screen in aspect mode. I'd say it depends on how old the games are that you want to play and what resolutions they support - personally I prefer to avoid mods that enable extra resolution modes which made the decision easy for me. Blu-Rays look fine with the added black bars - they're not as dark as the bezel but hardly a problem. Depends on your intended use but the reasons I gave for the OP and my own purchase of teh U2410 were 1600x1200 resolution support - the U2711 can comfortably support that so I'd save teh extra cash - 1440 is more than enough vertical pixels IMO for most games and you might be able to save a little on the necessary GPU you would need for 2560x1600.
That's the same way I feel. Save the cash to spend on system but I'm not a upgrader. I'm a buy not and play until it's broken kinda persOn. Plus the monitor should last at least 5 years. Worthy investment ?
as i've said earlier, if you are doing productive work, the 30inch is worth it. otherwise, just get the 27inch, not that much difference in screen real-estate. just FYI, if you want to play 4:3 games, with 2560x1440 monitor, you can use 1920x1440.
I love my 16:10 monitor, it's really nice when editing photos or videos and I don't see a difference in games. The only thing I don't like is the black bars in movies, it's not horrible but you do notice it.
Black bar in games?! I don't have any black bars. You probably not setting your game resolution properly.
prices from scan u2711 is £580 exc VAT u3011 is £999 exc VAT i really cant justify the near doubling in price for 3" more and a hundred odd vertical pixels unless theres something im missing?
I love my 27" (okay, it's an Apple Cinema Display, not a U2711H, but hey, I hate Dell's AG coating), and having owned a 30" in the past, I don't miss it. Yes it's 16:9, but it's huge and the extra vertical space didn't mean much.
