Dell Ultrasharp 2312HM or a similar priced TN panel?

[Grimezy]

Hi guys, I've been researching monitors a lot the past couple of weeks to try and replace my 32 inch Hitachi LCD TV and move to a desk space setup.

My budget is around the £150-£200 and generally I've been looking at 23-24inch monitors. The stand-out option so far seems to be the Dell Ultrasharp 2312HM. It's an IPS panel which apparently doesn't come across as a cheap model. Despite the 8ms response time, reviews state that this doesn't effect its gaming ability and that it is actually a very good model for all kinds of gaming. The build quality is apparently brilliant and although some people complain about the anti-glare coating making the screen appear dull (when on a white background), I don't feel this is a major issue as my monitor at work has this feature and honestly it's quite nice on the eyes; plus I'd assume this isn't obvious when gaming. Also, for the small fee of £160, it seems like a good deal.

My penultimate question is am I being clouded by the 'IPS craze' at the moment? Would I get a much better gaming experience from a similarly priced TN panel? I know that the quoted response times are much quicker but are these really that obvious for a general consumer or do you really have to know what to look for to notice the difference? And I know people say that TN colour quality is poor but I assume if you're looking at your screen head-on at a desk then really an IPS monitor doesn't have many benefits over a TN panel? Plus at the end of the day, surely anything will perform better than a £180 32 inch LCD tv?

My final question is if I do opt towards the Ultrasharp, should I be investing the extra money in the 1920x1200 Ultrasharp 2412 rather than the 2312? I assumed 16:9 would be better for gaming and it's what I'm used to, but I've heard that the extra pixels are really nice on the 2412 and that it still works well in gaming. Either way I think either would be better than what I have at the moment

Cheers guys

 

[RS2OOO]

See the other thread about Monitors.

For me, I spent 2 days thoroughly researching monitors to replace the poor Samsung I foolishly bought without researching.

My conclusion left me with Iiyamas and Dell (based on 24" screen and value for money features).

I've ended up falling in love with the Dells, and will be purchasing one very soon. However, I'm going for the U2410 (6ms response) which I feel offers better value for my use than the later yet slightly cheaper U2412 model (8ms response), whilst the excellent U2413 (6ms response) model still being new is still fetching high prices but would probably be my choice if it were cheaper.

I also very much prefer a 16:10 screen as most of my use is not gaming or watching movies, however, even if playing a movie or playing a 16:9 game, you still get the full picture, just with 2 blank lines at the top and bottom of the screen where the extra pixels aren't required.

 

[Grimezy]

I have checked the other thread but my question wasn't really 'what is the best monitor', it was more about whether IPS panels are comparable to TN panels for gaming whereas the 'Best Monitors' thread is more a list of people saying 'I have this and I love it' which if everybody has different monitors and they all say they love their own, it's not a brilliant thread to answer any real questions about which is more suitable for a prospective buyer.

It's good to see that somebody else has opted for one of the Dell's though and thank you for bringing the 2313 to my attention, I had only really noticed the 2312 and 2412 up to now.

Do you reckon the response rates that manufacturers stick on are much to go by? I mean is the naked eye really going to see the difference between 8ms and 5ms? Or is it more of a benchmarking thing?

 

[RS2OOO]

I have learned that response rates quoted by manufacturers are not much to go by.

In fact, TFT central compares the real world response rates (and more importantly, input lag) between many popular monitors and the results are surprising.

In fact, it would appear that the U2412 (8ms) is actually marginally better in the real world for gaming than the U2410 (6ms) as can be seen in this excellent review and comparison:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2412m.htm

Based on that review, for a gamer, I'd probably say the money saving for the U2412 makes it the better choice.

For me, I'm still going for a U2410, but in actual fact, that review does say, other than the additional connectivity and add-ons (card reader etc), 99% of the public would not notice the real world difference between the U2410 and the cheaper U2412.

I've not researched the U2413 in any detail because its out of my budget, but I'm sure that site above will have done so.

 

[Bsrz]

its a proven fact that the lower the response time the better the screen for gaming - 2ms is what you should aim for - in games 8ms is a lot ... ips display means you will see great image quality but with the monitor you have picked I believe the screen is glossy and not matte, this may or may not effect you. note that the screen is 60hz and so if your upgrading your graphics card in the future or have a powerful enough one now you will only be able to game at 60hz and will not benefit from smooth motion 120hz like outer monitors available.
I sugest looking at youtube reviews on the monitor - only you can decided what is best for you but if you are a series gamer ips is not the way to go and 8ms will do you no favours.
if you really want and ips display this one is a hell of a lot better for you than the one you picked - this is what I suggest you buy -
http://www.asus.com/Monitors_Projectors/MX239H/

 

[steaky360]

its a proven fact that the lower the response time the better the screen for gaming - 2ms is what you should aim for - in games 8ms is a lot ... ips display means you will see great image quality but with the monitor you have picked I believe the screen is glossy and not matte, this may or may not effect you. note that the screen is 60hz and so if your upgrading your graphics card in the future or have a powerful enough one now you will only be able to game at 60hz and will not benefit from smooth motion 120hz like outer monitors available.
I sugest looking at youtube reviews on the monitor - only you can decided what is best for you but if you are a series gamer ips is not the way to go and 8ms will do you no favours.
if you really want and ips display this one is a hell of a lot better for you than the one you picked - this is what I suggest you buy -
http://www.asus.com/Monitors_Projectors/MX239H/

I'm not convinced anyone can really tell the difference between 8ms and 2ms without someone pointing it out. Its less than 1/100 of a second. I for one certainly can't think that fast

 

[Bsrz]

trust me if you had two monitors one a 2ms respone time and one an 8ms response time lined up together playing a game such as counterstrike - twitch game - you will definitely see a difference. Im not being argumentative please dont think that but I have spent the last year and a half watching youtube videos and reading up on stuff like this along with demoing products etc etc, just to get my setup perfect. If there wasent a difference I would in no way shape or forum pay the money Im paying for my 4 monitors - I could easy save myself £600-700 but im not since im paying for that difference. but I will repeat what I said im hoping to go into competitive gaming - casual gamers that play an hour or two a week wont care about this sort of thing - for me tho as sad as it sounds this is life or death and the monitor is a big part of that.

 

[steaky360]

I'd like to point out some mice have longer response times than 2ms .

Not saying you've not done your research, I'm just pointing out I would imagine most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference (I doubt I could ) I barely notice myself blinking when I'm gaming and that apparently takes 300ms

 

[Bsrz]

thats a good point - im guessing most gaming mice wont since they are designed to have a low response time. such as the razer mamba.

 

[steaky360]

thats a good point - im guessing most gaming mice wont since they are designed to have a low response time. such as the razer mamba.

They reckon 1ms for the mamba 2012.

 

[Bsrz]

sounds good

 

[RS2OOO]

its a proven fact that the lower the response time the better the screen for gaming - 2ms is what you should aim for - in games 8ms is a lot ... ips display means you will see great image quality but with the monitor you have picked I believe the screen is glossy and not matte, this may or may not effect you. note that the screen is 60hz and so if your upgrading your graphics card in the future or have a powerful enough one now you will only be able to game at 60hz and will not benefit from smooth motion 120hz like outer monitors available.
I sugest looking at youtube reviews on the monitor - only you can decided what is best for you but if you are a series gamer ips is not the way to go and 8ms will do you no favours.
if you really want and ips display this one is a hell of a lot better for you than the one you picked - this is what I suggest you buy -
http://www.asus.com/Monitors_Projectors/MX239H/

Some of what you have written contradicts some of what I've been reading over the Weekend.

My understanding based on a few days of research is that firstly the difference between 2ms and 8ms will probably go unnoticed, and equally important to response time is input lag. A 2ms response time is not quicker than a monitor with an 8ms response time if the 2ms monitor has more input lag.

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that The Dell Ultra Sharps have always had "matte" or "antiglare" coating, not glossy. The Asus MX239H has a very similar "antiglare" coating.

I also concluded that the 60hz to 120hz is not something worth paying extra for based on my use as it would only be noticeable with 2 screens side by side showing the same fast moving blu-ray scene and even then not everyone would see the improvement. For gaming however, there could be a benefit to 120hz monitors as higher spec graphics cards and higher quality fast moving games come along in the future. At 60+fps games then a 120hz monitor would certainly smooth out the game play, but from what I read it wouldn't make a great difference at 30fps and in these situations one would be better off paying extra for an IPS than a 120hz TN.

Based on the differing opinions even from experts, you are probably best making your own decision based on your needs and your likely future upgrades and circumstances.


I'm not a big gamer so most of the above were not great factors in my decision making.

For me, I ended up buying a Dell U2410 today. In reality I'd probably be equally happy with the less expensive U2412. I'd be over the moon if I could have afforded the U2413

As for the Asus MX239H, I did also look at that because it has got a bit of hype surrounding it and looks very good, but moved away from it in the end just because I couldn't find any solid and reliable reviews for it to base a decision from (Still too new I guess). Some of the user reviews I read were a little mixed, some excellent and some mentioning non-uniform backlight causing blue hue to one side of the screen.


In the meantime, I'm one to research everything I buy in detail, and thinking a monitor is just a monitor I didn't do that initially, and now have a Brand new 1 Week old Samsung about to find itself on eBay! The missus always moans about the amount of time I spend researching something I'm buying, well, this little escapade proved me right!

 

[Grimezy]

Thanks for the input guys. I'm not sure Bsrz has looked at the Dell 2312 in much detail as he would see that it is infact matte (as said above) and also the fact that it is a highly recommended monitor for gaming on sites like TFT Central. I will look at the Asus again but I'm pretty sure I've researched it in the past and heard bad things about it.

The monitor will pretty much purely be used for gaming but I am no way planning on being competitive on a silly scale, I just want to be able to play things like battlefield and crysis online without getting destroyed every 5 seconds. It's all well and good having a monitor with a 2ms response time but if your own brain can't react that quickly then I doubt I'd see a huge difference between 2ms and 8ms.

I also read in PC Gamer about the Viewsonic vx2370smh-led. Again, I know this is an IPS panel so won't be as quite to response as a TN but PC Gamer won't stop raving about it to the point they've put it in their own rig in the magazine. I am definitely thinking that as I prefer more casual gaming at the moment such as doing campaigns so that I would not really notice the difference from one monitor to another. And as for the 60hz v 120hz argument, I run a GTX670 which gets over 60fps on most games on max settings but I don't think it gets anywhere near 120fps... Which makes me think I would not see great deal of difference unless I wanted to turn settings down which kind of defeats the object of having a brilliant monitor.

Anyway, I'm going to keep thinking, I'm still keen on the Ultrasharp but I'll look into the Asus again and I still have the Viewsonic from PC Gamer on my mind. I know that they're all IPS panels but when you can pick them up for the same price as a standard TN panel it seems like the logical way to go.

I am regretting getting into the PC Gaming business. I would top most leaderboards on my 360 to the point it got boring. Now that I'm on a pc I just find myself buying cheap games all the time and wanting even more expensive tech to plug into my expensive rig because the industry says that you need to spend £100 on a mechanical keyboard to have the quickest response times... Gahhh.

 

[RS2OOO]

Oh dear....

The Dell turned up today.

With a blank white page opened, the left side of the screen is blue and the right side of the screen is pink, with some greyish-yellowish-brownish banding down the middle!

What a nightmare. I've got a house full of useless monitors at the moment!

If they can't replace the U2410 I'm going to get a refund and buy a U2412M.

The more I read about the U2412M the more I think its a better monitor for the average user (like me) whereas the U2410 is more for a professional photographer.

Looking at the response times / input lag debate, I found this info between the 2:

U2410 - Responsiveness: 6ms - Input lag 14.4ms

U2412M Responsiveness: 8 ms - Input lag 9.4ms

That actually makes the U2412M faster overall.


Other than the issues I've got with this monitor, its clear that its a well built quality monitor. Weighs around 10KG and is built like a brick. The stand and it's adjustments are amazingly well made. You can literally adjust it almost any way you want it. Other than the faults mines got, the only downside I'd say is the antiglare coating which is quite noticeable when reading text on a white, or very dark background. The menus and adjustments are almost infinite..... you can pretty much adjust everything.

 

[Bsrz]

:/ I was going to mention the anti glare but thought it was best to keep shut - were did you buy the monitor from? if its from amazon they have a great return service.

 

[Grimezy]

So sorry to hear about your issues >< I read endless reviews and there's always a couple that pop up saying they had faulty screens. I'm sure if you got a replacement then you'd be in love with the 2410 (if it worked!).

As for the anti-glare, I believe my Dell at work has it and I don't find it that bad. It's actually quite easy on the eyes rather than reading from a bright white screen unless my one at work actually doesn't have it and I just see white as grey nowadays... I don't know, we'll see. I assume you haven't bothered to test it on any games or videos yet due to its faulty nature so I doubt you've had chance to see if the anti-glare is any less obvious during normal use?

I'm still very undecided on my monitor as I don't actually have space for my desk yet anyway. I keep going back towards the 2312 as the reviews just get better and better for it and the price is just brilliant for what it is. But then I wonder if I'm missing a trick by not going for 120hz seeing as it is mostly for gaming. My issue is the only 120hz screen I've seen and really like is the Benq that Bsrz is getting and I can't justify £280 at the moment. I think there's a 120hz iiyama with 1ms response time but I haven't read much about that. I just think I'd rather have colours popping out at me rather than shoddy colours on a quick response rate. All the reviews I read about the 120hz panels are like "Yeaaaa the response rate is awesome and the screens features are awesome, and the colours are ok for a TN panel"... I need more than 'ok' for a £300 screen xD

 

[RS2OOO]

Hi,

Firstly, about the U2410

The anti-glare coating I think is what gives the screen an appearance of being made up of thousands of tiny crystals when you view it. This is only noticeable when reading text on white, grey or black coloured backgrounds. I don't think most people really notice it, but after 5 years of using my old TN panel, this was noticeable to me and I felt it would take some time to get used to. Its not noticeable in images, videos or games, or even general web browsing, its more when having to concentrate on text documents.

Despite the faults with mine, it was obvious the U2410 is a well built monitor, it weighs a ton, has loads of connectivity, USB ports and a card reader. The colour options in the menu are never ending and as soon as you start playing with them you start to forget what white should look like! You mess with the settings and suddenly white has a greenish tinge to it, but you put the settings back and notice it has a pinkish tinge to it that you never noticed before.... its never ending.

After using it for a couple of days it was my conclusion that the U2410 is a specialist monitor for people where accurate colour is more important than anything. These users more than likely have their own specialist colour calibration equipment too. Remember, it has 1.07 billion colours against the U2412M's more than adequate 16.7 million colours. I wouldn't be surprised if my graphics card doesn't even support a fraction of those colours as you'd probably need a Quadro to get the full range of colours. It really is for professional users and its now my opinion that for a gamer or casual user you are wasting money buying such a monitor.

As the company who sold it to me haven't returned any emails or phonecalls, I've now requested a full refund through my credit card and therefore looked elsewhere for a replacement.....

Based on the above, I decided I'd save over £100 and go for the U2412M instead. Today I took delivery of a brand new U2412M from a well known computer hardware website for £222 which in itself is over £100 cheaper than buying direct from Dell, so effectively a £200+ saving on the U2410. Do a google product search or an ebay search to find out who the company is.

So, first impressions...

The antiglare coating is less noticeable than the U2410, this is great for me.
Straight out of the box, switched it on and all colours and factory presets look perfect, only think I did was knock the brightness down a notch. Its normal for brightness to be set high on new monitors because they have shop retail displays in mind when they set the presets.

White pages are very bright white, definitely no tinges of any other colour. This is in contrast to the U2410 where white never looked quite white.
Watching HD movies is fine, maybe not quite the level of detail seen in the U2410, but certainly no worse that you'd wished you'd spent more money on something better.
The U2412 is considerably thinner and lighter than the U2410. Build quality is still better than average and better than any other monitor I've owned or used but it doesn't feel as solid as the U2410. For example, with the U2410 the screen wouldn't wobble through an earth quake, but with this one give your desk a shake and it does wobble a little. The stand is still sturdy though so there's no chance of knocking it over.

I was surprised to see it retains the USB ports of the U2410 but it loses the memory card reader. no big deal here.
I was also surprised that it doesn't have a HDMI connection. It has VGA, DVI and Display port. I've set it up with DVI but will probably buy a display port cable seeing as my graphics card supports that.

It has different modes, Game mode which brightens the colours and speeds up responsiveness, Movie mode, I'm not sure exactly what that does because it makes a white page go purple-ish but it did make HD movies look better, Custom mode, normal mode, and text mode which makes text look very sharp against a white background which is great for me. Basically, these presets do make a difference and they seem to work exactly as you'd expect them to.

The design and rounded edges of the U2412M look more modern than the square edged U2410

I've not played any games yet, but based on one of my previous posts overall responsiveness despite being 8ms should be quicker than most monitors due to the very low input lag. I'd say you would be mad to let the 8ms response time put you off..... I've only had the monitor 1 day but I've not seen anything to suggest its any slower than my previous 5ms and 6ms monitors.

Viewing angles are way better than any TN panel. The only thing I'd say here is that a completely black screen looks black when you are sitting in front of it, but from the sides it looks more grey-ish.

With the lights off in a dark room with a black screen there is a small amount of back light bleed in the top right of my monitor. Nothing that I'd worry about though and not noticeable with the lights on or during the day.

As this monitor is LED lit as opposed to the CCFL U2410, its power consumption is almost half at 30w.

Despite the problems I'm having with contacting the company that supplied the faulty U2410 monitor, I'm pleased in a way that it was faulty because the U2412M is a great monitor, significantly cheaper, perfectly set up out of the box, looks good, and has saved me £200 over a monitor whose features I'll never really use or appreciate.

This is a monitor thats going to stay with me for a good few years.

The only additional research I can't comment on from experience is for gaming with the latest games at high settings. I did research this on the web as follows:

User reviews of U2412 from around the Web:

"I love my U2412M, hasn't let me down in games, or anything else.

I would recommend it personally."


"the u2412m is what i use. well worth it; so much so, i consider buying 2 more."

"Those who want to relax in a game during office breaks can let off steam using the U2412M, even in fast action games. Due to the 6-bit colour control and the overdrive, reaction times for an IPS panel are quite nimble and therefore suitable for all types of games."



"QUOTE: U2412M is a pain for gaming because of its reverse ghosting."

"Just spent my first evening gaming with my U2412M and I noticed none of that. I panned the camera at ridiculous speeds and degrees just to test it and things stayed together quite well. There are at least a dozen other expert reviews that refute that claim made by Digital Versus, not to mention hundreds of user reviews all over the net. I would tend to use the entire body of review material available before passing a judgement instead of one cherry-picked source saying its horrible. That's what I did before I bought it. You seem to have an axe to grind towards this model (for seemingly no other reason than that its 16:10), so I doubt doing that would matter much in your case."


"I own the Dell U2412M and it is a FANTASTIC gaming monitor.

I wouldn't trade it for anything but maybe a higher end Dell if I had the money to spend.

You will love the extra vertical pixels, and the colors will blow you away.

The ONLY gripe about this monitor is it doesn't have a 16:9 aspect ratio option. Meaning that it won't work well with other 16:9 monitors, and it won't work well with exclusively native 16:9 hardware like a XBOX 360."



I'm no monitor expert, but its taken me around 3 days of solid research and 3 disappointing monitors before eventually taking delivery of this Dell U2412M. My opinion: Highly recommended.

 

[Grimezy]

Have you had chance to test your 2412 much more? Particularly for games?

I've finally got my desk so looking to buy my new monitor this weekend... stuck between the 2312 or the 2412! Not sure if that extra 120 pixels is worth £50! Stuck with like a 6 year old Samsung Syncmaster 920n 19 inch at the moment! Connected with vga... It's not the best x) But can't complain at 75hz refresh rate! xD

 

[RS2OOO]

Hi,

I've now been using the U2412M for 4 days solid and I have to say I think its brilliant.

Best monitor I've ever owned. Colours out of the box are way better than the much more expensive U2410 . Side by side the U2412M looks miles better in my opinion.

Mines a rev A00 built in November 2012, yet they are now up to rev A05. I've researched this and its my feeling some of the later revs are simply changes in manufacturing processes in some factories in some parts of the world, possibly using cheaper components. One of the revs from one of the factories I believe was to fix an issue with getting the monitor to wake up from sleep when connected via display port but I've had no such problems.

I cannot comment on the 2312 because I didn't research it in anywhere near as great detail as the 2412M.

But, I can definitely recommend the U2412M.

Now.... here's a tip. I paid £222 for my monitor through buying from a well known retailer, but I've since found out the name of the person who actually buys these monitors direct from Dell and imports them to the UK before supplying them to the retailer I bought from.....and you will pick one up directly from him even cheaper.

He knocks them out on eBay under the username steve.swan and has about 4 going through auction at the moment for well under £200. His information was still on the box of the monitor I purchased and I can tell you that the warranty info detailed in his ebay listings is accurate - simply follow his instructions to register the 3 Year monitor warranty directly with Dell.

Do an ebay search for U2412M and you'll soon find him as he has a few listed ending today. You will very likely pick up anew U2412M cheaper than Dells price for the U2312

All in all, I really do recommend this monitor. Mine is brilliant for the money.

 

[RS2OOO]

One has just gone through one of that guys ebay auctions for £170

That is brilliant value, and like I said, I bought mine from a top retailer, yet that ebay guys name was on the box of the one I bought..... Save yourself some cash and go direct to him.