Dell S2417DG 24-Inch WQHD G-SYNC gaming monitor released

[HEXUS]

The 23.8-inch TN panel offers a 30Hz - 165Hz refresh rate range, plus 1ms response time.

Read more.

[Dashers]

Oh, another monitor that seems just like all the others. I haven't been happy with a monitor since my last CRT.

Looking forward to somebody bringing out a 30" 21:9 120Hz 1440p VA (or OLED) screen - of course, under £500. I guess G/Free Sync would be nice but I've never had a problem living without it.

[CampGareth]

Oh, another monitor that seems just like all the others. I haven't been happy with a monitor since my last CRT.

Looking forward to somebody bringing out a 30" 21:9 120Hz 1440p VA (or OLED) screen - of course, under £500. I guess G/Free Sync would be nice but I've never had a problem living without it.

My 3 27" 1440p displays are staying until OLED's affordable. That's going to be the next great improvement in visual quality for every day usage. All the current stuff seems to be focused on gaming not actually improving the static image quality.

I know OLEDs are hard to make, but classically if you're targeting a smaller display size you'll get a higher yield so the 5.5" OLEDs make sense, but skipping say 22-30" and going straight for 55+? Yeah that doesn't make sense.

[Cr@ig]

27"+ 1440p IPS sub 4ms with freesync at under £300 and i am sold.

[azrael-]

I made it as far as '23.8 inch TN panel'...

The general rule of thumb for Dell monitors stands true: If the model name doesn't start with a 'U', move along.

[virtuo]

I made it as far as '23.8 inch TN panel'...

The general rule of thumb for Dell monitors stands true: If the model name doesn't start with a 'U', move along.

It's a good rule of thumb (and one I follow myself), but for something targeted specifically at gamers, TN panels aren't as bad as they used to be. And they are fast.

[kalniel]

It's a good rule of thumb (and one I follow myself), but for something targeted specifically at gamers, TN panels aren't as bad as they used to be. And they are fast.

Yes actually I'm quite looking forward to seeing the test results on this one. TN is less of a problem at 24" and under.

[Xlucine]

Wait, 3d vision is still a thing? I thought everyone had forgotten about it

[ChewieJ]

Still debating on whether or not to switch out my samsung 40" 400MX-3 for the Zowie 2755 i recently received....

Great bit of kit, but when sitting almost 2mr from the monitor, size rules over performance right now....

[nobodyspecial]

30Hz - 165Hz with Nvidia G-SYNC
DisplayPort 1.2a and HDMI 1.4 inputs, along with 4x USB 3.0 ports, plus a Tilt, pivot, swivel stand 1ms
vs:
48Hz and 75Hz with Freesync
VGA and a single HDMI v1.4+crap color gamut. 6ms

Since the article says it's an interesting comparison (I don't think so, totally different leagues), I'll take the former. Freesync isn't worth much if you have to always stay in such a small range making most of these cheapo monitors useless for many. AMD needs to dictate more on this front as they said they would. They promised to enforce better parts going forward from monitor makers to fix the freesync issues, and we have not seem them apply that pressure yet. Gsync will make your vid card last longer while being able to run less fps at the end of your card's life (currently anyway, hopefully AMD's side will open up the ranges more at some point on even bottom rung stuff). Superfast refresh for higher end people never hurts either. Again, AMD get with the program here. Most people live with their monitor for ~7yrs (my dell 24 is older than that and I paid $650!) so the push for slightly better parts all around is what is needed. Do you want to constantly futz around trying to stay in the range to enjoy freesync here?

There is a huge difference between looking at a quality image for that long vs. dealing with the failures of low end tech (disregarding freesync/gsync debate here, just talking image quality in general). My Dell is loads better to look at than my 22in Acer/LG lower end monitors. Also, AMD still seems to get treated like their stuff is only for poor people, same as always. When someone integrates AMD's cpus/apus they're usually with crap parts around them. IE cpus in desktops generally have less vid options, apu's in laptops usually come with crappy screen models etc. Intel to some extent was to blame for this previously, but in monitors? That is all on AMD not forcing certain levels of features. Maybe they need a label or something that BETTER models can use, like "AMD FREESYNC ULTRA APPROVED" or something to encourage better parts. Freesync could be much better if they aimed a little higher across the board. Hopefully ZEN will be surrounded by a lot of good parts from Dell/HP and the like. Say what you will about gsync pricing/proprietary stuff, but Nvidia took the better road of removing many of the decisions by putting in more control via their own hardware. You pay, but it's better. I'll always save an extra month or two etc to get better. Everyone in our family usually prefers quality over instant gratification in pretty much everything (shame kids today don't learn this anymore).

Neither side has released what I'm after yet (holding out for 16:10 27-32/8bit+ with gsync or freesync and of course vega benchmarks before a decision), but still if forced, today I'd buy Gsync. My next gpu will be well over $400 (considering titanx for some pro stuff) so I'd like it to last with as much flexibility as possible from the monitor.

Note as soon as you up the hz on AMD's side you end up at $600 too for a higher end unit like Asus MG279Q.
http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/s-ips-lcd-list.php
Great list of monitors above with some of their features. You get what you pay for in a monitor. Right now I have 2 choices it seems for 30in (16:10) from Dell/HP and neither has freesync or gsync. WTH? Both $1200/1300! How is this missing at that price? Unfortunately no other monitors seem to compare to these yet (monoprice garbage etc). For the love of god, bring back 16:10 at all ranges! Not sure how we all got forced into 16:9. Do people watch movies all day on their PC or game/browse/email? All of these last 3 are better on 16:10. IF I want wider I'll buy more monitors (which I did).

Save an extra hundred or something people and avoid monitors like this. Again, you'll be looking at this (crap for 20/20 people too as noted in the article) for nearly a decade for some...LOL. Likely until it dies. My Dell 2407WFP-HC is alive and well since 2007 No brightness loss so far. Looks great w/92% gamut 8bit. It's bright enough that I've never been above 70/100 which probably has something to do with the long life You get what you pay for, and even my 22inchers have been alive for almost that long.

[Dashers]

My 3 27" 1440p displays are staying until OLED's affordable. That's going to be the next great improvement in visual quality for every day usage. All the current stuff seems to be focused on gaming not actually improving the static image quality.

I know OLEDs are hard to make, but classically if you're targeting a smaller display size you'll get a higher yield so the 5.5" OLEDs make sense, but skipping say 22-30" and going straight for 55+? Yeah that doesn't make sense.

The problem is, I've been saying this for a decade! I've all but given up on OLED - and lets face it, you're not going to want a first gen panel.