4:3 or 16:9 ?

I bought a new computer that is coming in a week, and i'm gonna buy a new screen soon.
So i was wondering if i better buy a 4:3 or a 16:9 monitor for GW to work as good as it can

any suggestions?

atm i am looking at this: L222WS

i'm pretty partial to 16:10 myself.

I'd go for the widescreen monitor, 1400x900 and upward. I'm using a pair of 22" samsung lcd, GW looks really pretty and you can see more stuff going on as well.

Most PC monitors come in 16:10 if they are widescreen... don't know if there are any 16:9 ones out there. But yeah, as far as PC monitors go, 16:10 ratio is standard for widescreen. Either 1440x900, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 resolution (The latter is like HD quality)

But beware: the higher the resolution, the more stress it will put on your PC. While GW won't be a problem, newer games will probably have to be played in a lower res if the PC isn't strong enough.

That said, I'd go for the widescreen monitor. I got a 22" myself with a res of 1680x1050, and I'm very pleased with it.

Eeeww 4:3 is so last century.

Basically, if you play GW in widescreen (16:9, 16:10) it's much better than 4:3 - it's like having the 4:3 with extra space on the sides for your compass, U map, party box, etc.
Once you go widescreen you'll never go back.

Yeah I agree with Quaker - widescreen pawns it's predecessors like Lindsey Lohan vs a six pack.

*ok stupid joke - but you get my point*

Unanimous, then - 16:10 it is. 20-22" at 1680x1050 or 24" up at 1920x1200.

Buy a wide screen. I don't even see the point in buying non wide screen anymore.

Go with a 22 inch or higher, promise you won't regret it. Like the others said, you won't ever want to go back. It's so much more room in games and makes things feel less cluttered with menus.

And of course, 16:10.

Make sure your current GPU can support the resolution of the monitor you are looking at. By support of course, I mean play your favorite games at very reasonable settings with a steady and decent FPS (30+). If that is going to be an issue, you may want to upgrade your GPU as well.

What is the price range you are looking at?

And can you post the specs of your PC?

CORSAIR TX 750W Ultra-quiet 4Pci-e 8sata 20-24pin

INTEL Q9400 Quad-Core2

SAPPHIRE HD4870 512M GDDR5 PCI-E DUAL DVI-I / TVO

OCZ DDR3(1600MHz)4GB(2x2GB)Gold series

ASUS P5Q3 DELUXE-WIFI P45 4DDR3 3xPCI-E CF 2xGlan

180-200 € so 250-280 USD

The 24" 1920x1200 option is what I'm looking at myself in a few months...that is of course, assuming that prices have dropped a bit.

The perhaps most important component for gaming, the graphics card, is missing in that list. If you're going to use the integrated graphics you will probably not be able to run 3D games at the native resolution of a large monitors. It is possible to run at lower res, but that will degrade graphics quality.

Nope. SAPPHIRE HD4870 512M.

There's two ways to look at widescreen:
a) it's a 4:3 screen with extra at the sides
b) it's a 4:3 screen with the top and bottom removed
So really, whether you consider widescreen to be better/worse than 4:3 is a matter of personal perspective and/or how influenced you are by fashion.

Having said that, if you watch TV or movies on your PC then widescreen has a benefit. Similarly, some games (but not all) benefit from a wider horizontal field of view, than a higher vertical field of view. But if you use your PC for office-type stuff like word processing, spreadsheets, reading "wordy" websites etc then 4:3 is generally more comfortable for reading and working.

The majority of PC's are used for business, not for games or movies... and widescreen has no real benefit there. They started making widescreen monitors because they are cheaper to manufacture, not because of any particular advantage or benefit to the majority of PC users.

Haha, crap, I read it as a 512GB HD!

Yeah, that graphics card will push GW, and most other present games, quite easily even at high resolutions.

I can second this. It's a bit more straining if you are typing or reading text on a 16:10 widescreen. Just like watching a tennis game. >> << >>

Yet GuildWars plays so much better on widescreen

Note also, monitor sizes refer to the diagonal of the screen. Do the maths and you'll see:
A 22" widescreen monitor has barely more actual area, than a 20" 4:3 monitor.
To put it another way, a 22" 4:3 monitor has significantly more screen area than a 22" widescreen.

I bet marketing guys love this... Widescreen makes less, sound like more.

16:10 is all the way now. Try playing Assassin's Creed in 4:3 :/

And for GW, more space = win. For any MMO.

EDIT: - Summary - an entire 1280x1024 17" monitor's screen can fit onto a 22" widescreen's desktop and leave room to spare.

That is only true from a theoretical standpoint. The truth of the matter is that, because of the actual pixels in the screen, the 16:9(10) is actually a 4:3 with extra on the sides. For example, the screen on my Gateway 16:10 (can't remember if it's 20.1" or 22") is the same physical height as my Samsung 17". The Samsung is 1280x1024, the Gateway is 1680x1050 - approxiamately the same pixel height. That gives them about the same pixels/inch both vertically and horizontally. Given equivalent font pixel sizes and jpg/picture resolutions, the widescreen displays more horizontally, not less vertically.

This may be true. For none game applications, people do tend to like things to be in more of a 4:3 aspect ratio. So, people tend to use roughly 4:3 ratio windows for their apps. On a 17" 4:3 monitor these windows tend to be full screen or close to it. On a 22" 16:9(or 10) monitor, you can have a full 1280x1024 4:3 window on your desktop, with the same font size, viewing distance, etc., as the 17", and still have room for other things, such as calculator, sidebar(Vista), contact list, etc., without switching windows.

Also note that many widescreen monitors (such as my Gateway) can be tilted sideways so that they are taller rather than wider. This allows you to view an entire 8.5x11 sheet of paper full size - many people doing text editing just love that.

Whether or not most PCs are used for business is arguable, but even so, and in spite of your own personal preference, the majority of new business computers are equipped with widescreen monitors simply because of the expanded screen real estate.
Widescreen monitors are not cheaper to make - how can you even make such a ludicrous statement when widescreen monitors cost more than 4:3 (I know, all the LCD manufacturers and retailers are in collusion.) They started making widescreen monitors because people wanted them.

EDIT - this may not be entirely accurate any more, but up until widescreen monitors began to outsell 4:3's, widescreens were significantly more expensive - to make and to buy. Now, widescreens are benefiting from economies of scale. It's the same as when LCDs replaced CRTs.

Actually, human sight is more horizontally aligned than vertical - your field of vision is a lot wider than it is high. Widescreen monitors/televisions more closely match our natural vision parameters. And, therefore, when people choose the size of a monitor, the vertical height in relation to their viewing distance is more a limiting factor than the width.

Unfortunately, monitors don't just go by "actual area" - it's the number of pixels and the area they cover, that matters. For example, a 19" LCD monitor has more "actual area" than a 17" LCD monitor, but they both (normally) have the same number of pixels - 1280x1024 - so the 19" doesn't display any "more", it just displays bigger, which can be of benefit depending upon viewing distance etc.
Also, as I pointed out above, a 19" 4:3 monitor (don't recall seeing 20") may have more "screen area" than a 22" 16:9, but it has a lot fewer pixels. (1280x1024 vs 1680x1050).

EDIT: - btw, this also involves equivalent font sizes. Obviously you can put more text into smaller pixels, but there is a normal font size and viewing distance that individuals prefer. So for example, if a person was using two 19" monitors and one was at 1280x1024 and the other was 1900x1200, the 1900x1200 would be displaying the same amount of text, just using more pixels per letter.

P.s. - I'm only talking LCD's (or flat panel) here. CRT's have their good points, but their bad points outweigh the good ones by a large margin, for most people (including me.)

For a given screen size and pixel size, a widescreen monitor has less pixels than a 4:3 monitor. Hence cheaper.

Typical 20.1" 4:3 screen is 1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
Typical 22" widescreen is 1680 x 1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

ie. The 20.1" 4:3 screens have 156,000 more pixels than the 22" widescreens.

Please do a little research before your next rant, TY.

Wide screen is more appealing to me since I have wide vision^^

Wide screen for gaming, video/image editing, and video; 4:3 for applications.

thank you all for helping me in chosing the new monitor, finally i decided for this one:

http://www.asus.it/products.aspx?l1=...&m odelmenu=1

unfortunately enough my new computer has not arrived yet, and my graphic card do not support the native 1680 x 1050 resolution...
everything is foggy and ...s t r e t c h e d...i swear this is quite frustrating^^

ffs :P

Please read my entire post before your next reply. A 20.1" 4:3 screen does not have the same pixels per inch as a 22" widescreen. You wouldn't replace a 20" 4:3 with a 22: 16:9 - you use a 24" 16:9. Again, let me point out I was comparing monitors of equivalent height, and pixels per inch, & relative font sizes, etc, etc.

At any rate, it comes down to the simple fact that there is no "usability" advantage to a 4:3 monitor. Other than price, there would be no reason to specifically want a 4:3 monitor for any purpose, mainly because of the vertical field of vision limitations coupled with increased screen real estate relative to height.

I can assure you that the HD4870 will support the 1680x1050 resolution just fine.
You didn't say what your current video card is, but, of course, many older cards don't support widescreen resolutions. But, did you try running any "driver" that may have come with the monitor? Or look on ASUS's site for one?

Widescreen is vastly superior in all ways Hissy. 4:3 ratios on movies require pan and scan, which condenses the picture. Or, it also works another way... They can just cut the sides of the picture which makes you lose sections of the movie.

The human field of vision is enormous in a horizontal plane. Vertically, not so much. This isn't because of our eye per say, but more because of our eye socket restricting vertical viewing area when compared to horizontal.

In addition, Quaker's above post is correct. You must compare a 4:3 monitor with equivalent pixel ratios. Size cannot factor in exactly, because monitors are always measures diagonally.

Dell and probably a few other companies are making true HD panels (1920x1080 res).
That's the ideal res for a 30" or less panel imo and no wasted pixels to push.
I currently have a few 20-22" widescreens (16:10) from dell and samsung, but my next monitor will be 24" - 30" 16:9 panel. Hopefully they'll make an S-IPS version instead of TN, but that's a whole nother can of worms.

Ummm, I would much rather have a 24" 1920x1200 (which I currently have from Samsung) then a 1920x1080 24". The higher the resolution is in a game, the better!

Have you played on a true 16:9 panel?

There's a reason why movies are made in 16:9 and has to with the way our eyes work. Pixel-wise both are very close, but over all shape is better on the Dell. I am looking at a decent Samsung 21.5" 16:10 (1680x1050) panel and I can see out around the sides a bit. If I move it closer, I can't see top to bottom as well. As far as resolution goes, more is better, but higher res = needing more power to push it. Even 60" HD panels (same amount, but much bigger sized pixels) look great if you sit the right distance away. And depending on how far you sit from the screen, and good your eyes are, you don't need more than true 1080 for monitors under 30" unless you are doing autocad or some graphically intense work imo.

Of course you'd want a 16:9 panel for 1080p movies because they're... 1080p. 16:10 for games won't make me QQ since the game will support a 16:10 res'.

The statement on 4:3 is true. I am browsing Guru at the moment with my window shaped in a 4:3 kind of way. I know that Guru can stretch but I get irritated at reading things in 16:10... way too horizontally long.

integrated

so no chance at all

Yes, on a 40" and 70", the 40" being my Samsung that exploded. and the 70" being my Sony which I no longer have... I haven't bothered to connect my PC to my new Samsung 52".

Movies are actually not filmed in 16:9. They are filmed in 2.35:1, and digitally adjusted to 16:9 for current widescreen TVs. OLED technology will update for dynamic adjustment of widescreen. Oh, I can't wait.

And 16:9 monitors are ok I guess... but 16:10 is superior for the price, considering they are putting a premium on the 16:9 monitors because of lower production numbers. Supply and demand baby!

here in Italy 16:9 are way easyer to find than 16:10 so prices are just the same

There seems to be some confusion going on here. 1680x1050 is 16:10 - so is 1920x1200 - do the math. Most computer monitors are 16:10 for some reason. It's usually only when you get to larger sizes (32"+) that are meant to be part of an "entertaiment system" that you get into true 16:9 (1920x1080 usually).
Of course, this is subject to change without notice (or reason)

fyi, 16:9 is the aspect ratio of the present and the future. 4:3 is the aspect ratio of the past.

There are many other aspect ratios... 5:3, 1.85, 2.35:1 to name just a few. 16:9 is a compromise between 4:3 (TV) and 2.35:1 (the widest cinema screen). It's been in development for many years with a premature push into the consumer market around 1995 or 1996 (I forget exactly when).

Consequently, 16:9 is the base aspect ratio that post production houses use now to create masters of television and film content for release in ancillary markets. From that 16:9 master, submasters with other aspect ratios still in use, such as 4:3, are created.

4:3, however, is now antiquated and increasingly more content is being broadcast in 16:9. You can see that if you're still using a 4:3 box and see a lot of letter boxing on your content.

Useless information since 4:3 is antiquated technology (just like 1080i is). And I don't believe the number of pixels has anything to do with price. Supply and demand does, and there's no demand for 4:3 any more.

Actually, it depends on how a given app has been written to handle widescreen. Some add horizontal data they wouldn't display on a 4::3 screen; some chop off vertical data that they would display on a 4::3 screen; and some do something different altogether

Here is a detailed listing of how a lot of games implement widescreen support, courtesy of widescreengamingforum.com.

In the case of GW, a hybrid method is used that both removes some vertical data and adds some horizontal data. Here's the full write up. And here's a picture showing what you gain and what you lose: