Choosing an editor
An IDE is a large amount of help. Early on, some of that help is in the way.
There are two reasonable answers and the argument between them is older than Java.
A plain editor
Any editor with syntax highlighting, plus javac and java in a terminal. The case for it is that nothing is hidden: you can see that a .java file compiles to a .class file, that the classpath is a real thing, and that a package declaration has to match a directory structure. Those three facts confuse more beginners than any part of the language, and an IDE makes all of them invisible.
If you work through the first few sections of these notes this way, the rest of your career will be easier.
A full IDE
IntelliJ IDEA, Eclipse and NetBeans all do the same core job: compile as you type, tell you what is wrong before you run it, complete method names, and let you step through a running program with a debugger.
That last one is the real argument. Learning to use a debugger properly — breakpoints, watches, stepping into a call — will teach you more about how your program actually behaves than any amount of adding print statements. Most people learn it years later than they should.
The case against starting there is that an IDE will offer to fix things you do not yet understand are broken, and you will accept, and you will not learn why.
A reasonable compromise
Start in an editor. Move to an IDE at the point where you are writing programs across several files, or the first time you need a debugger. That is usually a week or two in, not months.
Whichever you choose, do not pick based on which is fastest. On any machine bought in the last few years the difference does not matter, and on an older one there are better things to know first.