Is 16:10 still worth it in the days of 4k?

1920x1200 that is

>>55569519
It's a little bit more working room so yes. It will always be worth it for that reason IMO.

You're not talking about as an only monitor though, right?

>>55569524

Yes. It's very close to the "Golden" aspect ratio.

Since you're going to be scaling 4K screens most of the time you're still missing out on that vertical real estate.

>>55569527
pimary monitor with swivel stand for vertical

>>55569519
32:20 is simply better

>>55569549
If for work mostly, get it. For media/gaming, get the 4k 16:9.

>>55569579
I'm pretty partial to 248:155 desu

>>55569519
doubt it, i got 16:10 and I've too much vertical space now on OS X, specailly since I hide the dock. Wish I've gotten 16:9 instead

File: 1464073148267.gif (982KB, 320x287px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 320x287px

>>55569770
>too much space

File: 1468311561078.jpg (90KB, 679x657px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 679x657px

>we will never get golden ratio monitors