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
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!
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
What's wrong with the monitor you have? Is the backlight becoming too weak or what?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.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.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).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.
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.papapapapapapapababy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
stoper reading at led backlight, ill stick with my u2711... led backligth makes me sick( literally)
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-...
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.