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: Color Gamut And Performance

For details on our color gamut testing and volume calculations, please click here.

This was another test where we had to check ourselves multiple times. It’s rare to see any display of any type or price lay down such accurate gamut results. Even though NEC includes a full CMS, it’s obviously not needed (at least in our particular sample).

The EA244UHD renders the Adobe gamut with equal precision. Flaws? Alright, there’s one minor error in both charts. Look at 100-percent blue. It’s just a tad under-saturated. Now check out the corresponding bar in both luminance charts. It’s elevated a little to compensate. The end result is visually correct with an invisible Delta E error. It just can’t get much better.

Now we return to the comparison group:

The EA244UHD doesn’t win the day in our chart, but remember that the top two screens were carefully calibrated. The NEC posted those numbers with no adjustment other than a backlight reduction. It only misses the top spot by a negligible .15 Delta E.

Gamut Volume: Adobe RGB 1998 And sRGB

Dell's UP2414Q remains our gamut volume champ. We’re not sure what the company did to render that extra few percent though, considering it employs the same panel used in NEC's EA244UHD. This isn't an error of consequence, however. NEC’s UHD screen is more than qualified for color-critical work. And it’s easier to recommend thanks to its phenomenal out-of-box performance.

  • 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