Displays 16:10 vs 16:9 Monitor

Hey, so I am about to buy a new monitor, and having never owned one with a high resolution before, I was wondering which of the 16:10 (1920x1200) vs 16:9 (1920x1080) resolution is best suited for the following needs? (Factor out cost, assume SandyBridge i5 and 560GTX)
At the moment I am debating a 22 inch monitor vs 24 inch monitor.

Needs:
Gaming
Multimedia (Films, Youtube)

I do not mind the black bars when watching MOVIES, and I want the resolution that best supports games (i.e. out of the two which is most supported for games brand new and very old?)

I have looked around before posting, but views are mixed, 120 extra pixels versus cons such as pixels overlapping in games, more support for 16:9, etc... I frankly don't mind the extra pixels, but want the resolution best suited for games new and old, and general computing use.

 

What you will find is that 16:10 monitors command a very substantial price premium. Looking at your needs, you should probably just stick with 1080p.

 

I have a 16:10, and I far prefer it over other 16:9 screens.
Mine cost £120 (24") and I'm very pleased with it

 

Where did you get a £120 1920x1200 monitor?

 

Was on amazon last year at some point, it's not a 'good' model at all, an AOC 416V

 

I have a Benq G2220HD at 1920x1080 (16:9) and its perfect. Technically its 21.5", but its marketed as 22". Awesome for £100 delivered.

 

i bought a PVA 2nd hand 16:10 24inch for £140. that's probably a second hand TN for £120.

for those needs, i think a 1920x1080 will be enough. it's only when you get into programming, photo edition and other productive work, that you will require the extra vertical space.

 

16:10 is much better for work, but for gaming and movies a 1920x1800 monitor is fine.

 

wuyanxu, if you're referring to me, it wasn't 2nd hand, was new.

 

Given a choice between better picture quality and a bit of extra height, I'd go with the picture quality. If you can get the best of both worlds then go for it.

The larger resolution has 11% more pixels so you can expect a similar hit on the graphics card when playing games.

If you sit close to your monitor then DPI might be more important for a crisper image, the smaller monitor is likely to have it's pixels closer together. On the other hand if you sit further away for say watching films then the larger one might be the better choice.

 

Lol no i think he mean that he bought it 2nd hand, meaning it wasn't new FOR HIM.

 

He said he bought a 2nd hand panel, and then commented on a panel for 120 being a 2nd hand TN panel, which i thought he was referring to mine?
It is a TN panel, but was new, and I haven't looked back since

 

i was referring to you, how did you get a 16:10 so cheaply? where?

 

I think he mentioned in his earlier post from Amazon, a deal at the time, but also claimed it wasn't a good model.

 

As far as I remember:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/AOC-416V-in...1_1?ie=UTF8&s=computers&qid=1298129771&sr=8-1
But it was priced at 120/130 or so.
And yeah, some would rather pay for a smaller, higher quality screen, but I've only ever had low end screens, never been disappointed, and so was over the moon with it

 

Sounds like you timed it well! Well done!!

 

I prefer 16:10 but I have deep pockets and short arms, so If I ever get a new monitor (currently have a cheapie 25.5" acer that does alright) , its going to be 16:9

 

So as to gaming wise, there is no difference?

In that both resolutions are supported through most games, and difference of the 120 pixels of course, but nothing else?
I mean I've heard some games don't support 16:10 or 16:9, how a one pixel can be stretched over a 16:10 resolution, etc.?

 

Get a 27" 2560x1440 16:9 monitor. The best of both worlds.

 

The vast majority of PC games will support the 16:10 resolution, but if a game doesn't then either you can play with black bars or stretch the picture to fit the taller monitor (tends to look distorted).