Skip to main content

NEC EA244UHD 24-Inch Ultra HD Monitor Review

Users seeking maximum pixel density need look no further than a 24-inch Ultra HD screen. We recently looked at Dell’s UP2414Q. Today we’re testing NEC’s EA244UHD. It’s part of the company's business-class line but offers much more than its stablemates.

Results: Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response

Our grayscale and gamma tests are described in detail here.

We were so surprised with our out-of-box result that we ran the test three more times to be sure our instruments were working properly. Check out the 50-percent level. Its error is only .07 Delta E!

Needless to say, there was nothing to gain by adjusting the RGB sliders, so we left them alone. It’s hard to imagine better performance.

Switching to the Adobe RGB mode produced a nearly identical chart.

Here is our comparison group:

We thought BenQ's PG2401PT would be hard to beat in the stock performance tests (and it still is), but NEC raises the bar with its EA244UHD. None of the professional displays we’ve tested can measure under one Delta E without any adjustment.

Changing the light output level actually increased the numbers a bit, though that could easily be the measurement tolerance of our i1Pro since all we adjusted was the backlight.

Gamma Response

Gamma is the only metric that leaves a little room for improvement. There are no presets available, so what you see above is what you get, regardless of color mode. While good, small dips at 70, 80 and 90 percent spoil an otherwise perfect chart. Fortunately, you won’t be able to see the error in actual content.

Here is our comparison group again:

The tracking result is mid-pack because of the dip at 90-percent brightness. The EA244UHD’s main competitor, Dell’s UP2414Q, does a bit better in the gamma tracking test. In fairness, all of the screens we're presenting come close to perfect. It’s a very tight race.

We calculate gamma deviation by expressing the difference from 2.2 as a percentage.

The 70- through 90-percent levels spoil the fun and bring average gamma down to 2.14. While you can’t correct this in the OSD, SpectraView can fix the problem or even change the gamma value. If you need BT.1886, a software calibration is the only way to get it.

  • alidan
    48 inch, i can't imagine using a 4k at any less than 48 inches.
    Reply
  • LiquidAMD
    SST or MST please for 60Hz??
    Reply
  • LiquidAMD
    SST or MST please for 60Hz??
    Reply
  • milkod2001
    @alidan

    That's no telly, it's professional desktop monitor, could be 27 or 30'' but would probably cost another 1000 or more extra.
    Reply
  • vincent67
    Agree with alidan, at this density, pixels are wasted: you don't see more as you need to scale everything up.
    And, knowing the hardware you need to drive this resolution,, I don't see any interest except for some niches.
    You need at least 44'' to exploit 4K.
    Reply
  • ribald86
    @vincent67

    UHD is 2560x1440/2560x1600 - not 4k. Even if it was 4k, I don't see how you can say it is wasted.
    Reply
  • ribald86
    @myself - I was incorrect - I am a dumb ass.

    QHD = 2560x1440/2560x1600
    UHD = 4k
    Reply
  • ribald86
    @myself - I was incorrect - I am a dumb ass.

    QHD = 2560x1440/2560x1600
    UHD = 4k
    Reply
  • atwspoon
    @ribald86
    UHD = 3840x2160
    4k = 4096x2160
    Reply
  • Textfield
    The problem with these high-DPI screens is that support for these displays is lacking in many modern OS's. Yes, support is getting better, as with Windows 8.1 and its better UI scaling, but even with good support in the OS's UI, you're still at the mercy of the apps you use, and many are terrible when it comes to high DPI, with some even failing to work properly.

    Retina is only useful when your programs provide good support for it. Otherwise it's just an annoyance. As an owner of a Yoga 2 Pro (13" 3200x1800), I can speak to this. I normally run my laptop in an upscaled 1920x1080 just to keep compatability.
    Reply