New Dell monitor has 21.5” panel size, 1080p resolution

The slow transition to desktop monitors with 16:9 aspect ratios seems to produce some odd specimens. Dell’s latest entry is the SX2210, a new “full HD” display that couples an unusual 21.5″ panel size with a 1920×1080 resolution.

The SX2210 is up for sale right now on Dell’s website for $279. Apart from the weird resolution and panel size combo, this monitor has a 2ms response time, 50,000:1 “dynamic” contrast, 300cd/m² luminosity, 160°/170° viewing angles, and both DVI and HDMI connectivity. There’s a built-in two-megapixel camera and dual microphones, as well.

Refreshingly, Dell specifies the panel type—twisted nematic, or TN—in the specs page. That’s not exactly a surprise considering the price tag, though. Dell’s higher-quality, S-PVA UltraSharp 2408WFP costs over 500 bucks, although it does have a bigger 24″ panel with slightly more pixels.

Comments closed
    • Chrispy_
    • 10 years ago

    I actually welcome 16:9

    Widescreen has made an ass of itself since it was brought into the market with what I can only describe as GENERAL ASPECT RATIO FAIL. I’ve worked with marketing and rendering departments for over a decade now and it’s scary how much effort people put into the accuracy of their work to then find that thanks to aspect ratio fail, the end result is either framed with black lines or distorted by a vertical/horizontal stretch.

    Almost every Plasma/LCDTV/CRT television designed for home entertainment has been 16:9 so at least there’s some consistency here. This means that consoles, DVD players, movies, games, various set-top boxes and recievers UNDERSTAND and work correctly at 16:9

    As long as widescreen ends up adopting a standard, I don’t really care. Support for weirdo resolutions is certainly better now but it’s added complication that Joe Average doesn’t need.

    Arguments about smaller screens aren’t really justified until manufacturers create a 24″ 16:10 and a 23.5″ 16:9 screen with similar specs at the same price.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 10 years ago

      Black bars are not aspect ratio fail, they’re actually aspect ratio win because it prevents image distortion.

      • UberGerbil
      • 10 years ago

      People who complain about black bars fail at understanding aspect ratios.

    • toyota
    • 10 years ago

    I like the 1920×1080 res. I think of it as an upgrade from 1680×1050 not a downgrade from 1920×1200. its nice for gaming considering most newer games are made for 16:9 consoles in the first place.

    I would go blind trying to look at 1080 on a small 21.5″ monitor though and even my 24″ 1080 monitor seems a little small.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 10 years ago

      If it replaces 1680×1050 then yeah it’s an upgrade but that’s not how most 16:9 monitors are positioned. This monitor is a wierd in between, it’s got a pretty tight pixel pitch and doesn’t directly replace either 20″ or 24″ monitors although I suppose you could argue the case for the former. I suspect this might actually be a large size panel made on the same line as laptop panels.

      Most 16:9 monitors are positioned to replace their equal diagonal measurement 16:10 kin which is really just a scam because they don’t have the same total screen area. It also preys on buyer ignorance with the ‘full HD’ bs. ‘Oh, it’s “full HD,” that other monitor with the same diagonal size is not and costs more. I better get the Full HD one.’

    • ybf
    • 10 years ago

    This is the start of an avalanche. We’ll finally start seeing cheap 1080 native resolution screens adapted to television use. The silly 1050-height LCD screens were an insult to anyone who wanted a TV that had the computer industry’s economies of scale priced into it. Cable and OTA adapters should be coming soon as well. Time for a new TV industry to mature.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 10 years ago

      Um, I hardly think that the TV makers were looking to put out a lot of 17-24″ TVs with very tight pixel pitch. Just because the aspect ratio is the same doesn’t mean there will be some kind of economy of scale between monitors and TVs.

    • Ihmemies
    • 10 years ago

    Now where are the 3840*2400 displays from future (year 2004)? I have a 30″ 2560*1600 and wouldn’t mind a sharper display. Current gfx cards don’t seem to have any problems running games at these resolutions.

    • Grey Area
    • 10 years ago

    What’s unusual about 21.5″ screens at this point? Many of the major screen brands have had these since before Christmas. BenQ, LG, Samsung, Acer, Asus, HP etc.

    I guess I don’t care about Dell since they are so overpriced in Finland…

    Edit: also, 1920×1080 is good for Windows 7 because I think the new taskbar works best in vertical mode on the left edge of the screen. I guess MS updated the UI with wide-screen displays in mind.

      • Rakhmaninov3
      • 10 years ago

      Oh bummer. I hate sidebars.

        • ImSpartacus
        • 10 years ago

        I personally think the start bar works best at the top of the screen. Why waste time moving your mouse from menus at the top of windows all the way to the bottom of the screen to switch windows (or do something else). Everything is already at the top of the screen, tabs, buttons, toolbars, etc.

      • continuum
      • 10 years ago

      Cost, that’s why. The smaller the area of a panel, the less material it uses.

      Which is why a x” 4:3 costs more (panel materials-wise) than a x” 16:10 widescreen, which in turn costs more than a x” 16:9 widescreen…

      That said while I dislike the shift in aspect ratios, at least they’re generally clear about it. What r[

    • Chillectric
    • 10 years ago

    Ugh, why did they switch the USB ports to the back? I would have loved this monitor if they kept them on the side for bluetooth adapters and thumb drives.

    • End User
    • 10 years ago

    I have no issues with 1080p displays as long a) game developers continue to support 1920×1200+ and b) 1920×1200+ monitors continue to be widely available.

      • jstern
      • 10 years ago

      Exactly, too bad I don’t think they will be available in the future.

    • BoBzeBuilder
    • 10 years ago

    Monitors suck. I use the morse code.

      • stmok
      • 10 years ago

      Pffft…Mental Telepathy for me.

        • Saribro
        • 10 years ago

        As opposed to… oral telepathy?

      • moshpit
      • 10 years ago

      I just guess. Much funner not knowing at all :p

      • ludi
      • 10 years ago

      I, for one, look forward to the realtime Braille monitor. Touchscreen /[

    • 5150
    • 10 years ago

    Show some respect and capitalize the guys name for Christsake.

    • Grayscale
    • 10 years ago

    Dell has had a very similar model for quite some time: <A href=”http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-7438″>Dell S2209W</A>. Is there any difference between that and this new one besides the camera and different stand?

      • thecoldanddarkone
      • 10 years ago

      look in the discriptions of the wa it’s a IPS panel.

    • donkeycrock
    • 10 years ago

    I recently purchased a dell g2410, its the one with the LED backlight and green tech, while its nice having 24 inches… the color reproduction is horrible, Even after i tuned it, it’s not nearly as clear as my 5 year old dell lcd.
    My recomindation:
    16:9 who cares, when its 24” you don’t notice.
    TN stay away from, spend the extra money, you will be glad you did, remember monitors are something you buy once every 4 years.

    • kccboy2004
    • 10 years ago

    Really, this looks like a good monitor at a good price. BUT….

    Who is going to buy a non-touchscreen monitor with all the new touchscreens coming out ahead of Windows 7.

    Aching for touchscreen.

    And please don’t give me any rubbish about finger prints. I could not care less. I have not cleaned my screen in 3 months. You should see my TV screen after my kids have been ‘slobbering’ over it with their tonuges and chocolate fingers. Who cares ?

      • ecalmosthuman
      • 10 years ago

      Dude, what?

      • pixel_junkie
      • 10 years ago

      ^^ What he said.

      • 5150
      • 10 years ago

      I see no benefits of using a touchscreen.

        • BiffStroganoffsky
        • 10 years ago

        Maybe once 3D/tactile feedback is available…one could touch the screen instead of oneself.

      • ColdMist
      • 10 years ago

      I have an HP2710p convertible laptop. With it in tablet mode, doing things with a stylus is good, better than a stick mouse.

      But, that’s because it’s in my lap similar to a (paper) notebook, and it’s similar to writing on a notebook. If it was an upright monitor, on my desk, no way. I’m not going to move my hands from the keyboard all the way up to the screen to “click” a button or scroll something when I can hit the PGDN button.

      Looking/zooming pictures is fun for a few minutes, but then you want to “do” something, like crop the picture? Oh ya, you need the resolution of a mouse again.

      And, oh, after a few months, the stand starts to get a bit “loose” from pushing at it all the time. Ya, that will be fun, having it waving like a scarecrow on the desk any time I start typing hard on my keyboard.

      Right….

        • indeego
        • 10 years ago

        Never quite understood tablets. I can type–and most people I know can type–far faster than they can write by hand. And it hurts a lot less.

        I guess if your notes consist of drawing doodles, it makes senseg{

          • nexxcat
          • 10 years ago

          They’re absolutely fantastic if you’re standing. They’re also fantastic if you’re taking notes on a subject like mathematics.

          For me, since I’m at client sites a lot, it’s also fantastic to have my own Internet access via 3G mobile. Multinational banks get cranky when you ask them if you can hook up your own equipment to their network.

      • astrotech66
      • 10 years ago

      I have no desire to have a touchscreen. I think they’re more of a gimmick than anything and don’t really add anything important.

      Maybe you don’t care about fingerprints, but they drive me crazy. My kids know by now not to touch my computer screen, or the big HDTV in the living room.

        • jackaroon
        • 10 years ago

        Word. I would get mad if someone touched my screen.

      • eitje
      • 10 years ago

      are you going to come back in a few minutes and argue with yourself again?

      §[< http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/16680<]§

        • ludi
        • 10 years ago

        Shhhh…don’t shake his cage. You might let more of ’em escape!

      • ish718
      • 10 years ago

      “Who is going to buy a non-touchscreen monitor with all the new touchscreens coming out ahead of Windows 7.”

      People that don’t want to pay an arm and a leg for a 21.5in touch screen monitor?
      Normal people?

        • SomeOtherGeek
        • 10 years ago

        Or the niche people, like the Apple owners?

      • holophrastic
      • 10 years ago

      Umm, your television is far from your eyes, and you don’t tend to read off of it. Fingerprints on moving images are not a problem. Fingerprints on static text are a problem. Not seeing a letter is annoying. Not seeing a word is problematic. Not seeing Julia Roberts’ freckle isn’t an issue.

      Also, the dotpitch of your monitor is really good. one fingerprint can easily cover 100 pixels. On your television, it sucks. One fingerprint is likely to cover little more than 25 pixels.

      • danazar
      • 10 years ago

      I’ll want to buy a touchscreen when touchscreens start all being electrostatic-based like my iPhone is. I hate push-screen technology, that stuff breaks way too easily, and that’s what most touchscreen monitors still use.

    • Spotpuff
    • 10 years ago

    I just got my g/f the 2209WA and the E-IPS panel is definitely worth it. TN sucks.

      • thecoldanddarkone
      • 10 years ago

      I just saw the price of that screen, this will probably be the next monitor that I buy to replace my dieing 24 incher.

        • bthylafh
        • 10 years ago

        Yeah, that price is really tempting for an IPS panel, especially for the size.

      • 5150
      • 10 years ago

      I’ve bought 10 of these for work, everybody loves em. I’m going to have two of them on my desk in a matter of days.

    • swaaye
    • 10 years ago

    Was at Best Buy last night. Their display of monitors consists at least halfway of 16:9 models now. Very unsettling that these things are becoming popular.

    I’m sure it’s not even consumer choice. Most if not all of the manufacturers are switching over together because it’s in their best interests.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 10 years ago

    At 1080 pixels tall, 16:9 doesn’t bother me too much.

    I’ve seen 17″ 1280×720 monitors in the past, though, and that’s just too short.

    I dunno, I’m torn. $280 for a 1080p display is attractive to me, but not attractive enough that I’m going to go out and drop a load of dough on it.

    • deepthought86
    • 10 years ago

    This sucks! Just say no to 16:9 panels

      • dermutti
      • 10 years ago

      I really don’t see what the big deal is. You’re not losing that many pixels and for most people, when they change monitors, they get a bigger one anyway, which makes the argument of losing pixels specious.

        • jstern
        • 10 years ago

        I recently had to hook up my cousin’s computer to an HDTV, and it’s just too wide. Noticeably wide, and it kind of interfered with things. I hate the fact that we’re moving into that direction, but I guess there’s not much I can do.

          • homerdog
          • 10 years ago

          Portrait mode?

      • TheShadowself
      • 10 years ago

      I CANNOT AGREE MORE!

      16:9 is not a Computer Monitor! It is a TV scree optimized for viewing movies. For me (and I’d suspect for virtually everyone else too) 99.99% of my time is spent doing everything *[

        • albundy
        • 10 years ago

        actually, i’d argue the exact opposite. i mainly watch movies and tv show that are dvr’ed. occasionally, i browse and game on my machine, but movies and tv are where its at.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 10 years ago

          A properly done 16:10 monitor with aspect ratio controls and maybe tweaks to graphics card or program settings can still do those things fine without distorting the image. The problem isn’t 16:9 monitors per se, it’s that they are becoming more prevelant and may push out 16:10 monitors plus they aren’t really prices lower than the same diagonal measurement monitors, that’s where the tricksy marketing spec’ing annoys me. These are all about increasing margins for the manufacturers not bringing something better to the end user.

        • indeego
        • 10 years ago

        99% of the time I am looking at windows that adjust to whatever max resolution is available, so the ratio doesn’t matter.

        The 1% of the time I watch a movie or game, I shrug. There are bigger issues to worry about in techg{<.<}g

      • Krogoth
      • 10 years ago

      Sorry, 16:10 is going the way of 5:4.

        • UberGerbil
        • 10 years ago

        so, if you care, pick up a large 16:10 IPS panel while they’re still available….

          • continuum
          • 10 years ago

          Maybe it’s time to stock up on HP LP2475w’s while my cost is below $500?

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            That’s pretty good….where are you getting it for <$500? Is it new or refurb?

    • KikassAssassin
    • 10 years ago

    While I’m not happy about panel makers seemingly wanting to transition PC monitors to 16:9, Dell listing the panel type in their tech specs is good to see, and I hope it becomes a trend.

      • khands
      • 10 years ago

      Yeah, panel type is a really important spec for everyone to be leaving out.

  • Pin It on Pinterest

    Share This