Nixeus NX-VUE27 27" Monitor: High Resolution for the Masses
by Chris Heinonen on September 20, 2012 6:10 PM ESTInput Lag and Power Use
One important caveat to mention here is that I don’t have a CRT that can do 1440 lines of resolution natively. Because I have to run at a non-standard resolution compared to the Nixeus, you might see some additional lag being added to the input than if you ran natively, but there is no way for me to actually test the native input lag time. There is also no way on the Nixeus to set a 1080p image to be centered and not scaled, which might reduce lag by doing 1:1 mapping and bypassing the scaler but at the expense of only using part of the screen.
Here we see that input lag is 18.4ms and the pixel response time is a total of 23.6ms to rise and fall, so 11.8ms to completely change from one color to another. This gives us an overall lag number of 30.2ms, or almost two full frames in a standard 60fps game. Here the HP ZR2740w has almost the exact same pixel response time (11.95ms vs. 11.8, which is within the margin of error), but it only has 2.6ms of input lag. As the HP has no scaler and less processing to do with only a brightness control, this saves it a full frame of response time compared to the Nixeus.
I really wish I could be authoritative on what the 1440p results would be, as there may be no lag in that case, but I really can’t offer an answer there. If you know your video card can only do 1920x1080 resolution for games, then you can know you’ll have around two frames of lag on the Nixeus. If you’re a gamer, even if you aren't a hard core one, you might need to look elsewhere for now.
Power use is pretty reasonable on the Nixeus. For this I continue to use the full white screen as it does lead to more accurate numbers here, representing a worst case scenario. In that case, with the backlight at maximum, it consumes only 72 watts of power in use. That is less than all the other 27” monitors I have tested to this point, even the ones with LED backlighting systems. With the brightness at 20, it uses 25 watts of power, which is less than the HP but the HP has a brighter image at that level. Overall the power use numbers are very good for the Nixeus.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
66 Comments
View All Comments
Death666Angel - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
Or AMD 7xxx. :)Penti - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
No, just no. Only 3 GHz HDMI 1.4a support above 1920x1200. Don't confuse the two, the monitor does not support it. DVI-DL or DP that rules here. The Nixues might accept a higher res signal over HDMI but it doesn't have the bandwidth to handle it so it causes issues. DP or DVI-DL recommended and is the only one's supported by the vendor. It's basically like trying to run SL-DVI at a higher res then specced here. Skip HDMI-connections whenever you can, skip notebooks with only HDMI whenever you can if you want to run over 1920x1200. Even if you happen to have stuff supporting HDMI 1.4a 3GHz (3GHz part is vital here) in your portable stuff the monitor isn't yet supporting it. They need a new generation of chips driving the displays. GCN and Kepler might be practical if you like to run above 2560x1600 though, but most monitors still requires two DP-connections for 3840x2160/2400 when they don't have true DP1.2 support. There isn't really much of any hardware around to support all the other DP1.2 features either such as daisy chaining.HDMI is essentially useless here unless it can scale your console (1280x720/1920x1080) good enough on that screen to be usable and correctly viewed. VGA isn't really any use either. You simply have to use a lower res screen if you don't have access to DL-DVI and or DP supporting stuff.
atotroadkill - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
Thanks for the clarification... I currently use the displayport connection from my GTX 670 to my NX-VUE27... before when I was using HDMI 1.4 I did experience artifacts and some sync issues at 2560x1440. After that I tried Dual Link DVI but I couldn't see my bios... but after switching to Displayport those issues went away.Despoiler - Thursday, September 20, 2012 - link
Too much processing lag. 2 FRAMES!!! Glad I held off. That is a non-starter.atotroadkill - Thursday, September 20, 2012 - link
"Because I have to run at a non-standard resolution compared to the Nixeus, you might see some additional lag being added to the input than if you ran natively, but there is no way for me to actually test the native input lag time. There is also no way on the Nixeus to set a 1080p image to be centered and not scaled, which might reduce lag by doing 1:1 mapping and bypassing the scaler but at the expense of only using part of the screen."The 2 Frames and processing is because of Non-Native resolution testing and testing it 1080p...so if you are gaming at 1080p on the monitor then yes it will bother you - and gaming on this monitor at 1080 you shouldn't get this monitor anyways.
I'm using it at 2560x1440 playing BF3 and it has no affect on my shooting and timing (with V-SYNC off)
abhaxus - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
I wonder about this also. Since the author doesn't have a CRT capable of 1440p for reference, why not just compare the input lag using the HP as a reference at 1440p? Seems like a solution that might get answers for those of us who are quite interested in this monitor. I suspect it's as you say, that without scaling it can do ok.cheinonen - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
Well, testing that would require that I still have the HP monitor, but since I didn't buy it, that isn't really an option for me to do. The only CRTs out there that can do 1440p are probably projectors with 9" CRTs, and unfortunately installing a 100+ lb. projector, not to mention the cost of finding one in great shape to test it, precludes that.trynberg - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
Not that I expect you to get one, but there are plenty of 19-21" CRTs out there that can do 2048X1536 resolution for dirt cheap...I have two sitting at home right now (19" Mitsubishi and 21" Sun/Sony).cheinonen - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
It has to be 2560x1440, though, for the exact same native resolution, and something that can do that is incredibly hard to find.Sabresiberian - Friday, September 21, 2012 - link
Hmm well okay the Sony GDM FW900 runs at 2304x1440, not 2560, but wouldn't that give you better results?(I'm not sure this is a huge issue, as long as your testing methodology is consistent across LCD displays.)