NEC EA294WMi Review

by Chris Heinonen on 2/10/2014 6:00 AM EST


Back to Article

  • DanNeely - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    I seem to've missed the 21:9 1440p CES reports; and the only thing I'm finding Googling now is some pre-CES rumors about a 34" Dell monitor. Who else is playing in the 1440p crazy wide segment? Reply
  • REALfreaky - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    There's no CES 2014 coverage in that link at all and all the reviews are for the existing 2560x1080 panel. Reply
  • marcosears - Thursday, October 09, 2014 - link

    NEC sure is trying, but just can't meet the standards of some of the great monitors that have come out. /Marco from Reply
  • Olaf van der Spek - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    > DVI SL

    What's the use of DVI SL on this display? It can't drive 2560 x 1080 can it?

    > CES this year saw the introduction of 21:9 displays with 1440 lines of vertical resolution as opposed to 1080, making it a more direct replacement for 27” displays.

    3360 x 1440? That's nice!
  • JarredWalton - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    You can use single-link to drive standard 1080p resolutions (1920x1080), so it's just another input. VGA and HDMI can't handle 2560x1080 either AFAIK (unless it's HDMI 1.4 maybe?) but people still have old devices around that use those. Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    HDMI 1.4 offers it; but AFAIK monitor support has been a problem because only offering 1.3 on the monitor allows them to use same hardware as DVI instead of having to use a decoder that's clocked 2x as fast. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    VGA delivers 2560x1600@75Hz on my FW900. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    And unless you have something like a Matrox, I bet the picture looks awful. No recent AMD/nVidia card I know of has decent VGA output. And 75Hz is really on the low side for a CRT for me. Below 80 gave me headaches and eye strain in some situations. Reply
  • nathanddrews - Thursday, February 13, 2014 - link

    The PQ is excellent for gaming, however that resolution is slightly less crisp for text near the edges of the screen. I usually just run 1920x1200 since it is uniformly crisp and offers a 96Hz refresh rate, which is great for twitch games and perfect for viewing film content. Reply
  • ShieTar - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link

    > 3360 x 1440? That's nice!

    The LG Electronics 34UM95-P actually comes with 3440 x 1440, so its even a bit wider (2.39:1). I've ordered this one around Christmas, but it still hasn't arrived yet. Current prediction by the shop is a delivery around Feb. 20th.
  • piroroadkill - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    19" 4:3?

    I've only really seen 19" 5:4 - 1280x1024.
  • Colin1497 - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Back in the day I know we had a lot of 1600x1200 Dell monitors, but they may have been branded as 20" instead of 19"? Eventually they ended up paired with 1920x1200 24" monitors before being phased out... Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    I know there were 20" 1600x1200 panels, I've got NEC and HP versions of them, but don't think I ever saw them in a 19" version. Reply
  • kwrzesien - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Maybe he meant 19" CRT's? We had a host of them from Mitsubishi and they worked great at 1280x1024 @ 85Hz, or 1600x1200 @ 60Hz. They were our "coding" monitors, our production user spec was still at 1024x768 on a 14" CRT at the time!!! (where is the horror emoticon when you need it!) Reply
  • purerice - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    A lot of monitors vintage '98 were 20 or 21" but 19 or 19.8" viewable with 1600x1200 resolution.
    It could just be a difference between official vs viewable size.
  • GTVic - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    That is what I have, Dell 2007FP + Dell U2410 plus a matching pair at the office. Both monitors have 1200 vertical pixels, unfortunately the height is not identical, 2107 would have been a near perfect match. Reply
  • blackmagnum - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    It's still 1080p. Good for movies and spreadsheets but bad for reading Anandtech (unless you want it towering over your head). Reply
  • DarkXale - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Its rather intended to be used instead of two adjacent 1280x1080 monitors. You completely eliminate the border in the middle which provides greater flexibility in how you display your content.

    In other words, maximising it to use the entire width is doing it wrong.
  • KnightRAF - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link

    Exactly. It's a 1080p high monitor that's wide enough to view two webpages side by side without problems due to the window not being at least 1024px wide. Reply
  • FractinJex - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Ever since moving to 1440p sometime back I wont go back just old now..the only trhing imo holding back 1440p from being mainstream is the fact that you need a HPU to use it as the intel igpu is crap and same witht he amd....

    keep hearing about 4k this and that yet most don't even understand those craphole panels only do 30hz lol people are skipping and thinking they can go straight to 1080p to 4k over the next year or two.....nope not gonna happen get yourself a good 1440p Korean pnael or even two and be set...don't wait for crappy slow manufactuare to release some overpriced non sense like Asus is doing with the 1440p AOG crapy TN panels and ripping everyone a new one lol 1080p trash
  • jaydee - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Almost twice the cost of the under-rated AOC Q2963OM
  • haikuginger - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    You mixed up the contrast ratio chart- it's 989:1 at max brightness, and 838:1 at minimum brightness, not the other way around. Reply
  • surt - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Where are the LESS wide-aspect displays? I want a nice 16:12 3200x2400 display. Reply
  • ShieTar - Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - link

    16:12 is 4:3. Thats not less wide, its legacy. Reply
  • Hrel - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    We don't need wider displays. We need Hollywood to stop making things wider for NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL!!!!! If you can't fit the shot in a 16:9 frame back up, or stop sucking so hard at your profession. Reply
  • extide - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    The sad part is, if you notice, in basically anything shot wide (or super wide) the 'important stuff' is all within a 4:3 box in the center, so it can still be viewed on a 4:3 screen properly. Ever notice when you watch the news on widescreen, the news logos in the corner aren't in the far corners, they are in a bit? That is because they are at the edges of where a 4:3 screen would be! So the edge space is all basically wasted! Reply
  • kyuu - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    There's actually a very good reason movies are shot in widescreen resolutions. It's the same reason people generally do multi-monitor setups that extend horizontally, rather than stacking two or three monitors vertically. Think about it.

    A 21:9 monitor like this is a great alternative for a multi-monitor setup for those who don't want to deal with the headaches and bezels.
  • tim851 - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link


    For years, people put two 1280x1024 monitors next to each other. Then 1080p screens show up and it becomes a fucking meme to pretend you're a "professional" who can't work with anything less than 1200p.

    So 1440p becomes affordable and people still play this frickin' meme, because 16x9 is the "Devil's AR".
  • cheinonen - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Except 16:9 was picked as a compromise aspect ratio for everything. Academy Ratio (1.37:1) content can fit windowboxed, Scope content(2.39:1) can fit letterboxed, and flat (1.85:1) content will fit almost perfectly. 16:9 wan't created to eliminate choice in aspect ratios, but to provide a good format for all of them. I shouldn't foget 70mm (2.20:1) in here either.

    Also, I'd like to let artists pick how they want to present things. If they want to use Academy, or Scope, or Flat, that's their choice. The idea that they don't know what they're doing by shooting scope is just laughable as well.
  • purerice - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    good points there. My old monitor is 16x10 which was supposed to be 16x9+subtitles/menus but that didn't fly I guess.
    As long as you don't have to watch a movie like Multiplicity with the camera shaking back and forth to catch the various Michael Keatons (VHS version). That was perhaps the worst edit-butchering of any decent film I have ever seen.
  • iamezza - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    The best use case by far for 21:9 is for gaming. Just about any game that uses a first person (and not just FPSs) or over the shoulder perspective is a lot better with a wider screen.
    I've had triple 16:9 screens for a couple of years and it friggin rocks!
  • kyuu - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Agreed -- I'm quite tempted to use a 21:9 monitor since it seems ideal for gaming. Reply
  • Panzerknacker - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    Nice screen but too high input lag. Reply
  • purerice - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    ?????? Stated market, medical imaging...
    Not sure how much movement you get in your MRIs or X-rays but the ones I have seen seem to be pretty still.
  • gochichi - Friday, February 14, 2014 - link

    Though it sounds like it may be insignificant, there's actually 33% more pixels in a 2560x1440 27" display than 2560x1080.

    I initially thought that if a laptop could drive one resolution it would drive the other and vice versa. This is NOT the case in practice, where I had laptops whose HDMI outputs displayed plug-n-play perfection on the 2560x1080 display but couldn't handle 2560x1440 without a bunch hacking and compromise(to where you had to hack the settings and go to 30Hz and so on, or it just going 1920x1080 etc).

    So keep that in mind, I had an HD4000 Samsung Ultrabook that worked flawlessly with the 2560x1080 but not at all on any of me 1440 screens via HDMI.

    So for some it may be well worth the strange aspect ratio to gain the plug and play functionality on some fairly decent still relevant laptops (the original 13" Yoga for example).

    I'd love to see 1440P on a high quality 21" screen for some $400. 3360 x 1440 p sounds beautiful too. For me these 29" 1080p widescreen have pixels that are entirely too chunky... but I suppose for frame rate purposes having 25% fewer pixels to push would be a boon games.

    2014 should be a year of much overdue innovation in the PC monitor space. I'm loving the 4k displays from Dell so far and can't wait to see what ASUS, Apple, and others will come up with.
  • dszc - Sunday, February 23, 2014 - link

    Chris and Jarred,
    I can't thank you guys enough for your continuing excellent display reviews. You continue to be my trusted "go-to" source.
    I have a request. I'd like to know what TV I can use as a monitor, so I'd like to see some tested. What I need doesn't need to be reference quality level, like some of the higher-end EIZOs or NECs. But it does need to be in the same ballpark as these: HP 27xi, AOC i2757fh, ViewSonic VX2770Smh-LED. We need a very accurate representation of what our customers are likely to see on the web in the sRGB color space.
    I suspect that there are LOTS of folks out there who would like to have an accurate 1080p sRGB monitor in the 50-60" size that can be comfortably viewed by a few people simultaneously, whether it be a workgroup or small conference setting, or a home family room, or gaming group.
    Anyway, please move this request up as high as you see fit on your list. Currently, we have lots of reviews and information on 20-30" monitors that are really largely similar. We could REALLY use your help on a bigger size class (40-60" TV size) of monitors.
    Thanks for your consideration.
    Ever a fan of Anandtech,

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now