That is why something a bit lower that 1366 was chosen. 1366x768 8-bit pixels would take just above 1-MiB to be stored (1024.5KiB), so that would not fit into an 8-Mbit memory chip and you would have to have a 16-Mbit memory chip just to store a few pixels. WXGA can also refer to a 1360x768 resolution (and some others that are less common), which was made to reduce costs in integrated circuits. However, the standard aspect ratio for wide displays was 16:9, which is not possible with 768 pixels, so the nearest value was chosen, 1366x768. Just extending the width and keeping the same height was also simpler technically because you would only have to tweak the horizontal refresh rate timing to achieve it. For simplicity and backward compatibility, the XGA resolution was kept as a basis when making the WXGA resolution (so that XGA graphics could be easily displayed on WXGA screens).

Maybe that helped reduce costs.Īt the time the first computer wide-screens became popular, the usual resolution on 4:3 panels was 1024x768 (the XGA display standard). It is the closest to 16:9 that they could get by keeping the 768 vertical resolution from 1024x768, which had been widely used for the manufacturing of early 4:3 LCD displays. However, at only 0.05%, the resulting error is insignificant.Ĭitations are not provided, but it is a reasonable explanation. As 768 does not divide exactly into the '9' size, the aspect ratio is not quite 16:9 – this would require a horizontal width of 1365.33 pixels. The basis for this otherwise odd seeming resolution is similar to that of other 'wide' standards - the line scan (refresh) rate of the well-established 'XGA' standard (1024x768 pixels, 4:3 aspect) was extended to give square pixels on the increasingly popular 16:9 widescreen display ratio without having to effect major signalling changes other than a faster pixel clock, or manufacturing changes other than extending panel width by one third.SuperUser contributors mtone and piernov have the answer for us. Why not use 1280x720 or something else as a standard for laptops?

I know there are plenty of other resolutions all over the place, but 1366x768 seems to dominate most of the mid-priced laptop world and also seems unique to the laptop world. Yet, 1366x768 is 683:384, a seemingly wild break from the standard. The 720 pixel size is 1280x720, which is also 16:9. Why in the world is the screen resolution 1366x768 a real thing? It has an aspect ratio of 683:384, which is the weirdest thing I have ever heard of while living in a 16:9 world.Īll the screens and resolutions I am familiar with have been the 16:9 aspect ratio. I know that there is a previous question about this, but it does not have any real answers despite having been viewed 12,400 times (in addition to the fact that it has been closed). SuperUser reader meed96 wants to know why the 1366x768 screen resolution exists: Photo courtesy of Cheon Fong Liew (Flickr). Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser-a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-driven grouping of Q&A web sites.

X768 dirt 3 images