Acer S242HL bid
Acer's S242HL bid represents the common, inexpensive TN-based LCDs you'll most likely find at the electronics story. In fact, at $190, it's one of the cheapest LED-backlit monitors available. However, don't take low cost to suggest poor quality. The S242HL bid is, as its name implies, part of Acer's S series, which presents an ultra-thin profile in a piano black finish.
The company isn't doing anything special compared to the competition, though. Like other "ultra-thin" LCD monitors, Acer moves most of its power circuitry into a discrete external adapter, facilitating a thinner display.
This monitor's low price tag is simply a function of its no-frills design approach, as port connectivity covers the basics: HDMI, DVI, and VGA. One issue we have is that connectors protrude straight out the back, instead of being hidden on a tapered bottom edge. Up against a wall, cables will tend to extend past the thin chassis and base.
While port connectivity gives us access to the most common interfaces, Acer's OSD (on-screen display) layout is less than ideal. Even though the power button is located dead center on screen's front bottom edge, the company chose not to situate any of the OSD buttons where you can see them, achieving a cleaner design. Alright, we get it. Nobody likes to look at their monitor head-on and see an array of buttons lining one side of it. When you're trying to navigate the OSD menu, though, poking your head under the display to see what you're pressing isn't an awesome compromise.
kinda confused why you would be comparinig an IPS to lcd but idk
I would have liked to see the older U2410 model here too, because that uses the "older" IPS technology and is apparently better enough for Dell to justify a $100 price premium over the U2412.
kinda confused why you would be comparinig an IPS to lcd but idk
Uh, why wouldn't they?
I currently own an eIPS monitor, and will never go back to TN.
I would have liked to see the older U2410 model here too, because that uses the "older" IPS technology and is apparently better enough for Dell to justify a $100 price premium over the U2412.
So… you didn't read the article? The whole point of eIPS is it's cheaper than other IPS panels, not that it's better.
Dell's U2412 is NOT the replacement for the U2410. Dell is going to continue to produce the U2410.
Also the U2410 frequently goes on sale. I think it is a mistake to buy the U2412 when the U2410 is definitely superior to the U2412 in every benchmark.
Right now the most affordable HIPS monitors with the best performance are the Dell U2410 and the HP 2475W. I think that the HP 2475W has the edge slightly over the 2410. Asus also has put out a fairly good 24" HIPS monitor but the U2410 and the 2475W are better monitors per the professional reviews that I have read.
I own the HP 2475W and it does have beautiful picture. You have to go to NEC at twice the cost to improve on it.
God, really need an edit function here…
Just reread your comment and my response was probably a little off-base. However, the U2412's predecessor should be better in every way (except possibly response time) since eIPS is meant to be more economical by trading off some of the quality of other IPS panels.
God, really need an edit function here…Just reread your comment and my response was probably a little off-base. However, the U2412's predecessor should be better in every way (except possibly response time) since eIPS is meant to be more economical by trading off some of the quality of other IPS panels.
Hello
There is a huge difference between a picture quality HIPS monitor and a TN monitor. I have not seen an eIPS monitor but they seem to be pretty good also from the reviews that I have read.
I hate touch buttons !
Hello! Could you guys review the LG IPS236v? It's also a cheap IPS panel, i don't know if it's the same technology used to make the U2412M. From my researches it dosen't seem to be sold in the US, but it already arrived in other countries (in Brazil it is being sold for about $300).
PS.: Sorry if there's any mistake with my English. =)
"...since response time and input lag usually decreases with screen size. Why? Monitors with larger screens have higher pixel density, and as the number of pixels per inch (PPI) increases there are more pixels to refresh. Therefore, at 60 Hz, larger panels take longer to complete a complete screen refresh."
Ehr, what...?
Screens with 5 or more refresh rate... No thank you.
What a useless review from clueless writers.
Do any of those monitors are capable of 120hz? If no, they are useless for nvidia 3D. 60hz monitors look and feel ugly compared to 120hz. Vsync kills framerates on 60Hz monitors.
Blurring. That’s the feature that makes the deal for me. I hate blurring of moving images. They ruin everything from scrolling web pages, to playing videos, and playing games. The most important benchmark is response time from WHITE TO BLACK, and there is NOT A WORD on this article about it.
Response time analysis is a joke.
Blah... Show me some 26" displays with 2500x1600 resolutions.
Otherwise all the 1920x1080 monitors are nothing more than downgrades.
I can't stand 16:9 monitors. Is that Dell UltraSharp U2412M the only 16:10 monitor available these days?
I want to see the Dell U2410
kinda confused why you would be comparinig an IPS to lcd but idk
They're not. They are comparing 3 LCD screens, 1 with an e-IPS panel and 2 with TN panels.
What a useless review from clueless writers.Do any of those monitors are capable of 120hz? If no, they are useless for nvidia 3D. 60hz monitors look and feel ugly compared to 120hz. Vsync kills framerates on 60Hz monitors.Blurring. That’s the feature that makes the deal for me. I hate blurring of moving images. They ruin everything from scrolling web pages, to playing videos, and playing games. The most important benchmark is response time from WHITE TO BLACK, and there is NOT A WORD on this article about it.Response time analysis is a joke.
I tell ya what sparky, you write up a comparable review and let us be the judge of who's is better. This article was on a particular segment of monitors. You are referring to a totally different segment.
Didn't your momma teach you, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all?
Great review!
Hopefully I'll get to see the Dell U2211H featured in a future review.
"...since response time and input lag usually decreases with screen size. Why? Monitors with larger screens have higher pixel density, and as the number of pixels per inch (PPI) increases there are more pixels to refresh. Therefore, at 60 Hz, larger panels take longer to complete a complete screen refresh."Ehr, what...?
My guess is that the monitors refresh progressively, one line at a time, so monitors with more pixels take longer. I may be wrong, but that's my understanding of it.