HP ZR2740w - 27" IPS - 2560x1440

O

Oled

Gawd
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
574
This looks like a really great monitor.

Display size (diagonal)
68,6 cm (27”)
Display resolution
2560 x 1440
Pixel pitch
0.233 mm
Brightness
380 cd/m²
Contrast ratio
1000:1 static
View angle
178° horizontal; 178° vertical
Input signal
1 DisplayPort in; 1 Dual-Link DVI
Product color
Black and brushed aluminum
Tilt and swivel angle
Tilt: -5 to +35°; Swivel: ±45°
Display features
Plug and Play; Anti-glare
Physical security
Security Lock-Ready
Ports
4 port USB Hub
HDCP support on DisplayPort and DVI
Ports
4 port USB Hub

hp-zr2740w-27-inch-led-backlit-ips-monitor_400x400.jpg


http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/uk/en/sm/WF06a/382087-382087-64283-3884471-3884471-5163694.html

price around $800-1000
 
WOW when is the release date on this is!!!!!! What happened to HP getting out of hardware?
 
Last edited:
Meh. Same with the DELL. 16:9 is not for me.

Now if the ZR30w cost $800-$1000...I may have skipped the U2412M and gone for that.
 
Someone in the UK should call up HP and see if it really is available, or at least find out when it'll be available.
 
holzmann said:
Meh. Same with the DELL. 16:9 is not for me.

Now if the ZR30w cost $800-$1000...I may have skipped the U2412M and gone for that.
Click to expand...

Lol. This is 2560x1440 beat the snot out of most resolutions. I wouldn't be crying about it.
 
If it uses the typical LG IPS aggrssive AG coating then throw this in the trash pile with the Dell U2711.
 
computerdeth said:
You guys think they might release 30" any time soon?
Click to expand...
Probably not! 2560x1600 appears to be phased out in this generation.

According to my sources this new line will be in (22" 1920x1080, 24" 1920x1200 and 27" 2560x1440)
 
Last edited:
I know i am going to have to wait forever for this to be released i wanted the zr30w but i wanted a 27"
 
I want a 1440p or 1600p in 120Hz. It would make the ZR30w damn near perfect.
 
i thought the samsung the new one was it but the backlight bleed is what i keep hearing.
 
no one is making monitors with RGB leds anymore. back in the days all (almost) hi-end monitors used RGB leds or at least 6 CCFL. the W-LED is ruining them imo.
 
NCX said:
If it uses the typical LG IPS aggrssive AG coating then throw this in the trash pile with the Dell U2711.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, as it's the W-LED version of the U2711 panel, which may be different. One can always hope.

Oled said:
Probably not! 2560x1600 appears to be phased out in this generation.

According to my sources this new line will be in (22" 1920x1080, 24" 1920x1200 and 27" 2560x1440)
Click to expand...

30" is not going anywhere, any time soon. Cite these sources.

Bladestorm said:
Here's the US site in case anyone couldn't find it.

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?cc=us&lc=en&dlc=en&docname=c02974762

12 ms (gray to gray); 14 ms (On/Off)

Ouch! :mad:
Click to expand...

Might be A) Not over driven/no RTC applied or B) HP just using LG's non-overdriven specs.

Otherwise if that's the case, probably a bit too blurry for gaming. Alternatively because it has only PC connections, it might have a very basic scaler that adds zero or nearly zero input lag.
 
Response time numbers don't matter with IPS panels, they are never really an indication of speed unlike with TN panels.

Every one thought the Dell U2311H (8ms) was going to be slow last year, yet it turned out to be one of the fastest IPS panels around while the LG IPS236V (5ms) is as one of the slowest monitors on the market.

Just wait for PRAD or Digital Versus to get their hands on one of these so we can see how fast it is.
 
Last edited:
are they really useful right now, or is it still waiting for things to come up and use them well?

like for 27, since 1080 isnt spectacular, then pixels be big?
120hz vs 60hz, most things dont need 120hz, so getting it is a waste?
1200p over 1080p, just like the above, most things dont need 1200p. waste?
 
At least HP is smart enough to use backlit instead of edge lit. If the AG isn't as aggressive as the Dell or NEC ones I'm snarfing one up.
 
NCX said:
Don't hold your breath unless you are feeling suicidal:D
Click to expand...

Eventually LG will break the mold though it just takes one of their big customers to demand it. Since the ACD is the most successful 27" perhaps this could be the one.
 
What is the deal with AG coating? Could you give some links of reviews/pictures/topics...with more details? Where is NEC 24WMGX3 regarding AG coating?
 
Interesting. My NEC 24wmgx3 has a pretty strong AG coating, at least it looks like it to me when it's off, especially compared to my old 17" TN Philips. I've never been bothered by it when it's on, actually prefer it even, as I HATE glossy screens. It's MVA though, so either it doesn't have a bad coating like those problematic IPS panels or I'm not sensitive to it.

EDIT:
From tftcentral review:
"The panel itself features an almost half-glossy coating. It wasn't a full glossy OptiClear coating like the NEC 20WGX2 had, but it wasn't the usual 'dull' matt finish that many other monitors have. It was almost half way, picking up a few more reflections from windows and light sources, but also offering a nice sharp image. The coating is listed as antiglare by NEC, but it did feel a bit different from other monitors I thought. Probably just a different type of AR coating than is used by other manufacturers."

Guess it has the best of both worlds, or a good compromise :)
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
Interesting. My NEC 24wmgx3 has a pretty strong AG coating, at least it looks like it to me when it's off, especially compared to my old 17" TN Philips. I've never been bothered by it when it's on, actually prefer it even, as I HATE glossy screens. It's MVA though, so either it doesn't have a bad coating like those problematic IPS panels or I'm not sensitive to it.

EDIT:
From tftcentral review:
"The panel itself features an almost half-glossy coating. It wasn't a full glossy OptiClear coating like the NEC 20WGX2 had, but it wasn't the usual 'dull' matt finish that many other monitors have. It was almost half way, picking up a few more reflections from windows and light sources, but also offering a nice sharp image. The coating is listed as antiglare by NEC, but it did feel a bit different from other monitors I thought. Probably just a different type of AR coating than is used by other manufacturers."

Guess it has the best of both worlds, or a good compromise :)
Click to expand...

This is an AUO A-MVA panel and features one of the least intrusive, dirty or noisy anti-glare films on the market.
 
It looses the analogue input, which is not substituted by a digital one either.. So it will have far less inputs than the u2711, and probably decreased uniformity due to the edge led back-lit. Hopefully it is priced very competitively as the ZR24W was.
 
Well, I took the plunge on this one. Been eyeing the U2711 for some time (the AG coating doesn't seem to bother me, when I saw it in person), but managed to get this for quite a bit cheaper.

I'll mostly use it for photo editing, productivity work, some gaming, and very little movie-watching.
 
alienate said:
At least HP is smart enough to use backlit instead of edge lit. If the AG isn't as aggressive as the Dell or NEC ones I'm snarfing one up.
Click to expand...
Naah.. they're just smart enough to not discern between backlit and edgelit.
 
xBanzai89 said:
Lol. This is 2560x1440 beat the snot out of most resolutions. I wouldn't be crying about it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if 2560x1440 is a higher resolution 16:9 is a shit aspect ratio for computers monitors and I'm with him I wouldn't touch it.

I would buy the 30inch model at the extra cost just to stay away from 16:9.

I have a HDTV for watching movies I don't need that on my monitors that I need to do actual work on.
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
Doesn't matter if 2560x1440 is a higher resolution 16:9 is a shit aspect ratio for computers monitors and I'm with him I wouldn't touch it.

I would buy the 30inch model at the extra cost just to stay away from 16:9.

I have a HDTV for watching movies I don't need that on my monitors that I need to do actual work on.
Click to expand...

Can you explain what it is that makes 16:9 so much worse than 8:5 for doing actual work? I can't imagine being more productive on say.. a 27" 1920x1200 monitor compared to a 27" 2560x1440 display. Only reason 16:9 ever bothered me was the lack of vertical resolution, but 1440 seems sufficient to me... I don't think 160 extra vertical pixels would be worth paying 2x the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top