Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Dell's 27-Inch LCD Does 2560 x 1440 But No LEDs

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 44 comments

Dell's ultraSharp U2711 27-inch LCD monitor offers a high resolution and a decent pricetag.

Looking for a new LCD screen with a high resolution but without the space-eating size of a large display? Meet Dell's UltraSharp U2711, a 27-inch monitor slapped with a modest $1,099.00 pricetag and a tasty 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) native resolution (60 Hz). This LCD should be ideal for PC gamers HD video enthusiasts alike. Although at that pixel density, we suspect graphic designers and photographers will find the new panel a joy to work with.

Despite its high density resolution, the U2711 uses passes over LEDs, and instead is backlit by a cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL). The monitor offers a 16:9 aspect ratio, a maximum dynamic contrast ratio of 80,000:1, and a response time of 6ms. For gamers and designers, Dell has thrown in Custom Color modes that enables the screen to cover a wide, "outstanding" color gamut.

Dell's U2711 also comes packed with a USB 2.0 hub (1 upstream, 4 downstream) and plenty of connectivity: HDMI 1.3, DisplayPort, DVI-D with HDCP, and more. There's also a 8 in 1 media reader so you can view photos straight off an SD card.

Dell offers a variety of monitor accessories, cables, and warranties that will jack the price up a considerable amount.

Discuss
Display all 44 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 31 Hide
    grieve , February 11, 2010 5:45 PM
    sliemwhy would I spend $1000 for 3 more inches?

    most men would spend a lot more then $1000 for 3 more inches :) 
  • 18 Hide
    amdchuck , February 11, 2010 5:10 PM
    Stupid contrast ratio's....why even post them, they don't mean squat.
  • 18 Hide
    griffed88 , February 11, 2010 5:10 PM
    a modest $1,099 price tag? lol modest
Other Comments
  • 13 Hide
    Zoonie , February 11, 2010 4:55 PM
    The amount of grammatical errors made me dizzy.
    Nice product nevertheless; will look forward to its release.
  • 18 Hide
    amdchuck , February 11, 2010 5:10 PM
    Stupid contrast ratio's....why even post them, they don't mean squat.
  • 18 Hide
    griffed88 , February 11, 2010 5:10 PM
    a modest $1,099 price tag? lol modest
  • 5 Hide
    sliem , February 11, 2010 5:10 PM
    Ok not for me. I could get 22-24" for under $300 why would I spend $1000 for 3 more inches?
  • 5 Hide
    fooldog01 , February 11, 2010 5:23 PM
    sliemOk not for me. I could get 22-24" for under $300 why would I spend $1000 for 3 more inches?


    While I agree, I do not think we are the target market. That would explain why the pricing seems ridiculous to us.
  • 13 Hide
    wintermint , February 11, 2010 5:24 PM
    sliemOk not for me. I could get 22-24" for under $300 why would I spend $1000 for 3 more inches?


    The size of the monitor is not the only factor that affects the price tag... have you forgot that the resolution is 2560x1440?
  • -6 Hide
    shmidlab , February 11, 2010 5:32 PM
    You can get a 28" monitor for $300 today.
  • -2 Hide
    bydesign , February 11, 2010 5:40 PM
    So who is the target market, thats not good for anyone and really pricey.
  • 6 Hide
    figgus , February 11, 2010 5:40 PM
    You guys could also buy a 30' diagonal monitor for $30. Of course, it's resolution is 1x1 with 1 bit color depth... It's called a floodlight.

    Seriously, resolution makes a huge difference and if you don't understand that then you shouldn't get that monitor. Personally, I have a 30" monitor at 2560x1600 and the resolution is amazing... I wouldn't trade it for a 42" HDTV at close range.
  • 31 Hide
    grieve , February 11, 2010 5:45 PM
    sliemwhy would I spend $1000 for 3 more inches?

    most men would spend a lot more then $1000 for 3 more inches :) 
  • 4 Hide
    restatement3dofted , February 11, 2010 5:47 PM
    shmidlabYou can get a 28" monitor for $300 today.


    You say that as if size is the only determinative factor in pricing a monitor. You cannot buy a new 28" monitor with specs comparable to this one for anywhere near $300.

    This has considerably higher resolution than your $300 monitor (which is likely to be 1920x1200 or 1920x1080, so it will have drastically higher pixel density), and is highly likely to have an IPS panel, so it will have infinitely better color gamut/reproduction and viewing angles than your budget 28" TN-panel.

    You get what you pay for, and for $300, you won't get a monitor anywhere close to this. If you're a gamer or casual surfer, that's probably fine. If you do design work, however, that $300 28" won't cut it.
  • 5 Hide
    JohnnyLucky , February 11, 2010 5:48 PM
    For those who might not know - This monitor as well as a matching 24 inch monitor and a 30 inch monitor have S-IPS panels made by LG Electonics. Dell, HP, NEC, and LG all use the same panels in their own versions of the 3 monitors. They are designed for professional photography and other high end graphics applications. They are not panels designed for gamers.

    The monitors are actually entry level units for professionals. You should see what the high end monitors cost, especially the ones designed for medical scanners.
  • 1 Hide
    andrewcutter , February 11, 2010 5:49 PM
    is there any lcd screen out there on which i can do video post processiong on my 16 bit renders. To the best of my knowledge the most a lcd screen support is 8 bit. I just asked as it is mentioned here that graphics pros will find this usefull. So does that mean that this can support true editing of 16 bit and 32 bit float files.....
  • -1 Hide
    brother shrike , February 11, 2010 5:57 PM
    6ms isn't that great for gaming. Just sayin'.
  • -3 Hide
    carlhenry , February 11, 2010 6:17 PM
    grievemost men would spend a lot more then $1000 for 3 more inches


    your talking about the lcd... right? lol.
  • -1 Hide
    anamaniac , February 11, 2010 6:17 PM
    I'll wait for Samsung to give me a 30" bezel-free SPVA 4K (3840x2160) and link 5 together (all in portrait mode, of course).
    =)

    I see no reason to get this over a current 30" 2560x1600 monitors.
  • 4 Hide
    AMW1011 , February 11, 2010 6:25 PM
    Brother Shrike6ms isn't that great for gaming. Just sayin'.


    That is 6ms GTG or gray to gray. The GTG response time tells you almost nothing. If the GTG response time is under 10ms then it is a fair bet that it is fast enough. It is the CTC or color to color response time that can cause problems, IE ghosting. This monitor uses an H-IPS panel, not a TN panel, and is 8-bit which has poor GTG speeds but good CTC speeds. A 6ms 8-bit panel is usually equal to a 2/3ms TN/6-bit panel in CTC.

    As for this monitor, $1100 is a bargain for this thing, it is truly a masterpiece. My biggest complaint with 30" monitors was not the resolution, but the size of the monitor. I could likely live with a 27", but much more would be too big as even my current 24" monitor is pushing it.

    This thing has a pixel density of 11845 per square inch! A 24" monitor with a 1920x1200 resolution has a pixel density of 8900 per square inch, that is 33% more pixels per square inch, that is MASSIVE!

    If only I could afford this...
  • 4 Hide
    cjl , February 11, 2010 6:31 PM
    zelanniiwell, for $2100 I can get an i7 iMac 27", well equipped, or for $1099 I can get this monitor from Dell, then for another $1549 add a i7 machine with lower specs, no webcam, no wireless keyboard, and no Mimo 5GHz adapter... Gee, $400 more for less machine, and not all-in-one, and with a Dell brand name, more expensive support contract, and support from india? no thanks...

    Might I point out that the iMac uses notebook components?

    Therefore, you could build a faster desktop for much, much less than $1500. For $1000, you could build a desktop that would blow the 27" iMac away.
  • 1 Hide
    restatement3dofted , February 11, 2010 6:33 PM
    AndrewCutteris there any lcd screen out there on which i can do video post processiong on my 16 bit renders. To the best of my knowledge the most a lcd screen support is 8 bit. I just asked as it is mentioned here that graphics pros will find this usefull. So does that mean that this can support true editing of 16 bit and 32 bit float files.....


    There's a bit of a difference between the two values that you're talking about. 24-bit color, in the traditional sense (also known as "true color") can display just over 16.7 million distinct colors, all within the RGB color space.

    An 8-bit monitor (usually with IPS panels) does display 24-bit "true" color (i.e., 16.7 million distinct colors). A 6-bit monitor (TN-panels, usually), however, can only display about 262,000 colors. It displays the rest of the color spectrum by effectively blending colors next to each other - so you can't get "true" color out of a 6-bit LCD.

    When a monitor is labeled "8-bit", that doesn't mean that it can't display 24-bit color. An 8-bit monitor simply uses 8-bits to represent red, 8-bits for green, and 8-bits for blue (2^8 x 2^8 x 2^8 = 16.7M). A 6-bit monitor, on the other hand, uses only 6-bits for each, and therefore produces far fewer distinct colors (2^6 x 2^6 x 2^6 = 262,144).

    And FYI, "32-bit color" doesn't *usually* refer to actual 32-bit color. It's usually 24-bit color with 8 bits of non-color data. However, there are some 10-bit LCDs showing up on the market these days that can display more colors (2^10 x 2^10 x 2^10 = over 1 billion distinct colors).

    For most purposes, you shouldn't need more than an 8-bit LCD panel.
Display more comments