Hello good sirs, I'm sure many people have the problem I have right now... which is the amount of crap in technical specs of monitors and the lack of reviews I can trust...too many people just repeat advice they've heard instead of providing proof or explainations and so it makes it difficult to trust reviews on Amazon and such. ..so I've come here to get a sensible answer from sensible people (i hope!) The guide in the sticky explained things well....but getting that information (such as the ACTUAL contrast ratio) from websites is near impossible as manufactuers and suppliers only advertise the numbers that make the panels seem good. I recently upgraded my graphics card to s 560ti (448 core) and now want to upgrade my monitor to get a 24" 1080 screen. It will be for games and movies so don't need anything higher resolution at this size. I'm currently using a Samsung Syncmaster T220 i picked up as an ex display from pc world in 2009 for £60 - it's been great for gaming and i've had no dead pixels and no ghosting. Can someone please recommend a 24" 1080 monitor that doesn't ghost and has decent quality picture? My MAX is £200. Thanks!
Well on Friday my Dell U2312HM monitor arrived which I bought due to recommendation on these forums. It is only 23" (still 1080 though) and it's about £180 on scan. It is however of very good quality and I can join all the others in recommending this monitor, but I'm sure other people will be able to recommend you a 24" monitor if that's what you need
Next to me (long story), I have the Dell U2412M, (24inch, 1920x1200), and compared to my Dell U2410, I must say, that for the price, this is an awesome monitor. Without a side-by-side comparison, the colors are really great, and back light light is also very good. You can see that Dell did try their best to get to similar colors as the Dell U2410 when using (on the U2410, Adobe RGB color profile). It's not perfect match, because.. well it's a lower end monitor, but still very close to the eye. If you want to be more exact (to the eye): -> The whites are a bit blu-ish white (due to LED backlight), but still very close to proper white (you can see that high-end whited LED's where used). This affects all colors, with grays the most visible. Again, fully expected for white LED backlight. -> Saturation on certain colors are a bit too high, while others are a bit too low. This may be due that the monitor is 6-bit panel instead of a 8-bit one. -> Green has a hint of yellow, so while it does look like a nice green, when put next to the U2410 (which remember this is a pretty high end consumer monitor, with pre-calibarted sRGB and Adoeb RGB color profiles), looks a bit like Nvidia green. -> Red are perfect. -> Blue is close, but not as rich as the U2410 So it's very good, considering the price. I expected the same image result for the U2312HM
Like Goodbytes said, it depends how much you want to spend. Either get the U2312HM or the U24, you'll love them! I know I do!
Thanks for the info guys. I'll look into the Dell monitors and try find a good price. But yeah, i do feel i NEED 24" - purely because I currently have a 22" and so need to justify the upgrade by getting a bigger size. ...also i'm at uni and so it double's as my TV too so a bigger screen goes a long way. One other question on something i'm a little confused on is....There's some pretty decent looking (advertised specs) 27" monitors for about £250...They're not IPS, and only 1080 but are they good still? such as:http://www.scan.co.uk/products/27-a...i-dvi-displayport-vga-1920x1080-300-cd-m2-2ms My initial logic is that 27" would: - hurt my eyes that close - need a higher resolution - lack in quality (for the price they are) But then...if a 27" requires a greater resolution than 1080... my parents 50" TV at 1080 should look terrible....but it doesn't? :/ full HD frozen planet looks awesome! I know it's because there's no video source > 1080 for TV's right now, but is saying that a 27" inch needs a higher resolution that 1080 being pedantic... ....or have i just missed something? (this is all taking into account my student situation and lack of funds...so value always trumps quality for me) Thanks again!
The reason your parents 50" 1080p TV looks so good is that you sit miles away from it, if you sat as close as you do to your monitor you would see how bad it is. When you get to 27", 1440p does start to be a viable option, but I would still say a 1200p 24" monitor would be a better option, as you can then upgrade to a 1600p 30" monitor
I was just about to order the U2412M like Good Bytes suggested but then i found this... http://www.digitalversus.com/lcd-monitor/dell-u2412m-p11538/test.html Apparently it's not for gaming/movies because of the ghosting(reverse) and 8ms response time. Annoying because it's perfect in every other sense. Are there any other recommendations that are slightly better for gaming? Thanks so far!
Digital versus are not serious reviewers; they're also not serious gamers who know anything about response time and input lag. Take what they say with a pinch of salt. Read tftcentral's review if you want to know how the monitor performs for gaming: In truth, you will not be able to tell the difference between virtually any modern IPS/TN display when it comes to pixel responsiveness. Differences are too close for it to be used as a fair differentiator. There are exceptions, but this is the general rule. Input lag is different but follows the same pattern (most are very similar, with a few notable exceptions where it may be a concern). Remember, any LCD is going to display some amount of 'blur' when you move fast in games; don't be too hung up on misleading response time specs.
[edit] 3lusive nija'd me) First of all... the monitor frame is black.. why it's silver on the picture... maybe it's some regional thing. Also this site aren't goo reviews, they show fancy charts, but I am convince they know what it means, or how to properly use their equipment. The U2312HM and U2412M both have very similar response time. If you want impressive response time... here are you choices: -> You can get a TN panel instead of an IPS panel. They are usually cheaper in price, and you sacrifice colors (will be good enough on a high-end TN panel, but usually cost more than an entry level IPS panel, which is what the Dell monitor suggest is... actually no, it's more like the top of the entry level IPS panel), and also lose on the view angle, and you get more back light bleeding, and usually build quality as well is less, although I did see some exception (completely discontinued, now so I can't recommend them). Even if you go with a TN panel, you will still have ghosting, just a bit less. Your other option: -> Spend a lot more money on higher-end IPS panel, such as the U2410 (it's response time, put to shame most TN panels and makes you question BIG TIME, their "1 or 2ms" claims that manufacture mentions on their TN panel. (U2410 has a 6ms response time)). I think it depends on the games you play. If you play primarily FPS, it could be an issue (then again, if you are a hard core FPS gamer, then TN panels are the way to go, which based on the feedback I get, hardcore FPS player don't care about anything else beside response time, and low input lag. It goes over comfort, build quality, and don't care if it's glossy or not. If you play other genre of game, or play FPS games for fun and/or casually, many people here have the LG-IPS231P, which has a bit worse response time, but they love it, and highly recommend it as a cheaper alternative to the U2312HM. Check out this review, for more information on the U2412M and how it compares: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm
I mainly play fps but that site Good byte just linked is awesome! THOSE are the kind of reviews i need! thank you so much!!!! The U2412M seems awesome! Having said this...I don't think i'll be able to play BF3 on ultra at 1920 x 1200 on my current 560ti (448 core) and most of my video content is 720 or 1080 tops and I don't look at super high res pictures ever.... ...so would the screen be "wasted" on me? Or does it upscale/make lower res content seem great anyway? ...or are there any recommended monitors that are just as outstanding with response, picture and value as the U2412M but are 1080 (and thus cheaper)? -Something like the LG mentioned but 24"? does the LG have a bigger brother? Thanks for all the help guys...been great so far.
In the IPS (for computers) market, 24inch means 16:10 aspect ratio, which means 1920x1200. 23inch means 16:9, which means 1920x1080. As the IPS panel market for computers, is still aimed at professional (in the sense, of people actually using their computer for work, and not for facebook/e-mail/websurf), you don't (well very rarely) see stuff like a low resolution on a large screen size. So finding a 1920x1080 on a 24inch IPS panel, would be very difficult, and that is if they are any. (I sure haven't seen one so far). People who get a 16:10 aspect ratio monitors, is because they need for work purposes (like using the computer for stuff like web page development, programming, CAD, 2/D3D modeling, audio or video montage/editing, working with all sorts of documents, whether it's for work, or for fun). Basically, 16:10 provides more height over a 16:9 aspect ratio monitor, so that means that you have more work area, as you don't lose space for the task bar, and application menus and tool bars. The cool thing about 1920x1200 monitor is that, because the width is the same as a 1920x1080, your content (video/game/etc..) isn't stretched. All you get (let's say you play one of the very few 16:9 movies), a small black line at the top and bottom of the video. And because you are using an IPS panel and not a TN panel, you see no back light bleeding. The lines are BLACK. And the height of this black bar and the actual monitor frame is about the same as any average TN panel frame. So it's like if you had a 1080p monitor, but on desktop, it extends, to give you a bit more work area. So you can play your games in 1920x1080 if you want (the image won't stretch, especially that the monitor support 1:1 pixel mapping, a feature that few monitor have, which basically means that the content will not be stretch), or 1920x1200. The difference between the two resolution is 120px in height (or 230 400 more pixels), this isn't much increase for the graphic card... so gaming performance should be very close. So basically, if you do only gaming and web surfing.. a 23inch 1920x1080 would be best for you. If you do work on your system, than the additional pixels height of the 24inch model 1920x1200, would be welcomed to you. However, the down side (as it is evident), 16:10 aspect ratio monitor (pretty much all of them), are not sold as much as the 16:9 one (which is also using the same machines as for TV's) so it comes out to be cheaper. As most people (average consumers) don't care about anything beside low price, 16:9 monitors are more purchased and sold. So 16:10 are more expensive due to the lower production number. The image size (icon/text size) should be very close to the same between the 2 models. (0.265mm for the 23inch, and 0.27mm for the 24inch)
I agree that 16:10 IPS is the way to go. I've got a 1200p main monitor on my desktop and it's simply incredible compared to 1080p screens. I don't even notice how much it helps until I have to use the 1080p monitors at work. Also, 27" 1080p screens are icky. I can't stand them, after using a U2711 and 27" iMac (still has a great panel, say what you will about the glossy screen and hardware, but the panel is the same as the U2711), and any 1080p 27" screen just looks awful compared to them.
This makes sense. I think I'll just try to stretch to a U2412M then. If my graphics card can't handle it in games i'll just bump down the settings. ...and I know I said I only really use it for gaming, but as i've been on a year long internship with Ford, i've forgotten i've got to back to uni afterwards and finish my degree in computer science and games design! I will need this monitor anyway! (i'm such and idiot). I figure I can go to the bank of mum and justify it for my uni work. Thanks for the help everyone - really insightful.
Well, if you want to think positively, you have great experience. Although next time, stick to summer internship, or part time job (like work 1 day of the week, or wtv you can handle with your classes). I am in Computer Science too.
I'm usually in a dark room playing on my computer....LOL No but seriously...if it's sunny outside I'll be outside. So I go for glossy right? the U2412M is matte - anti-glare....but I don't think it'll make a difference when the rest of the screen is that good... Unless you can reccomend something even better? And GoodByte - yeah it's great experience. It's part of my degree so I had to do it (sandwich course). It was ridiculously well paid for an internship and my job's pretty fun, and it means i've got a job after uni and my wakeboard and snowboard season ....and Ford have paid for my instructors licence!
Nice stuff! Yea for sure it's amazing experience. You'll get an easier access for your next internship, or full time job as you are all trained up there. And also, it makes finding a different job (if you want to experience something else), easier, as other companies will see that not only you worked there, but you pass their interview. It's like getting an internship at Microsoft. Once you have this on your resume, you are set, as Microsoft interviews, are VERY hard (same for AMD, Nvidia, Amazon and Google), due to the high amount of applicants there. Anyway, Matte screens aren't a downside (it cost more to make, that is why your see all the low end screen using glossy, as not only the film is cheaper to make (as matte screens uses a special anti-glare film, that minimizes light distortion, all by giving you low to non reflection), but also you don't need any system to compensate for the remaining distortions). All professional grade monitors (the ones that costs more than your computer sometimes twice, and are only 22/24inch) are all matte. The advantage of non-glossy screen, is that you can focus on your work, and not how handsome you are, and won't have to jack up the brightness to really high levels hurting your eyes, to compensate the reflection. But, some (few), like glossy screens. I experience glossy screens, and honestly, I don't see ANY difference in picture quality, nor color. But some people claim they do.
Good info... I think when it comes to the matt and gloss...it's personal preference as everyone's eyes are different. But glare can't be good for your eyes anyway. I need to find a good deal on the Dell U2412M... I've googled around but there are some sites that seem a little cheaper but because of that I'm skeptical that it's a con/fake site. Do you know of any good retailers that are cheap??? My back up will be to just get it off scan... I have a good relationship with them and hope they'll be liniant if there are any dead pixels! Thanks
My knowledge stops in getting is good deal form Dell directly (In Canada and US). But based on people experience here, Dell U.K is very stiff in not lower their price, and only does it for online stores.
