16:9 vs 16:10??

16:9 vs 16:10??

16:10

Monitors aren't smartphones and watermarks, pop up controls titles and other crap gets moved to the letterbox when you do watch 16:9 content on it.

...

16:9 for gaymen/movies
16:10 for everything else

16:9
whoever says 16:10 is a dumb novidia shill

You can see more stuff in that game with 16:9. That's a good thing in most games. It's nice to see wider on the sides if you turn quickly a lot, like in FPS games.

what if you aren't using the display for games though

32:9, of course.

16:12

Do they have those in 144hz ips?

Two 4:3 monitors like God intended.

This was such a great game

It is 144hz, not sure about the IPS, though. I think it's VA?

The rule of thumb is if you dont know you can bet its a tn.

Ah, just double checked, it's VA. It's also one of the only Freesync 2 monitors on the market right now, so that's neat.

I like how this goes so far to the sides but it's maybe a little short. It should be like half the height more than it is now, to cover your vision nicely. Too tall and it gets uncomfortable, you don't want to check your UI's stats from way over your head. Just a little more.

16:9
If you use something advertised as 16:10, you're a brainlet who can't into math. It's literally just as bad as branding for gamers. Only buy it if it is advertised as 8:5.
3:4 is objectively the best

playing FPS in 16:9 hurts my brain for some reason

i always wondered why r*dditors and people on /csgog/ (r.i.p) copied CS pros using letterboxed/stretched 1024x768~1280x960 but it really does feel a lot more comfortable, could never go back now

>tfw 16:10 that can be adjusted to 16:9 master race.

21:9

This has a lower res than 4k displays and 1440p Ultrawides. That dpi must be nauseous.

shit I liked that game so much

16:10 is better but is hard to find and costs retarded prices. So take 16:9.

>that wiremanagement

Is Freesync 2 finally as good as G Sync?

It's come a very long way. I'd wager that it's probably roughly on par with G-SYNC now, especially given that Freesync 2 is meant to be sort of a standardization that ensures the monitors using it possess a certain set of qualities (such as support for LFC), meaning it won't suffer from the wide variety of implementations that Freesync did.

I'm sick of seeing this question when the answer is obvious to any techie over the age of fucking 12.
The original aspect ratio was 4:3
The generally accepted max res before things went widescreen was 1600X1200
You add on the sides and what do you get? 1920X1200
If you're using 1920X1080 all your fonts are being stretched vertically.
The only reason 1920X1080 exists is because of companies wanting to use the TV standard so they can repurpose small TVs as inferior build monitors and save shekels.
Similarly 1080 only became a res for games because of lazy console ports using the TV res again rather than being properly adapted for pc.

I just got a 40 inch 4K monitor and can use whatever resolution window I want.

16:10 better for work. 16:9 better for multimedia.

FUck yes, trackmania