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.

NEC's EA244UHD Offers Incredible Out-Of-Box Performance

In evaluating the EA244UHD, it’s easy to forget about its tremendous pixel density once the color tests begin. Even though we’re not big fans of 24-inch Ultra HD monitors, the accuracy enabled by NEC makes this a compelling choice. We would be willing to live with Windows' less-than-ideal display scaling to have this kind of precision on our desktops.

Of course, that begs the question: what could NEC do with the 32-inch IGZO panel? We’ve tested three products based on that part and we know that the wide-gamut version used in Dell’s UP3214Q is capable of professional-grade performance. Yes, the price is dear. Still, we’re already talking about $1300 for a 24-inch screen. Perhaps NEC will add the jumbo monitor to its PA series.

NEC’s EA line has always been about luxury-grade business-class displays. The EA274WMi proved itself to be a capable screen that came very close to our current 27-inch QHD picks from Planar (PXL2790MW) and HP (E271i). But this new Ultra HD monitor takes EA performance well into the realm of a professional’s tool.

With benchmark-setting accuracy, SpectraView capability and high pixel density, we’re surprised the EA244UHD isn’t part of the PA series. We saw great things from the PA272W and this monitor is even better in some ways.

Its principal competitor is Dell’s UP2414Q. That screen also has a wide-gamut option with software adjustment features and factory-certified calibration. It’s currently selling for under $1000, presenting a solid alternative to the EA244UHD. But if you’re looking for absolute precision without calibration, NEC wins the contest hands-down.

To find fault with it, you really have to nit-pick. Yes the price is high. But unless you’re willing to settle for one of the new 28-inch TN-based screens, a 4K display is going to necessitate a generous budget. Priced against monitors of similar accuracy, it’s a wash. The NEC PA272W or HP Z27x cost as much or more, and they top out at 2560x1440 pixels. If you want the maximum possible pixel density from a desktop monitor, it’s either the EA244UHD or Dell’s UP2414Q.

If you take away one point from our considerable suite of benchmarks, it should be that we didn’t have to change a single image parameter to ace almost every metric. We would like to see a bit more contrast, and the gamma wasn’t perfect. However, in the color and grayscale tests, we found a new definition of accuracy. We know that only a small percentage of users have the means or desire to calibrate their displays. That’s why we measure un-calibrated performance. The EA244UHD beats the calibrated results of nearly every display we’ve ever tested.

For its incredible out-of-box performance and stunning image quality, we’re giving the NEC EA244UHD Tom's Hardware's coveted Elite award.

  • 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