Nothing in the QNIX took me by surprise when I reviewed it. The menu system, while basic, allows for some adjustments to be made to the display. The monitor stand is like most other entry-level displays and has very little you can adjust on it aside from the tilt. The inputs are nicely side-mounted, which I wish more companies would do. It's not a particularly stylish display, but then we wouldn't expect that from a budget QHD LCD.

The two largest issues in performance are the gamma curve and the uniformity. Since I expect few people to be calibrating a $360 display, the out of the box performance is pretty important and the gamma curve is an issue. Combined with the higher black levels and poor contrast ratios, it leads to a fairly flat, washed out image in comparison to other displays. This incorrect gamma can be corrected by using calibration software, but it only goes so far and you can't completely fix the problem, and there are no user controls to do try to improve the out-of-box experience.

The display uniformity also rules out the monitor from doing serious image editing or other color critical work on it. Even those professionals that have calibration hardware and software will likely want to avoid it because different areas of the screen will display a different image. There are also some color issues but those aren’t large enough to cause me great concern.

So for general use, how is the QNIX? The image is fine, if a bit washed out. The blacks are higher than I’d like them to be as well. For some users the input lag will be a concern, but there are other 27” panels out there that offer 3-13ms lower input lag if you need it. With multiple inputs that support whatever you want to connect, it is certainly more useful than the DVI-only models that came before it.

If you just want a 27" QHD display that has all the inputs you need and lacks any dealbreaker flaws, the QNIX will fit the bill. If you want to hit a really low price point you'll have to make some sacrifices and for the most part, the QNIX made good choices. I do wish the gamma was closer to 2.2 since that would really help image quality. If you want to have higher image quality and color accuracy, spending $100 more for the Monoprice IPS-Glass Panel Pro 27", or getting it on sale, will be a better choice. However, on straight bang for the buck, the QNIX does well for general daily use.

Display Lag, Power Use and Color Gamut


View All Comments

  • coburn_c - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    Wow I always assumed these cheapo panels were garbage, but 500:1 contrast and a 50% uniformity? I'll take a cheap 1080p *VA over this any day. Reply
  • peterfares - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    If color accuracy is most important to you then that's probably good idea.

    I on the other hand don't need color accuracy for what I use my computer for. For me, resolution is king.
  • dylan522p - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    I con't really mind the color accuracy. My problem was the unifromity, you can visually see the difference between blacks on one part of the screen and on another part. The white point is also off. Both of those things were deal breakers for me. Reply
  • jtrdfw - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link

    Back light bleed is the most common complaint with QNIX (and related) since that has to do with the manufacturing quality of the metal frame the panel is in, then case quality. Colors, contrast ratio, input lag, refresh rate, and quality of the panel are not. Note that this is not the common Qnix 2710, but a different and far less popular version.

    In general, it is an unbeatable quality monitor for ~$310 shipped. And shipping takes 1-2 days from Korea (literally).

    It's unfortunate someone sent them a True10 version of this as it is not the same.
  • marcosears - Thursday, October 9, 2014 - link

    This is just another pretty bad monitor from QNIX. I don't see why people get it when the are much better monitors on the market. /Marco from Reply
  • edlee - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    I am troubled by the fact that the Dell U2713Hm, samsung were left out of most benchmarks results which would compared better than having the dell 32" led in the tests?

    Its still readily available, and it would have have been a better comparison since it matches same resolution and screen size.
  • Sabresiberian - Saturday, April 12, 2014 - link

    They don't all test out so poorly. Of course if you really want a quality display for production work, pay the price, this is never going to work for you.

    As I always say, fit your hardware choice to your purpose; not everything will work for your tastes or needs. :)
  • laweijfmvo - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    sorry, but this is just poorly written. it took me until the bottom of the first page to realize this wasn't a 4k screen, and sentences like this just baffle me:

    "... and utilized the same panel as more expensive offerings, though often with a lower grade panel."
  • rpg1966 - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    Yes. The line under the heading referring to 2560x1440 confused me as well... Reply
  • pattycake0147 - Friday, April 11, 2014 - link

    I too was confused about the resolution of the monitor. The first line of the article talked about "QuadHD displays from South Korea" which made me think that's what I was going to be reading about.

    Your quoted line about panels caught me off guard too, but after carefully re-reading it about four times I figured out what the author meant.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now