HP ZR2740w - High Resolution IPS that Doesn't Break the Bank
by Chris Heinonen on March 16, 2012 1:15 AM ESTBrightness and Contrast
Is your work environment bright? Are there massive spotlights behind you that shine directly onto your screen? Well, don’t worry; the ZR2740w will produce more than enough light for you. I’d expect screens to get a little dimmer as the size gets larger, since a backlight would need to be more powerful and more expensive to light it up, but apparently that is not the case. The HP managed to put out almost 450 nits of brightness when turned up all the way, which is plenty for anyone no matter what their work environment.
I can only assume that to evenly light up a 27” or larger LCD panel, vendors need to use larger, more powerful backlights and it is as easy to use one that does this much brightness as one that only does 250 nits of light, but I’m going to say this is a good thing. The downside to a larger light is that it might cause the black levels to be higher than on other displays, and that does seem to be the case here with the HP.
The black levels on the HP are higher, but they are right in line with other 27” and 30” displays, so it really is a middle of the road result for it. Given the cost difference between the displays, that the HP equals them in performance is very nice to see on here. One area that the larger panels fell behind in was contrast ratio, where they only manage around 750:1 which is a little disappointing given their cost. The HP manages to exceed this, offering over 1,000:1 at both maximum and minimum brightness levels.
The only high resolution display we have tested that can exceed this is the Apple Cinema Display, but it only does that at peak brightness as the contrast ratio falls off at lower light levels. The more consistent results from the HP gives it the best contrast of any high resolution display currently tested in my mind. Of course a larger panel also means a higher chance of uniformity issues, so hopefully the powerful backlight is able to correct for that.
There is certainly a bright spot in the center of the screen and fall-off around the edges, but the variance comes in at a very respectable 4.67%, which outperforms many smaller panels. The black uniformity also comes in very well, with just 6.6% variance. Of course I’d expect the black level to perform better since the higher black level in general will lead to a smaller variance percentage, even if the amount of variance is higher. To account for that, I’ll start to report the percentage for the white uniformity, since that target is always 200 nits, and the actual variance for the black level, in this case 0.011 nits, as we target the minimum level for black. I wish the units were the same so it was easier to compare, but to do that we would have to have a black level target, which would hurt displays that can do a lower level of black than others.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
119 Comments
View All Comments
flowrush - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link
"nothing even close" is wrong. There are plenty of other monitors exceeding its performance, particularly the 120hz refresh rate. I'll take an Acer GD235HZ ANY day over the zr20w. 30" is way too big for fps games I play anyhow. 'Gaming' monitors are all relative to what type of games you play. In super fast twitch fps games like Quake/Unreal/Tribes, you're going to easily notice the difference in smoothness and seeing whats going on around you during dynamic fights requiring constant 180+ degree turns. And you don't need a $2200 fw900 to get a great crt. My CPD-G520 is just as good as the fw900, except it doesn't hold the wide resolutions (un necessary for gaming, 4:3 or 8:5 is fine by many). and can be had on craigslist for less than $100.thunderjunk - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
The best part of the article is the Buy.com add at the top of the page. Selling this monitor for $888.99. I noticed it RIGHT after i read "... a street price that comes in at $700 or below..."I then immediately facepalmed.
JarredWalton - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
Ha... unfortunately, we don't control the linked in ads or where the prices come from. Many places sell it for under $700, so boycott Best Buy. :-)Chapbass - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
I know its popular to bash best buy, but thunderjunk clearly said buy.com, not best buy...Kjella - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
Hehe I've had the same thing at our national version of pricewatch... I just searched for best prices for component X, then I get an ad out on the side offering the component for a much higher price. It's like "come to us, our prices are SO much higher". That's what you get with keyword advertising.ComputerGuy2006 - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
id pay over 2k easily for a monitor that does 2560x1600 @120hz.If they can do higher resolutions on TV's or higher DPI on phones, why cant we get a legit monitor with a better res then 2560x1600 or a better refresh rate then 60hz?
bobsmith1492 - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
That's 11Gbit/sec (24-bit color x 2560 x 1600 x 120), a lot of data to process... on a 1920x1080 TV it's only 6Gbit/sec.It looks like DVI does 1.65Gbit/sec per wire pair, with 3 pairs in a standard DVI cable (4.95Gbit/sec) and 6 pairs in a dual-link DVI (9.9Gbit/sec). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interf...
So, even a dual-link DVI cable couldn't support 2560x1600x120Hz. Looks like it's time for triple-link! :-)
Juddog - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
Displayport could handle it though. 17.28 Gbit/s for the newest standard.B3an - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
DVI???It's not 2005 anymore :)
Theres Display Port 1.2 and HDMI 1.4 now. All my 2560x1600 monitors have both. And higher end AMD cards have had both as well for some time. The 6000 and 7000 series have DP 1.2 which should be able to handle 2560x1600 @ 120hz.
Zoomer - Friday, March 16, 2012 - link
It should be able to handle 90 Hz at this resolution, though. And the panels should be able to handle it, too.