There's also the amount of material you need in differently sized pots of the same volume. With all pots, more surface area is more weight, and with Ti, it's more expensive material, so that becomes a factor.
For an open-top container (no lid): surface area is minimized when height is about 50% of diameter. But who buys a pot without a lid? If you are doing more than melting snow, you want to reduce evaporative losses.
For an closed-top container (with lid): surface area is minimized when height is about 100% of diameter.
Wider than tall: better stove efficiency.
About as wide as tall: minimized surface area (i.e. minimized weight per volume).
Tall than wide: more packable. Probably more marketable (consider the 9:5, height:diameter of the universal soda can).
Caveat: these are the first-order effects. As you you go to extreme height or widths, you'd want to increase wall thickness to avoid dimpling and "oil canning" - something that is easy to observe in the sidewalls of a 12 ounce / 335cc soda-pop can. Hienekein cans are so popular in part because their ridges minimize wall flex without the weight penalty of thicker walls.
The SULer's wet dream: a ridged, shallow, wide, Ti pot with flux-ring-style HX on the bottom and foam-core, vacuum-bagged, high-temp composite lid.
And remember: blindly pursuing reductions in base weight can leave you will a fuel-inefficient scheme. Maybe you don't count fuel in your base weight, but you do carry it on your back.
Editted for a typo.