ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components▼
Smartphones & tablets▼
Systems▼
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES▼
DEALS

A New 30" Contender: HP ZR30w Review

 by Brian Klug on June 1, 2010 6:30 PM EST
95 Comments | Add A Comment
95 Comments

Display Lag and Response Time

For gamers, display lag is a very real concern, and display processing is a nebulously reported (if at all) specification for just about all LCD displays. We’ve been over this before, but ultimately, what matters isn’t GTG, full on, full off pixel response times, or what’s reported on the spec sheet, but the holistic latency of the monitor compared to something we can all agree is lag-free. We previously used a baseline LCD and compared with it as our benchmark of no display lag. Previously we were using a 17” Princeton CRT - some of you were a bit underwhelmed by that monitor.

I spent some time visiting (I kid you not) almost every thrift store in town, and found myself a veritable cornucopia of uh... lovingly cared for CRTs to choose from. I settled on a much more modern looking Sony G520 20” CRT supporting a higher resolution and refresh rate. It’s still not what I’m ultimately looking for, but it’s better. Oh, and it cost a whopping $9. ;)

I had to take another trip back in time to get this CRT... Well, almost.
 
To do these tests, we connect the CRT up to a DVI to VGA adapter on our test computer’s ATI Radeon HD5870, and the LCD panel under test to DVI using an HDMI to DVI cable. I debated for some time the merits of using the same VGA signal, however, what really matters here is how the two display methods matter in the way that you, readers, are most likely to set things up. In addition, using the VGA input on any LCD is bound to add additional lag, as this is definitely a hardware scaler operation to go from analog to digital signaling, compared to the entirely digital DVI datapath. The most optimal resolution common to the LCD and CRT was 1280x800.
 
We use the same 3Dmark03 Wings of Fury benchmark on constant loop, take a bunch of photos with a fast camera (in this case, a Nikon D80 with a 17-50mm F/2.8) with wide open aperture for fast shutter speeds, in this case up to 1/800 of a second. Any differences on the demo clock will be our processing lag, and we’ll still get a good feel for how much pixel response lag there is on the LCD.

As I mentioned earlier, the only downside is that this means our old data is no longer a valid reference.

To compute the processing lag, I do two things. First, I watch for differences in the clock between the CRT and LCD, noting these whenever they are visible. I did this for 10 captures of the same sequence. Second, one can compute the processing difference by taking into account the FPS and the frame number difference.
 
 
Of course, not every one of those frames is written to the display, but we can still glean how much time difference there is between these respective frames with much more precision than from averaging the time, which only reports down to 1/100ths of a second.

Traditionally IPS panels are a bit slower (for whatever reason) than cheaper TN panels when it comes to refresh rate and processing lag. In this case, the ZR30w is a bit slower, but only by a few milliseconds, not the tens of milliseconds or perceptible lag that we’ve seen in the past. This is intriguing, it’s entirely possible HP’s omission of an OSD IC does make a difference.

We’re still evolving what we think the best way to measure processing lag is, and even using a CRT isn’t foolproof. In this case, I set the LCD and CRT refresh rates to 60 Hz so both in theory grab the same frame from the GPU’s framebuffer. In practice, it’s likely that they just aren’t, explaining the difference. As we process more LCDs, we’ll be able to tell, but the processing lag we’ve measured from all three monitors this far is totally acceptable.

I played a number of FPS titles and RTS games on the display, and never noticed any display processing lag or ghosting to speak of. If you’re going to use a 30” panel for gaming, the ZR30w seems to be just as good as any.
 
One trailing frame visible
 
LCD response and latency performance still isn’t technically at parity with CRTs, but you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference.

In the ghosting images I snapped, I usually only saw two frames. The dominant frame, and the preceding frame. This is very surprising, since we’re used to seeing three. But all throughout the images I snapped, only two frames are visible. This is very impressive panel response.
 
Analysis: Brightness Uniformity Analysis: Power Consumption
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • B3an - Friday, June 4, 2010 - link

    Anyone?

  • Brian Klug - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - link

    It depends on what you mean by colors. For real world color gamut, just compare the gamut to the 3008. I don't think we've tested that one yet.

    Otherwise, this is a 10 bit per channel monitor, so if you have an aware application you can drive more colors.

  • fenry - Friday, June 4, 2010 - link

    The HP LP3065 had lower power specs! These are the numbers from HP:

    LP3065 ZR30w
    176 185 Max Pwr (Watts)
    118 139 Typical Power (Watts)

    Maybe they mean it's more efficient when it's OFF (<2 Watts).

    How do they get away with this being part of their advertising???

    I've been paying careful attention to power draw of large monitors from some time, so I am extremely disappointed at HP for this misleading advertising. Check it out for yourself!

  • xismo - Friday, June 4, 2010 - link

    I'm looking forward to the updated review. And honestly the workstation video cards are not that expensive. It's not like you need to get the Quadro FX 5800 to test 10-bit support in photoshop or maya. Like I mentioned earlier almost all of the workstation video cards have native 10-bit support so getting a Quadro FX1800 will actually cost you less or the same as 5870. Also ATI Firepro are generally cheaper and are just as good. NVIDIA hasn't updated their workstation cards for a while, while ATI released one just recently. But obviously if you'd like to get $3000+ high end card like the 5800 I can't stop you :)

  • ProDigit - Saturday, June 5, 2010 - link

    I don't care if it's a big screen, I just don't find a lot of justifying a screen that consumes about as much as my common desktop (The EeeBox for instance consumes roughly 20-25W, this screen 150-180W).

    Personally they would have done better with a LED backlit screen!

    The price is also too much!
    The last monitor you reviewed was a $300 26" screen, this one is only 4" larger diagonally, and boosts the 1080p resolution to 1600p, but still no reason to be almost $1k more!

    Sorry to say, but this monitor is not a good buy; and unless you're busy professionally, you're better off buying 4x $300 26" monitors instead!

  • jiulemoigt - Sunday, June 6, 2010 - link

    Considering even though they are only 10-12 bit displays I would have expected that any monitor claiming to have good color accuracy would be compared to the LCD3090W-BK-SV or LCD3090WQXi-BK.

  • doclucas - Monday, June 7, 2010 - link

    HP claim that there is no IC available for 30" is plain bullshit! There are many 30" that come with excellent OSD, such as my Dell 3008WFP (I also own HP LP3065 which I don't like compared to the Dell). Dell still make the best quality (affordable/mainstream) monitors, period.

  • Gilbo - Tuesday, June 8, 2010 - link

    Those monitors can implement OSD because they also have scalers.

    Scalers for 30" monitors have high input lag unfortunately, which makes them less desirable for some people.

  • CannibalisticH0b0 - Monday, June 14, 2010 - link

    My main problem with this review is the inconsistent competitors used for comparison in the tests. The main thing I wanted to compare with other 30" monitors was input lag... yet no 30" monitors were compared with the new HP on that page. I agree that the figure looks low, but it would be nice to have that same exact test done (and shown) with the Dell 3007WFP, for example, which I believe is/was still the king of 30" monitors for gaming.

  • mcklevin - Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - link

    I would like to see how this fares against the apple cinema display. I recently purchased and returned the LG 3000H-BN because of a signal defect. However when it did work, I did notice that the anti-glare screen coat was highly distracting at the corners and off angle on a dark screen, especially in a dark room. Is it the same way with this display? In a lit room is a black screen noticeably gray?
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now