ASUS PA249Q or Dell U2413

[stewrt]

I need a new monitor. I don't really want to go over 24" as I sit pretty close to it ~36".

Uses: Gaming (BF3), Documents and spreadsheets.
Budget: <$600
I really want the IPS, and I love that both of these two are calibrated and have accurate color. The 1920x1200 extra pixels would be nice, (I know it's 16:10 and therefore it's a diff size.)

My concerns are the 8ms response time, a complete lack of reviews on Newegg or Amazon and some reports of light bleed.

The LG 27EA83-D http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824005400
Looks tempting because of the higher resolution and the IPS and the 5 ms response time, but again, it's bigger than I'd like to go, and I am wondering how well a GTX 780 will push it for gaming.

Any input on what you guys would recommend?

 

[Sleepingforest]

A 780 will definitely run at 1080p just fine (you'll have letterboxing around games due to the 16:10 aspect ratio). Newegg reviews shouldn't really be used; instead, look at a dedicated site like TFTCentral.

Keep in mind that response time is not ever reported accurately by manufacturers as there is no industry standard. You need a 3rd party review sitee to get accurate numbers and comparisons. A more important statistic than response time is input lag anyway.

I'd recommend something like a U2412M, which has low imput lag and "good enough" response time. It's 10% off on Newegg right now (about $280 before taxes).

 

[Throckmorton]

I just bought a PA248Q at Microcenter and it's incredible. The color is perfect and the matte coating is mild, much better than any Dell I have ever seen. I don't have any backlight bleed.

I'm really picky about monitors. I bought and returned two, a Dell S2440L and some Acer over the past 6 months before I found this one

 

[Throckmorton]

A 780 will definitely run at 1080p just fine (you'll have letterboxing around games due to the 16:10 aspect ratio). Newegg reviews shouldn't really be used; instead, look at a dedicated site like TFTCentral.

Keep in mind that response time is not ever reported accurately by manufacturers as there is no industry standard. You need a 3rd party review sitee to get accurate numbers and comparisons. A more important statistic than response time is input lag anyway.

I'd recommend something like a U2412M, which has low imput lag and "good enough" response time. It's 10% off on Newegg right now (about $280 before taxes).

Most games support 16:10, there will be no letterboxing. And the problem with the Dells is the horrible grainy antiglare coating.

 

[stewrt]

Thanks for the input everyone.

According to TFT Central, it looks like they have changed their anti glare coating on all recent models:
The screen coating on the U2413 is much like that featured on other recent Dell IPS screens like the U2713H and U2713HM, all of which has been a positive change. ...users were impressed by the new lighter AG coating which is an almost semi-glossy type coating. This has been retained on the new U2713H and U2413 as well thankfully.

I'm more confused than ever now. I've read about IPS, 120 and 144 hz, viewing angles and refresh rates, screen coatings, usb 2.0 and 3.0 hubs, display port inputs, and a plethora of backlight bleed problems.

They dont seem to make a monitor I want. When or where can I get a 24" IPS display with 2560 x 1440, at 120 Hz, with a USB3 hub, display port, with a light or unnoticeable anti-glare coating, and decent refresh/response times.

Stu

 

[Remobz]

I just bought a PA248Q at Microcenter and it's incredible. The color is perfect and the matte coating is mild, much better than any Dell I have ever seen. I don't have any backlight bleed.

I'm really picky about monitors. I bought and returned two, a Dell S2440L and some Acer over the past 6 months before I found this one

I own the Asus PA238q and yes the color is great and the calibration out of the box was near perfect. I have minimal backlit bleeding. No big deal for me.

I find the Anti-glare matte coating to be aggressive and I do not like it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Thanks for the input everyone.

According to TFT Central, it looks like they have changed their anti glare coating on all recent models:
The screen coating on the U2413 is much like that featured on other recent Dell IPS screens like the U2713H and U2713HM, all of which has been a positive change. ...users were impressed by the new lighter AG coating which is an almost semi-glossy type coating. This has been retained on the new U2713H and U2413 as well thankfully.

I'm more confused than ever now. I've read about IPS, 120 and 144 hz, viewing angles and refresh rates, screen coatings, usb 2.0 and 3.0 hubs, display port inputs, and a plethora of backlight bleed problems.

They dont seem to make a monitor I want. When or where can I get a 24" IPS display with 2560 x 1440, at 120 Hz, with a USB3 hub, display port, with a light or unnoticeable anti-glare coating, and decent refresh/response times.

Stu

That doesn't exist and I doubt it ever will. There is no advantage to a 24" with that resolution. You'd have to sit closer to it in order to be able to read text than with a 27".

 

[stewrt]

well.. they make a 5" Samsung galaxy S4 with a 1080 screen. My thought on it is really clear text and fine detail.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Yes. And if you'd asked about a 1080p smartphone, we would have told you about the Samsung!

Right now, you can have ips or native 120hz, and at 27" you can get 1080 or 1440, while at 24" you can get 1080 or 1200 at 16:9 or 16:10 respectively.

 

[stewrt]

Like I said earlier. I want something they don't make. It's all good. It just seems that technology in some areas lags behind others when in my mind it seems like it would crossover and be implemented quite easily.. smart phones to monitors. I guess smart phones are more mainstream and enthusiast monitors are less so. The tech advances faster where the profits are.

I've thought a good deal about the comment Throckmorton left. I still don't quite get that I'd have to sit closer to read the text on a 24" at 2560 x 1440. More pixels finer detail... I'm trying to work out in my head resolution vs # of pixels.. and then of course the factor of the resolution things are created in. There's more to it than just that I just dont know it and how they interact or affect each other. Can someone educate me a bit? Or know a source that can clearly explain it to someone with less technical knowledge?

 

[Black Octagon]

You need to consider number of pixels (I.e., resolution) but in combination with the size of the screen (I.e., PPI and dot pitch) and then consider THAT alongside the distance from which you look at the screen.

 

[Throckmorton]

Like I said earlier. I want something they don't make. It's all good. It just seems that technology in some areas lags behind others when in my mind it seems like it would crossover and be implemented quite easily.. smart phones to monitors. I guess smart phones are more mainstream and enthusiast monitors are less so. The tech advances faster where the profits are.

I've thought a good deal about the comment Throckmorton left. I still don't quite get that I'd have to sit closer to read the text on a 24" at 2560 x 1440. More pixels finer detail... I'm trying to work out in my head resolution vs # of pixels.. and then of course the factor of the resolution things are created in. There's more to it than just that I just dont know it and how they interact or affect each other. Can someone educate me a bit? Or know a source that can clearly explain it to someone with less technical knowledge?

No matter the resolution, a 27" screen has NO disadvantage compared to a 24" screen. If the pixels are too big to you, just move it about 12.5% further from your face and the size of each pixel (what you call clarity) will be exactly the same, except your eyes will be able to relax more because of the greater distance.