So we have an expensive 24" TN monitor with a decent resolution, but expensive GSync. And a cheap 27" IPS monitor with a rubbish resolution and 6-bit panel, but cheap Freesync.
Thanks Dell. Can you fill out the rest of the line - the 24" with Freesync, the 27" with a decent resolution and Freesync, etc...
For example, they have a quite good gaming 27", 2440x1440, 144Hz, G-Sync TN monitor (I just bought one, for a TN monitor it's good...but it's a TN monitor, I only use it for gaming :)).
This is a couple of new entries in their line-up.
If they don't have them, Asus have what you are after (superior displays to Dell, but I bought a Dell because it was cheaper and looks nicer).
I have the Acer predator that has this spec - it's fantastic in terms of features/performance but i have a lot of niggling quality issues with it. Especially since it was so expensive.
+ 144hz gsync + 2560x1440 + IPS panel + 27"
- shit speakers - 2 dead pixels that they wouldn't accept return on - occasionally a vertical stripe of the monitor in th emiddle is rendered on the side (??)
From my experience with previous monitors, I'd buy a Dell monitor over an Acer even if it was 50% more expensive. I'm sure other people have had other experiences, but for me Acer doesn't seem to care about quality and if I get a Dell monitor with a problem I haven't had an issue sending it back and getting a proper, not refurbished, replacement unit.
Not ALL gamers want to buy the same exact product or can afford said product. And with desktop computers many individual are not just gamers.
I'm a professional that plays games on my 6 core, X99m, GTX970 and Dell 27" Ultrasharp. Also work from home with the same computer. My work and video gaming requirements do not need 1ms response or 5ms input lag. I prefer wide color and dynamic range.
I'm sure gamers come in difffent flavors. Some have better specs than me. Many do not (check out Steam survey just for one source).
I'll echo crimsonsun, as someone who has a pretty similar rig. My Dell 34" 21:9 panel is fantastic for productivity, and even for gaming I'll take greater immersion and a solid 60fps over a lower-quality panel that can go faster for no particular benefit.
FreeSync might have been nice to gracefully handle sub-60fps, but since it's effectively free and everybody but nVidia does or will support it, I'm expecting it will show up in the next refresh of the majority of Dell's monitors, at least above the entry-grade E-series. And in the meantime, my 980Ti ensures that sub-60fps happens pretty rarely.
If I recall correctly, FreeSync requires DisplayPort 1.3, and Skylake supports only 1.2, so we'll need to wait for future CPU architectures.
There's no definitive word on what Kaby Lake support looks like, but given that it's an interim release shoehorned between the traditional "tick" and "tock", it's not entirely unreasonable to expect that DP1.3/FreeSync support might not come along until Cannonlake in 2H 2017.
I don't think so, because Hawaii/Fiji only support DP 1.2. I think it's in either 1.1 or 1.2
DP 1.3 added the HBR3 signal mode which only Polaris and Pascal support right now. DP 1.4 was a feature update, but still used the same signalling standards.
Technically it's 1.2a. But DisplayPort Adaptive Sync is not a requirement at any level, so even a newer 1.3/1.4 controller is not guaranteed to support it.
I had for years and eventually went with some Dell IPS non-GSync monitors during a sale. It is either very difficult to create a high-refresh IPS or the market demand isn't there. Or both. It's too bad since IPS look so much better than TN.
The panels just don't exist in the market. You can get PVA panels, which is more similar to IPS than TN but suffers from slightly less vibrant colors but also have deeper blacks as high as 120hz. But based on the products I see those panels in I think they're pricey.
Acer XF270HU, and EIZO FORIS FS2735 are the two monitors that fit your requirement. In general it seems like there are more Freesync monitors out in market and Users of AMD cards can be picky while nVidia users are left to chew the dust with very little choice of G-Sync monitors and also more expensive monitors. While I can get IPS Freesync monitor with RX-480 for under 500$ there are no similarly priced or Nvidia options.
Just looking at the specs Dell is playing a cat and mouse game. Some specs better for each over the other. I wouldn't buy either. GSync has higher PPI, but a poorer quality panel.
Exactly, Computers were always 16:10 before LCD TV's came along, The monitor manufactures are pushing 16:9 which is a TV/Movie aspect ratio on us because its cheaper, they only have to design one panel tv's and monitors. It also has less pixels so is cheaper to manufacture. From a productivity 16:9 is too short (squashed). Its getting hard to find 16:10, so i hope my Dell 30" lasts a long time.
There's definitely a market for good 24 inch gaming monitors higher than 1080p. Before now you had to step up to 25-27" to get that. And most of those with gsync and higher refresh rates start to get pretty pricy. Much more than 550.
Plenty options these days yet we need better video interfaces now to match the latest video cards. One more thing is there a monitor that supports both variable refresh technology? The S2417DG has displayport 1.2a can support Freesync
Someone at Dell just thought let's mix s**t up - good res, bad, small panel, good panel, low resolution and just release it. Who's the audience for these???
Apparently Gamers :)))... j/k but i hear you. I give them a break for releasing such oddly specced monitors. I am glad they are on board with releasiing gaming monitors in the first place. I am hoping slowly but surely they will start competing with the likes of Acer and Asus....just give them more time
I love a smaller monitor with super high pixel density. Ive been waiting for a monitor like this. The image on the s2417dg will be sharper and cleaner that its 27 inch big brother, the s2716dg. Also, the ability to play at 1080p for FPS gain and still get a nice sharp image without the need for system debilitating AA or upscaling while still having the option of 1440p is definitely a plus. The bigger the monitor, the less pixel density, the worse the image quality. 1080p on a 27 is blurry mess, its much better on a 24. Bigger is not always better. Save the big screens for the consoles. Target audience? People who values image quality over size and people who value size over image quality.
I do have a question for Dell's screen division: Why, oh, why on Earth is it so hard for you to make an UltraSharp screen with the thinnest edges possible (similar to the U2515H), with 4K resolution, IPS, TOUCHSCREEN, G-Sync, FreeSync-compatible (that means that if it comes without it but users could later install the card on the back of the monitor, that would be a feat), TOUCHSCREEN, TOUCHSCREEN and ...oh..did I mention TOUCHSCREEN? WHY?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
45 Comments
Back to Article
ajp_anton - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
"Pixel pitch: unknown"It's just 1/PPI, so 1/(123.44ppi) = 0.2058mm/pixel
ImSpartacus - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
That works for square pixels, right?prophet001 - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Not all pixels are square.psychobriggsy - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
So we have an expensive 24" TN monitor with a decent resolution, but expensive GSync.And a cheap 27" IPS monitor with a rubbish resolution and 6-bit panel, but cheap Freesync.
Thanks Dell. Can you fill out the rest of the line - the 24" with Freesync, the 27" with a decent resolution and Freesync, etc...
althaz - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
They may already have those monitors available.For example, they have a quite good gaming 27", 2440x1440, 144Hz, G-Sync TN monitor (I just bought one, for a TN monitor it's good...but it's a TN monitor, I only use it for gaming :)).
This is a couple of new entries in their line-up.
If they don't have them, Asus have what you are after (superior displays to Dell, but I bought a Dell because it was cheaper and looks nicer).
Babrbarossa - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
The article has some specs reversed for the two units (resolution)Sloppy work for anandtech
Ryan Smith - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Beg your pardon? The resolutions are correct; I've just double-checked this myself. The smaller of the monitors is 1440p, and the larger is 1080p.BobbyM - Tuesday, September 6, 2016 - link
Haha, you would think so, but no; they are correct.R0H1T - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Shouldn't the 6bit+FRC panel result in "16.7 million" colors?nathanddrews - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
No, stahp... let me dream.nandnandnand - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
*crickets*Ninhalem - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
What's it going to take Dell to get a 27" 1440p monitor with 120 Hz+ and FreeSync? Eizo has one but I don't want to pay 1000+ USD for it.Ninhalem - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Well found some thanks to www.144hzmonitors.com.https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XF270HU-bmijdpr-FREESY...
jwhannell - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
I have the Acer predator that has this spec - it's fantastic in terms of features/performance but i have a lot of niggling quality issues with it. Especially since it was so expensive.+ 144hz gsync
+ 2560x1440
+ IPS panel
+ 27"
- shit speakers
- 2 dead pixels that they wouldn't accept return on
- occasionally a vertical stripe of the monitor in th emiddle is rendered on the side (??)
PaulMack - Wednesday, August 10, 2016 - link
I wish I could easily flag comments on the internet to companies with comments like "This is why I'm not buying from you"Flunk - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link
From my experience with previous monitors, I'd buy a Dell monitor over an Acer even if it was 50% more expensive. I'm sure other people have had other experiences, but for me Acer doesn't seem to care about quality and if I get a Dell monitor with a problem I haven't had an issue sending it back and getting a proper, not refurbished, replacement unit.slumberlust - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Still holding out for a 27" IPS @ 1440p w/ 144hz and Freesync.CMDMC12 - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Your wish be granted:https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0173PEX34
Or
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZOO348C
Looks like those are pretty much your only choices though.
surt - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
No kidding. I do not get what manufacturers do not get about what gamers want to buy.crimsonson - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Not ALL gamers want to buy the same exact product or can afford said product. And with desktop computers many individual are not just gamers.I'm a professional that plays games on my 6 core, X99m, GTX970 and Dell 27" Ultrasharp. Also work from home with the same computer. My work and video gaming requirements do not need 1ms response or 5ms input lag. I prefer wide color and dynamic range.
I'm sure gamers come in difffent flavors. Some have better specs than me. Many do not (check out Steam survey just for one source).
Black Obsidian - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
I'll echo crimsonsun, as someone who has a pretty similar rig. My Dell 34" 21:9 panel is fantastic for productivity, and even for gaming I'll take greater immersion and a solid 60fps over a lower-quality panel that can go faster for no particular benefit.FreeSync might have been nice to gracefully handle sub-60fps, but since it's effectively free and everybody but nVidia does or will support it, I'm expecting it will show up in the next refresh of the majority of Dell's monitors, at least above the entry-grade E-series. And in the meantime, my 980Ti ensures that sub-60fps happens pretty rarely.
DanNeely - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Has Intel followed up on last years commitment to add Freesync support yet, or do we need to wait for future drivers/CPU architectures to add it?Black Obsidian - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
If I recall correctly, FreeSync requires DisplayPort 1.3, and Skylake supports only 1.2, so we'll need to wait for future CPU architectures.There's no definitive word on what Kaby Lake support looks like, but given that it's an interim release shoehorned between the traditional "tick" and "tock", it's not entirely unreasonable to expect that DP1.3/FreeSync support might not come along until Cannonlake in 2H 2017.
extide - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
I don't think so, because Hawaii/Fiji only support DP 1.2. I think it's in either 1.1 or 1.2DP 1.3 added the HBR3 signal mode which only Polaris and Pascal support right now. DP 1.4 was a feature update, but still used the same signalling standards.
Ryan Smith - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Technically it's 1.2a. But DisplayPort Adaptive Sync is not a requirement at any level, so even a newer 1.3/1.4 controller is not guaranteed to support it.Sivar - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
I had for years and eventually went with some Dell IPS non-GSync monitors during a sale.It is either very difficult to create a high-refresh IPS or the market demand isn't there. Or both. It's too bad since IPS look so much better than TN.
Flunk - Tuesday, August 16, 2016 - link
The panels just don't exist in the market. You can get PVA panels, which is more similar to IPS than TN but suffers from slightly less vibrant colors but also have deeper blacks as high as 120hz. But based on the products I see those panels in I think they're pricey.Chaitanya - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Acer XF270HU, and EIZO FORIS FS2735 are the two monitors that fit your requirement. In general it seems like there are more Freesync monitors out in market and Users of AMD cards can be picky while nVidia users are left to chew the dust with very little choice of G-Sync monitors and also more expensive monitors. While I can get IPS Freesync monitor with RX-480 for under 500$ there are no similarly priced or Nvidia options.mdriftmeyer - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Just looking at the specs Dell is playing a cat and mouse game. Some specs better for each over the other. I wouldn't buy either. GSync has higher PPI, but a poorer quality panel.Xanavi - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
I bought the Acer XB240H, 1080p 144hz TN for $299. Happy camper :)Xanavi - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Gsync btw. Has some light bleed, TN is sort of trash, but in gaming, omgz!Lolimaster - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
We need to return to 16:10 for computers and also adopt 3:2 like the surface line up.16:9 is so messed up for productivity.
Redstorm - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Exactly, Computers were always 16:10 before LCD TV's came along, The monitor manufactures are pushing 16:9 which is a TV/Movie aspect ratio on us because its cheaper, they only have to design one panel tv's and monitors. It also has less pixels so is cheaper to manufacture. From a productivity 16:9 is too short (squashed). Its getting hard to find 16:10, so i hope my Dell 30" lasts a long time.Exodite - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
I'm still using the 5:4, 1280*1024, 19" monitor I got in 2007.I work primarily with text and the standard FHD monitor only gives me 56 extra pixels to work with, as the 50% wider format does nothing for me.
Eventually I'll upgrade to a WQHD solution but they're still a bit too expensive for my taste.
blzd - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
I find two full sized documents sitting side by side can be useful.Wolfpup - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Can I get a 27" monitor with a modest resolution, VA, G-Sync, AND Freesync, + a ton of ports and audio in and out? :-DBadsleepwalker86 - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
There's definitely a market for good 24 inch gaming monitors higher than 1080p. Before now you had to step up to 25-27" to get that. And most of those with gsync and higher refresh rates start to get pretty pricy. Much more than 550.zodiacfml - Monday, August 8, 2016 - link
Plenty options these days yet we need better video interfaces now to match the latest video cards. One more thing is there a monitor that supports both variable refresh technology? The S2417DG has displayport 1.2a can support Freesyncxchaotic - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link
Someone at Dell just thought let's mix s**t up - good res, bad, small panel, good panel, low resolution and just release it. Who's the audience for these???Hxx - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link
Apparently Gamers :)))... j/k but i hear you. I give them a break for releasing such oddly specced monitors. I am glad they are on board with releasiing gaming monitors in the first place. I am hoping slowly but surely they will start competing with the likes of Acer and Asus....just give them more timeBobbyM - Tuesday, September 6, 2016 - link
I love a smaller monitor with super high pixel density. Ive been waiting for a monitor like this. The image on the s2417dg will be sharper and cleaner that its 27 inch big brother, the s2716dg. Also, the ability to play at 1080p for FPS gain and still get a nice sharp image without the need for system debilitating AA or upscaling while still having the option of 1440p is definitely a plus. The bigger the monitor, the less pixel density, the worse the image quality. 1080p on a 27 is blurry mess, its much better on a 24. Bigger is not always better. Save the big screens for the consoles. Target audience? People who values image quality over size and people who value size over image quality.3ogdy - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link
I do have a question for Dell's screen division:Why, oh, why on Earth is it so hard for you to make an UltraSharp screen with the thinnest edges possible (similar to the U2515H), with 4K resolution, IPS, TOUCHSCREEN, G-Sync, FreeSync-compatible (that means that if it comes without it but users could later install the card on the back of the monitor, that would be a feat), TOUCHSCREEN, TOUCHSCREEN and ...oh..did I mention TOUCHSCREEN?
WHY?
hybrid2d4x4 - Tuesday, August 9, 2016 - link
I'd venture a guess that you're in a very small minority that want touchscreen on a larger monitor?jabber - Thursday, August 11, 2016 - link
Yeah you were doing really well till you mentioned Touchscreen. Then I switched off.blzd - Saturday, August 13, 2016 - link
lel touch screen. Keep waiting... hopefully forever.