|
ShaneB posted:6-bit isn't the same gamut though, correct? The U2412 is still sRGB, and virtually nobody can tell the difference between it and a full 8-bit panel.
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
Yeah, response time has nothing to do with input lag. Response time is the measured time it takes for a pixel to cycle colors (and most monitor makers fudge these measurements in one way or another). Input lag is the amount of time it takes from the moment a display receives a frame until it displays it on screen. Monitors are usually better than TVs in this regard, but nobody reports input lag in their specs so it's a real motherfucker to find something (because you're usually relying on other people to find/report those numbers). Goodpart, I'd say if you're dead set on 27", you may be waiting a while. The majority of testing/reporting I've ever seen is on 24" and under screens. I seem to recall the U2412 has been tagged as low lag, but the actual numbers I don't know. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1037674919&highlight=input+lag#post1037674919 This guy on HOCP (I know) claims it's 2ms+ response time, although he doesn't show how he knows that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 12:44
|
|
|
IMlemon posted:I want to buy a monitor because I'm getting tired of staring at a tiny laptop screen at home, however a friend warned me about how you apparently need a decent video card for bigger monitors so I'm checking to see if its true. My laptop has Radeon 5470 card, and I'm thinking of getting 22-24 inches monitor for mostly viewing movies, doing some programming and playing some old games. For movies and desktop stuff, it'll be fine. For games, it depends on the games and the resolution of the monitor (not screen size). But generally speaking that is not a good gaming card. It's hard to find hard benchmarks, but check out game performance for a Radeon 5450 and expect something similar (but worse). http://www.anandtech.com/show/2931
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2011 15:10
|
|
|
Ashenai posted:I need a new monitor for gaming, movies, and general Windows use/surfing the net. I like fighting games, so input lag is an important issue for me (anything above 30 ms is really really bad.) I'm not going to be doing image/movie editing, and I don't really care about strict color accuracy. Black bars don't bug me. You may not have a hard budget limit, but what resolution you get will greatly affect how much video card you need. A 1900x1080p monitor will require maybe $2-300 in video hardware, while a 2560x1600 monitor will run closer to $600. What resolution/monitor size do you really want? The Dell U2412M is a pretty good default choice, as it's 1900x1200, 24", IPS (so good viewing angles/color), and has essentially no input lag.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2011 13:46
|
|
|
Nubcakes posted:Since no one ever answered my question, I'll ask again; Any time you have a monitor doing scaling the resulting picture is going to be significantly worse than its native resolution - there's no way around that. Most video cards now allow you to do the scaling via the GPU rather than the monitor itself, which will probably result in a better picture but not earth-shatteringly so. You can try to find something with a 1:1 pixel mapping mode, where the monitor will display the actual resolution and black-border the rest of the screen, but obviously that's only going to help on stuff that can still display in relatively high resolutions (like 1600x1200 or 1080p). 320x240 is going to be matchbook-sized with 1:1 mapping. And I'm not even sure you can get a fixed low-res 4:3 game to properly upscale on a 16:9/10 monitor - maybe with GPU scaling but I've never investigated. Basically you have three options: - Quit playing those games - Live with the upscaling - Keep a tube monitor Crackbone fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Nov 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
Vinlaen posted:How the heck do you play games at 2560x1600? You turn down settings. Lots of games just aren't capable of running at ultra/16xAA settings with today's hardware. Generally it's pointless anyway, as most of those games will look fantastic at lower settings. And alternatively there could be issues with the rest of your system (but with SLI'ed 480s I'd guess you have an overkill rig).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Hamburglar posted:Where is it on sale? I see it on dell.com for the same price as Amazon. Response times are a meaningless number. Response time is supposed to be the time it takes for a pixel to cycle the color it displays. In theory it can tell you if your monitor will have ghosting, but in practice every manufacturer measures it differently and the end result is that you can't determine anything useful from it. In practice most monitor have no ghosting anymore (but if you're concerned you can read individual reviews). The number that actually effect performance for gaming is input lag, and manufacturers never release that number. However the Dell U2412 has extremely low input lag - I can't remember the actual number but it's essentially imperceptible. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Nov 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 14:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Does the dell U2412M have any input lag issues? My current monitor is supposedly 5ms and has no problems and the dell is 8, but the OP said that these ratings are worthless so I'll ask the internet. You're probably quoting response time (there's no LCD monitor that advertises input lag numbers, and 5ms is ludicrously unrealistically low). As mentioned, the measured input lag of the U2412M is ~9ms. Considering at 60fps a single screen refresh takes 16ms, the screen has no perceptible input lag at all. Fatal posted:if you're really going for some crazy fast stuff (like fighting games) go with the 2312 which has a pretty non-existent input lag compared to the 2412's 9.4ms. This is Crackbone fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Dec 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:I have a few questions: Hard to say, really. IPS does have generally better color and viewing angle, but I think it's a case of "not knowing what you're missing". Most people are perfectly happy with TN. Tearing really doesn't bother me that much, and I've had an IPS screen for 5+ years, so I couldn't see myself going back. If you got IPS, I'd say get whichever of those two screens is cheapest, they're both best in class. Others here may have more detailed opinions on both subjects.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
movax posted:U2412M is apparently $264.99 from this vendor. I saw it briefly on SlickDeals, didn't have time to investigate fully to see details, but if they're brand-new, you should be able to register the units with Dell and enjoy full warranty benefits. Already sold out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Former Human posted:Yeah man if you don't do what we tell you you're wasting your money and you're not allowed to post here anymore Yes, the guy with the CRT monitor is really loving objective  .This isn't the "2002 Monitor Megathread." If somebody is determined to buy a 10 year old CRT, there's not much else to say other than it's a bad idea and move on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Former Human posted:Believe it or not, not everyone is looking for the same features in a display. The FW900 has a lot of features that LCDs in 2012 still don't. If someone wants perfect blacks, various resolutions, and high refresh/response time, there's no comparison. Yes you're right, and you know who really needs those features? Probably not either of you, and certainly not for more than what a good IPS LCD costs right now. Pretty much everybody in the world has moved on to LCDs and been happy enough, because the benefits outweigh drawbacks. And you're the one that didn't read the OP. You must have done a word count check on FW900 and though "look how much he mentioned it"  . Did you notice every mention of the FW900 was about how Movax quit using it because of all the bullshit CRTs entail?Look, to close this out, the bottom line is it's a bad idea to buy a 100-lb, 10 year old, costs-a-fuckton CRT monitor, the OP covers why pretty comprehensively. If you're determined to do so there's nothing else to discuss. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Jan 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2012 13:17
|
|
|
Cicero posted:You can make the u2412m run in 16:9 mode with black bars/no blurriness, right? That might sound like a dumb thing to want but Starcraft 2 is designed for 16:9 and if you have a narrower aspect ratio you get a smaller viewport in the game. What you're asking about is usually called 1:1 pixel mapping, and no, the U2412 does not have that. 1:1 pixel mapping means the monitor will take whatever resolution you give it, map it to that exact number of pixels, and black out the rest of the screen. The U2412 doesn't do that - it takes whatever resolution it gets and stretches it to fill the screen. It's possible that a game will give you a 16:9 "letterboxed" mode, where it generates the black bars itself and thus gives the monitor a true 1900x1200 resolution, but it's highly unlikely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 13:28
|
|
|
sethsez posted:You can also do it with AMD drivers. As long as you enable GPU scaling, the lack of an actual in-monitor scaler isn't an issue. You don't want to hook a PS3 up to it, but PC games at non-native resolutions will work just fine. Yeah, you're both right - I never think of that since most people want 1:1 for game consoles.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
Lilleput posted:Yep.. The number you're quoting is response time. Not only is it a meaningless measurement (because mfrs play games with how they measure it), it has nothing to do with responsiveness. That's input lag, and the U2412M actually has no input lag at all, which is fairly rare, especially in IPS screens. It's a fantastic monitor for pretty much anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Thinking about getting a new monitor or a pair. Want 24" 1200p IPS, matte screen. Are Dell U2412M are still the bees knees or are there comparable options now?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
GokieKS posted:Lack of 1:1 mode, HDMI, and USB 3.0 makes the ASUS PA248Q still a better option if you can find it for comparable price, but the U2412M is a fine choice for a general purpose computer monitor. Is the difference between the Asus and Dell niceties like HDMI, rather than any thing relating to picture quality/input lag/etc?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
So for people still in 24" land, is the Dell U2412M still the poo poo or anything cheaper at same quality?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 10:55 |
|
|
10000lbsofbananas posted:Dell Canada has listed the price of their U2715H at $269.99. When I called, they flat out refused to honour their error and could only offer a $130 discount. Their rep was pretty rude too. Terrible customer service. Holy poo poo a CSR was rude to an rear end in a top hat trying to get their company to honor a blatantly obvious price mistake? You should post that on your blog.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 01:45
|
|
