Power Consumption

With the U2711 Dell opted for a CCFL backlight to deliver a wider color gamut. Apple moved to LED to reduce the size of the display's chassis and cut power consumption. Even while charging a MacBook Pro and running at full brightness the 27-inch LED Cinema Display never got more than warm. Part of this is due to the vent in the back of the display:

The display is also just generally power efficient:

LCD Power Draw (Kill-A-Watt)

The 27-inch LED Cinema Display tops out at 98W at full brightness, only saving about 14W compared to my old 30. The power efficiency is greatly improved however. At 98W you get a brighter display than almost anything on the list. Note that this is peak power consumption without a notebook attached to the MagSafe port. I plugged a 2010 15-inch MacBook Pro that was nearly dead and measured a max power draw of 166W at the wall for the display + charging the notebook.

LCD Power Draw (Kill-A-Watt)

At the lowest brightness setting the new Cinema Display sips power, 23W to be exact. You can even go up to 50% brightness (~100 nits) and never pull more than 40W at the wall.

Processing and Input Latency Final Words


View All Comments

  • andy o - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    Just in case, I'm talking as opposed to 16:10 ratio. That's wide enough. The 2560x1600 resolution stays barely alive with the 30" screens as you say, but the 1920x1200 and especially the 1680x1050 resolutions are all but dead already.

    If I wanted another laptop like the one I have with a 1680x1050 res on a 15" or so screen, can I get that anymore? The closest I've seen is 1600x900 which already seems too low.
  • fabarati - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    Anand was getting jigyy with it!

    Also, not only is the resolutiion 90% of 2560x1600, the size is also 90% of the 30".
  • ytoledano1 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    27" is 81% of 30", when comparing areas, you need to square the ratio.

    A pixel pitch of 0.25 for 2560x1600 @ 30" is already tiny, with 0.23 for 2560x1440 @ 27" I'll probably have to use bigger fonts everywhere and still have problems with some applications.
  • ijhammo - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    erm 27" is referring to diagonal length, so the 27" screen diagonal is 90% of the 30" screen diagonal. Also, pixel count is 90% too. Reply
  • chris1317 - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    16:9 is really the worst aspect ratio I have used on a computer screen. Although the difference does not seem much on paper when you actually use one you can see what a backwards step it is. I think I will stick with my 1920x1200 display for now until the manufacturers see some sense and supply what im after. Reply
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    Dell already does the perfect monitors, you just have to be able to afford them.

    Way better than this Apple offering..

  • IceDread - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    Actually, I prefer HP monitors above dell. Dell may have more options but the color on dell aint good. It is common that it's way to dark on the right side when you have a white background.

    The game mode is green/ blueish so you are stuck with high input lag in games if you want decent colours.

    So I actually prefer HP in this case.
  • YouGotServed - Friday, October 1, 2010 - link

    You sir, are speaking out of your butt. Please get facts straight before speaking.


    This is the pinnacle of Dell monitors. If you can find a comparable HP display, I will be impressed.
  • IceDread - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    I agree. A 27" 16:9 is like a 24" 16:10. The loss of height is very annoying.

    I think it's a sales trick. They write 27" and think they can charge you more for it.
  • jasperjones - Tuesday, September 28, 2010 - link

    Seems the U2711, which received an Gold Editor's choice award from AT, is still the way to go for anyone except hardcore Apple fanbois. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now