Dell u2711, is the AG really that bad?

E

Eltocliousus

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
68
I've been considering the u2711 as it's currently at £430 refurbished with one year warranty (no dead/stuck pixels guarenteed) which is almost double those Korean ones, but I can atleast guarentee that I'll get a quality product.
But it turns out everyone is saying the AG is absolutely horendously bad, so much so that it becomes unusable, but reviews are very positive which is strange, would this be an absolute no-go for gaming, TV/film and novice level photo editing? Should I listen to all this anti-glare business?

Thanks!
 
It isn't everyone, there is an extremely vocal group here that have taken to denouncing it.

My friend has this monitor and doesn't read these forums, and doesn't notice the coating at all. He loves it. I really didn't notice while using his computer either, but I wasn't looking for it. I was just using his computer.

But it is kind of like Rainbows on DLP, they don't bother most people, but once you start reading about them, people point them out to you, and you obsess about it, they can bother you a lot.

The problem now is you read about it here, and that you are expecting a problem. There is no way anyone can predict how much it will bother you. Only use can figure it out by seeing for yourself.
 
I agree with the above to a point. As I said in the other thread I do think the AG madness around here has gotten out of hand. Most of the time it's fine, but the U2711 is allot worse than on other displays. Movies and gaming are fine, you can't really see it with all the movement going on, it's web browsing and photo editing where it gets really bad. Im a photographer and I had a hard time distinguishing between the grain on the monitor and the iso noise in my photos.

But as snowdog said only you can tell if its too much for you. What I would say is no one should ever buy one without a good return policy, there is just too much chance of you hating it to take that kind of risk.
 
I bought a U2711 manufactured in July, 2012.

Here is what I posted in another thread:

"Some people complained about the "sparkly" effect of the U2711's matte coating, claiming it destroyed the viewing effect when looking at bright colours. White in particular was troublesome. I disregarded these warnings because I had bought two previous Dell monitors with the matte coating and never had a problem.

Let me warn you all: The matte coating on the U2711 is different. As I type this, I have the U2711 and my old U2007WFP running side-by-side on the same PC with the same video card. The coating on the U2711 is much more sparkly when viewing bright colours. White in particular is troublesome. I have always been a matte display loyalist for all my LCDs, but this sparkly coating is just too much.

Does the U2711 have much superior contrast ratios and colour accuracy versus the U2007WFP? Of course. But the U2007WFP is more useable.

The other issue that makes the U2711's coating even more problematic is its very high DPI. Because items on the screen are so small on this high-resolution display, you have to bring the monitor closer to your face to see everything. Otherwise, you won't get the full benefits of having the extended desktop space and super-fine pixel size. But bringing the display closer to your face only enhances the grainy / sparkly matte effect.

In my opinion, compared to the U2711 and its 2560x1440 resolution, it's probably better to get a much cheaper large 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 panel and park it farther away from your face.

Hopefully this helps any future shoppers who happen upon this thread."
 
Last edited:
The subject of your post is Dell u2711, is the AG really that bad?

The simple answer is YES, it is.

1000
 
I've not seen the recent revisions but from what I've heard they've fixed the AG issues so they're not nearly as bad as they used to be. Can't be certain though, personally I prefer glass or semi-matte but I don't mind the AG coating on the Ultrasharps as much as most do. Although, it was noticeable particularly on a white background, it just looked crystallized.
 
I had one and I use one at work daily, can't stand it - I honestly would not buy it. I sold one with a five-year one day warranty for $625, I just couldn't take it anymore. I have used dozens of other IPS screens and none come close to the U2711, hands down Dell failed on this one. Additionally, the U2711 has major issues with DisplayPort, run a Google check. ROYAL PAIN IN THE KEYSTER!
 
after using it for 6mths, everytime i see ag coating sparkle, i feel robbed as though these manufacturers knew & is doing us in the rear, deliberately.
i have since happily sold it for semi-glosses.
 
No, the AG is not grainy and the wide gamut colours are extremely accurate :D
 
I sold my Dell with AG coating for a Samsung 950D 27" 120hz TN panel with "semi gloss" coating. Chalk and cheese.. my eyes melt with happiness every time I turn the Samsung on.. dispite the viewing angle issues with TN.

1000
 
Returned mine and got a Korean monitor.

It is that bad. My theory is 1) that is is a bit heavier than on other models and 2) the grain of the coating is on the same order of "pixel pitch" as the monitor, making it especially noticeable and distortive. Plus it was fairly unevenly applied on my particular unit.

I now run a U2412M next to a Yamakasi Catleap, and I am continually amazed at how BAD images look on the 2412 compared to the AG-free catleap - and the AG is not nearly as bad on the 2412 as it was on the 2711.

An image that looks shapr, crisp, clear, bright and vibrant on the catleap immediately becomes dull and dirty as I drag it onto the 2412. The difference is simply amazing.

BB
 
1000 said:
I sold my Dell with AG coating for a Samsung 950D 27" 120hz TN panel with "semi gloss" coating. Chalk and cheese.. my eyes melt with happiness every time I turn the Samsung on.. dispite the viewing angle issues with TN.

1000
Click to expand...

The 950D has a fully glossy coating. It has anti-reflective treatment but it is still completely glossy with no anti-glare surface. But yes I agree with the thoughts on the U2711 expressed by most here. I use one for modelling work and it isn't ideal due to the lack of clarity. I am looking for a suitable replacement, probably the Samsung SB970.
 
Honestly?
One half of the "magic" a CRT monitor was bringing us a while ago besides no motion blur, was the perfectly clear picture, easiness of reading due to not having an AG coating. The Crossover that I own now is the best thing that could ever happen to me. Lucky indeed.

I have compared the Asus PA246Q I owned before I returned it to an older DELL that had pretty heavy ag coating, but trust me, WAS NOT AS BAD as the one used on the ASUS.

I can only conclude that they enlarged the grain size, and they added very small color shifts to cover possible defects. Yes, you read well, panel defects. (pixels geometry, yellow tinge problem, panel uniformity problems, brightness problems, dirt, all those are hidden fairly well by the ag coating)
 
Last edited:
I was really hoping these answers would be positive, I really want the U2711, it just looks/feels more premium than any of the glossy Korean/alternatives, I wish I could see it in person, this matte coating is scaring me.
 
Eltocliousus said:
I was really hoping these answers would be positive, I really want the U2711, it just looks/feels more premium than any of the glossy Korean/alternatives, I wish I could see it in person, this matte coating is scaring me.
Click to expand...

Have you tried to see a u2711 in person, or another model with the same panel? I think both the HP ZR2740w and NEC PA271w use the same one. If you live near a large city there may be a store that has a display model. Alternatively, try to find someone who works for a photo studio/print gallery/college who may be willing to let you look at theirs.

If all else fails buy from someplace with a good return policy and be prepared to possibly pay return shipping.

Personally, after looking at a colleague's NEC with this panel I decided it was far too grainy. I was worried about getting used to a glossy panel, but after buying a Catleap there's no way I would ever go back to matte because of the clarity.

The people running 120hz.net look to be starting a business soon at overlordcomputer.com selling better versions of the glossy panels. It appears they will also be addressing the main drawbacks of the EBay models by being US-based, having the option to personally check for any defects, and having a warranty.
 
FinalJenemba said:
I agree with the above to a point. As I said in the other thread I do think the AG madness around here has gotten out of hand. Most of the time it's fine, but the U2711 is allot worse than on other displays. Movies and gaming are fine, you can't really see it with all the movement going on, it's web browsing and photo editing where it gets really bad. Im a photographer and I had a hard time distinguishing between the grain on the monitor and the iso noise in my photos.

But as snowdog said only you can tell if its too much for you. What I would say is no one should ever buy one without a good return policy, there is just too much chance of you hating it to take that kind of risk.
Click to expand...

I figure it can't be that bad if Eizo, NEC and Quato - the three top, "high end" monitor manufacturers, all use the same panel with the same coating. Given their very critical and quality-conscious target market, if the coating was that bad they wouldn't be using this panel.
 
BB Gun said:
I now run a U2412M next to a Yamakasi Catleap, and I am continually amazed at how BAD images look on the 2412 compared to the AG-free catleap - and the AG is not nearly as bad on the 2412 as it was on the 2711.

An image that looks shapr, crisp, clear, bright and vibrant on the catleap immediately becomes dull and dirty as I drag it onto the 2412. The difference is simply amazing.

BB
Click to expand...

Could the fact the Catleap has a much smaller pixel pitch than the U2412M (.2331 vs .27) not to mention a higher resolution have something to do with that?
 
Jeffredo said:
Could the fact the Catleap has a much smaller pixel pitch than the U2412M (.2331 vs .27) not to mention a higher resolution have something to do with that?
Click to expand...

No, purely ag coating.
I had the 2412 before the 2710qw. Difference purely lies with the coating, not the pixel pitch.
Afterall, bb gun was refering to the colors mainly.
I can attest that the font is even worse than the images on the 2412, all text on white sometimes even dark bg just floated with sparkles flying.
 
i dont mind the AG coating on the 2412


but let me say if you are coming from a glossy monitor it will probably bother you because you lose sharpness.

the 2711 is older then the 2412 as well pretty sure they make iterations to the AG coating to try and make it less offensive to all these whiners ;P

you should look at the new u2713hm i heard the AG is less intense
 
hakkafusion said:
No, purely ag coating.
I had the 2412 before the 2710qw. Difference purely lies with the coating, not the pixel pitch.
Afterall, bb gun was refering to the colors mainly.
I can attest that the font is even worse than the images on the 2412, all text on white sometimes even dark bg just floated with sparkles flying.
Click to expand...

How can you be so sure? They are fundamentally different in three ways and he's ignoring two of them (res and pitch). I'm not saying there isn't a crystalline effect on the Dell - of course there is. A 1440p 27" monitor will have a sharper image, even if they had identical panel tec (both glossy or both matte). It can't help but be sharper with the denser pixel pitch.
 
I've articulated this several times over the years, but I really think the anti-AG crowd has different preferences about screen brightness, more than anything. The sparkle-effect is much more pronounced at high brightnesses.
 
Jeffredo said:
How can you be so sure? They are fundamentally different in three ways and he's ignoring two of them (res and pitch). I'm not saying there isn't a crystalline effect on the Dell - of course there is. A 1440p 27" monitor will have a sharper image, even if they had identical panel tec (both glossy or both matte). It can't help but be sharper with the denser pixel pitch.
Click to expand...

ag coating affects the monitor the same way regardless of pixel pitch. if anything the higher density makes it worse, because the text is sharper(smaller) and the edges stand out more (causing the font/text to "float") than they would on something with higher pixel pitch.

cvgd said:
I've articulated this several times over the years, but I really think the anti-AG crowd has different preferences about screen brightness, more than anything. The sparkle-effect is much more pronounced at high brightnesses.
Click to expand...

my 2412s were on lowest brightness (0-5 of 100), they still sparkled much more than either the gloss (2710qw) or semi-gloss (sa650). It's possible that at lower brightness the ag effect is more pronounced due to light flicker; but either situation, the result was the same more or less.
 
Brightness can play a role, but I don't think it's the main problem. I doubt many here keep their monitors on retina-destroying brightness. When I had a 2412, I kept it on the dim side, and it still bothered me.

I think it really comes down to personal preference and what the person is used to. Those who have used matte screens their entire life may think the AG coating is fine. They probably just think it's a bit heavier than what they were using already and can live with it. I used CRTs my entire life, and thought my 2412 looked like it sat in an attic for a year and was covered in dust.

Yet even for the group that is mostly fine with heavy AG coating, there have been lots of reports of them being bothered once they go up to the 27"er w/heavy AG. It's a dot pitch thing (or at least that is what I have read). The grain interferes with the pixels enough so that text on white screens is bothersome, or if using photoshop, one can't differentiate background noise from grain.

The only way to be certain is to buy it and see for yourself. And has been mentioned, get it from a place with a good return policy. If you want to be certain what type of coating you prefer, get the Dell + either a Samsung semi-glossy or glossy IPS and compare them. Return whichever you dislike.
 
cvgd said:
I've articulated this several times over the years, but I really think the anti-AG crowd has different preferences about screen brightness, more than anything. The sparkle-effect is much more pronounced at high brightnesses.
Click to expand...

High brightness and sitting very close are big factor. But I think a bigger factor is obsessing over it.

FWIW TWO different reviewers both have the U2713 in hand and state that the AG coating is now much lighter. It should now satisfy everyone but the the mirror finish glossy zealots.

You can follow in this thread:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1710005&page=4
 
Jeffredo said:
Could the fact the Catleap has a much smaller pixel pitch than the U2412M (.2331 vs .27) not to mention a higher resolution have something to do with that?
Click to expand...

As hinted at by my mention of pixel pitch in my original post:
BB said:
2) the grain of the coating is on the same order of "pixel pitch" as the monitor, making it especially noticeable and distortive. Plus it was fairly unevenly applied on my particular unit
Click to expand...

I am aware of the differences between monitors due to pixel pitch. The change in image quality I note is not related to pixel pitch.

The AG on the 2412m is not as bad as on the 2711 precisely because of the bigger pixel pitch, but it still negatively affects image quality way more than it should for a 300.00 24" monitor.

Regarding the OP - go ahead and get one - Dell's return policy is awesome, its pretty much a no-risk decision as long as you keep the box and all packing materials. Prepaid return labels are provided with the RMA authorization.

BB
 
The U2713 is not semi-glossy, so it will still be noticeably grainy. It's a step in the right direction but it's not enough. There is a reason why the 850D does not use the same coating Samsung puts on their S-PVA/TN's (medium AG) and C-PVA (light AG). Why do you think that is?

I sit 2ft away from 23/24" and 2.5ft-3ft (3 to avoid glow on dark content) away from my 27" PLS/IPS and use 120cdm/2. It's easy to see the grain on a matte display, all I have to do is look at ANY image that isn't super dark, you know your every day content:

http://wallpaperswide.com/2560x1440-wallpapers-r.html
 
Last edited:
I would avoid these monitors with tons AG coating, because my eyes burns.... It's just too bad when you read lots of text. It would be fine if you do photo and gaming stuff, but not reading on it. For text work I suggest a glossy, like Apple stuff.
 
NCX said:
The U2713 is not semi-glossy, so it will still be noticeably grainy. It's a step in the right direction but it's not enough. There is a reason why the 850D does not use the same coating Samsung puts on their S-PVA/TN's (medium AG) and C-PVA (light AG). Why do you think that is?

I sit 2ft away from 23/24" and 2.5ft-3ft (3 to avoid glow on dark content) away from my 27" PLS/IPS and use 120cdm/2. It's easy to see the grain on a matte display, all I have to do is look at ANY image that isn't super dark, you know your every day content:

http://wallpaperswide.com/2560x1440-wallpapers-r.html
Click to expand...

Just curious, but have you seen a 2713 in person? There have been a couple reports of people that have, and they are reporting that it does have a semi glossy finish similar to the A-MVA panels. I really wish I could see one in person before I pulled the trigger on ordering one. I know the sparkle really bugged me on the 2412, and I am wondering if the 2713 is going to be any better.
 
loafer87gt said:
Just curious, but have you seen a 2713 in person? There have been a couple reports of people that have, and they are reporting that it does have a semi glossy finish similar to the A-MVA panels. I really wish I could see one in person before I pulled the trigger on ordering one. I know the sparkle really bugged me on the 2412, and I am wondering if the 2713 is going to be any better.
Click to expand...

Agreed, TFTCentral "confirms" that it is a "light" anti-glare coating.

(source)

Still, I don't know how TFTCentral got this info.
 
I have one since 6 month and while I read a lot about how bad it is from several users here, I don't think its that bad. On white backgrounds you can see a "rainbow" effect, but on darker colors it is barely noticeable. For gaming, watching films and webbrowsing it is absolutely acceptable. If you're no professional I wouldn't worry about the AG.
 
Jeffredo said:
How can you be so sure? They are fundamentally different in three ways and he's ignoring two of them (res and pitch). I'm not saying there isn't a crystalline effect on the Dell - of course there is. A 1440p 27" monitor will have a sharper image, even if they had identical panel tec (both glossy or both matte). It can't help but be sharper with the denser pixel pitch.
Click to expand...

It is a question of how good you can read a text on both screens.
Regardless of the panel and its resolution, a text of lets say H size, will look different.
On a 0.27 pixel pitch it will by default be unpleasantly thicker. Being thicker will make it more easy to read by default, coming with an AG coating will not affect the text as much as will do with an 0.23 pixel pitch. Why? Because we are tempted to take advantage of the resolution, and will use a more detailed/ more thin text to work with on a 27 inch monitor.
And the answer to the question, YES AG coating will affect the sharpness of the text, and the more detailed a text is, the HARDER will be to read it with AG coating. It is that simple. That is why is so wrong to have a 27 inch with AG coating. Our brain makes correction to what he sees, and learns to read effectively over time. After reading a sentence it adapts to the type of font you are reading. You can do a simple test. Read a 10 lines text 3 times exactly. This is a specifically chosen number of times to read, that is chosen such way that you are 100% used to the font you are using, but you didn't learn yet the text to say it with closed eyes, and enough times to read it very easy.
Now, do a simple trick. Move the entire page, with the scroller, or with the entire window, 1 cm towards up or down. So you technically get the same text, but the ag coating is affecting the text differently, since you moved the window a tiny bit. Now try to read the text again. You will be amazed that you will get the feeling that you can't recognize the text easily, just like it would be written with a different font. Just try it.
 
Lowen said:
On white backgrounds you can see a "rainbow" effect, but on darker colors it is barely noticeable.
Click to expand...

See? That is what I find totally unacceptable. Is affecting the colors and the comfort that you would get from a perfectly 'white page". I like my whites white. Do you know that there are books that I didn't buy cause they were written with an unpleasant font, or the paper was too washed out? And now you think I would accept that with a monitor that costs so many times more?
 
Jucius_Maximus said:
Agreed, TFTCentral "confirms" that it is a "light" anti-glare coating.

(source)

Still, I don't know how TFTCentral got this info.
Click to expand...

They got the info, from looking at the screen they have in for testing.

Full review now available:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2713hm.htm

"The screen coating on the U2713HM is a normal anti-glare (AG) offering. This is contrary to a lot of other screens using variants of the LM270WQ1 panel which offer a glossy screen coating. Readers will be pleased to hear though that the AG coating is actually nice and light and is not the usual grainy and aggressive solution you would normally find on an IPS panel. In fact in practice it is almost what you might call a semi-gloss coating being quite similar to AU Optronics AMVA offerings. Dell seem to have toned down the AG coating which is great news. It retains its anti-glare properties to avoid unwanted reflections, but does not produce an overly grainy or dirty image that some AG coatings can."

As I said before, this should please everyone except the all out glossy mirror zealots.
 
Last edited:
Finally!

All those returns they were getting from us thick, grainy AG-haters has finally made a difference.

You guys whining about our whining can thank us! ;)

BB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top