For some reason you are omitting important parts, let alone simply rewriting some of their conclusions:
1. Aside of calibrated sRGB the calibrated Standard mode showed SUPERIOR results:
"I reverted the preset mode back to 'Standard' via the OSD and carried out the calibration process again. This time I could not get access to the RGB levels, so I just allowed the software to automatically adjust things at a LUT level. Note that this was at a graphics card level, the screen does not feature a hardware LUT. The process was a great improvement! Gamma, colour temperature and luminance remained as before, but colour accuracy was improved significantly. Average dE was now only 0.2, and with a max of only 0.7, LaCie would classify colour fidelity as excellent across the board. This was actually our joint top performer in terms of colour accuracy average, matching the NEC 2490WUXi in dE average."[/b]
2. Calibrated sRGB is actually behind calibrated Standard:
"Colour accuracy was also pleasing, remaining only ever so slightly behind the calibrated 'standard' preset. With average dE of only 0.3, this was a very good result. It's nice to see Dell have addressed the issue from the 2408WFP which did not allow you to use the sRGB simulation mode, while also offering you decent colour fidelity. Nice to finally see an sRGB mode which actually works pretty well!"
3. Once again contrary what you are claiming here they PRAISE the 12-bit LUT:
"I'd recommend sticking with the 'standard' preset for calibration, or if you don't have a colorimeter you can use our calibrated ICC profile. Testing the screen with various colour gradients showed smooth transitions between shades and no sign of banding here. The 12-bit LUT is partly responsible for this as it provides a huge palette of colours for the screen to utilise, and its main function is to help ensure there are no issues with gradients. Given some of the issues previous generations have had in this regard (and in fact made the problem of banding quite infamous), it was probably a wise move to include this LUT and make sure they got it right first time."
4. And of course, end results are the opposite what you are claiming here - it BEATS the HP and matches the all-time-best NEC:
"Once calibrated however (and once you've found you need to leave the screen in 'standard' mode to do this!), the U2410 offered the best dE average results we have seen in our reviews. At 0.2 average, it matched the record holder, the NEC 2490WUXi, a screen aimed at colour enthusiasts primarily and which featured an effective hardware LUT calibration method as well. dE maximum for the U2410 was 0.7, where the NEC just pipped it with a maximum of 0.5. The NEC remains our overall champion...just; but the Dell U2410 was very impressive in this test. Colour accuracy has improved through Dell's generations as well, from 0.8 average in the 2407WFP-HC, to 0.5 in the 2408WFP, and now to 0.2 average. The U2410 also just beat the HP LP2475W (which uses a very similar panel part) which came in at 0.3, "
Question raises itself: how about actually 1. reading the article and 2. quoting it instead of spreading false BS?