Skip to main content

ViewSonic VX2475Smhl-4K 24-Inch UHD Monitor Review

ViewSonic's new VX2475Smhl-4K is a 24-inch IPS panel that's currently one of the least expensive Ultra HD monitors available. Today we run it through our lab and hands-on tests.

Conclusion

Admittedly, we prefer our Ultra HD monitors as large as possible. 32 inches means an ideal pixel density of 137ppi, which is only a bit greater than the 109ppi we're used to from a 27-inch QHD screen. But you still can't touch a UHD display that big for less than $1,000. And not everyone can accommodate such a large screen in their workspace.

Inevitably there is a need for smaller screens and that's where these new 24-inch products come in. At this time, ViewSonic's VX2475Smhl-4K seems to be one of the least-expensive Ultra HD monitors available.

Despite its low cost we can't say any real corners have been cut in its design or construction. About the only thing missing is a stand with height, swivel and portrait adjustments; ViewSonic definitely saved a few bucks there. But the parts that count -- namely the panel and accompanying electronics -- operate at a level that's above average.

For business and graphics applications, the VX2475Smhl-4K is more than worthy of consideration. Color, grayscale and gamma are all pretty close to the best we've measured. Contrast is not at the highest level but it is also close to the top. Sure, there are brighter monitors out there, but at almost 300cd/m2 peak, few users will complain about output levels.

And best of all, there's that PLS panel. We're relieved to see that an inexpensive monitor doesn't automatically mean TN any longer. While the 28-inch UHD screens that came out last year allowed more users to afford high resolution, their TN panels are a deal-breaker for many.

With the VX2475Smhl, you can have a high-quality PLS panel, accurate color and even reasonably low input lag for less than the price of many 27-inch QHD screens. The only real question is, can you live with the smaller size?

When we first turned it on, Windows text was super-tiny and borderline unreadable. But a quick change to 150 percent in the dpi scaling menu cleaned things up nicely. We've complained in the past about the poor quality of Windows' scaling but the combination of the ViewSonic's pixel density and the setting we chose seems to be in a clarity sweet spot.

Comparing the VX2475Smhl-4K to its competition you're basically giving up two things for that $400 price tag: screen size and a wide gamut. A larger display, even a 28-inch TN model, will cost you at least $100 more. And an Adobe RGB option means you'll have to look at the Dell UP2414Q or the NEC EA244UHD.

We're seeing 27-inch Ultra HD displays now as well. ViewSonic sent us its version recently, the VP2780-4K. It too has an IPS panel but those extra few inches will cost you nearly double the price for what is otherwise a very similar product. Right now, the VX2475Smhl-4K is going to be hard to beat in the value segment. For that reason, and its excellent performance, we're giving it our Tom's Hardware Editor Recommended Award.

MORE: Best Monitors

MORE: All Monitor Content

Follow Tom's Hardware on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

  • wtfxxxgp
    24" UHD monitor for gaming? Nope. Just nope. It's too small for me, I'm getting old.
    Reply
  • JeanLuc
    The pixel density of a 4K screen is about the same as a high end 1080p smart phone, the picture quality of this must be stunning.
    Reply
  • MasterMace
    Waiting on 60hz ips 2160p at $200 and 120hz ups 2160p at $350.
    Reply
  • xenol
    The pixel density of a 4K screen is about the same as a high end 1080p smart phone, the picture quality of this must be stunning.
    The monitor is half that, compared against a 6" phone. But at the viewing distances of a monitor, it may as well be effectively greater.
    Reply
  • Joseph Jasik
    Way too small, sorry.
    Reply
  • DisplayJunkie
    "nicely styled with a gloss-black bezel"

    Are you kidding me? Nicely styled? NO. Glossy black plastics are COMPLETE CRAP. They REFLECT the damn displayed image! This is ESPECIALLY horrible when it's used on bezels, it is EXTREMELY annoying.

    And glossy black plastics look terribly cheap.

    Not to mention black bezels reduces the perceived contrast ratio. Matte grays are the correct choice.

    Why do monitor manufacturers keep doing this?

    "Just" because of that, this monitor is immediately disqualified from my consideration.

    Reply
  • xenol
    24" UHD monitor for gaming? Nope. Just nope. It's too small for me, I'm getting old.
    You can think of it this way: you no longer have to deal with anti-aliasing of any kind!

    But then again 4K with no AA may as well be the same as 1080p with 4xMSAA (only not since MSAA is much cheaper than 4K still)
    Reply
  • nitrium
    I often wonder what the scalers are like in these things, i.e. if you run a resolution lower than native - something you may potentially be forced to do to get a playable framerate in gaming for example. Does it look absolute rubbish? How does 1080p look on these screens compared to 1080p on a screen with that as native resolution? Does it generally look better, worse or roughly the same? Are all scalers created equal? Would be very interested to read about this in future articles.
    Reply
  • chumly
    or you can get a 28" 4k from monoprice for $50 less.
    Reply
  • picture_perfect
    Here we go again.The best graphics card today will average 40 fps at this resolution. Check any current game. That means an awful gaming experience with judder, blur and lag. Scaling resolution down degrades picture / adds lag. So for gaming I will say NO.
    Reply