NEC PA301w: The Baddest 30-inch Display Around
by Brian Klug on March 1, 2011 8:00 AM ESTInput and Processing Latency
So I was super late on getting the input latency section done, my sincere apologies if you've been refreshing endlessly every day as one day turned into an additional three. The delay was no fault of the PA301w, it was entirely just the sheer amount of stuff being worked on behind the scenes during just another busy week at AnandTech. Enough with my excuses though, let's get on to the results.
Processing and input lag are both serious considerations for gamers, but also noticeable after a certain point doing even the most mundane of desktop productivity tasks. It's that nagging - something feels off - sensation that really drains on one after a while. We've been doing our best to characterize input latency so far by doing some real world tests alongside CRTs. First with a 17" Princeton, then a Sony G520 20" CRT. The results so far have actually shown a fair amount of variance in input latency.
I measured latency on the PA301w the same way we've done it in the past. I run the 3DMark06 wings of fury demo on loop, and take photos of the display in test alongside a mirrored CRT at shutter speeds at or faster than 1/160th of a second. Resolution is set at XGA so we can crank the refresh all the way up on both displays (on the PA301w that's 75 Hz at XGA, 60 Hz at native). I snap a bunch of photos, and average a ton that show the difference in frame number between the two, and through some math we can get a decently accurate feel for what input latency is like.
You won't find it in the normal OSD, but in the Advanced OSD the PA301w has an interesting option labeled "Response Improve," which I can only assume is essentially overdrive control. I tested with this set to on and off, and found something interesting:
Remember that I'm driving both the CRT and PA301w at 75 Hz. At that refresh rate, one frame is 13.33 ms, two frames is 26.66 ms. Given how close those numbers are to the measured times, it looks like turning response improve on adds one more frame of latency. Interestingly enough, the difference between response improve turned on and off is actually visually noticeable. With response improve on, the numbers I read out of super fast shutter images of the PA301w are crisp and readable. With response improve off, almost 50% were lost to two frames being present and making it hard to discern the numbers. This is again the tradeoff you make - better panel response and less ghosting through overdrive, but at the cost of some additional processing latency if you look at it with a camera. I spent some time playing the Crysis 2 multiplayer demo and couldn't detect any latency subjectively with the setting on or off - you're a better gamer than I if you can pick that 10 ms difference out in actual practice.
Custom Refresh Rates
Ganesh (our resident HTPC expert) has also been asking me to add some custom refresh rate testing to our display review suite. Refresh rates like 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97, 50, and 59.94 Hz. I entered the custom refresh rates into the NVIDIA Control Panel and tested them on my GTX 470. All of the above refresh rates were supported at 1920x1080, which is the most likely place to encounter a bunch of those. The OSD appears to round appropriately for all refresh rates but 59.94, which it displays as 59.9 Hz. Curiously enough 23.976 Hz displays as 24 Hz, but displays just fine.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
92 Comments
View All Comments
Seanrus - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
This is first time on andtech that I've read a review that I would consider clearly biased. I follow development of 30 inch monitors closely for a last couple of years, since I want one but not yet committed to it.My reasoning is that in final thought writer, at least, should have mentioned about the relative price point to other 30" monitors. If that was done it would be clear that this monitor does not fit well anywhere in the market of 30" monitors.
Just bellow it, in performance, is HP ZR30 w which is can be acquired for $1100-1200 (for half the price) and performs very closely to this NEC.
As result the only consumers that might consider this monitor for whom the price is not the option, but then there are monitors in 5K range that perform even better than this one.
Also from the gamer perspective, which I speculate is the biggest audience here, ZR30w probably will be a better choice, because NEC, most likely, will not perform as well on response time as ZR30w since NEC has OSD (and that slows down response time as described in recent dell 30" monitor review.) This is a speculation and we need to wait for the results for response time to be posted.
Finally, I got an impression from this article that being big and heavy is a good thing (unfortunately I do not think phrase form Snatch "If it does not work, you can hit with it" would apply here.) Even the title of the article emphasizes that. This big and heavy quality of the monitor is defensibly a drawback, especially when it is 20lb heavier than other 30" monitors.
Conclusion that I came to from this article is that this monitor is nothing to be excited about, and is not a good buy for any consumer/prosumer segment. Performance benefits, and extra features that this NEC monitor has do not justify a $1000 premium.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
It is a product marketed at a professional audience, with a price and some features to match. Many people have been wondering how the "cheap" 30" displays compare to some of the options targeted at professionals, now they have a comparison. Yes, gamers are better off buying a cheaper one.erple2 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
I got the gist not that being big and heavy was a good thing, but that it wasn't a bad thing.bossanova808 - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
If the colour accuracy stuff in this review had been done properly, then you would have seen the NEC way out in front of the HP and, for the target market, that's pretty important. Not saying the HP doesn't make sense for gamers, but for the pro image makers that NEC are targetting, the PA30 is a spectacular device from a performance/price point of view when compared to it's real competition which is the CG303W from Eizo (and that's about it).8steve8 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
no LED illumination = no buybossanova808 - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
A disaster from a colour accuracy persepctive, hence no LED as it's not appropriat for the target market - same as EIzo don't do LED monitors.Soldier1969 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
with these days of half inch thick led panels this thing looks like something from 6 or 7 years ago. $2300 not thanks. Im just fine with my 30" HP ZR30w super ips panel you last reviewed. Works great and im still in awe of it with gaming and daily use. $1200 much better spent.lemonadesoda - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - link
Yes, this is a nice 2560x1600 30"er.But where is the innovation? Where are the higher pixel density displays. Those that want 2560x1600 displays but in a more manageable 24" or 27" format?
And what about ultra-hi resolution like 3840x2160 in 27"? Allowing you to read documents/PDFs in near-print DPI quality. Why is no-one making these?. the panels ARE available! http://www.chimei-innolux.com/opencms/cmo/products...
tzhu07 - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
I currently own the NEC PA271W, the little brother to this monitor. I kind of prefer the 271 over the 301 because it has a finer dot pitch, therefore I don't have to move my head around as much. You do lose 160 horizontal lines, but it's really not too much of a big deal. It's the best monitor I've used so far.Those with poorer eye sight though should get the 301.
Beka - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link
Does this nec screen have a good scaler like the dell?Being able to play at lower resolution while having games that still look good is great feature of the dell.