Afterthought - just a general observation.
With monitors, you can't really rely on specifications, except on a very basic level. Panel type, gamut coverage, fine. Hardware calibration, yes or no. But it stops there.
The things that really matter, and that separate good monitors from bad, are nowhere to be found in the specifications. Maybe because there are no generally accepted parameters for them. Panel uniformity, shadow and highlight separation, tonal response. Calibration software. There's nothing in the specs to tell you that an Eizo or an NEC actually performs better here than a Dell at a third of the price.
In fact, just looking at the specs, there's no telling a Dell U2413 from an Eizo CX241 / NEC PA242. On paper, they're absolutely identical.
And that's what these budget brands exploit. Push up the specs, push down the price where nobody looks.
And then you have these totally bogus specifications like e.g. contrast range. Nobody needs 1000:1. And it says absolutely nothing about the general quality of the panel.
As always, the best general indicators are price and reputation. You do get what you pay for. Differences in price usually reflect real differences in quality, basic feature set otherwise identical.
