Horizontal/Vertical FOV Calculator This calculator will convert an aspect ratio and horizontal FOV to a vertical FOV, useful for setting your favorite horizontal FOV in a game that uses vertical FOV. You can use either an aspect ratio, or, if you do not know your screen's aspect ratio, you can input your screen's resolution.
Technically speaking, more pixels = better quality. In reality, it enables you to have better quality.so 1200 would offer the ability to have more vertical pixels, which has the ability to give better visual quality - but in the end it depends on the game, and whether it was designed for 16:9 and gives options for fov, etc - otherwise all it will do is stretch the picture for more pixels, which WILL NOT give you better quality.1200 is technically better but 1080 is the standard, which gives benefits of it's own. In most cases there is a simple workaround like black bars to stop it from stretching, so if money isn't the issue and you want to be able to get better quality while understanding you may have to fiddle with some options or even ini files to get all the games you want to work optimally, then 1200 would be the option. Depending on your GPU, your budget, and if you are using the PC only for gaming, you might want to consider a 1600x900 or 1680x1050.
Your GPU might be able to give you a better quality picture on these resolutions than a higher resolution.I would never choose for such a low resolution, because I use my PC for work, productivity, reading PDFs etc. And want more pixels for better screen and font readability and more of an A4 page on the screen at a time.I would go for a 2560x1600 or 2560x1440 and run it at a lower resolution so that my GPU could cope. The monitor would take care of the scaling, so you set your gaming resolution to (say) 1280x800 and get nice fast gameplay.So what's your budget, and do you use your PC just for gaming? I have used 1920.1080 displays for several years and don't care about the 16:9 vs. 16:10 debate. 16:10 monitors are less common these days and are typically more expensive than their 16:9 counterparts.
Many games these days are console port trash so they tend to work great with 16:9 monitors, so that's why I have used them. I currently own a $320 ASUS VG236HE 23' 120Hz monitor and it's the best monitor I have ever owned (even though it is glossy TN panel it seems vastly better than the generic TN monitors everyone gripes about).I still have a 2005 Samsung SyncMaster 940BW at work and while it is 16:10 it's a measly 1440.900 19' monitor and I would easily replace it with a 1080p monitor in a heartbeat. System NameBlack MC in TokyoProcessorRyzen 3 1200MotherboardAsrock B450M-HDVCoolingAMD Wraith StealthMemory2 x 8GB G-skill Aegis 3000 or somesuchVideo Card(s)Asus GTX 760 DCU2OC 2GBStorageKingston A400 240GB WD Blue 1TB x 2Display(s)BenQ GL2450HTCaseSome old AntecAudio Device(s)Line6 UX1 + slightly modded Sony DR-ZX302Power SupplyFractal Design Effekt 400WMouseLogitech G602KeyboardCherry MX-Board 3.0SoftwareWindows 10 ProBenchmark ScoresI once had +100 dorfs in DF, so yeah pretty great. I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10 and 16:1216:9 is more letterbox than 16:10.
But you cannot think of 16:10 as less, cutting off the sides. 16:10 is everything and all 16:9 offers PLUS extra pixels/FoV up and down.
They are both 1920 in the x. One is 1080 in the y, the other 1200. Clearly, one can show MORE than the other.
The gif/flash is faking/falsifying the results by pretending the y is the same but x is less. How disingenuous is that?! Horizontal FoV (measured as an angle) has changed between screenshots! System NameWorking on it;)ProcessorI7-4790K (Stock speeds right now)MotherboardMSI Z97 U3 PlusCoolingBe Quiet Pure Rock AirMemory16GB 4x4 G.Skill CAS9 2133 SniperVideo Card(s)GIGABYTE Vega 64 (Non Reference)StorageSamsung EVO 500GB / 8 Different WDs / QNAP TS-253 8GB NAS with 2x2Tb WD BlackDisplay(s)34' LG 34CB88-P 21:9 Curved UltraWide QHD (3440.1440).FREESYNC.CaseRosewill ChallengerAudio Device(s)Onboard + HD HDMIPower SupplyCorsair HX750 (love it)MouseLogitech G5KeyboardCorsair Strafe RGB & G610 Orion RedSoftwareWin 10 upgraded from Win 7 Pro. That about sums it up.
Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 11.1% more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor. The horizontal FOV will be the same.It's also a heck of a lot nicer when working with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, you'll see 11.1% more of a page.I have TWO 1920x1200 monitors at home, one is actually a Samsung 27' 1080p HDTV (which scales a 1080p signal nicely to fill the screen). I'd ALWAYS take 1920x1200 given the choice. That about sums it up. Most games support 1920x1200, so you'll actually get almost 20%more field of view (FOV) vertically with a 1920x1200 monitor. The horizontal FOV will be the same.It's also a heck of a lot nicer when working with productivitiy tools and web browsing, quite simply, you'll see 20% more of a page.I have TWO 1920x1200 monitors at home, one is actually a Samsung 27' 1080p HDTV (which scales a 1080p signal nicely to fill the screen). I'd ALWAYS take 1920x1200 given the choice.Me too.
With a 16:10 PC monitor, the entire width will be filled up, assuming it's an application running at full resolution. I disagree completely with your first gif/flash showing 16:9, 16:10 and 16:1216:9 is more letterbox than 16:10. But you cannot think of 16:10 as less, cutting off the sides. 16:10 is everything and all 16:9 offers PLUS extra pixels/FoV up and down.
They are both 1920 in the x. One is 1080 in the y, the other 1200. Clearly, one can show MORE than the other. The gif/flash is faking/falsifying the results by pretending the y is the same but x is less. How disingenuous is that?! Horizontal FoV (measured as an angle) has changed between screenshots!
![Fov For 1920x1080 Fov For 1920x1080](/uploads/1/2/5/5/125516964/764189046.jpg)
System NameWorking on it;)ProcessorI7-4790K (Stock speeds right now)MotherboardMSI Z97 U3 PlusCoolingBe Quiet Pure Rock AirMemory16GB 4x4 G.Skill CAS9 2133 SniperVideo Card(s)GIGABYTE Vega 64 (Non Reference)StorageSamsung EVO 500GB / 8 Different WDs / QNAP TS-253 8GB NAS with 2x2Tb WD BlackDisplay(s)34' LG 34CB88-P 21:9 Curved UltraWide QHD (3440.1440).FREESYNC.CaseRosewill ChallengerAudio Device(s)Onboard + HD HDMIPower SupplyCorsair HX750 (love it)MouseLogitech G5KeyboardCorsair Strafe RGB & G610 Orion RedSoftwareWin 10 upgraded from Win 7 Pro. Fixed.On productivity tools, ie applications, you get the taskbar 32px, the windows title 32px, the menu bar 32px, the icon shortcuts 32px for one row, 64px for two rows. In MS Word 2003 you get the top margin 32px and bottom footer bars 64px. In MS Excel 2003 you get cell entry and column headings bar 64px and the tabs and calc footers 64px.This means a 1080y actually gives the user 'working space' of 1080-32-32-32-64-64-64=792px.Whereas a 1200y gives the user 'working space' of 1200-32-32-32-64-64-64=912pxThe difference is 120/792 or 15%. If your screen shots 32 lines of text in MS Word 2003, or 32 rows in Excel 2003, that is equivalent to another 5 lines of text or 5 rows!With MS Office 2007+, the ribbon bars add another 64px making the difference 17%Email clients are similar to MS Office 2003. You will see another 5 emails on each screen.NOBODY would go for 1080 over 1200 if they use productivity software.
System NameI Dub Thee InfinityProcessorAMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950XMotherboardASRock X399 Phantom Gaming 6CoolingAlphacool LT240MemoryG.Skill Ripjaws V 4x8GB 3000MHzVideo Card(s)EVGA 980 Ti SC+StorageSanDisk Ultra Plus 256GB, OCZ V2 180GB, 2x Toshiba X300 5TB RAID 1Display(s)Acer XB270HUCaseCooler Master HAF XAudio Device(s)Creative X-Fi Titanium + Sennheiser HD598 + Klipsch ProMedia 2.1Power SupplyEVGA Supernova G2 850WMouseRazer Naga (2014)KeyboardGigabyte Aivia Osmium (MX Brown)SoftwareWindows 10 Pro x64. System NameWorking on it;)ProcessorI7-4790K (Stock speeds right now)MotherboardMSI Z97 U3 PlusCoolingBe Quiet Pure Rock AirMemory16GB 4x4 G.Skill CAS9 2133 SniperVideo Card(s)GIGABYTE Vega 64 (Non Reference)StorageSamsung EVO 500GB / 8 Different WDs / QNAP TS-253 8GB NAS with 2x2Tb WD BlackDisplay(s)34' LG 34CB88-P 21:9 Curved UltraWide QHD (3440.1440).FREESYNC.CaseRosewill ChallengerAudio Device(s)Onboard + HD HDMIPower SupplyCorsair HX750 (love it)MouseLogitech G5KeyboardCorsair Strafe RGB & G610 Orion RedSoftwareWin 10 upgraded from Win 7 Pro. This is why I don't bother with the screen ratio debate. I simply went with a 1080p 16:9 monitor a couple years ago because it was affordable to do so. The main game I play happens to be Team Fortress 2 (which I also play competitively), and I have 3100 hours total in it.
Your testing proves that TF2 at 16:9 is superior to the other aspect ratios, and I'd imagine this is applicable to most if not all other Source based games, and that is what matters to me.There are 169 1080p monitors and 20 1200p monitors currently available on Newegg. 1080p monitors start at $109 and 1200p monitors start at $280. Being snobby and paying a ton more for a probably outdated 1200p monitor just because 'it's 10% taller' is a rather crappy argument. In fact, for slightly above the price of the cheapest Samsung 24' 5ms 1200p monitor, you can get a 23' ASUS VG236HE which is a fantastic 2ms 1080p monitor that has a 120Hz dual-link DVI input and the nicest TN panel I have ever seen. 5ms TN panels are so 2005, and I would not drop $300 on one.How about some pros and cons for 16:9 monitors?Pros:Cost effective, lots of models on the market.Standard aspect ratio for HD movies released on consumer mediums. System NameMain PCProcessorPII 925 @3.724GHz (266x14) 1.525v NB 2660 1.425vMotherboardGigabyte AM3 GA-890XA-UD3 (790x+SB850)CoolingScythe Mugen 2 rev.BMemoryHyperx 8GB (2x4) 1600@1418 8-7-7-20-27-1tVideo Card(s)Sapphire 6850 Stock (Max Overclock 1030/1200)Storage1x1TB WD Green / 1x1TB SeagateDisplay(s)LCD Samsung 24' 16:9CaseCooler Master HAF 912Audio Device(s)On-Board HDPower SupplyCM 750w GX 3.3v@25a 5v@25a 12v@60aSoftwareWindows 7 Ultimate 64bitBenchmark Scoreslater.
ProcessorIntel Core i9 7980XE Custom IHS @ 4.6Ghz 1.23vMotherboardASUS Rampage VI Extreme OmegaCoolingEK-Velocity D-RGB, EK-CoolStream PE 360, XSPC TX240 Ultrathin, EK X-RES 140 Revo D5 RGB PWMMemoryG.Skill Trident Z RGB F4-3000C14D 64GBVideo Card(s)AORUS GeForce RTX™ 2080 Ti XTREME WATERFORCE WB 11GStorageSamsung 960 Pro NVME 512GB, 2x 850 Evos 1TB, 860 Evo 1TB, WD Blue 3TBDisplay(s)LG 43ud79-bCaseCorsair 500D SE EK RGB FansPower SupplyCooler Master Vanguard Series 1000WSoftwareWindows 10.