Dell U2415 has 16:10 Aspect Ratio

The pricing look meh. I'd rather grab good old U2413.

 

Quite pricey for a screen of that size and res. Still got 2 of the older version I paid about £200 each for back in 2008.

 

There is no benefit with the 16:10 here with that price tag. Wasnt the point of having a 16:10 for the bigger vertical resolution? With this price tag you can get a good 1440p screen.

 

I think you mean aspect ratio, not resolution - because you can get more pixels with a smaller screen also.

 

I think he might have been comparing 1920x1080 to 1920x1200.

 

I think he was talking about 1440p

 

What I meant was that a lot of people prefer 16:10 over 16:9 because of the vertical space but at this price there is no reason to get a this monitor over a 16:9 which has 1440p not to mention that there are some 4k monitors @ this price point which are completely in a different ball bark in terms of vertical space.

 

I prefer 16:10 myself, specialy in MMOs, RPGs and Strategy Games. Apart from that i use Photoshop often.

My current screen is 1920 x 1200 aswell.

 

But for games it doesn't have any benefit at all from extra vertical pixels, you still see the same vertical space as you would on a 1080p you are just missing the horizontal view like this http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/6-15-2014/n2ZLcb.gif

 

That means 1080P is more likely to have fisheye effect

 

Depending from the game. But I haven't had a problem with a fish eye effect on a 21:9 screen yet.

 

with the same quality of panel and color space?

 

If you own 3 monitors for nvidia surround (or eyefinity) these monitors are good choice.

I own U2412M and i can confirm that 48/10 is important advantage over 48/9. I play mosty Iracing and its important difference, with extra 120 pixels i can see cockpit and gauges and part of the steering wheel without compromising FOV setings.


And with thiner bezzels over old model this is nobrainer for me. Good one Dell!

 

I'm waiting for AMD FreeSync. Then I want a 16:10 120 or 144Hz monitor.
2015 will be the year to buy!

 

Sweet spot for me in sheer size is ~27"...24" I find a bit cramped these days. I also prefer 1920x1200 8:5 to anything 16:9; and really don't see much point in buying a 1920x1080 monitor if I can grab an 8:5 1920x1200, instead, everything else being equal.

What's both weird and wonderful is that in a couple of years when single gpus can drive 3d games in 4k resolutions @ 30 fps + (@ 60Hz +), we'll see ~28" 4k monitors costing $300...! Amazing. The desktop is once again taking off like a rocket, which always tends to happen when tech capability leaps forward. People are finding that staring at 6"-10" screens all day is really not much fun at all, imo. (The heck of it is that most people knew that 20 years ago...)

 

Not all 16:9 monitors support 1440p though.

So you are going to pay more for the 1440p resolution.

Also there are plenty that still prefer a cheaper monitor. Many gamers miss the 1920x1200 resolution in a new monitor. So for those people combined with IPS and a glossy screen, that is a plus.

For me nah. A HQ TN panel @ 1440p would stomp this.

People still think these monitors that are TN are the same old TN panels they are used to, and they aren't. They are a HQ TN, kinda like TN+ for example.

 

It's called VA.

 

There are quite a few reasons why this is better than many 1440p screens. First off, if the display is anywhere close to the quality of my 24" Ultrasharp U2410 IPS, then i'll take it any day over some crap quality 1440p.

There is nothing worse than having to spend extended periods of time on your computer with a low quailty display. these Ultrasharp with Premier COlor screens eliminate eye fatigue, have great color reproduction, and if you do lots of work with photoshop or similar software, the 16:10 format is sooo much better .

 

That's assuming people have the graphical power to run at 1440.

I have an Asus Pro Art at 1920x1200 as a second screen to my iiyama 1440.