HP ZR2740w - High Resolution IPS that Doesn't Break the Bank
by Chris Heinonen on March 16, 2012 1:15 AM ESTInput Lag and Power Use
Since the HP automatically scales the image if it is not sent at 2560x1440 and I don’t have a CRT that can produce that resolution, the HP had to run at 1920x1080 resolution for the lag tests. This is our second review using the SMTT program to test lag, but this lets us separate the input lag from the pixel response time, so we can hopefully figure out the effect of scaling the image. There is a chance that the performance with a native 2560x1440 signal could be better on the input lag, so these measurements again represent the worst case scenario.
Despite this, the lag on the HP is very low overall, with 14.55ms being the worst case scenario. This breaks down at 2.6ms of input lag, and then 11.95ms of pixel response time. This is less than a frame of lag at the 60Hz refresh rate the display supports, so it should be fast enough for your gaming use, though hopefully your video card can keep up with it at 2560x1440. The effective lag, which is a more subjective measurement, came in at right around 10ms in my estimation. At that point you can clearly see what color a pixel was changing to, even if it hasn’t reached peak brightness yet. I really don’t think anyone will have issues gaming on the HP, which is very nice.
With the size of the ZR2740w, and the amount of light that if can put out, you can imagine that even with an LED lighting system it is going to use a lot of power. At minimum brightness the HP consumed 26 watts, and at maximum brightness it consumed 96 watts. With my usual settings (closer to 150-160 nits of brightness) I was seeing closer to 45 watts of power use on it. This isn’t the most efficient display you can get, but when you consider that it is likely to replace dual 24” monitors for a lot of users, the power use is better in perspective. Compared to the 30” monitors we have reviewed it is very good, and about equal to the 27” Apple Cinema Display.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
119 Comments
View All Comments
Visual - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
The 16:10 variant would be 1600 px vertical, and 30 inch diagonal. It is quite understandable why anyone with a brain would prefer that. And there have been several such 30" monitors reaching similar price to this 27" so the OP is right about it being too much money, hopefully some nice discounts will appear for it though.People were using 1600x1200 15 years ago on 20 inch CRTs. Getting less vertical resolution now is really sad.
If a 10" iPad can have better resolution, I don't see how you can think this one is OK.
iieeann - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
Ouch, still a retarded 16:9 product. When will a 16:10 27"-30" IPS monitor come out...I am still using the old dell 2709W. Not an IPS but i keep it because of 16:10.
DanNeely - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
at least five years ago (Dell 3007); not sure if it was the first 2560x1600 monitor; but Dells model number scheme at the time baked in the year making it easy to date.Death666Angel - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
30" with 2560x1600 have been out for years, but they usually cost nearly twice as much as the 27" pendants. Vote with your pocket if you are serious, I am fine with 16:9 in this size range (though I go 16:10 below that).dcollins - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
Get over it already, 16:10 is gone. 16:9 has become the standard whether you like it or not, so you should start getting used to it. Move your Windows taskbar or OSX dock to the side, that gives you ~80px. If you absolutely MUST have vertical resolution, do what my buddy does: buy two smaller monitors and use them in portrait. Learn to adapt.Sabresiberian - Saturday, March 17, 2012 - link
You are clueless. 16:10 is far from gone, in fact several companies have released new 1920x1200 screens in the last few months. 16:10 is also the standard in a 30" display.Apple is releasing a new notebook this year which will be 2880x1800, 16:10. Asus has at least one product coming out with a 10.1" 1920x1200 display.
There are people all over the internet complaining about 16:9 monitors these days. You can't go to a hardware review site without seeing a growing numbers of people posting about how they think 16:9 is trash for a monitor.
cheinonen - Saturday, March 17, 2012 - link
Right, but those hardware review sites (like here) are a representation of a very, very small slice of the monitor buying population. For that small slice, and professional designers and other people, there are still 16:10 panels being produced with their associated price premium. For most people, they're plenty happy with 16:9 panels and the more affordable price with them, and I really wish the comments didn't get filled with this endless diatribe every single monitor review.EnzoFX - Saturday, March 17, 2012 - link
Just get a bigger 16x9. The argument is dumb IMO once you're at this high resolution.piroroadkill - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
If you're going to talk about affordable 27" 2560x1440 panels, you're missing the whole point: the Korean domestic market monitors: The Catleap/Shimian whatever other name monitor. Uses a 2560x1440 LG panel and can be had for ~$400 SHIPPED.piroroadkill - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
Sorry, just so I don't leave people hanging, yes these are real, no they are not a scam, yes sometimes they have a couple of dead pixels, but that's perfectly acceptable:http://www.ebay.com/itm/ACHIEVA-Shimian-QH270-IPSB...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-YAMAKASI-CATLEAP-Q270-...
Pixel perfect guarantee: http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-YAMAKASI-CATLEAP-Q270-...