![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Dell U2711
- Thread starter evilsofa
- Start date
I rarely spend more than 600 dollars each time to put together a top of the line build, or close to it. A monitor has increasingly taken up more and more of my budget compared to other components though as crap tns have invaded the market.
Looks awesome, but the black levels are not nearly as impressive as an LED backlit LCD.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
RGSPro said:
Apple likely used LED backlighting for their imac in order to satisfy internal layout requirements. I've not read anything indicating that WLED-BLU is able to improve monitor contrast, so I don't know where you are getting this from, RGSPro.
There is also the possibility that WLED has poorer aging characteristics compared to CCFL.
I recently had a backlit LED LCD TV, when that thing showed black, it appeared almost as if it was off it was that dark. The blacks on these are clearly not that dark.
I think beyond just LED, there are other differences between a TV and a computer monitor that would affect the black levels.
Pretty close man , pretty close, I always get intel's newest family of top performing cpus, I just don't get the highest clocked one, like for instance with my last upgrade, when the corei7s came out, I didn't get the fastest, but like the 2nd and third fastest at the time, a huge price difference for only a shade lower performance, even without ocing which many do
But I realize now I wasn't including things that carry over from previous builds like video cards, hard drives etc, even though I upgrade to the latest and greatest every few years with those too, unless the motherboard requires new types of connections when I am upgrading
I never really start from scratch, if so, then yes it would be quite a bit more than 600.
When the i7s came out there were only 3, the top end one for like $950, the 940 for $500, and the 920 for $250... So unless you were getting the lowest clocked i7 that build would be way more than $600. Not that the 940 is even remotely worth double the price of the 920, or that the 920 couldn't be clocked to the 940s specs easily...
I am very picky about color and want any game I play to look absolutely amazing. The 27" monitor price tag pales in comparison to the 2x58" plasmas I have (living room/bedroom). Of course, I ended up with those due to a disagreement with a local tv store (got a 65" LCD but it had huge problems with ips glow). They refused to give a refund...
I am really liking the u2711. No dead pixels, color seems uniform, lots of connections. No regrets whatsoever.
I am really liking the u2711. No dead pixels, color seems uniform, lots of connections. No regrets whatsoever.
I think he may be referring to local dimming, which can't be done with CCFL backlights. But I doubt many if any PC monitors have local dimming.
Yup, that's what I meant.
EmptyWallet
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2001
- Messages
- 896
Anyone?
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
I paid about $500 for my 940, but I had to drop another $600 on ram and Mobo. Sense my new Mobo had PCIe x16 V2 I blow another $400 on a graphics card and I still didn't have top of the line. Never mind about the Water blocks, cables and such. It's a lot more than $600.
The orignal comment should have been high-end rather than top of the line. I knew what he ment, I just could not resist sturring the pot.
Building your own rig is worth every penny.
Dave
billy.blue
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 100
I suppose that depends on how you look at it. I usually spend less than $1k on my builds, but for some reason, my bank statement says I spend a lot more. If only I could get the bank to read my build budget sheet.
I think the main reason that it's so pricey is the fact that it's a 27" with a resolution that's damn close to the 30" resolution...among other things.
EmptyWallet
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2001
- Messages
- 896
Is this better than the 2209WA? Is the picture quality better? Or is it about the same?
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Umm... Wait for a scientific review, if "Anandtech" or some other users didn't sum it up for you yet. In fact, start your own thread, just in case your comments get buried.
I'm mostly interested in using the u2711 for web, email and documents, occasional video and movies, not gaming. Anyone who's using one for that care to post comments or pictures? Does 16:9 vs. 16:10 make a difference here? I want to work at native font sizes, and am thinking that the test display might be a bit too compact for viewing comfort at the computer all day.
EmptyWallet
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2001
- Messages
- 896
I just woke up, I can't tell if you're jacking with me or not.
EDIT - It appears there IS a review!!!
I just woke up, I can't tell if you're jacking with me or not.
EDIT - It appears there IS a review!!!
I wasn't trying to jack with you (<-context error), but you should know that, reading back in this thread, there have been numerous reports of the Anandtech review being ineffective - If quality is your main concern, look at the FlatPanelsHD review for some guidance.
Quoting a post I made elsewhere:
Lower pixels per inch (ppi) = larger text:
27" 1920x1200 = 83.9 ppi
19" 1280x1024 = 86.3 ppi
25.5" 1920x1200 = 87.1 ppi
17" 1280x800 = 88.8 ppi
19" 1440x900 = 89.4 ppi
22" 1680x1050 = 90.1 ppi
20" 1600x900 = 91.8 ppi
24" 1920x1080 = 91.8 ppi
24" 1920x1200 = 94.3 ppi
20.1" 1680x1050 = 98.4 ppi
30" 2560x1600 = 101.0 ppi
27" 2560x1440 = 108.8 ppi
Pixel Size Calculator
You have a valid concern about the text being too small, because it's the monitor at the bottom of the list.
Blazestorm
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,940
My laptop has 128.645 ppi (1680 x 1050 @ 15.4") there are some that run 1920 x 1200 @ 15.4" which would be 147.023 ppi
It's not that bad to use, it's definitely small but I like fitting a lot onto the screen and the 30" at 2560 x 1600 wasn't bad. I want to see a 24" at that resolution + 3 of them that would be much better.
I originally had a 30" because of the resolution, not the screen-size itself... now I'll have 3 x 23" 1080p's which will be ~50% more pixels than the 30" by itself.
It's not that bad to use, it's definitely small but I like fitting a lot onto the screen and the 30" at 2560 x 1600 wasn't bad. I want to see a 24" at that resolution + 3 of them that would be much better.
I originally had a 30" because of the resolution, not the screen-size itself... now I'll have 3 x 23" 1080p's which will be ~50% more pixels than the 30" by itself.
terrannova
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2009
- Messages
- 50
Not a valid comparison to laptop screens. Laptop screens are usually a lot closer to you and laptops are forced to cram more into a small space.
This monitor has the smallest pitch of any desktop monitor and most people will end up turning up the DPI setting in windows to compensate. Partially nullifying the resolution advantage. If you end up cranking DPI to use it, you are left with little improvement over a standard 24" at double the price.
I have my 15.4" laptop setup on a stand so it's at the same height/distance as my monitor, so I think it can definitely be a valid comparison. Now if it was in my lap, that would be a different story.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
You are missing the point. A laptop is used differently than a desktop. The screen has to be physically smaller for portability, so the dpi has to be physically tighter to get a meaningful amound of data on the screen. It has nothing to do with setting them next to each other.
The NEC 2490WUXi with is's ATW polarizer is a better choice if you can find one, and it is about the same price.
Dave
I'm saying despite the reasoning of it being high-density, the screen is perfectly viewable/readable at normal desktop distance. That's my point.
Jordan
You may be sitting closer or have better vision. There are always exceptions.
I have BCV of 20/15 and sitting at two feet, I found the HC-3007 text too small.
Now this monitor has smaller. People with my vision/distance will likely find text too small.
Yeah, that's definitely true. Depends on the person. For me, I think it will be fine. But yeah, won't work everyone I suppose.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
I beleave you, All I am saying is that laptops are designed to meet a different set of requirements, so there not a good comparison.
I am glad it works for you, but I know several people with close to perfect vision that do not want to work with a 24" LCD at native resolution and standard dpi. Age has something to do with it also.
Enjoy it
Dave