What's the benefit of 16:9 on a 20-inch monitor?
(Credit:
CBS Interactive)
I have a question: is having a 16:9 aspect ratio monitor (as opposed to 16:10) really all that beneficial? The answer is, "It depends."
If we're talking strictly about resolution benefits, the specific size of the screen matters greatly. For example, a 16:9, 21.5-inch monitor has a native resolution of 1920x1080, whereas a 16:10, 22-incher tops out at 1680x1050. That's an extra 309,600 pixels you'd have at your disposal on the 21.5-incher. Gaming, movies, Photoshop--virtually all apps would benefit from more pixels. Yes, even porn. Or so I hear...ahem.
On the flip side, a 16:9, 24-incher's max resolution is 1920x1080; however, a 16:10, 24-inch monitor has a higher native resolution of 1920x1200. To complicate matters a bit, Dell's smaller, 16:9 SP2309W is a 23-inch display with a 2048x1152 resolution.
So, clearly, for certain screen sizes there are resolution benefits to 16:9. Also, with a monitor capable of 1080p (1920x1080) resolution, you'll get to watch 1080p, high-definition content without it getting stretched or shrunk to fit the screen.
So that long-winded setup brings me to the HP 2009m: a 20-inch, 16:9 monitor with a maximum resolution of 1600x900. As a rule, 16:10 monitors at 20 inches have a max resolution of 1680x1050. So with a monitor this small, what's the real benefit in going to 16:9? Sure, high-def content (1080 and 720p) will fit better, but will there really be a huge difference in quality and in the experience you have?
Now, I just got the HP 2009m in this week and, while it's definitely pleasing to the eye, it doesn't boast many improvements over the HP w2007 we reviewed a couple years back--unless you consider 16:9 on a 20-inch monitor an improvement, since the w2007 had a 16:10 aspect ratio and 1680x1050 resolution. On HP's site, the newer 2009m costs $20 more. Are we really expected to pay $20 more (yes, a small difference, but still) for a lower-resolution monitor?
OK. Now, to be fair, I haven't tested the monitor yet. There could be many hidden benefits I'm not yet privy to--performance and power consumption being chief among the possibilities. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for any of those boons when I review the monitor in a couple of weeks. For now, check out the slideshow.
Eric Franklin refused to write a bio, saying, "Why are you bothering me about this bio business again? If I wanted people to know more about me, I'd send them to the Inside CNET Labs Podcast" (shameless plug). E-mail Eric.
Eric Franklin's colleagues once had the following to say to him: "Eric, you've been doing this performance testing thing for over 10 years now. How about you try something different?" To which Eric responded, "How about you shut the #%$@! up?" This candid attitude
allows him to go toe-to-toe with the most extreme of personalities, including that of Dong Ngo. This bio was written by Eric Franklin.
Dong Ngo is a knowledgeable, opinionated individual who wants to convince the world that he's just a normal person; but he hasn't had much success. According to him, this is because the world itself is abnormal. Dong loves traveling and is well-versed in several languages. He, unfortunately, is not so well-versed in English. Still, it's best to ask him questions. From networking and how to optimize your system, to turning a strange place into home or what the meaning of life is…most of the time, he has the answers. The question is: Will he make himself understood? Subscribe and find out!
[CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
Way to overexaggerate and take things to the extreme. Tool.
None. At all.
Seriously, 16:9 is horrible. 16:10 is far better.
Honestly, the only "advantage" I can see in 16:9 is in movies. As if that is the only thing that I do on my PC.
16:10 was developed as a compromise between 16:9 widescreen (too extreme) and doing actual PC tasks like word processing. And frankly, that is exactly how I like it.
Besides, the "advantage" that I mentioned is actually nonexistent to begin with, as 16:10 displays are able to do 16:9, but not the other way around.
-
by LightningCat315
October 13, 2009 5:58 PM PDT
- Well I can say one thing from experience about the HP 2009m monitor, its audio is mind blowing and if you have Windows Vista and switch the audio to 24-bit audio its even more amazing!And if the tower (hard drive) has NVIDIA and has a NVIDIA graphics processor and GeForce graphics card its a treat for the eyes (and thats also speaking from experience) and if you switch it to the 16:9 recommended pixelization and you updated your monitor driver from a Generic PnP monitor to the HP 2009m Wide Series HD LCD monitor, its even more mind blowing!And back to its audio, it has a 5.1 Digital Dolby HD Surrond Sound speakers that blast at the rate of a true 5.1 Digital Dolby HD Home Theatre Surrond Sound quaility!And when recording if you have Windows Vista set it to studio recording quailty its awesome the recording output quaility when you hear it is beyond insane because it rules so much.
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
(7 Comments)