Originally Posted by Princess Garnet
I think the UltraSharp U2410 comes calibrated out of the box, so I'm not sure how much more you could get out of it, but calibration isn't my thing.
I am not a professional gamer and yet the ghosting of the UltraSharp U2410 slightly bothers me. It's not terrible, but there's a somewhat dizzying blur I can notice, and it's not quite as smooth as I'd like it. Maybe I'm still more sensitive to it having just switched from a CRT though.
Therefore, this cheaper one one being slower impacts my opinion of it quite a bit. I was under the assumption that it traded some color quality for speed by being 6-bit e-IPS, but it seems to have traded down in both.
The extra contrast/dark levels are nice though, but those alone don't make it much better in my eyes with the other cons.
The U2410 was actually considered to have the worse color calibration out of the box when it first came out. Dell might have changed their process over the years so this might not be the case anymore.
If you read the review the U2410 is actually slower in response time. The U2412M seems to use a more agressive response time compensation (RTC) impulse which makes it similar to the U2711. The overdrive trailing described is an artifact created from the RTC overshoot.
The 6-bit matrix is a limitation of the panel. Frame rate control (FRC) or in this case advanced FRC (A-FRC) uses alternating neighboring colors to reproduce the missing colors in between. 6-bit matrices with FRC are common on TN and e-IPS panels. Of course FRC is never going to fully reproduce the missing colors and its quality is dependent on the algorithm used.
As stated many times before, the U2412M is meant to coexist with the U2410, not replace it. It's really up to the person to determine if they want to pay more for those extra bells and whistles. Though, some owners at the [H]ard forum say that the U2412H has lower input lag making it better for gaming. With Dell sales I wouldn't be surprised to find this monitor in the lower 300s.