Apple 27-inch LED Cinema Display Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 28, 2010 12:15 AM EST- Posted in
- Displays
- Mac
- Apple
- Cinema Display
Processing and Input Latency
Processing and display lag are very important for gamers, and it’s most often nebulously reported if at all. We’ve discussed this in previous display reviews, but what matters most is how the display acts in real world testing. I’ve been doing previous tests by comparing LCDs with first a 17” CRT.
To measure input and processing lag we're sending the same frame data to both the LCD tested and a 17" CRT in parallel (using our GeForce GT 120). Using our camera set to a high shutter speed we grab shots of 3DMark 03's Wings of Fury benchmark which conveniently displays frame rate and frame count.
We compare the two to determine input lag, assuming the CRT over VGA exhibits minimal lag:
The 27's input lag is nothing to write home about. It's not slow enough to cause any problems gaming in my experience but it's not fast enough to set any records either. Ghosting was also typical of other displays, I captured one frame of ghosting:
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
andy o - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Just in case, I'm talking as opposed to 16:10 ratio. That's wide enough. The 2560x1600 resolution stays barely alive with the 30" screens as you say, but the 1920x1200 and especially the 1680x1050 resolutions are all but dead already.If I wanted another laptop like the one I have with a 1680x1050 res on a 15" or so screen, can I get that anymore? The closest I've seen is 1600x900 which already seems too low.
fabarati - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Anand was getting jigyy with it!Also, not only is the resolutiion 90% of 2560x1600, the size is also 90% of the 30".
ytoledano1 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
27" is 81% of 30", when comparing areas, you need to square the ratio.A pixel pitch of 0.25 for 2560x1600 @ 30" is already tiny, with 0.23 for 2560x1440 @ 27" I'll probably have to use bigger fonts everywhere and still have problems with some applications.
ijhammo - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
erm 27" is referring to diagonal length, so the 27" screen diagonal is 90% of the 30" screen diagonal. Also, pixel count is 90% too.chris1317 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
16:9 is really the worst aspect ratio I have used on a computer screen. Although the difference does not seem much on paper when you actually use one you can see what a backwards step it is. I think I will stick with my 1920x1200 display for now until the manufacturers see some sense and supply what im after.piroroadkill - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Dell already does the perfect monitors, you just have to be able to afford them.Way better than this Apple offering..
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displa...
IceDread - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Actually, I prefer HP monitors above dell. Dell may have more options but the color on dell aint good. It is common that it's way to dark on the right side when you have a white background.The game mode is green/ blueish so you are stuck with high input lag in games if you want decent colours.
So I actually prefer HP in this case.
YouGotServed - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link
You sir, are speaking out of your butt. Please get facts straight before speaking.http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displa...
This is the pinnacle of Dell monitors. If you can find a comparable HP display, I will be impressed.
IceDread - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
I agree. A 27" 16:9 is like a 24" 16:10. The loss of height is very annoying.I think it's a sales trick. They write 27" and think they can charge you more for it.
jasperjones - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link
Seems the U2711, which received an Gold Editor's choice award from AT, is still the way to go for anyone except hardcore Apple fanbois.