Dell silently sneaks out 23-inch S2309W 1080p LCD monitor

We're not sure what's up with Dell and its displays, but for whatever reason, it actually prefers to sneak new stuff out and just let you try to find it. After pushing out a swank new WUXGA projector with nary a peep, the Round Rock powerhouse has now hosted up a new 1080p LCD monitor dubbed the S2309W. Granted, the display is currently only on the firm's Canadian site, but we reckon it's only a matter of time before it makes it to other markets. As for specs, we've got a 1,920 x 1,080 resolution, 5-millisecond response time, 300 cd/m2 brightness, 1,000:1 contrast ratio and DVI / VGA inputs. No price is mentioned, but it should be shipping in under a fortnight to those who figure out a way to buy it.

[Thanks, Alex]

[Tony @ Sep 27th 2008 1:56AM]

Damn this looks snazzy nice and compact. It better be

[Mark Tomlin @ Sep 27th 2008 1:57AM]

No word on price tho, that's not a good sign.

[roman.kim @ Sep 27th 2008 1:54AM]

Wow, Canadians gets something first for a change...

[KilgoreTrout @ Sep 27th 2008 6:21AM]

They have always been the first to get the the year's flu

[KilgoreTrout @ Sep 27th 2008 6:22AM]

They have always been the first to get the the year's flu

[default.aspx @ Sep 27th 2008 1:54AM]

Well I will not be buying it. First it would have to have a 1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080, and second I would prefer it in 24".

[endless @ Sep 27th 2008 2:10AM]

I am not sure, but I would guess this is 16x9 and not 16x10 like the 24" monitor.


i think i might actually prefer the 16 x 9 as thats what a lot of video is optimized for....

[tumnasgt @ Sep 27th 2008 2:23AM]

There is a 24" 16:9 Dell monitor also, the S2409W. And if you want a 16:10 24" screen, there are already heaps available.

[BananaBoat @ Sep 27th 2008 9:32AM]

There was a story a month or so ago about how consumers have basically picked 16:9 (thus it's cheaper to produce). The result is a ton of monitors coming out in 16:9 instead of 16:10. If you are using photoshop, or CAD, or some other such program then yeah, you might want to go for one of the 24 inchers at 16:10. If you watch a lot of media though, especially at 1080p, having a native 1080p display comes in handy (no scaling issues, no black bars, etc).

Not that I'd ever buy from Dell again. Never, ever again. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever speak to their outsourced customer support people again.

[strang @ Sep 27th 2008 10:27AM]

16:9 is definitely nice, no more black bars when I'm gaming with my consoles.

Also, 16:10 mostly have HDMI inputs set to stretch. So unless you knew about it and didn't adjust then you're on that ugly stretched image.

Of course you can change it to be pixel-to-pixel. But damn, the black bars can be so ugly at times.

Photoshop on a 16:10 is nice but I don't think I'd miss the extra real-estate.

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Sep 27th 2008 1:56PM]

I've got a Dell 2407WFP that I use as a monitor and also a second TV. I like the display a lot, but no matter what setting I use (4:3, stretch, etc) HDTV simply doesn't look very good on it. It always looks sorta chunky and blocky.

[Selvag @ Sep 27th 2008 2:09AM]

$299 according to Dells site and you can order it now.

[bartoron @ Sep 27th 2008 7:13AM]

Wow, that's actually a pretty good price.

Me wanty.

[DBrim @ Sep 27th 2008 2:16AM]

TN panel. Pass.

[Michael Scrip @ Sep 27th 2008 2:31AM]

Which are the good panels? And can you point me to some models using the good panels?

It's all so confusing...

[Jon @ Sep 27th 2008 2:51AM]

Really? That's all you have to say? Every single monitor coming out now, even the new 24" ones are TN. 24" used to be the safe ground for no TN panels, but most of them are TN now too. Pretty much all 22in ones are TN, except for a few NEC panels that you can't afford. Basically you assumed "TN" and thought you'd post a comment like that and sound cool or smart. Like I am doing. TN PASS. Right. Because if you have a TN display you are clearly an idiot. The fact that it's TN is not the point of the article. It's the aspect ratio. Nevermind.

[futurepastnow @ Sep 27th 2008 3:19AM]

@Michael Scrip: An easy way to tell if a monitor has a TN panel is to look at the viewing angles. If they are 160-degrees or lower, it's TN. Pretty much anything 170-degrees or over is not.

But it's hard to find monitors that don't use TN panels now. The few that are still IPS or PVA are getting more expensive as the TN panels get cheaper.

And realistically, if you're not a graphics professional, you're not going to notice much difference. Probably not enough to justify paying twice as much.

[fh @ Sep 27th 2008 3:44AM]

S-PVA are the panels to get, since they have true 8-bits-per-color to achieve 16.7mil colors. TN panels are only 6-bit, and use a combination of techniques to simulate 16mil colors. Of course TN panels offer faster performance and are much cheaper (and when you see a 24" LCD that seems much more expensive than all the others, it's a good chance it's S-PVA), while still having acceptible image quality unless you have a discerning eye. But if you care about color accuracy and 16:9 format, you might as well look for the high-end HDTV solutions.

Just to get you started, here's a site to look up panel type by LCD model:
http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php

[BananaBoat @ Sep 27th 2008 9:43AM]

@michael

Looking at the specs on a monitor is almost useless. All manufacturers artificially inflate contrast ratio, exaggerate response time, etc. The only real way to tell if you'll like a monitor or not, is to go to the store and look at it. I've had "Good panel" Dell's that had horrible color banding (where colors form blocks of color instead of gradually changing from one color to another) and cheapo Viewsonic's and Samsungs that were just fine. Take family photos in on a disc if you have to so that you have some reference for how well the new monitor is performing (digital photos that is). You could also take a movie if you are so inclined. If they hassle you about trying to put the movie in, ask to see a manager and you shouldn't have any more problems. The last time I bought a TV (50" 120hz Samsung LCD) I brought a Blu-Ray disc to watch on the TV at Best Buy. The guy on the floor looked at me like he was dumbfounded, but after I got a manager, he realized it was wise to spend five minutes hooking up a Blu-Ray player, if it meant the sale of a 2000 dollar TV.

[Jeff @ Sep 27th 2008 1:13PM]

Just because it has a TN panel in it doesn't mean it's bad...

TN panels have the fastest response times, and while every manufacturer calculates that times differently, they are the fastest. They lack in things like true color reproduction and viewing angles. Viewing angles are noticeable when you stand off to the side of your screen and can't see what actually on your screen.

VA based panels (like PVA from Dell's 24" UltraSharp) were made to get the most accurate colors. They do that very well, but ended up very slow compared to TN. They also have good viewing angles. The speed issues are noticeable in games mostly, but watching movies on some VA panels can also create "ghosting" which just means that images take a little time to disappear from the screen. VA panels are a middle of the road in terms of price.

IPS panels were made to be the best of both. Color accurate, and fast. While they don't have the speed of TN panels, they come close, especially with software based "overdrive" which most companies recommend for gaming on a IPS monitor. IPS panels also have great viewing angles. They cost a lot though. An example of an IPS monitor is the 30" Dell ultrasharp.

As others have said, unless you work with stuff on your computer that requires very accurate colors (like if you print photographs and design a lot of stuff) there isn't really a need to pay for the accurate colors. A TN panel works fine for most normal users.

In my opinion IPS panels are the way to go (I actually have one). The downside to them is the price, but they are the most versatile monitors.

It really depends what you do that determines what kind of monitor you need. If all you do is check email a TN panel is great because they're cheap. If all you do is game a TN panel is great because it's fast. If all you do is static images VA is great because of the color accuracy and doesn't cost as much as IPS. If you do everything and need accurate colors spending the money for an IPS based monitor might be the best option.

/end soapbox.

[qaz @ Sep 27th 2008 7:40PM]

@Michael

about panel types, advantages and disadvantages

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=641&page=3

[michas_pi @ Sep 27th 2008 2:26AM]

Bawww, no DisplayPort.

[Anthony K @ Sep 27th 2008 2:43AM]

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=usa&l=en&s=corp&sku=320-7339

[cesium @ Sep 27th 2008 2:43AM]

Can't find any product dimensions :/

[giantenemycrab @ Sep 27th 2008 2:54AM]

wow that's nice looking.. Hate the base, but it's still nice looking.

[Simon @ Sep 27th 2008 3:05AM]

I bought this monitor 5 weeks ago. It's great. Cost me ~$400 after shipping and taxes (Canadian).

[JustOrdered @ Sep 27th 2008 3:30AM]

320-7345 1 Dell S2409W 24 inch WidescreenFlat Panel Monitor, Customer Install
983-2847 1 3YR Limited Warranty Monitor, Advanced Exchange
Subtotal: $314.10
Shipping and Handling: $17.00
Sales Tax: $29.79
Total: $360.89

[Ian @ Sep 27th 2008 4:13AM]

There is no "best" panel, only most expensive.



S-IPS are the most colour accurate panels, and graphics professionals who colour calibrate their screen using an external calibrating device would benefit if they need colour agreement between what they see on screen, and what they print. They also have excellent viewing angles, and don't suffer from colour shifts over the course of a day or week. However, if you watch movies or play games, you won't notice any benefit. In fact, they may look worse, particularly games. Their response time isn't great.

S-PVA is middle-ground, and the most well-rounded overall type of LCD panel.

TN panels have fantastic response times for gaming, and their colour always look punchy. Lots of people like that for games and films. Their response time is the fastest, and so if you game, why the heck would you buy an S-IPS monitor (unless you're a graphic designer who plays games, and treats his job more seriously than gaming).

[GO @ Sep 27th 2008 4:44AM]

have you ever OWNED an ips panel? if so, which one???

i doubt it, because ive owned a TN panel and an S-ips panel, its clear which one looks better during games, movies, everything (hint its not the tn panel). plus, i bet you anything you wouldnt be able to tell the difference between a "2 ms" tn film panel (usually bullsh!t figures) and an 8ms s-ips panel.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/11/hp-introduces-new-displays-and-dreamcolor-calibration-kit/

with the 24" s-ips panel being more affordable ever theres no reason to "downplay" it like its some fantasy monitor.

and just to hammer the point in, what do you think any new high end LCD tv uses? yes an S-IPS panel (besides the newer LED driven ones), not s-pva, certainly not tn, but s-ips, because it looks the best for both gaming and movies.

[WhyFi @ Sep 27th 2008 7:43AM]

Once you actually see the differences between panel types, it's hard to justify a TN panel, unless price is a *major* factor. Response times? Whatever. It's mostly marketing to dupe the uninformed, like fluffing up the wattage figures on crappy stereo gear. My 16ms (8ms GTG) panel doesn't ghost when gaming or watching movies, so what do I care that it's "slow"?

[Ryura @ Sep 27th 2008 9:51PM]

...i doubt it, because ive owned a TN panel and an S-ips panel...

Because having a single panel of each definitely makes you qualified to make a decision like that. It's not like the strengths and weaknesses of each panel type are well known + documented or anything.

Seriously, monitor quality varies so much even in a single brand (regardless of panel type) that it's impossible to judge without seeing 5+ specimens of the same monitor.

[Fire-Storm @ Sep 27th 2008 5:36AM]

Sounds like they must have caught the guy who leaked the E-series presentation.

[Sukhminder @ Sep 27th 2008 5:42AM]

Isn't it a 24"?

Dell S2409WFP

DISPLAY

Panel Size:
24"
Optimal Resolution:
1920 X 1080
Contrast Ratio:
1000:1 (typical)
Brightness:
330 cd/m 2 (typical)
Response Time:
5 ms (grey-to-grey)
Viewing Angle:
160° / 170° (typical)
Color Support:
16.7 million colors
Pixel Pitch:
0.276 mm

[cesium @ Sep 27th 2008 11:33AM]

Did you even click the read link????

[darcyv @ Sep 27th 2008 10:42PM]

they've had the 1080p S2409W for a while (since june) . this one is the same specs, but 23'' and slightly cheaper (bout $50 cheaper)

[math0ne @ Sep 27th 2008 6:29AM]

This is the monitor i've always wanted....

[Kim K @ Sep 27th 2008 6:47AM]

What, no HDMI?

[Cliff @ Sep 27th 2008 7:19AM]

I'd be keen to find out if these new 1080p displays will support input from a HDMI equipped Set top box? There is a distinct lack of small TV's with 1080p resolution screens, and one of these would fit the bill if it is compatible with the 50/60Hz sync/refresh from a Set top box. Other 1900x1200 monitors I've tried have not liked the signal.

[Ian @ Sep 27th 2008 8:06AM]

>>>"have you ever OWNED an ips panel? if so, which one???"


Yes, a Dell 2007 widescreen with an S-IPS panel, and an Apple display at the office.

[bnfrsn @ Sep 27th 2008 12:09PM]

Here's a better product description (picture gallery, 360 view, features, etc.):
http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/monitor-dell-s2309wfp?c=hk&cs=hkdhs1&l=en&s=dhs

HK $2,288 (USD $294.23) via http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/mon_b_lcd?c=hk&l=en&s=dhs

$294.32 is a good price, no? Tempting...

[Peter Nyonberg @ Sep 27th 2008 1:04PM]

There was a time when Dell was the brand of high quality monitors. Now its just 50% high quality / 50% Garbage.
Hell, they "got away" with the 2408 which had 50ms response time in real life while 5 on the paper.

They got a Good color tho, so i guess it would be perfect for a picture frame, but gamers, artists and the "entertainment" crowd should go find something of a more decent quality.

[Fragpenguin @ Sep 27th 2008 2:33PM]

It is as astecially pleasing as you can get with a monitor but 1000:1 contrast to me is lacking I don't think I would purchase one, and it's dell.

[Tumbleweed @ Sep 27th 2008 3:11PM]

I always thought that 16:10 was a waste of screenspace while displaying 16:9 content, but then I realized that with all the subtitled movies I watch, putting the subtitles down in the black area below the video makes them infinitely more readable. Too bad that's not a standard option with home theatre equipment, and with the industry's move to 16:9 panels, it'll never happen now. Oh well, another missed opportunity.

Then again, most people in the U.S. can barely read anyway, so would never rent a subtitled movie to begin with, so most will never miss this missed opportunity. *shrug*

[Ken J @ Sep 27th 2008 4:34PM]

Link to 24" 16:9 with price $349 is not bad at all


http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Monitors/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-7345

[Plugger @ Sep 28th 2008 1:08AM]

Dell keep it quiet cause it is a Samsung in disguise. They make no monitors so there's no consistency in the brand.

[steven @ Feb 7th 2009 11:37AM]

I already have this monitor it came with my dell xps420 but i dont know how to get the built in web cam 2 work. u can get this monitor on dell.com