At Last, A 24-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor, Courtesy Of Dell

[N.Broekhuijsen]

Dell introduced a 24-inch 2560 x 1440 monitor -- exactly what we've been waiting for...three years ago.

At Last, A 24-Inch 2560 x 1440 Monitor, Courtesy Of Dell : Read more

 

[StarBound]

I would much rather game on a 23" or 24" with a higher resolution than 1920x1080. But on the other side of the argument is that I have a gsync screen and I wouldn't mind dropping it as long as I get 120hz or more. All the features I want in a screen is almost there ...almost... just like every monitor I was trying to get for the past year. Something always missing.

 

[Larry Litmanen]

I use TV as my monitor, 32 inch (I think, could be 30) and i have to say i can never go back to a 24 inch monitor. Great for work but to game and to look at videos these days you need more than 24.

My personal opinion is this, pay a little more now (in some cases a lot more) for a great 27+ inch monitor and enjoy it for the next 5-6 years. Don't cheap out on size and quality. It really does make the gaming and media experience great in every day use.

 

[bison88]

Never got why they kept 2560x1440 screens to the 27"+ crowd for so long to begin with. Feels like its been over a decade and this resolution could have gone more mainstream if the manufacturers didn't purposely hold it back. Same thing goes with 120Hz and IPS displays.

 

[cbrownx88]

Reeeeviiiieeeeew

 

[tonicipriani]

Colour me uninterested. Unless it's 2560x1600.

 

[SteelCity1981]

why no hdmi 2.0 connection?

 

[canadianvice]

I use TV as my monitor, 32 inch (I think, could be 30) and i have to say i can never go back to a 24 inch monitor. Great for work but to game and to look at videos these days you need more than 24.

My personal opinion is this, pay a little more now (in some cases a lot more) for a great 27+ inch monitor and enjoy it for the next 5-6 years. Don't cheap out on size and quality. It really does make the gaming and media experience great in every day use.

I hope you're not doing that closeup. Unless you have a 4K TV, the lack of pixel density must be slaughtering your retinas.

 

[chicofehr]

2.5k is way better for gaming then 4k unless you are ok with ~15fps or buying atleast 3 or 4 of the fastest cards on the market. Playing games at lower then the native resolution never looks good but that's what you would have to do on a 4k for playable framerate for games that don't support sli/crossfire.

 

[JPNpower]

I use TV as my monitor, 32 inch (I think, could be 30) and i have to say i can never go back to a 24 inch monitor. Great for work but to game and to look at videos these days you need more than 24.

My personal opinion is this, pay a little more now (in some cases a lot more) for a great 27+ inch monitor and enjoy it for the next 5-6 years. Don't cheap out on size and quality. It really does make the gaming and media experience great in every day use.

I agree completely, as long as you have the means. I bought a 30 inch 2560 x 1600 monitor from Dell back in 2008, when Displayport was a new thing. It's still considered super high spec, I have gotten way more than my money's worth, and the only significant upgrade product introduced since then are the 32inch 4K'ers.

 

[JPNpower]

why no hdmi 2.0 connection?

Because it's useless. What advantage would it provide if the older/cheaper/proven spec ports can already push the panel to its limits?

 

[Larry Litmanen]

I use TV as my monitor, 32 inch (I think, could be 30) and i have to say i can never go back to a 24 inch monitor. Great for work but to game and to look at videos these days you need more than 24.

My personal opinion is this, pay a little more now (in some cases a lot more) for a great 27+ inch monitor and enjoy it for the next 5-6 years. Don't cheap out on size and quality. It really does make the gaming and media experience great in every day use.

I hope you're not doing that closeup. Unless you have a 4K TV, the lack of pixel density must be slaughtering your retinas.

Once you turn down sharpness everything becomes better. At home i only do entertainment and it works. Would a 32 inch IPS be a better option, absolutely.

 

[weilin]

why no hdmi 2.0 connection?

Because it's useless. What advantage would it provide if the older/cheaper/proven spec ports can already push the panel to its limits?

[strike]I wouldn't say it's useless... HDMI 1.4 supports 1080p as it's maximum resolution (most implementations I've seen don't even support 1200p). This monitor's primary input was meant to be Displayport. It doesn't even have a DL-DVI connector which is (was?) standard on any monitor with resolution greater than 1080p.

They included HDMI 1.4 for AV connectivity. There's probably a scaler built into the thing upscaling 1080p -> 1440p (consoles, DVD players, etc). the HDMI port was not meant to be the primary input for this monitor.

HDMI 2.0 would allow HDMI to run in native resolution. However, this is a gray area. With the old HD standard, you would think that HD+ 1600x900p (something between HD 1280x720 and FHD 1920x1080) would be supported. But, most devices have no idea what to do with that resolution. Some of the better designed devices will upscale/downscale 720p/1080p to give you an image but many devices just blank out with that resolution. Devices were designed to output 720p or 1080p only and thus devices were designed to only accept inputs with those specific resolutions.

I suspect with this new generation of ultra high definition devices, something similar would happen. Devices will be designed assuming either FHD (1080p) or UHD (2160p) or 4320p and not have any idea what to do with QHD (1440p). Thus, adding a HDMI 2.0 port could cause confusion when AV devices could potentially not display anything when plugged in. Having HDMI 2.0 would only benefit computers which can output arbitrary resolution, but any computer that has HDMI 2.0 would also have a Displayport interface anyways...[/strike]

Edit: never realized HDMI actually supported 2560x1600p... Only ever seen support for 1080p. Please disregard this post.

Now with that out of the way, WHY VGA?!? (max resolution 1920x1200ish) Why can't that interface just die. DL-DVI would have been much more useful...

 

[cknobman]

For the small size of the screen $369 priced too high.

Will never buy another monitor under 27' unless there is some space constraint forcing me to.

 

[Merry_Blind]

I use TV as my monitor, 32 inch (I think, could be 30) and i have to say i can never go back to a 24 inch monitor. Great for work but to game and to look at videos these days you need more than 24.

My personal opinion is this, pay a little more now (in some cases a lot more) for a great 27+ inch monitor and enjoy it for the next 5-6 years. Don't cheap out on size and quality. It really does make the gaming and media experience great in every day use.

I hope you're not doing that closeup. Unless you have a 4K TV, the lack of pixel density must be slaughtering your retinas.

It's all a matter of size/distance/pixel density ratio.

 

[canadianvice]

I use TV as my monitor, 32 inch (I think, could be 30) and i have to say i can never go back to a 24 inch monitor. Great for work but to game and to look at videos these days you need more than 24.

My personal opinion is this, pay a little more now (in some cases a lot more) for a great 27+ inch monitor and enjoy it for the next 5-6 years. Don't cheap out on size and quality. It really does make the gaming and media experience great in every day use.

I hope you're not doing that closeup. Unless you have a 4K TV, the lack of pixel density must be slaughtering your retinas.

It's all a matter of size/distance/pixel density ratio.

Thank you for enlightening me on something I was clearly acutely aware of, hence my comment. I would legitimately not use 1080P on anything 27"+ because it just stops looking even halfway decent at that point. TV's are not really meant for monitor use, as it's rarer to find even 1080p ones still across 55".

 

[alidan]

I use TV as my monitor, 32 inch (I think, could be 30) and i have to say i can never go back to a 24 inch monitor. Great for work but to game and to look at videos these days you need more than 24.

My personal opinion is this, pay a little more now (in some cases a lot more) for a great 27+ inch monitor and enjoy it for the next 5-6 years. Don't cheap out on size and quality. It really does make the gaming and media experience great in every day use.

I hope you're not doing that closeup. Unless you have a 4K TV, the lack of pixel density must be slaughtering your retinas.

It's all a matter of size/distance/pixel density ratio.

Thank you for enlightening me on something I was clearly acutely aware of, hence my comment. I would legitimately not use 1080P on anything 27"+ because it just stops looking even halfway decent at that point. TV's are not really meant for monitor use, as it's rarer to find even 1080p ones still across 55".

the key for me is 90-130ppi
i don't want lower because than i would notice pixels without looking for them specifically and would see aliasing even on non high contrast areas and i don't want higher because than i would be required to scale the ui for everything up (if it can even do that in many programs) and it would eliminate any use i would have for a high resolution monitor while putting higher demands on my hardware.

 

[carnetarian]

My ideal monitor is 24"-27" 1440p IPS with super thin bezels, freesync, vesa compatibility, and a response time less than 5ms at under $500. Given that, I don't think I'll be satisfied with any monitor for quite a while...

 

[Bondfc11]

@carnetarian: You won't be satisfied since they will push everyone past that point to 4k and beyond. It's like the OEMs are skipping a step here - 1440 is the new 1080 - and can easily replace the 1080 spec and keep the same price point - even with the little bells and whistles.

 

[Merry_Blind]

I use TV as my monitor, 32 inch (I think, could be 30) and i have to say i can never go back to a 24 inch monitor. Great for work but to game and to look at videos these days you need more than 24.

My personal opinion is this, pay a little more now (in some cases a lot more) for a great 27+ inch monitor and enjoy it for the next 5-6 years. Don't cheap out on size and quality. It really does make the gaming and media experience great in every day use.

I hope you're not doing that closeup. Unless you have a 4K TV, the lack of pixel density must be slaughtering your retinas.

It's all a matter of size/distance/pixel density ratio.

Thank you for enlightening me on something I was clearly acutely aware of, hence my comment. I would legitimately not use 1080P on anything 27"+ because it just stops looking even halfway decent at that point. TV's are not really meant for monitor use, as it's rarer to find even 1080p ones still across 55".

Damn no need to be so hostile what the hell... What's funny is that I did think you knew about this given your comment; I was just adding to the conversation to make this clear. Sorry for participating in the conversation of a public comment section.

However what's even funnier is that you followed your snarky reply with "I would legitimately not use 1080P on anything 27"+ because it just stops looking even halfway decent at that point" which completely omits the "distance" variable of the ratio I was talking about....

What I'm saying is that you're not supposed to use a 55" display at the same distance as a 27" one unless you don't care for your eyes. At a proper distance, a 1080p 55" display will look just as sharp as a 27" 1080p one.

 

[LordConrad]

Before you go blasting me, keep in mind that I wear glasses.

1440p or 1600p would be useless to me on any monitor smaller than 27". As it is, I have to set Windows to use my 1200p 24" monitor at 125%

 

[dstarr3]

Cell phones have had 1080p screens for years now. Never understood why it took so long to get 1440p in something smaller than 27", considering I've got nearly that on a 5"-inch screen in my pocket.

 

[kittle]

My personal opinion is this, pay a little more now (in some cases a lot more) for a great 27+ inch monitor and enjoy it for the next 5-6 years. Don't cheap out on size and quality. It really does make the gaming and media experience great in every day use.

+1 for this.

A good quality monitor will last you through several PC upgrade cycles. Ive been running a NEC 27inch monitor for several years now. It was NOT cheap, but it looks great, performs great and I wont have to buy another monitor for many years to come. Saves lots of $$ when upgrade time comes.

 

[Damn_Rookie]

why no hdmi 2.0 connection?

Because it's useless. What advantage would it provide if the older/cheaper/proven spec ports can already push the panel to its limits?

I wouldn't say it's useless... HDMI 1.4 supports 1080p as it's maximum resolution (most implementations I've seen don't even support 1200p). This monitor's primary input was meant to be Displayport. It doesn't even have a DL-DVI connector which is (was?) standard on any monitor with resolution greater than 1080p

They included HDMI 1.4 for AV connectivity. There's probably a scaler built into the thing upscaling 1080p -> 1440p (consoles, DVD players, etc). the HDMI port was not meant to be the primary input for this monitor.

HDMI 2.0 would allow HDMI to run in native resolution. However, this is a gray area. With the old HD standard, you would think that HD+ 1600x900p (something between HD 1280x720 and FHD 1920x1080) would be supported. But, most devices have no idea what to do with that resolution. Some of the better designed devices will upscale/downscale 720p/1080p to give you an image but many devices just blank out with that resolution. Devices were designed to output 720p or 1080p only and thus devices were designed to only accept inputs with those specific resolutions.

I suspect with this new generation of ultra high definition devices, something similar would happen. Devices will be designed assuming either FHD (1080p) or UHD (2160p) or 4320p and not have any idea what to do with QHD (1440p). Thus, adding a HDMI 2.0 port could cause confusion when AV devices could potentially not display anything when plugged in. Having HDMI 2.0 would only benefit computers which can output arbitrary resolution, but any computer that has HDMI 2.0 would also have a Displayport interface anyways...

Now with that out of the way, WHY VGA?!? (max resolution 1920x1200ish) Why can't that interface just die. DL-DVI would have been much more useful...

?? HDMI 1.4 supports 2560x1600 at 60 Hz and 3840×2160 at 30 Hz. There are some other benefits that HDMI 2.0 could potentially bring, but it's certainly not needed just to hit the native resolution of this monitor; 1.4 is more than adequate. The manual for the monitor even goes so far as to specify that connecting via HDMI yields exactly the same 2560 x 1440 at 60 Hz as the displayport connector.

 

[InvalidError]

If I hadn't bought a Dell U2412 on sale just last month, I would be seriously tempted to get one of these.