Screen Quality

When I first powered on the Dell XPS One 2710, I was surprised at just how good the screen looked. I kept trying to do the TN panel test (look at a screen from below and see if it washes out), but it offered stellar viewing angles. What may surprise you is that Dell isn't openly advertising the fact that they're using Samsung's PLS panel in the XPS One instead of a bog standard TN panel; they simply list it as being a 2560x1440 screen and call it a day.

That's really to their detriment, because the XPS One 2710 has one of the best looking panels I've ever seen in an all-in-one, and the increased PPI was enough to make me seriously think about replacing the trio of 24" 1920x1200 panels on my desktop with these higher resolution screens.

LCD Quality - Contrast

LCD Quality - White

LCD Quality - Black

LCD Quality - Color Accuracy

LCD Quality - Color Gamut

Subjectively it's a terrific looking screen, but the Dell XPS One's panel does seem to have a little bit of trouble with black levels that the IPS in HP's TouchSmart 610 doesn't. I still have a deep abiding preference for *VA panel technology, which produces deep, inky, uniform blacks, but for a media center kind of PC like the XPS One 2710, the PLS panel is probably the best compromise. Motion and responsiveness in games also seemed subjectively solid. As far as other metrics like color accuracy and gamut, the XPS One isn't going to be enough for certain professional users, but that's not really the target market in the first place. For just about everyone else, this is a great LCD.

System Performance User Experience, Heat, and Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

69 Comments

View All Comments

  • lurker22 - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link

    Just buy an iMac. Dell continues to be lousy engineering. Reply
  • lowlymarine - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link

    Well, I'd say at least wait for the IVB refresh of the iMacs (which should land inside a month or so). When that happens, the prices on these will have to com down; they're barely competitive with the current-generation iMacs as it is.

    Also, remember when Apple used to be the company using hilariously anemic GPUs in their computers while everyone else had higher-end chips available? When did that table turn? A 640M as the highest-end option in a 27" AIO, with the XPS branding no less, while Apple offers a 6970M in last years model? Ridiculous.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link

    I would have to agree, the iMac seems like a downright great value now that other companies are trying to target the same range. And if it gets upgraded to retina displays this next refresh... Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link

    Look at the pricing on a 27" iMac with an i7 CPU, 8GB RAM, 2TB HDD, SSD caching and Blu-ray (they don't offer these two options, actually), and a 6970M before you hand Apple the crown for AIOs. If you're looking purely at the GPU, Apple wins. If you're looking at the overall design and aesthetic, I'd call it a toss up, but I'd assume the Apple 27" iMac is able to cool the CPU+GPU better so we'll give Apple another win. And then you get to the price.

    It looks like a comparable current-gen iMac 27" with a better GPU will run you $2550 online at B&H, and you still lose Blu-ray capability and the SSD caching. I'm not sure if Apple will support Intel's SSD caching with the next generation iMac either -- Apple has been pretty careful about what new techs they support, particularly in the SSD realm. And of course the bottom line is that if you don't like OS X, you'd be crazy to purchase a Mac of any form. I know plenty of people that like OS X, but I know just as many that hate it; I happen to fall into the latter camp.

    Still, it boggles the mind that Dell couldn't just have a second HSF cooling the CPU in the 2710 to fix the temperature issues.
    Reply
  • Penti - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link

    You could always install 16 GB SO-DIMM DDR3 plus 128GB Samsung SSD for like 260 USD if you care to do the upgrade. As it might not be straight forward. An external Blu-ray drive costs you 70-100 USD and a Windows retail license of W7HP costs you some 170 USD. That would enable you everything including blu-ray playback. Might be a 600 - 700 USD upgrade though. Just installing ram though costs you 32 USD and requires no disassembly. A 2TB drive is 150 USD though if you don't want to disassemble the case. The i7 is 200 USD addon too, and not Ivy yet. If graphics isn't that important I would go with the HP Z1 Workstation though.

    On a system with mSATA the upgrade would obviously be to install a 128/256GB mSATA SSD. Not some Intel RST feature. It's just Intel Windows driver software any way.

    Not that Dell here isn't unusably reasonable in it's configure. We mostly see 20-23" low end machines around 1000 dollars with TN displays otherwise. But they don't seem to have taken the build seriously restricting themselves to slightly low power cpus. I guess using a 3770k would have speed up things a bit.
    Reply
  • protomech - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link

    "Also, remember when Apple used to be the company using hilariously anemic GPUs in their computers while everyone else had higher-end chips available?"

    No. I bought an ibook back in 2002 because it had a 100 mhz bus G3 and a mobility radeon 16 MB. Contemporary PC laptops were either integrated graphics (i810 chipset) or a slightly larger form factor with discrete graphics and lower battery life.

    While the powerbook titanium / aluminum line never really had high-powered discrete graphics .. they offered basically the best GPUs that could fit in their 1" form factor. Charged an arm and a leg for it too..

    Excepting a brief period in 2006-2007 (mac mini and macbook with intel GMA 950), Apple has typically used a pretty high base level of graphics hardware in their systems. They've only rarely offered truly excellent graphics options (6970M in current iMac is a big exception), but by offering a high baseline they've been able to build their operating systems with a minimum level of guaranteed graphics performance.

    Perhaps not unexpectedly, the iPhone / iPad lineup has always offered some of the best graphics available among contemporary smartphones.
    Reply
  • Dustin Sklavos - Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - link

    Think the Mac towers. For a long time, the bottom rung configuration of systems that have almost always started at a brutal $2,499 almost always included what seemed like the worst dedicated GPU they could find. Reply
  • AssBall - Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - link

    That still doesn't present a good argument from a reasonable perspective. You don't need a high powered gpu in an i-mac, because you aren't going to run any software that stresses it. imacs and aio in general are for the fung-shui crowds. A lesser gpu in a 27" will run games fine at max with a good subsystem. Gamers don't buy imacs, or any macs, for gaming. They are a nice piece of usefull furniture but nobody should pretend they aren't a luxury item. The rest of us will sb happy to settle for an upgradable, cheaper, run of the mill pc with more versatility. Reply
  • vol7ron - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link

    Actually, I know someone that purchased one of these. I was skeptical at first, but was quite surprised [in a good way] when I had used it.

    Mind you, they don't do any serious performance-driven use (gaming/video editing), but video and office products worked well and it had a few neat touch-driven games that came with it.
    Reply
  • guidryp - Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - link

    Sounds like you are making things up. Did you read where it says there is "NO Touch Screen"? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now