LG 29EA93 Monitor Review - Rev. 1.25
by Chris Heinonen on February 12, 2013 8:49 PM ESTWith the 29EA93 being targeted towards gamers, where it can offer a wider field-of-view for games in comparison to standard 16:9 monitors, the poor lag performance of the original model was a big issue. Serious gamers would not put up with that, and so it was not connecting with its target market. With the new revision, lag is virtually non-existant. With the caveat of having to test at 1920x1080 instead of 2560x1080 due to CRT limitations, the LG exhibited 1ms of input lag with my testing. Previously we saw 27ms of input lag, so this is a completely different level of performance. Testing with the HDMI input and not the DVI input led to the same results.
Disabling the game mode only introduced another 1-2ms of lag, but at the expense of image quality, so I would leave it disabled. The total lag from input and pixel response was between 9 and 15ms. I say between because the LG 29EA93 appears to have a scanning backlight that doesn’t match-up perfectly to the refresh rate. Because of these different blanking intervals, the refresh rate of pixels can change slightly, so there is a range of response times instead of constant ones.
I also tested lag using a lag tester from Leobodnar.com, which uses an HDMI output and runs at 1080p resolution. Using a photo sensor it flashes a pattern on the screen and then senses the flash, then updates the screen to have the total lag time. Using this device I got the same results as with SMTT, between 9.6 and 15.8 ms of lag. The downside of this method is there isn’t a separate input and pixel lag time test, but it works much faster and seems to be highly accurate in my testing of it. Unless there is significant feedback about SMTT being superior to this, it might be the method I use in the future.
Due to interest, here are some screenshots showing the difference between 1920x1080 and 2560x1080 in games. I will attempt to add some more before returning the display.
Compared to the previous version, power use is 2 watts higher with both maximum and minimum backlight. That's close enough to be simple variance between units, so we won't worry about it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
108 Comments
View All Comments
cheinonen - Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - link
I don't add calibrated settings for a reason: They're specific to that display, and that one only. The level of tolerances on a consumer panel is high enough that just plugging in the settings from someone is no guarantee that the image will be better or worse, just different. And since it can be just as easily worse as opposed to better, I don't provide them. Otherwise I know it will result in many people getting those settings from somewhere else, or without a disclaimer like this, using them, and then posting "The AnandTech settings made my display worse, they have no idea what they're talking about".If the display has a mode that is more accurate, I typically mention which one I used for calibration so everyone could use that specific mode, buy beyond that and adjustments are just as likely to make a display worse as better.
SpartanGR - Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - link
Don't bother with this monitor yet. There's no 1.25 version out there.Adrianojp - Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - link
Hi,This is my first post, but I have been reading your site for years now.
Thank you for all your great work!
Response times: in your 1.25 review, you state that RT's have been tested at 1080p resolution because of some CRT limitations. Could you please iron this out for me?
I am a hardcore FPS gamer, and am out shopping for the fastest 27-30 monitor out there! This would be very interesting because of it's huge landscape, but lag is a no no!
mcfrumpy - Monday, March 11, 2013 - link
So I noticed that now Newegg and Microcenter are carrying this monitor. There's a guy on the HardOCP forums that bought one and is doing a review. The picture he took of the back shows a manufacturer date of January 2013, but a rev00. I know they weren't released in the US officially so for all I know rev00 is the 1.25 here, but seems kinda risky to buy without knowing for sure.carloverthepond - Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - link
I purchased this monitor from South Korea arrived with build date Dec 2012 Rev 00 shockingly poor panel over 30 stuck/dead/live pixels. This month I purchased one from Frys again build date Dec 2012 Rev 00, then one from MicroCenter yet again build date Dec 2012 Rev 00. The money I have lost in shipping and restocking fees is now a joke. Currently awaiting one I ordered from Newegg arrives 03/22/13 their website photos show build Feb 2013 Rev 01, so how do we know if this is revision 1.09 or 1.25. After several conversations with LG USA they posted the comment below on Neweggs website, how can you truly tell what revision you have when it's not labeled clearly and manufacturer just says it's revision 1.25 are we to take their word? If anyone has any idea how to identify which revision other than sticker on rear of panel? An LG USA have been very clear they will NOT update older revisions to their knowledge they don't even have the means to do so.Manufacturer Response:
1. The older version is neither defective nor low quality. It was just a running change to update the firmware
to newer versions (like is done with other electronics).
2. Currently, there hasn’t been any game resolution support issues reported for this model. Please contact us with
any issues you find so we can test. Our previous internal testing did not find any resolution support issues for
any games. Also, Software version is not related to resolution support and different versions do not effect ability
to support full 2560 x 1080 resolution.
3. All of models sold to newegg.com are firmware version 1.25.
Please call us with any more questions. 800-243-0000.
carloverthepond - Thursday, March 21, 2013 - link
Received new monitor today from newegg and the manufatures response is incorrect, newegg are selling revision 00. So some people get the new revision and others like me yet again get the old one. This will now be my fifth monitor, will I ever get the new revision. Is it accurate that rev 00 is really 1.09 and rev 01 is 1.25?5150Joker - Saturday, March 23, 2013 - link
Your guess is as good as mine. I picked up an LG 27EA83-D from Fry's which just recently received a firmware update of its own with similar results as the panel you bought. However mine was manufactured in Jan 2013 and is Rev 00. I wrote LG USA about it and they had no clue (surprise surprise). So right now I'm trying to get a hold of someone in Korea that can provide firm answers. Otherwise as much as I love this display, it might go back to Fry's.rogerRion - Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - link
1.09 / 1.25what do i have?
the same in germany.
A) isnt there a way to find out which revision do you really have? maybe with powerstip on the DDC data?
B) is a simple Firmware Update (like on CDRW drives) possible, or is this thought technical not logical?
SpartanGR - Monday, April 1, 2013 - link
A. Unfortunately noB. No again for some reason but i strongly believe that it may well as be diff. electronics along with diff. firmware
dim.thelights - Thursday, April 4, 2013 - link
How to know which Rev. you will buy in the shop?Anyone know how to find out?