Dell U2414H or U2415 ? (16:9 or 16:10)

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by macaron95, Oct 26, 2014.

  1. macaron95 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    #1
    Hi

    i am about to order a new Mac Mini with a Dell display

    there is quite a difference in price between the U2414H and the newest U2415

    aside from the resolution which is very similar on both, any advice would help me decide which one to pick

    i've discussed with some people saying that 16:10 screens would offer a more natural size vs 16:9 ?

    thanks
     
  2. KenAFSPC, Oct 26, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2014

    KenAFSPC macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    #2
    The U2415 (16:10) is the clear choice for productivity applications (word processing, spreadsheets, photo editing, etc.), email, and web browsing. The U2414 (16:9) is the better choice for gaming and movie viewing.

    Keep in mind that Dell routinely offers 30-40% off MSRP on its monitors, so it would be rather foolish to pay full price if money is a concern. I picked up two U2415s (MSRP $399) for about $240/each during Dell's last sale a few weeks ago.

    Dell typically has a sale on monitors in the weeks leading up to Black Friday.
     
  3. theluggage macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #3
    16:9 (on any screen smaller than about 27") is an abomination foisted on the computing world by the television industry. Put simply: a 24" 16:10 screen can accommodate a dual-page US letter or A4 spread plus title bar & small toolbar at "actual size" - a 16:9 screen can't.

    Unless you're primarily using the Mac for movies and games I'd always go for the 16:10, 1920x1200 option rather than the 16:9 1920x1080. The extra 120 pixels may not sound so much but its enough space for that stupid MS Word ribbon, or a crucial few extra lines of code.

    I'm glad to hear about the 16:10 U2415 - I use a U2412M and was sad to see that the U2414 "update" had reverted to the accursed 1080p. Haven't seen one, but there's a review with more details than you could possibly want to know here: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2415.htm

    ...if you want to save a few pennies, the U2412M is still on sale and is a darn fine general-purpose display for the price, but it lacks USB3 and isn't as pretty as the new one.
     
  4. KenAFSPC macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    #4
    The U2415 is the new "king of the hill," at least when it comes to 24" 16:10 monitors priced under $1000. IMO, it is a significant upgrade over the U2412M, which is what I had before I upgraded to the U2415. A few highlights of the U2415's improvements as compared to the U2412M:

    (1) No PWM (reduces eye strain over longer periods of use).
    (2) Much improved anti glare coating (results in sharper text and graphics).
    (3) Improved screen uniformity (colors look more uniform across the entire display).
    (4) Better color accuracy out of the box.
    (5) Better motion performance (when scrolling through text, graphics, etc.).
    (6) Thin bezel (better for multi-monitor setups).
     
  5. KenAFSPC macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    #5
    Macaron,

    I just pm'd you instructions on how to get the U2415 for $288 from Dell.

    If you wait a month, I'm sure there will be better deals for Black Friday.
     
  6. Brian Y macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    #6
    I have the older 16:10 U2412M. I'm a) not sure why dell went with 16:9 for the 2414 and b) see no reason to pick 16:9 over 16:10.
     
  7. theluggage macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #7
    While I don't exactly disagree with that, the "disadvantages" of 16:10 for gaming and movie viewing are very, very minor: Basically, by going to 16:10 you gain over an inch of screen height (useful for general computing) at the cost of 1/3" of screen width (used by videos). (Based on the "Preset display area" specs here and here)

    Many games will support 1920x1200 anyway and fill the screen.. Your 1080p video will be just 0.34" narrower than on 16:9 and have small black bars top and bottom, but it will still be rendered pixel-for-pixel, not scaled.

    I'd only see it as an issue if the machine was intended as a HTPC - and then I'd possibly go for a s larger TV rather than a 24" computer display.
     
  8. macaron95 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    #8
    thanks for all your feedbacks

    poor us Europeans, we don't have much deals with Dell like you guys have in the US :confused:

    i guess that the newest screen is worth spending an extra €150 (around 400 euros here) vs the U2414H (about 250 euros)
     
  9. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #9
    No, but I'll be happy to trade our deals for your healthcare :D
     
  10. KenAFSPC, Oct 26, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014

    KenAFSPC macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    #10
    The main issue is that some games are designed with 16:9 in mind, and, with 16:10, information on the sides is cropped off. This doesn't affect all games. However, since it affects some games, it is a consideration for gamers.

    [​IMG]

    Productivity applications, the web, and email account for 90 percent of my computer time, so a 16:10 display made sense in my case. However, for someone that spends 90 percent of their time with games and/or movies, a 27" 16:9 display probably makes more sense.

    The new 34" LG 34UC97 ultrawide curved (Youtube review) potentially offers the best of both worlds. It is the equivalent of two 21.5" 16:10 monitors, side-by-side, without a bezel in between. However, at $1200-$1400, it is rather pricey.

    [​IMG]

    Dell will ship a re-branded version of this LG monitor in the USA in the second half of November. Expected MSRP is $1500, although, as mentioned earlier, Dell routinely offers 30-40% discounts on its monitors.
     
  11. macaron95 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    #11
    hopefully i don't play at all so no worries about games
     
  12. rdav macrumors 6502

    rdav

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Location:
    So/California.
    #12
    Monitors(21:9)-2014 LG-34UC87(black) & LG-34UC97(bronze).

    Quote: "The new 34" LG 34UC97 ultrawide curved potentially offers the best of both worlds."

    That model pictured is the LG-34UC87, which is the "business" version with Vesa mount, accessible rear-ports, and black casing etc - same screen. Several outlets (such as B&H) are pre-listing the (bronze-coloured) consumer version (LG-34UC97) for $1300. (Or you can pay $4,100 from some vendors on eBay!). Due in the US Nov/Dec 2014.

    It looks like this Lg/3840x1440 screen will run off any video-card/port that can power the Apple/2560x1440 display. And presumably all Thunderbolt-1 devices. But not confirmed yet.
     
  13. qcmacmini macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #13
    The price difference is killing me right now, I want another monitor, but 370EUR is nearly double what I paid for my U2414H at 205EUR!
     
  14. JoeG4 macrumors 68030

    JoeG4

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Bay Area, Ca.
    #14
    I have a set of U2414Hs at work, my initial impression was to be super impressed with them. The bezels are so thin, and the color quality seemed pretty legit.

    Then one of my HDMI cables broke, so I switched to using 1 on HDMI and 1 on displayport, and then I realized that the HDMI connection was being detected by my work laptop as a TV, and the colors were off.

    The viewing angles aren't that great either, for an IPS screen. They're advertising it as an AH-IPS screen, but it's really.. kinda disappointing.

    The new design looks nice, but it's also down a USB port and has no memory card reader. If you can score a U2415 for $279, which happens often enough, that's a good deal, but I wouldn't spend more money on them.

    Remember 1920x1200 has been around a LONG time. They're 6 bit + FRC screens too, which is a bit annoying. With the U2415 out, I don't see a point in buying the U2414, because for $150 you could get a similar quality screen from someone else. Granted, it won't be as elegant or have as nice a stand I suppose.

    I'm looking at an LG 34UM94 right now, it's expensive but not much different in cost than a Thunderbolt display, and it offers a little more resolution to boot. It's not 4k, but my old ADC cinema display is getting really long in the tooth.
     
  15. frank4 macrumors regular

    frank4

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #15
    I was going to get a U2412M for 16x10 and the extra features of the U (Ultrasharp) series. I was previously using a 16x10 older monitor, 22 inch 1680x1050. 2011 Mac mini here.

    But then I noticed the Dell S2340L and instead I got two of them for a little more cost than a single U2412M. I was looking for a monitor with better colour than my old one, preferably at a low price. 16x10 was preferable but not mandatory.

    S2340L is 16x9, has a glossy IPS display. I find 16x9 is not a lot different from 16x10, it's only 10% less vertical pixels. The glossy display passes the colours through very well and looks similar or better than the 21.5" iMac. Fortunately my room has no bright lights or walls that cause reflections. The extra features of the U series are nice (extra inputs, USB, portrait orientation etc) but I probably would not use them.
     
  16. crazzapple Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    #16
    FYI - I just saw on tftcentral there is a Dell U2515H 25" 2560 x 1440 monitor nearing production. To me this would be the best compromise, short of 4k resolution. It will cost more than the the 24" 16:10, but less than the 27" 16:9. I think the increased DPI would be very welcome and allow to hold off on 4k for a number of years.
     
  17. qcmacmini macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #17

    Nice discovery! Now on my radar for my second monitor, perfect size/pixel density :)
     
  18. AnalyzeThis macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    #18
    Yeah, make sure to get binoculars or loope to see anything on that monitor. It is barely usable at 27".
     
  19. qcmacmini macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #19
    I don't know, it depends if you're old and going blind or your eyes are good. I prefer the pixel density and resolution personally.

    I bought my Dad a 1080p monitor because for him it's enough, and everything is a little bigger at that resolution.
     
  20. AnalyzeThis macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    #20
    It has nothing to do with eyes or age. Apple does not support Retina scaling to make sure the fonts maintain its point size correctly on these monitors (1440p). Retina scaling is available on 4K and higher resolution monitors only.
     
  21. qcmacmini macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #21
    Yeah, because scaling a 1440p display would make it ridiculously small for a modern day desktop.

    I get what you're saying. For MacBooks, iPads, and iPhones, I agree with you. The screen is usually jammed up in your face though, and I could never go back to non-retina.

    For my desktop I don't see the need for retina. I sit a good 55cm from the screen and I can hardly make out the pixels.

    The difference between the 25 or 27 inch (1440p) displays in question are only 9 PPI. 117 vs 108. Hardly anything.

    It's funny I walked into the Amsterdam Apple Store the other week and they had a nMP hooked up to the Sharp 4k display, and it wasn't scaled, it was sitting there in native res! That's a PPI of well over 130.
     
  22. crazzapple Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2014
    #22
    I don't agree. I find the 27" a little large personally. No problem using UI elements that are a little smaller. For a number of years I used a Dell 15" laptop with 1920 x 1200 resolution, and that was still useable even with far higher DPI.

    ----------

    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/32.htm#dell_u2515h
     
  23. qcmacmini macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #23
    For me, the 25" size would be the perfect size for my desk. I was only ever considering 27" to get the 1440p resolution.

    The fact that the 25" will be cheaper is a bonus too.
     
  24. oscillatewildly, Nov 24, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2014

    oscillatewildly macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Location:
    23 Railway Cuttings
    #24
    In case you haven't seen it plus your work laptop is a mac and you are allowed to run the script, this may help:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1713591&page=2

    Post 50 - quoting post 49.

    One of the links:

    http://www.ireckon.net/2013/03/force-rgb-mode-in-mac-os-x-to-fix-the-picture-quality-of-an-external-monitor

    Note the bit about the laptop lid being closed - only the external monitor to be live.
     
  25. Dankex macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    #25
    Ey everybody!

    I know this is one year old thread, but I urgently need a monitor as I'm tired of coding on my 2013 13" rMBP... I've been looking at a monitor on the 24" range size and I do not want 2560x1440 resolution as it makes the text pretty damn small for me to read. I would rather go with 1920x1080 (Dell U2414) or even 1920x1200 (Dell U2415). I'm leaning towards the 16:10 screen as it is the same as in my rMBP and also because I need more vertical space rather than horizontal space. However, I have a question: when playing HDTV files, will I have black bars? Won't it be the same as in my rMBP since it is also a 16:10 screen ?! If it is going to be the same, I'm fine with that; otherwise, I might reconsider the 16:9 option.

    Here in Portugal, I can get the U2415 for 270€ and the 2414H for 230€, so it is not a money issue...I just need to make sure I choose the right one.

    Thanks!
     

Share This Page