Dell P2418D 24" Monitor QHD 2560x1440 IPS monitor (Free delivery + 4% quidco) £200
512°Expired

Dell P2418D 24" Monitor QHD 2560x1440 IPS monitor (Free delivery + 4% quidco) £200

35
Found 21st JanEdited by:"simonmcnair"
I've been looking to replace my Dell WFP3008 and the monitor deals before didn't really tickle my Dell fanboi fancy. I had a look on the Dell website for these features that are important to me:

Hugemungous res in a smallish monitor (I didn't want a 27")
Displayport as well as HDMI (my GTX970 has 3x DP and 1xHDMI)
VESA mount


other benefits are:
Good brand name
3 year warranty
Built in USB3 hub
very slim bezels.
Community Updates
Dell DealsDell coupons

Groups

35 Comments
Great price, not sure about 24" vs 27" on 2k resolution.
Original Poster
I had 2560x1600 on a 30" so hopefully this won't be much different.
60Hz if anyone wondering.
Edited by: "CavanDuck" 21st Jan
Would a raspberry pi be able to push this monitor to max resolution? Thinking of using one of these with DAKBoard to create a calendar/photo display
Original Poster
redvers764 m ago

Would a raspberry pi be able to push this monitor to max resolution? …Would a raspberry pi be able to push this monitor to max resolution? Thinking of using one of these with DAKBoard to create a calendar/photo display



It looks like the rasppi3 could. I very much doubt the previous iterations could...

raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/que…ion
How would this be for gaming in comparison to the Dell U2515H that I own (whichI've experienced a lot of tearing on while playing FPS games).

I'm after a monitor to sit beside the U2515H that can be used for gaming.
Edited by: "mdentz" 21st Jan
CavanDuck27 m ago

60Hz if anyone wondering.


Yes I was, thank you.
Original Poster
mdentz9 m ago

How would this be for gaming in comparison to the Dell U2515H that I own …How would this be for gaming in comparison to the Dell U2515H that I own (whichI've experienced a lot of tearing on while playing FPS games).I'm after a monitor to sit beside the U2515H that can be used for gaming.



TBH I wouldn't pick a 1440p monitor for gaming unless you're willing to spend £500+ You'd want 120Hz tbh. I plan on using these for First person gaming, but screen tearing/FPS isn't high on my agenda as photo editing and screen real estate is more important to me.
simonmcnair49 m ago

I had 2560x1600 on a 30" so hopefully this won't be much different.


Everything will be a third smaller (by area) so it is pretty significant.
simonmcnair9 m ago

TBH I wouldn't pick a 1440p monitor for gaming unless you're willing to …TBH I wouldn't pick a 1440p monitor for gaming unless you're willing to spend £500+ You'd want 120Hz tbh. I plan on using these for First person gaming, but screen tearing/FPS isn't high on my agenda as photo editing and screen real estate is more important to me.


My main activity is web development (front-end), I purchased an LG 29" Ultrawide and the difference in resolution and screen real estate between 1440p and 1080p drove me crazy so I'm returning it. I'd drag a window from the Dell U2515h and it just didn't feel right with the text increasing and looking more 'washed out'.
Original Poster
EndlessWaves8 m ago

Everything will be a third smaller (by area) so it is pretty significant.



Display size: 25.44" × 15.9" = 404.49in² (64.62cm × 40.39cm = 2609.64cm²) at 100.63 PPI, 0.2524mm dot pitch, 10126 PPI²

Display size: 20.92" × 11.77" = 246.12in² (53.13cm × 29.89cm = 1587.9cm²) at 122.38 PPI, 0.2075mm dot pitch, 14978 PPI²

Fair point.
mdentz7 m ago

My main activity is web development (front-end), I purchased an LG 29" …My main activity is web development (front-end), I purchased an LG 29" Ultrawide and the difference in resolution and screen real estate between 1440p and 1080p drove me crazy so I'm returning it. I'd drag a window from the Dell U2515h and it just didn't feel right with the text increasing and looking more 'washed out'.


It is highly dependant on viewing distance though. If those two screens were on my setup I'd be squinting at tiny text on the U2515H and grumbling that the resolution wasn't high enough to use 2x scaling.

It's very much a case of buying what works for you.
Original Poster
mdentz9 m ago

My main activity is web development (front-end), I purchased an LG 29" …My main activity is web development (front-end), I purchased an LG 29" Ultrawide and the difference in resolution and screen real estate between 1440p and 1080p drove me crazy so I'm returning it. I'd drag a window from the Dell U2515h and it just didn't feel right with the text increasing and looking more 'washed out'.



I think I'm getting to the point where I play games at 1080p on my TV in the lounge on the PC or console. The computer is more for web browsing/file managers and Virtual machines so frames per second isn't key for me like real estate.
I'll give gaming a go on it, if it doesn't work well I'll probably try it at 1080p and see if it's better, if not then it's not the end of the world.
I hate moving windows between displays with different resolutions. Especially when going from a laptop to a 1080p screen. When I was at work my colleagues used 3 screens, laptop and 2x1080p screens, I always closed the laptop as the change in resolution as well as screen height did my head in.
EndlessWaves2 m ago

It is highly dependant on viewing distance though. If those two screens …It is highly dependant on viewing distance though. If those two screens were on my setup I'd be squinting at tiny text on the U2515H and grumbling that the resolution wasn't high enough to use 2x scaling.It's very much a case of buying what works for you.


Can you explain more about 2x scaling? I guess having code as clear/crisp and small as possible (within reason) is important for me. The LG wasn't bad by any means, it was just odd and seemed very small (height wise) compared to the Dell.
mdentz44 m ago

Can you explain more about 2x scaling? I guess having code as clear/crisp …Can you explain more about 2x scaling? I guess having code as clear/crisp and small as possible (within reason) is important for me. The LG wasn't bad by any means, it was just odd and seemed very small (height wise) compared to the Dell.


Comparing diagonal measurements across screens of different shapes doesn't work too well. Screens have more area for the same diagonal the closer they are to square.

29" 2560x1080 screens are best thought of as 23" 1920x1080 screens with extra width on the sides. A 27" 16:9 screen actually has more physical screen area than a 29" ultrawide.


In terms of scaling Windows and programs written for it have traditionally sized things in pixels. So a character may be 5 pixels wide whether you have a screen that's 1024 pixels wide or a screen that's 2560 pixels wide. The bigger screen just fits more characters across.

But this means you're limited to the amount of detail you can get out of 5 pixels. Using smaller pixels shrinks everything which helps to a limited extent as it's hard to pick out smaller flaws, but shrinking things also compromises usability.

Windows has had a scaling/sizing setting that tells programs to render at some multiple of normal size for getting on for a couple of decades now but it's always been something of a chicken and the egg problem. Developers won't do the extra work to support it because nobody uses it, and nobody uses it because it's poorly supported.

Things are changing a bit though. Mac OS had the same issue and Apple forced the situation a few years ago by including retina screens as standard that were unusable without scaling support and the bleed-over demand for '4K' screens from the TV world also requires support to be usable in smaller sizes (sub-40"). HiDPI is often used as the catchall term.

To actually benefit from the extra pixels a program needs to explicitly support it, but anything using one of the standard windows interface toolkits will be scaled up automatically. It won't provide any quality improvements, but it will make the program the right size, instead of unusably tiny thanks to the miniscule pixels.

The reason to go for a screen resolution that is 2x/200% of the sizing you want is that this is the neatest way to scale up. Going for a scaling that isn't a whole number like 1.5x (150%) will mean the scaled up programs are slightly more blurred. Similar to running at a non-native resolution, although not as bad as the underlying pixels are smaller.

I would want 1920x1080 sizing on a 25" for comfortable text size at my viewing distance, so 3840x2160 would be slightly sharper than 2560x1440. Both because of the extra pixels for programs that can use them, and the perfect scaling for those that can't.

On the other hand if the optimum sizing for your desk is 2560x1440 then your optimum choice would be to skip 3840x2160 and wait for 5120x2880. Although as pixels get ever smaller the differences do diminish.
Edited by: "EndlessWaves" 21st Jan
24inch at 2560x1440 COLD
EndlessWaves43 m ago

Comparing diagonal measurements across screens of different shapes doesn't …Comparing diagonal measurements across screens of different shapes doesn't work too well. Screens have more area for the same diagonal the closer they are to square. 29" 2560x1080 screens are best thought of as 23" 1920x1080 screens with extra width on the sides. A 27" 16:9 screen actually has more physical screen area than a 29" ultrawide.In terms of scaling Windows and programs written for it have traditionally sized things in pixels. So a character may be 5 pixels wide whether you have a screen that's 1024 pixels wide or a screen that's 2560 pixels wide. The bigger screen just fits more characters across.But this means you're limited to the amount of detail you can get out of 5 pixels. Using smaller pixels shrinks everything which helps to a limited extent as it's hard to pick out smaller flaws, but shrinking things also compromises usability.Windows has had a scaling/sizing setting that tells programs to render at some multiple of normal size for getting on for a couple of decades now but it's always been something of a chicken and the egg problem. Developers won't do the extra work to support it because nobody uses it, and nobody uses it because it's poorly supported.Things are changing a bit though. Mac OS had the same issue and Apple forced the situation a few years ago by including retina screens as standard that were unusable without scaling support and the bleed-over demand for '4K' screens from the TV world also requires support to be usable in smaller sizes (sub-40"). HiDPI is often used as the catchall term.To actually benefit from the extra pixels a program needs to explicitly support it, but anything using one of the standard windows interface toolkits will be scaled up automatically. It won't provide any quality improvements, but it will make the program the right size, instead of unusably tiny thanks to the miniscule pixels. The reason to go for a screen resolution that is 2x/200% of the sizing you want is that this is the neatest way to scale up. Going for a scaling that isn't a whole number like 1.5x (150%) will mean the scaled up programs are slightly more blurred. Similar to running at a non-native resolution, although not as bad as the underlying pixels are smaller. I would want 1920x1080 sizing on a 25" for comfortable text size at my viewing distance, so 3840x2160 would be slightly sharper than 2560x1440. Both because of the extra pixels for programs that can use them, and the perfect scaling for those that can't. On the other hand if the optimum sizing for your desk is 2560x1440 then your optimum choice would be to skip 3840x2160 and wait for 5120x2880. Although as pixels get ever smaller the differences do diminish.

Thanks for your detailed response, I'm I am used to 2560x1440 now and miss it at work when not using it. I was considering getting another U2515H to go along side, but it's the tearing during gaming which has put me off.

Would there be any issue with me finding an IPS 2560x1440 monitor more suitable for gaming (above 60hz)?

For someone not clued up on monitors, it's all rather confusing.
Try turning on v sync to eliminate tearing during gaming.
Tearing is caused by frame rate of the game running at a different frequency to the refresh rate of the screen. A higher frequency won't prevent tearing (although a 144hz screen does allow V-sync to lock to 48hz).

Generally you can avoid tearing in two ways:
1. Locking the frame rate to the monitor's refresh rate. V-sync is the traditional solution but Enhanced Sync (AMD) or Fast Sync (nVidia) are better options if you're willing to spend enough on graphics cards to be able to generate a frame rate that exceeds the monitor's refresh.

2. Buy a monitor that can refresh dynamically. The technology is called variable refresh rate. There's an standard that's part of the DisplayPort 1.2a and above standard called Adaptive Sync which is supported by a lot of monitors - it's better known generally under the AMD marketing name of Freesync. I couldn't find a 25"ish 2560x1440 IPS monitor with it, but there are 24" 3840x2160 IPS and 24" 2560x1440" TN panels with it which would both be close to what you want.

NVidia are currently dragging their heels on supporting it as they have their own version called G-sync that will likely only ever work with their cards. I couldn't find any 24-25" G-sync monitors that were higher than 1920x1080 regardless of LCD type.
I've trouble finding this a practical monitor.

I have got 32" IPS Viewsonic the same resolution and I think it is pretty match at limit, smaller screen would require desktop scaling (Windows) and related compatibility issues.

1440p is not for gaming yet, so the 60Hz should be fine.
EndlessWaves4 h, 43 m ago

I couldn't find any 24-25" G-sync monitors that were higher than 1920x1080 …I couldn't find any 24-25" G-sync monitors that were higher than 1920x1080 regardless of LCD type.


Correct me if I'm misunderstanding but the S2417DG is a 24'' TN 1440p G-Sync monitor, as are the Acer XB241YU and AOC AG241QG. I can't find any 24'' GSync QHD IPS panels, though.
Edited by: "ashzx" 21st Jan
Ruffuz18 h, 28 m ago

Great price, not sure about 24" vs 27" on 2k resolution.


"2K" resolution is closer to 1080p btw (2048x1080 if you want to get really specific).
I've had 24" Dell 1080p monitors and 27" 1440p and both are the perfect size for their respective resolution imo.
ashzx10 h, 20 m ago

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding but the S2417DG is a 24'' TN 1440p …Correct me if I'm misunderstanding but the S2417DG is a 24'' TN 1440p G-Sync monitor, as are the Acer XB241YU and AOC AG241QG. I can't find any 24'' GSync QHD IPS panels, though.


I was looking into the Dell S2417DG monitor to sit aside my U2515H, but it being a TN panel put me off (from the things I read).
EndlessWaves15 h, 29 m ago

Tearing is caused by frame rate of the game running at a different …Tearing is caused by frame rate of the game running at a different frequency to the refresh rate of the screen. A higher frequency won't prevent tearing (although a 144hz screen does allow V-sync to lock to 48hz). Generally you can avoid tearing in two ways:1. Locking the frame rate to the monitor's refresh rate. V-sync is the traditional solution but Enhanced Sync (AMD) or Fast Sync (nVidia) are better options if you're willing to spend enough on graphics cards to be able to generate a frame rate that exceeds the monitor's refresh. 2. Buy a monitor that can refresh dynamically. The technology is called variable refresh rate. There's an standard that's part of the DisplayPort 1.2a and above standard called Adaptive Sync which is supported by a lot of monitors - it's better known generally under the AMD marketing name of Freesync. I couldn't find a 25"ish 2560x1440 IPS monitor with it, but there are 24" 3840x2160 IPS and 24" 2560x1440" TN panels with it which would both be close to what you want. NVidia are currently dragging their heels on supporting it as they have their own version called G-sync that will likely only ever work with their cards. I couldn't find any 24-25" G-sync monitors that were higher than 1920x1080 regardless of LCD type.


Are you referring to Dell panels there? I've seen 24" Dell P2415Q is 3840x2160 and 24" Dell 24" Dell P2415Q is a TN panel at 2560x1440. I just wonder how the '4k' resolution would be in comparison to the 2560x1440 on the Dell U2515H. I'll have to visit some retailers, and take a look at the 3840x2160 displays, wonder if they would allow me to connect my MacBook to see how text looks etc.

EDIT: looks like the Dell P2415Q is 60hz, so isn't going to be great for games either
Edited by: "mdentz" 22nd Jan
EndlessWaves19 h, 2 m ago

Comparing diagonal measurements across screens of different shapes doesn't …Comparing diagonal measurements across screens of different shapes doesn't work too well. Screens have more area for the same diagonal the closer they are to square. 29" 2560x1080 screens are best thought of as 23" 1920x1080 screens with extra width on the sides. A 27" 16:9 screen actually has more physical screen area than a 29" ultrawide.In terms of scaling Windows and programs written for it have traditionally sized things in pixels. So a character may be 5 pixels wide whether you have a screen that's 1024 pixels wide or a screen that's 2560 pixels wide. The bigger screen just fits more characters across.But this means you're limited to the amount of detail you can get out of 5 pixels. Using smaller pixels shrinks everything which helps to a limited extent as it's hard to pick out smaller flaws, but shrinking things also compromises usability.Windows has had a scaling/sizing setting that tells programs to render at some multiple of normal size for getting on for a couple of decades now but it's always been something of a chicken and the egg problem. Developers won't do the extra work to support it because nobody uses it, and nobody uses it because it's poorly supported.Things are changing a bit though. Mac OS had the same issue and Apple forced the situation a few years ago by including retina screens as standard that were unusable without scaling support and the bleed-over demand for '4K' screens from the TV world also requires support to be usable in smaller sizes (sub-40"). HiDPI is often used as the catchall term.To actually benefit from the extra pixels a program needs to explicitly support it, but anything using one of the standard windows interface toolkits will be scaled up automatically. It won't provide any quality improvements, but it will make the program the right size, instead of unusably tiny thanks to the miniscule pixels. The reason to go for a screen resolution that is 2x/200% of the sizing you want is that this is the neatest way to scale up. Going for a scaling that isn't a whole number like 1.5x (150%) will mean the scaled up programs are slightly more blurred. Similar to running at a non-native resolution, although not as bad as the underlying pixels are smaller. I would want 1920x1080 sizing on a 25" for comfortable text size at my viewing distance, so 3840x2160 would be slightly sharper than 2560x1440. Both because of the extra pixels for programs that can use them, and the perfect scaling for those that can't. On the other hand if the optimum sizing for your desk is 2560x1440 then your optimum choice would be to skip 3840x2160 and wait for 5120x2880. Although as pixels get ever smaller the differences do diminish.


Nice post, unusual for these parts.
simonmcnair21 h, 40 m ago

TBH I wouldn't pick a 1440p monitor for gaming unless you're willing to …TBH I wouldn't pick a 1440p monitor for gaming unless you're willing to spend £500+ You'd want 120Hz tbh. I plan on using these for First person gaming, but screen tearing/FPS isn't high on my agenda as photo editing and screen real estate is more important to me.


I'm still using 60 Herts for fps game and it works great responsive ,
Original Poster
33121911-jUMBY.jpgThe monitors arrived today. They seem to be a perfect resolution for the size. I've not tried gaming yet but the quality is awesome.
Link seems to be broken?
Original Poster
Nobull1 h, 14 m ago

Link seems to be broken?


Works for me but it was slow. Might be a link monetisation issue.

Link is
dell.com/en-…ies
simonmcnair18 m ago

Works for me but it was slow. Might be a link monetisation issue.Link is …Works for me but it was slow. Might be a link monetisation issue.Link is http://www.dell.com/en-uk/shop/dell-24-monitor-p2418d/apd/210-ampy/monitors-monitor-accessories



Thanks, I managed to find by manually searching the Dell site. Looks good. I'm debating whether to get something from a less reputable brand at a larger screen size. Quite fancy a 27/28 WQHD monitor ideally.
Original Poster
Nobull1 h, 29 m ago

Thanks, I managed to find by manually searching the Dell site. Looks good. …Thanks, I managed to find by manually searching the Dell site. Looks good. I'm debating whether to get something from a less reputable brand at a larger screen size. Quite fancy a 27/28 WQHD monitor ideally.


For me, this was a good price, a good brand, good features and a reasonable spec. With a 3 year warranty and free p&p it pretty much sealed it.
Original Poster
33142524-W1VYH.jpgMonitor seems fine with assassin's creed black flag at 60 ish FPS. Definitely satisfied.
Just unpacked the box and once switched on the right side of the screen is much brighter. Anyone having a similar problem?
Original Poster
Not for me. The two monitors seem to have slightly different brightness levels at the same setting but that's about it.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text