Is 1920x1200 really so much better than 1920x1080?

Is 1920x1200 really so much better than 1920x1080?

1920x1080 is for console peasants and normies.

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.

...

Yes.

You get around 1920x120 more.

Comparing these two resolutions, yes it is.

maybe if you got add

Even 1680x1050 is better than 1920x1080

It's much better for portrait monitors, as it won't be as narrow.

yes
fuck people ditching 16:10

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?

I want monitors with a decent aspect ratio.

So 1920x1280 then?

1920x1920 would be better

>16:10
>can't watch 1080p video fullscreen with black borders or stretched images

Then 1920x2880 is even better, and you can still flip it to get a 2880x1920 3:2 display if you want.

That's a resolution
So is that.

1:1 is great for phones but for desktops 5:4 and 4:3 are best. 16:10 is acceptable

>That's a resolution
And you can easily calculate the aspect ratio from that specific resolution.

Then you should have.

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.

Yes, especially on laptops.

>black borders

not all "1080p" vids are actually 1080 high. most are less.

fucking how

16:10 > 16:9

Good Game Well Played

> fewer pixels in all directions
> better

lower pixel density > shittier aspect ratio

It's 120px better

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.

2560x1440 is better than 1920x1200 and cheaper

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.

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.

>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.

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.

For tablets maybe. Enjoy paying more for ultra rare 16:10 screens

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.

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?

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.

>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.

Note 2 is blurry shit. Note 3 is crisp. Both use pentile so that isn't an excuse.

more LOC

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

They'll understand once they see their first high PPI monitor.

>Even my phone is better than 1080p
Holy fucking gimmick

>implying you read to the last visible line on screen before scrolling
quality shitpost

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.

Klipsch is bad?

I'd be glad if I got a 5k monitor, but don't you have integrated graphics pushing it lol?

non-qualityfags just don't understand

>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.

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

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.

>non-qualityfags just don't understand
Anything over 720x1280 is nothing but a waste of battery.

800x600

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.

>18 hours screen on time with still 54 percent battery left.
And it would be even longer without a gimmick-tier display.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.)

3x Dell WFP2709's

Are there black bars when watching anime on a 16:10 resolution?

Of course.

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.

Lol wow. They're still worth $300 aud. I bought mine 3 years ago for $200 aud each from a liquidating office.

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

It's about 120 better

Klipsch IEMs are fucking terrible, at least the ones I have (S4)

The advantage is the aspect ratio.

>point sampling
lmao, your firmware is indeed fucking garbage. Just kill it with fire

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.

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

Great for phones, not for much else.

It's good for things like photoshopping, so you can say, edit a 1920x1080 image without any scaling.

Did you really buy one of those NEC monitors?

this is about the only use

moron

What image editor has zero margins on the left and right?

PS and a lot of the adobe software can be configured this way. IIRC it's called immersive mode or fullscreen mode.

Only guy I ever knew who used this was a literally autistic French Canadian teenager with Asperger's to top it off.

>1:1 is great for phones

No. Get WQHD.

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.

Or just go 16:9 use 7 for a virtual keyboard, which is what most phones do

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.

Yeah but virtual keyboards are ass