Dell U2412M - 16:10 IPS without Breaking the Bank
by Chris Heinonen on February 28, 2012 9:00 AM ESTConclusion: A Good 16:10 IPS Display
After using it, the Dell U2412M comes out with a lot of positives and no big negatives. The screen has a nice 16:10 aspect ratio that makes it feel roomier than a normal 16:9 display, and it has a nice adjustable stand that made it easy to fit on my desk. The contrast ratio was good, power use was low, and the response time for gaming was also very good. The overall dE values were acceptable but not fantastic, and the screen was relatively uniform.
The main negatives I can come out with are that the dE values get slightly high for blues, but they do that on any monitor that doesn’t display the full AdobeRGB colorspace. Similarly the frame lag numbers look bad in comparison to other displays, but this is our first attempt with a new testing method and I made sure to select the worst-case scenario numbers as well. I can criticize the black uniformity as the corners were a bit bad, though being a lot better in this area will likely require using something other than the current edge-lit LED system or the emergence of OLED displays for the desktop, which would definitely increase the cost (by a large amount in the case of OLED).
In the end, would I buy the Dell U2412M for myself? Yes, I probably would. The fact that you can find it for $300 or less on sale fairly often and that it calibrates to a decent dE value makes it easy for someone to use as a general-purpose desktop display. Viewing angles are good, I still like the adjustability of the Dell stand, and the larger work area made for a good combination.
The closest competitor seems to be the HP ZR24w, which features an S-IPS panel but otherwise looks remarkably similar. I haven’t had a chance to see that in person so I can’t elaborate further, but that was the only 16:10, IPS panel at Newegg that came within $75 of the U2412M. I really think Dell has taken everything out of the display that they can (e.g. reduced to a 6-bit panel, no LUT, no HDMI) to produce a panel that is affordable but still very good for most people, and far beyond the 16:9 TN panels that many people might be upgrading from. It’s certainly not perfect, but it’s good enough for most people, and it is what I would want as a bare minimum if I was in the market for a 24” monitor.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
143 Comments
View All Comments
DarkUltra - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Maybe not $15k, but there are enthusiasts out there willing to buy sandy bridge E, high end motherboards and gtx 580 tri-sli setups. So why not a 24" 1920x1200 120Hz IPS with zero input lag?But I do agree a 30" IPS might be too expensive - until theres more demand that is. So please enlighten your next.
rscoot - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
I'm not even sure if the technology exists to have zero lag 120Hz IPS displays, but when one requests the monitor equivalent of a Bugatti Veryon, one has to expect to pay the equivalent price. The economy of scale just isn't there otherwise.IceDread - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
I'd pay 15k for "120Hz, 30", IPS @ 16:10, 2560:1600, no input lag", no doubt.mtoma - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
I think perhaps an OLED display is bettter suited for in-door use. We don't need that much brightness, but better contrast we do. Also, why we don't see integrated webcams more often? Why a smartphone needs to have all the goodies (picture and movie recording in 720p or 1080p, Gorilla Glass, OLED).Regarding to 120 Hz (or even higher), that feature is only good when it can be disabled. Surely it's useful in games, but under no circumstances in movies. Really!
AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, March 3, 2012 - link
> Does anyone know how far from my dream we are?Very, very far. It has been 6 years since the 3007WFP came out, and nothing has superseded it. I would sure love something that steps it up: 120Hz, 2560x1600, 32", <17ms lag.
Sergio526 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Not an extra 120 pixels, but 230,400 pixels you gain over a 1920x1080 monitor, but who's counting?Sabresiberian - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Hehe, good way to point out how much difference there really is between 16:10 and 16:9.;)
seapeople - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
Or.... about 11% more pixels. For 50% more money.I swear, the math abilities of today's teenagers is going downhill fast.
colonelclaw - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Thanks for a very interesting read. As soon as this monitor was announced I was looking forward to see how it compared to other IPS monitors, and that's exactly what you did. It's exactly the kind of display I would like to fill my office with - good quality at a low price.Would you say that the NEC is the absolute best a monitor can get these days? Or is there something even better (and probably more expensive) from Eizo? I'm always interested to know what the reality is between the best and worst of any one product type, and whether or not the expense is worth it.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
"Would you say that the NEC is the absolute best a monitor can get these days? Or is there something even better (and probably more expensive) from Eizo?"Best depends on your usage model. That includes what you plan to do with it, how big your budget is, and what space you plan to use it in (lighting).
There's an HP Dreamcolor monitor with RGB LED backlighting. That's pretty interesting for color pros. But, it's not perfect.
There's another HP (27") with a constant control backlight -- which avoids PWM flicker. But, it's not perfect either. It has no onscreen display and has a very fine pixel pitch which is tough for old eyes.
Eizo makes some nice monitors, but they can be pricey.
I got a BenQ EW2420 refurb and it works fine for my usage, although I really wish it would have a constant control backlight. Flicker does fatigue my eyes after a while.