Ona 16:10 display, you are at a *disadvantage*, as the game is cutting off the edges of the screen to fit the taller 16:10 aspect ratio. Think of any aspect ratio taller than 16:9 (the standard) as being zoomed in to fill the fixed vertical height, cutting off the edges. The formula for calculating FOV is the fixed vertical height represented 169 will have better support for games, and I'll take letterboxing on 21:9 videos on a 16:9 screen over pillarboxing on 16:9 videos on a 21:9 screen any day. The 24" will get you a lot more actual screen space due to the less "efficient" aspect ratio of a 21:9. A 25" 21:9 would be like a 19" monitor for 16:9 content. 1 HI I'm going to buy new 1080p monitor which will be focused on gaming and video editing. i'd prefer to have 120hz or 144hz monitor, but which is better 169 is the native aspect ratio of most high-definition widescreen LCD monitors and TV’s (16:9 and 16:10 are very similar). It is 78% wider than it is tall, and fully one-third wider than a 4:3 screen. 16:9 widescreen monitors are ideally suited to display HD video signals. Some models can also display SD (standard definition) video signals Iam in the same boat as you, used a 34” 21:9 for 3 years, got back to 27” 16:9 recently and i feel it is better for me, i can be more productive and gaming feels better as well. I agree, this will vary between one person to another, all about preference, habit and your work flow. I’m p6qxlz. 1610 is the superior aspect ratio, been using it for almost 2 decades and I never had any issue with any game. 16:9 is for movie theaters. The movie industry hijacked the display production and also 16:9 is smaller so more panels could be produced, but it is objectively worse from the distance you look at it. Thepicture above also hints that the 18-inch displays on these laptops are 16:10 formats, while most 17-inch models come in 16:9 formats (with only a few exceptions). Regardless, the larger size of these 18-inch computers is primarily a result of the 18-inch 16:10 display being larger than the 17-inch displays, notably taller and a few mm Thetypical definition of ultrawide varied over the years, but more recently, it has settled on one single aspect ratio: 21:9. It's considerably wider than 16:9 and lets you see more when you play games. However, a new ultrawide ratio has emerged: 32:9. Blackbars on videos are also minimal on 16:10. 16:9 does not offer enough vertical space, though it is slightly better for videos. 3:2 is best for documents, but could be a little bit wider. All of this mostly applies to small screens though. The advantages and disadvantages are not as pronounced for bigger screens. ieure. 1610 is a better choice if you work on a lot of documents (it can scale two letter format pages side by side) and 16:9 is the best choice for entertainment (movies and games) As for my original statement, three 4:3 monitors on their side (flipped in portrait mode) would give a 9:4 ratio which would be awesome for vehicle games (racing, flight

16 9 vs 16 10 gaming