Dell U2412M - 16:10 IPS without Breaking the Bank
by Chris Heinonen on February 28, 2012 9:00 AM ESTIntroducing the Dell U2412M
For every monitor review that I’ve done for AnandTech so far, I know that as soon as I check the comments there will be a thread with the same theme: “I don’t care about 1080p monitors, I only want 16:10 aspect ratios!” When widescreen displays first came out for desktop LCD monitors, virtually every model was a 16:10 display. The 20” Dell I have on my own desk is 16:10, and almost every vendor made 16:10 panels.
As the price of flat panels dropped and HDTV adoption took over, more and more desktop panels migrated to the HDTV aspect ratio of 16:9. The reasons behind this were easy to understand, as you could produce more displays, reuse panels across PC and TV lines, and have a lower cost across the board to let you sell them for less. Most people were more than happy to pay less for a display than to pay 2-3 times as much for those extra 120 pixels at the bottom of a display. As this happened, 16:10 panels became relegated to higher end models, almost always as IPS panels and often with high end features like AdobeRGB colorspace support and more.
Dell finally decided to address this with their U2412M display that features a 1920x1200 on its 24” panel. The U2412M is also an eIPS panel that is natively 6-bit but uses A-FRC to display 16.7 million colors. Dell has managed to bring this monitor in at $329 and can often be found on sale for under $300, while most other 16:10 24” panels come in at $500 or more. What did Dell have to do to hit this aggressive price point? Let's find out, starting with the specifications overview.
| Dell U2412M Specifications | |
| Video Inputs | D-sub, DVI, DisplayPort |
| Panel Type | eIPS |
| Pixel Pitch | 0.27 mm |
| Colors | 16.7 Million (6-bit with A-FRC) |
| Brightness | 300 nits |
| Contrast Ratio | 1000:1 (Typical) |
| Response Time | 8ms GTG |
| Viewable Size | 24" |
| Resolution | 1920x1200 |
| Viewing Angle | 178 H, 178 V |
| Backlight | LED |
| Power Consumption (operation) | 38W |
| Power Consumption (standby) | Not Listed |
| Screen Treatment | Anti-Glare with Hard Coat 3H |
| Height-Adjustable | Yes, 4.5" of adjustment |
| Tilt | Yes |
| Pivot | Yes |
| Swivel | Yes |
| VESA Wall Mounting | Yes, 100mm VESA |
| Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) | 20.22" x 21.89" x 7.10" |
| Weight | 8.73 lbs. without stand |
| Additional Features | 4 port USB Hub, Power Management Software |
| Limited Warranty | 3 Years |
| Accessories | Power Cable, DVI Cable, USB Cable, VGA Cable |
| Price | $329 at Dell.com |
The stand with the U2412M is very adjustable, with tilt, swivel, pivot, and height adjustments available to the user. There is a 4-port USB 2.0 hub with two ports on the bottom of the display and two that are more accessible on the side of the display. The one port you might find missing is an HDMI port, but as the HDMI port is trademarked and requires licensing fees, and adds nothing that other ports don’t offer on a display with no speakers, I’m not particularly sad about the loss. Most HDMI transmitter chips are limited to 1920x1080 resolution as well and that would just be another cost that really adds no benefit. DisplayPort is starting to become more and more common now and I’d prefer to see those ports instead.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
143 Comments
View All Comments
Death666Angel - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Honestly, if I had to chose between 16:9 with 1080p or 16:10 with 900p, I'd take 16:9. The real issue people argue is that the 24" market has gone 16:9 with 1080p. No gamer or other user would go with anything below 22" unless there are space constraints.piroroadkill - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
The U2410 is not a budget screen by any measure, though, and although it is "old", it is not actually old. It is still being sold alongside the U2412, because the U2410 has a true 8-bit S-IPS panel, 10-bit processing, wider gamut (almost all of AdobeRGB) and a slew of inputs.It's still relevant.
seapeople - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
Dude, nobody cares about your low resolution 16:10 screens.Only very strange aspect ratio freaks think 1440x900 is better than 1920x1080 anyway.
It's cool to see a budget 1920x1200 monitor out there.
Burner.Tom - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
The direct competitor to reviewed Dell monitor is HP ZR2440w 24-inch LED Backlit IPS Monitor, not ZR24 - its the previous generation.PS: Dell isnt the LCD panel maker - its LG, probably model LM240WU8.
Burner.Tom - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
HP ZR2440w 24-inch LED Backlit IPS Monitor - Overviewhttp://h18000.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/1414...
darwinosx - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
The HP is a tad bit more expensive but a much better deal with much better service. I'm surprised the author didn't know this was actually the competitor for this Dell not the old HP monitor.cheinonen - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
For competitors I was specifically search for other IPS/VA panels with 1920x1200 resolution that were within $75 (or 25%) of the price of the Dell. The only model that came up at the time of searching was the older HP, which is why it was listed. There are a lot of other 16:10 IPS/VA panels, but once you got past being within 25% of the price, I didn't consider them direct competitors anymore.Burner.Tom - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
U2412M and ZR2440w are direct competitors from hardware point of view (LCD panel) but the price is really better in Dell case.In Slovakia, its 253€ for Dell and 350€ for HP, both have 36 months On-site warranty. The question is - why is HP so expensive? I guess there must be something cheaper used in Dell monitor (power circuit, controller board, ...). Who is OEM of the Dell? ZR24w and ZR2440w are made by Tatung.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Wait, what makes the HP a "much better deal"? I'd call service of HP and Dell monitors pretty close to equal, and the HP is $50 more for the lowest price I can find. 15% more is only "a bit more"? They're both eIPS AFAICT, so other than the nebulous "service and support" aspect, why would one be better than the other?Touche - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
HP has more inputs, a scaler for 1:1, thus can be hooked up to consoles, and better RTC control. The latter makes it a bit more responsive, but former to have higher input lag. Comparing several reviews, HP tends to have better uniformity.