POST A COMMENT

143 Comments

Back to Article

  • DParadoxx - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Finally a 16:10 review, but its eIPS.... no thanks. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    That's what keeps the cost down.

    You knew it was e-IPS before you clicked, I'd wager, and this is just trolling.

    I have a U2410 myself, but that doesn't mean this monitor is bad for the price, by any stretch of the imagnation.
    Reply
  • DParadoxx - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I'm not trolling. I'm trying to get reviews of quality monitors. Reply
  • tech6 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Try this
    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm
    Reply
  • xenol - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    And I want review of quality products, so that my problems reduce to "which 9/10 product do I want?" Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    eIPS is plenty good enough for most (gamers, internet users, occasional movies watchers). I'd wager that IPS or -VA with WCG backlight are only needed for a very small minority. And to say that eIPS cannot be a quality monitor is pretty ignorant as well. Reply
  • toyotabedzrock - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    Or perhaps you are slightly color blind.

    I hate 6 bit monitors they wash out gradients.
    Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    You're spoiled. Reply
  • choirbass - Saturday, March 03, 2012 - link

    To an extent I would have to agree. If you really want better, you really shouldn't have much of a problem with paying however much more to get just that. Reply
  • Earballs - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    Needs to be 120hz to excite the gamer market IMO, but that's just me speaking from my own demographic. Reply
  • Finraziel - Friday, March 02, 2012 - link

    Perhaps if all you do on that screen is play games, yes... Personally, I'd LOVE 120 hz, I can often still see chopping at 60hz and hate it. But, so far, getting a 120hz monitor means you have to compromise at just about everything else. I also hate the colourshifts in TN screens and I do other stuff on my system as well for which I really don't want to go to a 1080p screen (yes, I'd miss those 120 lines). If anything, if I'm buying a new screen, I want more desktop space, not less.
    Maybe new display technologies will make it possible to offer 120 hz at higher resolutions and better display quality. Until then I guess I'll stick with my old dell 2405FPW...
    Reply
  • T2k - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    You must be blind. Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    This IS a review of a quality monitor. It might not fit your needs, but it is above any TN screen, and priced in the ballpark of the best of those. It isn't intended to be the best out there, but provide a decent 16:10 at a relatively low price point.

    Anandtech.com reviews a wide variety of monitor qualities, if you think they just do low-quality monitors you must have just started reading here and need to learn how to look up past articles. It's not hard.

    ;)
    Reply
  • toyotabedzrock - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    He/She wasn't attacking anantech.

    And this screen is not much better than a TN monitor except in viewing angles.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    Wow, you screen snobs are getting overbearing. Reply
  • SlyNine - Thursday, March 08, 2012 - link

    Yea, because saying this screen isn't much better then a TN monitor makes him a screen snob...

    You don't own a Dell U2412M by any chance do you ?
    Reply
  • DarkUltra - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    It should have said so in the header. Now it says only IPS which is misleading, aka getting more hopeful visitors. Reply
  • Visual - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    Totally agree, calling eIPS IPS is downright lieing to your readers. Reply
  • Tetracycloide - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    Panel Type eIPS

    What are you on about exactly?
    Reply
  • Visual - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    Article title. Reply
  • ExarKun333 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Dio you need to be spoon-fed? Dell makes more expensive IPS monitors. You just need to go to Dell.com to see them. U2410, U2711, U3011, etc. Reply
  • DParadoxx - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I dont because I already own those monitors. The point is to give feedback for the site. Thanks! Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Perhaps a comment like "What I'd like to see in the future are some reviews of 16:10 panels with true 8-bit or 10-bit IPS panels" would be more helpful, since when it just says "Finally a 16:10 review, but its eIPS.... no thanks." I have no idea if you want TN, 10-bit IPS, VA, 120 Hz, etc... Reply
  • kevith - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    Behold, a fair and enlightened rich kid, nice. Reply
  • Touche - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    What are the disadvantages of eIPS? Reply
  • phantom505 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    6 bit with tricks vs true 8 bit.... read 1st page. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Also, e-IPS has narrower viewing angle than S-IPS/H-IPS. Reply
  • Ratman6161 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    My older U2410's are also 1920x1200. We also have a slew of Cheap Dell 19 inchers that are 1440x900 which, unless my math is flawed is also 16:10. Paging through their consumer oriented models you do mostly see 16:9. But if you check out the small business section (or corporate or Education\Government) you can find lots of 16:10 options. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Did you read the first page? He never said this was new. He said it was where wide screen started and then faded away concerning the budget displays.
    Considering the price of this monitor, it is a rather new thing to find 16:10 with non-TN panel insides.
    Reply
  • Ratman6161 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    What I'm saying is that 16:10 budget displays never did fade away. You just have to know where to look for them and it will not be with the consumer oriented products. At my office we have at least 60 19 inch 16:10 displays. We got about half of those in mid 2009 and the rest in mid 2011 for about $139 each. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Honestly, if I had to chose between 16:9 with 1080p or 16:10 with 900p, I'd take 16:9. The real issue people argue is that the 24" market has gone 16:9 with 1080p. No gamer or other user would go with anything below 22" unless there are space constraints. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    The U2410 is not a budget screen by any measure, though, and although it is "old", it is not actually old. It is still being sold alongside the U2412, because the U2410 has a true 8-bit S-IPS panel, 10-bit processing, wider gamut (almost all of AdobeRGB) and a slew of inputs.

    It's still relevant.
    Reply
  • seapeople - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    Dude, nobody cares about your low resolution 16:10 screens.

    Only very strange aspect ratio freaks think 1440x900 is better than 1920x1080 anyway.

    It's cool to see a budget 1920x1200 monitor out there.
    Reply
  • Burner.Tom - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    The direct competitor to reviewed Dell monitor is HP ZR2440w 24-inch LED Backlit IPS Monitor, not ZR24 - its the previous generation.

    PS: Dell isnt the LCD panel maker - its LG, probably model LM240WU8.
    Reply
  • Burner.Tom - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    HP ZR2440w 24-inch LED Backlit IPS Monitor - Overview
    http://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/1414...
    Reply
  • darwinosx - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    The HP is a tad bit more expensive but a much better deal with much better service. I'm surprised the author didn't know this was actually the competitor for this Dell not the old HP monitor. Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    For competitors I was specifically search for other IPS/VA panels with 1920x1200 resolution that were within $75 (or 25%) of the price of the Dell. The only model that came up at the time of searching was the older HP, which is why it was listed. There are a lot of other 16:10 IPS/VA panels, but once you got past being within 25% of the price, I didn't consider them direct competitors anymore. Reply
  • Burner.Tom - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    U2412M and ZR2440w are direct competitors from hardware point of view (LCD panel) but the price is really better in Dell case.
    In Slovakia, its 253€ for Dell and 350€ for HP, both have 36 months On-site warranty. The question is - why is HP so expensive? I guess there must be something cheaper used in Dell monitor (power circuit, controller board, ...). Who is OEM of the Dell? ZR24w and ZR2440w are made by Tatung.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Wait, what makes the HP a "much better deal"? I'd call service of HP and Dell monitors pretty close to equal, and the HP is $50 more for the lowest price I can find. 15% more is only "a bit more"? They're both eIPS AFAICT, so other than the nebulous "service and support" aspect, why would one be better than the other? Reply
  • Touche - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    HP has more inputs, a scaler for 1:1, thus can be hooked up to consoles, and better RTC control. The latter makes it a bit more responsive, but former to have higher input lag. Comparing several reviews, HP tends to have better uniformity. Reply
  • Touche - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    And HP has possibly a higher led pwm frequency, which itself would be worth the price difference. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    Better service?

    Hm. When one of my backlight inverters went on my U2410, Dell immediately (as in, the very next day, it turned up) sent me a BRAND NEW U2410.. seriously, it was ~1 month after manufacturing date.

    I checked that it was flawless, then 2 days later they took my old one away. I even got to keep all my cables, so now I have a stack of display cables.

    I'm not actually sure how you could get better than that.
    Reply
  • Stuka87 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    And I love them both. I run them in a triple monitor setup with my Precision M4600 (Precisions display, plus both of the U2412M's)/

    Are they the best display out? Of course not. Are they are a GREAT bang for the buck, yes!
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    "I can criticize the black uniformity as the corners were a bit bad, though being a lot better in this area will likely require going to an LED backlighting system..."
    The U2412M has LED backlighting.
    Reply
  • starson - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    It's most likely edge-lit, so I assume he meant that it would have to be an true back-lit array to improve that aspect of it. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    That was what I thought as well, but then he should write that, too, don't you think? :P There is a name for what he wants: full array (with local dimming). Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I said LED backlighting to differentiate from LED edgelit, which is what every monitor is out there right now, but I will clear that up. Sorry for the confusion. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Yes, that was very confusing. Backlight just means anything that lights the LCD. It does not differentiate between edge/full array. CCFL is also a backlight, but it is mostly just used as edge lighting. LED can do both (and local dimming as a result). :-) Reply
  • IceDread - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Well, that's a dream I have.

    Does anyone know how far from my dream we are?
    Reply
  • rscoot - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    If you want to spend $15 or 20k for a monitor and find a couple thousand other people willing to do the same, I'm sure some company will accommodate you as best they can. Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • IceDread - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    I'd pay 15k for "120Hz, 30", IPS @ 16:10, 2560:1600, no input lag", no doubt. Reply
  • 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!
    Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, March 03, 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.
    Reply
  • 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? Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Hehe, good way to point out how much difference there really is between 16:10 and 16:9.

    ;)
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • DarkUltra - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    - I know that as soon as I check the comments there will be a thread with the same theme: “I don’t care about 1080p monitors, I only want 16:10 aspect ratios!”

    And don't forget the 120hz thread! You really should mention 120hz in your reviews, it should affect the manufacturers and readers so we can move to this new standard. Even as slow as 8ms gtg response time will benefit as 1000/120=8,33. The pixels change sooner, too. But lower response time will make things look sharper when they are moved around.
    Reply
  • DarkUltra - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    120Hz will drastically improve your desktop and gaming experience. Here is a few reviews and testimonies.

    - Wonder in amazement as the 120Hz display produces an easily observable higher fluidity in the animation.
    techreport.com/articles.x/21516

    - The ASUS VG236H was my first exposure to 120Hz refresh displays that aren’t CRTs, and the difference is about as subtle as a dump truck driving through your living room. www.anandtech.com/show/3842/asus-vg236h- review-our-first-look-at-120hz

    - Doing precise image editing, as another example, is an area where faster display processing times are desirable. www.anandtech.com/show/2787

    - 120hz lcd Smoother motion and the lack of RTC artifacts leave a highly positive impression, making you unwilling to return to 60Hz. www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/ samsung-sm2233rz_5.html

    - I ran Fraps and found using the display’s 120hz mode that once the framerates were up above 80 there is an amazing solidity and 3d- like quality to the gameplay. Once the framerate hits 100+ – well, the effect has to be experienced to understand it. hardforum.com/showthread.php? t=1486357&page=4

    - I saw a 120hz monitor at my local MicroCenter and was totally amazed by how smooth the mouse moved on the desktop, makes my 60hz monitor looks absolutely dated. http://hardforum.com:80/showthread.php?t=1466381&a...

    jooh.no/index.php/2012/01/05/lg-w2363d-120hz-monitor/
    Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Very nicely written, thanks Dark! Reply
  • colonelclaw - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Meh, so now I want 120Hz too.
    Any news on whether 16:10 IPS panels are headed towards 120Hz?
    Reply
  • peterwargo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I just bought one of these last week when there was a good discount code available from Dell. I've been looking for years for a decent 24" 16:10 screen for my Mac Pro, as my aging Samsung isn't really that happy anymore. But I love the form factor, and being visually-handicapped, good contrast control and clarity are a big deal for me.

    I'm a Mac user 90% of the time, but I've never been happy having had both the 24" and 27" LED cinema displays on my work machine. The glare is annoying, and I'm really cheesed off at Apple for providing only one input (MDP) and a short cable as well. Then, there's the price.

    Frankly, I'm in love the this screen. The anti-glare is excellent, and the contrast is every bit as good as the Apple screens (tried 'em side-by-side). Additionally, the menus are reality easy to read and navigate -- again useful if you're visually handicapped. I still haven't found a fast way to switch inputs (gotta really read that manual), but that's a minor nit -- I don't often switch between my Mac Pro and my Linux box.

    Speaking of connectivity, I was able to find a decent MDP->DP cable on Amazon for $6 or so, and it works fine with the Radeon 5780's MDP on the pro. No issues, leaving the DVI and VGA ports free for other machines.

    The best part is that I paid less than 1/3 of the cost of the 27" Apple display, and far, far less than even a used 24" Apple display. I think I need one at work now.
    Reply
  • Voo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I assume the monitor comes with different profiles like the more high-end dells,

    Could you test the input lag with the game profile? I heard some claims that that reduces the input lag to some degree, so it'd be interesting to see whether this is true and to what degree it helps.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    My past experience is that unless the LCD is *really* slow on internal processing, the "game modes" rarely have a noticeable impact on lag. Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Since the internal lag was just around 2 ms, even if there is a game mode that improves it, the most you can see is 1-2 ms of performance, which is really meaningless IMO. Perhaps if the lag was 15ms or something much larger, but 1-2ms of gain is the most you could see with this. Reply
  • Voo - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    I thought maybe there was something they could also do about the panel response time, but it makes sense that that doesn't work. And reducing up to 2ms is rather uninteresting then.

    Thanks.
    Reply
  • dingetje - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    thanks for reviewing a 16:10 monitor that's also affordable.
    next time you review a 16:9 screen I won't bitch about the review ;)
    Reply
  • bioffe - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I find this article disturbing because it doesn't mention this monitor's predecessor U2410 which seems to be much better monitor for $150 dollars more. It's putty how Dell destroyed its high end model, and went to monetize its reputation. Dear Anand, I want to see how it measures to u2410. Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I think Dell still sells the U2410. The U2412M is complimentary.

    I agree that the naming scheme is weird, but both monitors can coexist.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Considering the 60% price difference and that the 2410 is still being sold, I don't see why the 2412 is necessarily the successor. I think both monitors are targeting different consumers. Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    There isn't a review unit of the U2410 available at the moment, as I checked, so I could compare the two. They do fit into different realms, and can easily coexist at the same time, but the naming scheme is very, very hard to understand. Reply
  • Touche - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Much better for what? 2412 has better blacks, higher contrast, is sRGB which many find an advantage, has less input lag and is a bit faster. Head to tftcentral and prad for detailed comparisons. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    The U2410 is competing in a different space.

    It has better uniformity.
    It has a better color gamut.

    It has worse contrast ratio.
    It has a higher price.
    Reply
  • Sufo - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    U2410 has an sRGB profile... Reply
  • sethsez - Thursday, March 08, 2012 - link

    It does have an sRGB profile. It's very inaccurate, as sRPG profiles on 10-bit monitors tend to be. If someone is doing work primarily for web-based content, a 10-bit monitor isn't just a waste, it's potentially detrimental. Reply
  • vectorm12 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Greay review unfortunately I'm looling for something with higher resolution these days. For my kind of workload 2560x1440 have turned out to be the bare minimum. I recently bought 2x u2711 to replace 3x 1920x1080 Samsungs. I'd love to see some eIPs panels reach that size and preferably higher pixeldensities. Reply
  • cwolf78 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Does this guy come off as a snobbish bitch to anyone else? Reply
  • ryedizzel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    +1 Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Can you provide any more feedback, or examples, on why you feel this way? Of course I don't want to alienate readers with my writing style. Reply
  • jamyryals - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    He's posting about a commenter, not you Chris. Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Ah, I missed the subject heading there as I was reading through the comments. Sorry about that! Reply
  • bobsmith1492 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Pot... kettle. Don't mind this troll, Mr. Heinonen. Reply
  • ryedizzel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I guess I am one of the few that actually wants a 1080p monitor! My PC sits next to the 46" living room TV and its much easier to mirror the resolution on my desktop for watching movies or playing games using the wireless Xbox controller adapter.

    I'm just dying for a 120Hz passive 3D monitor to hit the market before I upgrade.... or OLED. ;)
    Reply
  • Zoomer - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    This monitor can do that just fine. Reply
  • TerdFerguson - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Great review, thanks. Reply
  • phantom505 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I went ahead and bought the AOC. As far as image quality goes, it doesn't seem like this does that much better, but you look at it much more favorably, which is odd. Now I'm not a fan of the brushed chrome, and I hate the stand, but I don't see how having a slightly larger aspect ratio makes this better than the AOC. I guess the color and stand might, but I find that hard to believe for $100 improvement.

    I'm more curious the ASUS Artistic series (or whatever they call it) performs with claims of low dE and 98% of the Adobe RGB gamut.
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    The AOC did very well for the price, as getting the eIPS display for under $200 is nice. The Dell was very close as far as color accuracy, but had the extra resolution, far better stand, USB hub, better contrast ratio (when it comes to displays, contrast ratio winds up being more important than anything else for seeing a clear difference side-by-side), better black level, and a nicer UI. The extra inch isn't important to me really, but it also stands out more relative to other displays due to the panel technology and aspect ratio.

    I'm working to get a review of the ASUS ProArt series in the future, as I'm very interested as well.
    Reply
  • Braumin - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I bought this when it first came out. I had been looking at an IPS monitor to replace my aging S-PVA monitor. I really hate TN.

    The price is just amazing on this, and the quality is top notch.

    No, it doesn't have everything that everyone needs, but it has exactly what I needed.

    Great review!
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    What's wrong with the monitor you have? Is the backlight becoming too weak or what? Reply
  • Braumin - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    19" 1280x1024 was good when I got it, but really not enough desktop space. I much prefer the widescreen for gaming and such. Reply
  • TegiriNenashi - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    The statement that 16:9 panels were introduced at lower prices is false. I clearly remeber that the "latest and greatest" "Full HD" were rarity and commanded a premium, compared to "boring" 1920x1200 panels, which could be found anywhere from $200 and up. Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree. I don't know that I've ever seen a new 24" 1920x1200 display for under $250, period. Not even the cheap, TN, low quality displays with now height adjustment have gotten that low. But 1080p, while perhaps there were a few more expensive models initially, rapidly dropped into the <$250 range for 23-24" models, and now they start at around $170 (compared to $270 for the cheapest 1920x1200 LCD). Reply
  • Zoomer - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Remember back in Sept when some idiot mentioned HP was divesting it's PC division? The ZR24w dropped to $250 after rebate then.

    And the vw266 was under $250 for some time. Not technically 24", but I figure being bigger shouldn't count against it.
    Reply
  • kmmatney - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Those are rare exceptions, but for the most part 1920 x 1200 monitors were always pretty expensive, and it wasn't until the 1080p monitors came out that prices started to really drop. My Soyo 24" MVA panel was a bargain at $299 when it came out, and after these sold out there wasn't anything near that price for 2 years in terms of price and quality. Reply
  • papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    stoper reading at led backlight, ill stick with my u2711... led backligth makes me sick
    ( literally)
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Not sure why you would want to change to a 24" model from a 27" inch one, but I'll bite:
    The PWM for brightness makes you sick, not the LED technology itself. The HP ZR2740w has no PWM and regulates brightness continually. See for example: http://www.prad.de/new/monitore/test/2012/test-hp-...
    Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Every LCD monitor review should measure flicker.

    I really want to get a constant control backlight, but I like my A-MVA panel's high contrast ratio.

    If review sites put pressure on manufacturers by highlighting this problem, then maybe we'll see less PWM flicker.
    Reply
  • Touche - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    +1000 Reply
  • cheinonen - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    Measuring the refresh rate of the backlight is on the list of things to try to do going forward. It should be added soon, though I'm not certain if it will be in the next couple of reviews or not. Reply
  • Zolcos - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    It's reassuring to see this product, not just because of 16:10 but other good-yet-all-too-rare choices like anti-glare, displayport, and a relatively non-shiny bezel.
    Personally, I'm still holding out for 120hz at any resolution better than 1080p. If a monitor with the exact same feature set and resolution as the one in this review came out with 120hz, I'd literally buy it today, even if it was TN and cost twice as much.

    That's my realistic side anyway. I still have dreams of 1920x1440 since widescreen (while great on its own) is an inefficient use of space for multi-monitor setups, but that's another debate entirely.
    Reply
  • Zds - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    The main advantage of the HP unit is not S- but 8bit colors. IPS vs. S-IPS is not crucial, 16.7M real colors can be. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    6-bit vs. 8-bit isn't the whole story, either.

    The other part of the story is how wide a gamut the backlight can provide.
    Reply
  • James5mith - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    "I can criticize the black uniformity as the corners were a bit bad, though being a lot better in this area will likely require going to an LED backlighting system or the emergence of OLED displays for the desktop, both of which are very expensive compared to this."

    http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.a...

    First line of the information: "Enjoy widescreen performance, any way you want it. With a 24" 16:10 panel, IPS technology and LED backlight, the U2412M provides a brilliant view, plus amazing adjustability to suit any style."

    So the LED backlight isn't helping it to get any better. It's already there, and apparently not very good.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    The point was to use something other than edge LED backlighting, though that's not entirely clear from the wording. I'll see if I can fix that... Reply
  • Zoomer - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    How about reviewing this or a similar monitor? Now that is real bare bones, and real cheap. $400 or $250 for a 27" H-IPS if AT has some friends in Korea.

    http://www.overclock.net/t/1215866/reviewed-400-25...
    Reply
  • frombauer - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Would this be better in lag and response time compared to the Dell 2209WA? I own this one, and it's good enough for gaming to me. But I wanted more resolution. Reply
  • Touche - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Get a Sony GDM-FW900 :) Reply
  • klatscho - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    we sort of downgraded from eizo to these beauties, and the do the job quite nice, especially since we got them way below the 200 euro mark including the soundbar - which is why everyone is getting one now.

    the only problem we have identified so far is an unusually high doa-rate above 6% at the beginning, which has meanwhile dropped to around 4% for the last couple of hundred units; but again, at this price this is forgiveable.
    Reply
  • Touche - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Although it could be calculated (if contrast is consistent across the brightness range), it would be helpful if you showed the black level at calibrated brightness setting (100 cd/m2). Reply
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    I can add that to future reviews. Reply
  • anactoraaron - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Please correct me if I'm wrong but this panel beats the U2312H from last year in power draw since last year's 2312 uses ccfl, not led like this panel.

    I personally didn't HAVE to have the 16:10 and recently bought 2 of the updated U2312HM which also uses led. But I always hear "once you go 16:10 you never go back" and I guess I'm just scared that will happen....

    Sure the styling isn't "sexy" but I'm a man that prefers function over all. At least comment on how there's ZERO glossy surfaces on these monitors...

    Also, the stand with these Dell monitors are top notch. They adjust more than ANY monitor I have ever encountered- 9" of height adjustment (for the newer U2312HM- I believe the U2412 has 7") , can spin to portrait orientation (just need to release a locking mechanism), and it can basically do more twists and turns than anyone's parents at a 1950's themed dance party. :)
    Reply
  • 1ceTr0n - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    The U3011 is a beautiful monitor but for $1200, I demanded perfection and all three models had color uniformity and lighting issues.

    I finally gave up and got a U2412M and i've been very happy with it. Very nice bright and even LED lighting, very low heat, great colors and nary any ghosting and a great price with extended 4 year advance warranty.

    Unless your anal about LCD's, this one is hard to beat
    Reply
  • fausto412 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Do 120hz IPS 24" 16x10 Monitors exist and are they any good and affordable?

    I've been waiting for that "I gotta have that monitor!!" review for like 2 years.
    Currently using 22" Samsung 226bw and the view angles suck balls. But considering how long monitors last I am trying to wait for the next huge leap forward to get a 24" screen and upgrade. what say the monitor experts on this thread?
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    There are no 120Hz IPS panels yet, you are stuck with TN at this point. I have no idea if there is a time frame for these or not either. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    120 Hz A-MVA panels are supposed to be near. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    They were announced in December:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=120 hz amva&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
    Reply
  • fausto412 - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    sadly i don't know what's holding back monitor makers.

    I feel like they quit trying to advance tech for home users.
    Reply
  • fausto412 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    Monitor Calibration and Reviews

    I see all these monitor reviews where the monitor is calibrated for most accurate colors and blacks and all that...how does a person who bought the monitor go about getting it calibrated? are there local places who do this stuff? when they do it do they save the calibration on your screen?
    Reply
  • cheinonen - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    For calibrating the display you need a colorimeter or spetrometer and software. Most include some sort of PC software, or you can use something like DispCalGUI for free. Since these involve using the LUT in your video card, you can't have it done somewhere and then bring it back home, though you could borrow/rent hardware to get it done most likely.

    For testing, I use an i1Pro for the calibration, which runs around $1,000 new, and an i1DisplayPro for testing the black level (around $300) since it is more accurate at reading low levels of light, but worse at measuring colors. You can use something as simple as an i1DisplayLT, though it will start to drift over time and after 2-3 years you can't rely on it to be accurate anymore and would have to buy another one. The Colormunki series has a spectro that is pretty cheap for use with a monitor, but a cheap spectro is still $400-500 or more.
    Reply
  • ggathagan - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    If the big box stores were smart, this is the kind of service they would offer : in-home monitor/TV calibration using a customer's actual setup. Reply
  • hechacker1 - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    They do, THX calibration and whatnot, but they charge an insane amount. Basically, it's better to just buy the colorimeter and do it yourself with various software.

    It's a good investment if you have many screens. Once you have it, it's a pain to work on any non-calibrated monitor, knowing just how bad it is.
    Reply
  • Confusador - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link

    "...still, I thought the explanation on the previous page would be useful for everyone."
    It was, thank you for keeping it in. It's always nice to know the rationale behind the testing method.

    On a side note, I'm glad to see Dell at least trying to have a reasonably priced 16:10, but it still saddens me that we haven't seen much improvement in monitors (in terms of price/resolution) for so long. I can only dream that with high resolution tablets coming out, we'll see some of that trickle into desktops. For me at least, vertical space is at a premium because I have the horizontal covered by virtue of simply having more than one display.
    Reply
  • Impulses - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    I know right? Next gen tablets and phones are running higher resolutions than like 80% of laptops out there, and the average desktop display isn't faring much better. I don't see how market economics are allowing display manufacturers to create these amazing new 10" displays yet desktop displays have languished for so long... Reply
  • ggathagan - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    I doubt you'll ever see that trend in discrete monitors.
    The entire reason for higher resolutions for a laptop/tablet is due to the physical constraints on the screen size.
    If you want a higher resolution for a desktop monitor, you buy a larger monitor.

    From a manufacturing standpoint, I would guess that quality control issues increase geometrically when you work with larger physical sizes. It's probably a lot easier to create a high resolution screen at 10 inches than it is at 24 or 27 inches.

    Unless there's a compelling reason to do so, I doubt screen manufacturers are eager to take that on.
    Far better to concentrate R&D efforts on 120Hz IPS panels and the like.
    Reply
  • Zolcos - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    One way you could improve this part of the review is to use the same chart method that you used for power draw -- each monitor having two bars, one for "real world" input lag and one for "worst case" input lag. Reply
  • toyotabedzrock - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    No tests of how it handles color gradients?

    If we are to pay more for an IPS display then it needs to be 8bit.
    Reply
  • MadAd - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link

    1200 lines is a start, but am still waiting for the ultimate answer to a monitor upgrade

    24", 120hz, 1200 lines and displayport

    is that too much to ask?
    Reply
  • kchase731 - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    I have 2 of these side by side on my desktop. I bought them for $299 ea. free shipping. im very very pleased with them. I replaced 2 aging dell 2405's and these look really good. Im not a graphic designer or developer or gamer, i use them for work I like having the desktop real estate and these accomplish that well, maybe not perfect but like i said im not a designer and they seem very good for the money. i used a colorimeter to calibrate them, they seem accurate and crisp, im very happy with the purchase, and am strongly considering adding a 3rd. Reply
  • mike8675309 - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    Get this resolution into a 21" display and have it be at least as good as this and I'd buy a pallet of them to hold me over until retirement. At a 24" size, I'll just take two as it really is just too big to be perfect. As a software programmer (more actual code, less pretty widgets) those extra lines of resolution are valuable.

    Now if the company I'm working for today would just let me buy my own monitors.
    Reply
  • Mithan - Thursday, March 01, 2012 - link

    I purchased this monitor back during the Black Friday sale they had in November and I love it.

    It sits next to my Dell 2407WFP which I love as well and replaces some crappy 24" Samsung TN panel that died on me.

    My only complaint with the LCD is that the vertical viewing angle isn't as good as the 2407WFP.

    However, for heavy gaming and web browsing, it has been an excellent LCD and I am tempted to buy a second to replace the 2407 that is taking longer to reach full brightness than it used too.

    Its a kick ass LCD, especially for $300. I would recommend it to any gamer in a heart beat that doesn't want a crappy TN panel but doesn't want to spend $500 either.
    Reply
  • mtoma - Friday, March 02, 2012 - link

    I also thought that 120 Hz is good for movies, I even bought an LG and I watched movies in 120 Hz, for that reason only. Well, the movement scenes are .. uncanny, the feel like I watch some theatre piece, are toooo fluid. The action/movement scenes feel rushed. Too rushed. And, it makes sense: the movie, released to users in 23-24 frames/second, looks best on lower refresh rate panels.
    Of course, in other desktop applications (games, Internet, office apps), that refresh rate does not ruin the experience, it is ok. But in movies... no way, no way.

    On the subject of panel-integrated webcams, I agree that they suck. But, I believe that in smartphones (the expensive ones - Nokia Lumia 800 for example) they don't suck, actually are pretty good. So, I feel that desktop enthusiasts deserve the best technology possible. I really think that with a bit of effort, the PC world can match and even surpass the Apple world in technology and design (the design and the component consolidation are the reasons I wish a good integrates webcam in LCD-s/OLED's).
    Reply
  • sethsez - Thursday, March 08, 2012 - link

    You're wrong about movies. Unless there's some interpolating going on (which might very well be the case), 120 Hz should be significantly BETTER for 24 FPS material than 60 Hz.

    The thing is, 24 doesn't divide evenly into 60. So you wind up getting unevenly repeated frames in order to match the monitor's refresh rate. Meanwhile, with 120 Hz you can repeat each frame 5 times and be done with it, ensuring an equal level of time between each unique frame.

    What you saw was almost certainly interpolation, in which the monitor actually attempts to create new frames in between the original ones. It looks like garbage and has given 120 Hz a bad rap it doesn't deserve.
    Reply
  • woodelf - Friday, March 02, 2012 - link

    Here's my problem with this review and others (of both this monitor and others): I have no basis of comparison. Other than the Apple monitors, I have never even seen an 8-bit IPS monitor in person. And the last time I got to play around with an Apple display enough to determine how the color was (not as good as my CRT) was 2-3 generations ago. Best Buy doesn't stock anything but crap for monitors, and ditto for every other store I've managed to get into. Likewise, work monitors are (1) all cheap Dells and (2) running XP and ugly custom-built software, and I'm not doing any design work on them in any case, so I don't have anything to really judge against.

    Unfortunately, all I know from reviews is that S-IPS > eIPS > TN, and TN isn't good enough for my eyes. What I *do* know is CRT monitors (I'm a little behind the times). So, can anybody compare the color fidelity of an eIPS to a quality CRT (ideally my slowly-dying Sony GDM-FW900)? I get that S-IPS or H-IPS would definitely be preferable, and I suspect I could see the difference, at least in some circumstances. But this monitor is much more comfortable for my budget, so if it's "good enough", the sacrifice in quality is probably worth it to me. From looking at screenshots in reviews, I really can't tell the difference between a well-calibrated U2412M and U2410--but I don't expect that is representative of actually sitting in front of the monitors.
    Reply
  • GullLars - Saturday, March 03, 2012 - link

    I've been using this as one of 3 monitors for 8 months now, and i'm very happy with it.
    My main monitor is a Dell Ultrasharp 27" (2560x1440), and i have this U2412M and another monitor in portrait mode (flipped) on either side. Upgrading from two old TN monitors, 1x 24" 1900x1200 and 1x 22" 1680x1050, using the new configuration is great.
    Using these U2412M vertically for reading documents and web sites are great. It gives a much more "roomy" feeling.
    Reply
  • jiffylube1024 - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    I've got the Dell Ultrasharp 709W -- it's a 16:10 27" LCD with a 1920x1200 panel. If they did a 27" 1920x1200 eIPS for a cheap price (<$500) I'd get it in a heartbeat, and I'd bet it would be a huge seller. Reply
  • kunstderfugue - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Something i don't understand is: How is 16:10 better than 16:9? In the end, it's only 120 more lines; and i don't see how that makes for a better experience. Reply
  • woodelf - Thursday, March 15, 2012 - link

    It's not just 120 lines, it's also an inch (or so, depending on the overall monitor size). In the case of a 24" monitor, that extra inch makes it possible to see an A4 or letter-size two-page book spread at actual size, and still see your menu bars. In fact, the 16:10 aspect ratio is almost perfect, with a little room on one side for some pallets or tool bars. Reply
  • ashugen24 - Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - link

    Wow!I really loved reading your blog. It was very well written and simple to understand. Unlike additional blogs I have read.

    <a href="http://totkare.com/looking-for/Home-Daycare--Famil... daycare</a>
    Reply
  • auutumn - Thursday, July 19, 2012 - link

    I just bought this monitor (Excellent) and I'm using it with a GeForce 670 graphics card and they're connected with a DisplayPort cable. Everything looks great but when I was looking at Office 15's Word and Excel, the ribbon and sidebar UI elements were fuzzy. I looked at these apps on my other monitor with DVI and everything looked great for a while then it also showed fuzzy text.

    Anyone else notice this and anyway to fix it?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now