monitors info

Don't see a specific place for your hardware question? This is the forum for you!

Moderators: mac_h8r1, Nemesis

monitors info

Postposted on Sat May 11, 2013 2:58 am

I’m writing this in hope that I can get some better insight and information on a couple of monitors that I’m considering purchasing. I figure the people that read and use this site have way more technical knowledge on this than I do about monitors.

I’ve pretty much narrowed my choices down to two 24 inch models; the Asus PA246Q and the Dell UltraSharp U2413. I want a quality monitor for the work I do and want to last as long as possible. These two seem to fit the bill. I’m not a gamer so a monitor for that purpose is unnecessary. The work I do on the computer is as follows;
• Productivity: spreadsheets, word docs, etc.
• Photo editing: in the process of digitizing old slides
• Music editing
• Charts for business & investing: need top color clarity to distinguish lines & symbols.
• Some movie watching

I have looked at 27 inch models (Dell U2713). It does have more real estate but with a higher price tag. I just don’t know if there is that much difference in quality between the 24” & 27”.

What really concerns me is the calibration of these monitors since I have zero knowledge on this.
I know there is software and meters (like the X-rite i1 Display 2 colorimeter) but really don’t want to spend the extra $200 or more dollars to get them. I’m hoping someone can stir me in a more affordable way of doing the calibration. Also read how the Dell has a slight green tint in the lower corner.

Anyone who has one or who knows the pros and cons on these monitors that can give me insight and information is greatly appreciated. Getting info beyond the normal specs is hard to find.
bulldog2010
Gerbil In Training
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 5:04 pm

Re: monitors info

Postposted on Sat May 11, 2013 3:34 am

They both should be really good monitors. It probably comes down to your preference on aesthetics.

One difference is that the Asus supports VGA and the Dell does not. Another is that the Dell has USB 3.0 ports while the Asus has USB 2.0 ports.

The quality of the screen should be fairly similar.
kumori
Gerbil Team Leader
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 12:11 am

Re: monitors info

Postposted on Sat May 11, 2013 11:44 am

I recommend the PA248Q over the PA246Q. I got one, partly on the recommendation of the good folks here, and I've been very satisfied. The extra $100 would be wasted in your case because the difference in color quality (the main selling point of the PA246Q) is very very minor and only a concern for professional graphic artsists, unless by photo editing you meant someone's paying you cash money to spend hours on each image making it absolutely perfect in which case I'd say go for it.

Oh, since you're looking at the deity of choice's second chosen aspect ratio--after 5:4 of course--here's some useful 16:10 info.
NovusBogus
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:37 am

Re: monitors info

Postposted on Sat May 11, 2013 4:26 pm

NovusBogus wrote:I recommend the PA248Q over the PA246Q. (...) The extra $100 would be wasted in your case because the difference in color quality (the main selling point of the PA246Q) is very very minor and only a concern for professional graphic artists...
I don't. He's looking at two 8-bit+FRC panels; recommending a 6-bit when one of his main purposes is extremely precise picture editing (slides are very high detail) is just bad. The price obviously isn't much of a concern, so saving $100 isn't pointful.

I'd get the U2413. It has GB-LED backlighting instead of the PA246Q's old CCFL technology, enabling a wider color gamut, and also making the monitor lighter, thinner, and cooler-running (as well as less power-thirsty.) I realize those are all ancillary benefits, but you don't really lose anything in output quality. It also has better blacks and USB3; in general it's just the better display.

THAT SAID, neither of these displays are really professional-quality monitors. They're 'prosumer', if you like that word. Look at NEC or Eizo Nanao if you want a real pro-quality display. Of course, you'll have to pony up some serious dosh for one of those, and this monitor IS really nice ... (99% Adobe RGB, better-than-100% NTSC, 350 nits max brightness, 8-bit+AFRC). I realize you said you're not a gamer, but it's even good for that, with "Game Mode" enabled; less than 10ms of delay.

Kinda makes me want one, actually...
i5-3570K @ 4.4 (NH-C14), 4x8GB DDR3-1866, GA-Z68MA-D3H-B2, ASUS GTXTITAN-6GD5, 128GB Vertex 4 / 2x60GB Vertex Plus R2 / 2x2TB Barracuda 7200.14 RAID0 / ANS-9010 (4x4GB), SST-DA1000 (PSU), 2x VS229H-P, 1x VG248QE, 1x MIMO 720F, Corsair Vengeance K90+M95
auxy
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:25 pm
Location: the armpit of Texas

Re: monitors info

Postposted on Sat May 11, 2013 4:57 pm

auxy wrote:I'd get the U2413. It has GB-LED backlighting instead of the PA246Q's old CCFL technology, enabling a wider color gamut, and also making the monitor lighter, thinner, and cooler-running (as well as less power-thirsty.) I realize those are all ancillary benefits, but you don't really lose anything in output quality. It also has better blacks and USB3; in general it's just the better display.


While GB-LED backlighting definitely enables superior color reproduction over white-only LED backlighting, I'm not so sure it's going to be significantly superior to CCFL backlighting as a rule. For instance, according to this site, the color reproduction capabilities are very similar between the Dell u3011 with the CCFL (102% NTSC; 98% Adobe RGB coverage) and the u3014 with GB-LED (103% NTSC, 99% Adobe RGB). Yes, you do get the power saving benefit, and the monitor might be a bit thinner, but just because CCFL is old tech, doesn't mean it's significantly inferior performance-wise.

Edit: That said, I'd probably go with the Dell too as it is a newer monitor (ie, comes with USB 3.0 hub instead of USB 2). Also for the warranty. Both the Dell and Asus are 3 years, so it may work out the same, but in my personal experience, Dell has always been good about honoring their Ultrasharp warranties. (Recently I sent back a 3007wfp over 2.5 years into the warranty and they sent me a new u3011 in replacement. Can't argue with that...)
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: monitors info

Postposted on Sat May 11, 2013 5:25 pm

My UltraSharp 3007WFP is 6½ years old. The UltraSharp 2001FP beside it is 12 years old.

I'd also support getting a Dell UltraSharp monitor. For the price, they're good. Because they're a good value, many folks purchase and use them, so there are likely to be plenty of reviews and calibration suggestions available. Sometimes, you can catch a really good deal directly from Dell. Search the deal sites like Slickdeals.net, GotApex, etc.
i7-4770K, H70, Gryphon Z87, 16 GiB, R9-290, SSD, 2 HD, Blu-ray, SB ZX, TJ08-E, SS-660XP², 3007WFP+2001FP, RK-9000BR, MX518
JustAnEngineer
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 15413
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: monitors info

Postposted on Sat May 11, 2013 5:56 pm

cynan wrote:While GB-LED backlighting definitely enables superior color reproduction over white-only LED backlighting, I'm not so sure it's going to be significantly superior to CCFL backlighting as a rule. For instance, according to this site, the color reproduction capabilities are very similar between the Dell u3011 with the CCFL (102% NTSC; 98% Adobe RGB coverage) and the u3014 with GB-LED (103% NTSC, 99% Adobe RGB). Yes, you do get the power saving benefit, and the monitor might be a bit thinner, but just because CCFL is old tech, doesn't mean it's significantly inferior performance-wise.
Since GB-LED provides very nearly the same color performance with a bunch of ancillary benefits, wouldn't you say that CCFLs *are* significantly inferior overall?
i5-3570K @ 4.4 (NH-C14), 4x8GB DDR3-1866, GA-Z68MA-D3H-B2, ASUS GTXTITAN-6GD5, 128GB Vertex 4 / 2x60GB Vertex Plus R2 / 2x2TB Barracuda 7200.14 RAID0 / ANS-9010 (4x4GB), SST-DA1000 (PSU), 2x VS229H-P, 1x VG248QE, 1x MIMO 720F, Corsair Vengeance K90+M95
auxy
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:25 pm
Location: the armpit of Texas

Re: monitors info

Postposted on Sat May 11, 2013 6:20 pm

auxy wrote:Since GB-LED provides very nearly the same color performance with a bunch of ancillary benefits, wouldn't you say that CCFLs *are* significantly inferior overall?


Honestly, I don't know. I've never used a screen with GB-LED backlighting (though I'd bet the Dell is great). I do know that the older white-only LED backlighting performed worse than comparable CCFL implementations. One potential issue with LED backlighing is PWM dimming used to regulate light output. Apparently the off-on transitions are prone to be more noticeable on LED backlights vs CCFL. But, again, I have no idea how much of a real issue this is. Perhaps it's akin to people who notice rainbows with DLP display tech, while most do not. CCFL is tried and tested, and while GB-LED may perform just as well or even slightly better for many, it may not be the case for all.

But you are right, given both monitors are the same price, and given they both perform just as well, the Dell, due to its lower energy usage would be preferable. But then the list price of the Dell is $100 more I think (though Dell does have lots of sales). If the Asus ended up being significantly cheaper, and you didn't care about USB 3.0, it may be just as good a buy as the Dell and may perform perceptibly as well. Environmentally speaking, though, the Dell wins.
cynan
Gerbil Elite
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:30 pm


Return to General Hardware

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests