I'm not concerned about the price of either... but the 24" monitor has a 3000:1 contrast ratio and the 27" is only 1000:1 contrast ratio. They both have the same 1920x1200 native resolutions and same response times (6ms). The 24" has HDMI ports that the 27" does not as well as a 110% color gamut whereas the 27" only has a 92% color gamut. So although you get the 3 extra inches from the 27" monitor, the 24" seems to be a better over-all quality and still, a big monitor! Ah and the 27" has better aesthetics I'd say as well (though that is more personal preference).
What do you guys think? Which should I go with?? Other suggestions altogether??
personally im going with the 24" Ultrasharp, its a beautiful monitor. the HDMI are really nice, it has better over all features and it still is HUGE. and 200$ more for not as deep blacks, no HDMI, and less colors just doesn't seem worth it. 24" is plenty big enough for anyone.
The color gamut doesn't mean more or less colors. It basically determine in what hue and saturation the colors are displayed on the screen without having to go into the technicals. Typical monitors display around 72% color gamut.
A 92% color gamut meets the Adobe RGB specification for printed color reproduction. This means wide color gamut can help improve color accuracy for printed material, but you will still need a colorimeter to calibrate your monitor if you want very accurate colors.
If you are not used to seeing wide color gamut, then it will take you a little time to get used to them. A read where a few people thought wider color gamuts looked horrible when gaming, but I image they got used to it eventually.