Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Results: Color Gamut And Performance

HP ZR2740w Versus Asus PB278Q: QHD 27" Monitors, Tested
By

Color gamut is measured using a saturation sweep that samples the six main colors (red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, and yellow) at five saturation levels (20, 40, 60, 80, and 100%). This provides a more realistic view of color accuracy. Since there are no color management controls on either monitor, we're only showing the post-calibration graphs (although we’re sure they'd look pretty much the same out-of-box).

HP ZR2740w

The HP stacks up pretty well in the chroma accuracy department. Nearly all of the IPS panels we’ve measured lately have the same over-saturated blue primary and magenta secondary, but the errors are small. The luminance charts look quite good with near-perfect numbers until the 100 percent level where blue, red, and magenta dip a little. To our eyes, the ZR2740w’s color is very natural and pleasing, with just the right amount of saturation. Even though we took the above measurements at a 200 cd/m2 brightness level, with this monitor, you can expect similar performance at any level you choose.

Asus PB278Q

The PB278Q measures nearly the same, except that blue is a little more over-saturated. Where the HP kept its color error consistent at all five stimulus levels, Asus’ error increases as you go up the brightness scale. And the luminance doesn’t fare quite as well either. Green, yellow, and cyan are a little too bright, while blue, magenta, and red are not quite bright enough. In normal content, we could see little difference between the two screens. Given the superior grayscale performance of the Asus, we give it a slight edge in overall color quality.

Let’s see where the ZR2740w and PB278Q fit in with other IPS monitors.

None of our recently-tested monitors show a visible color error. At 2.39 and 2.78 Delta E, the HP and Asus perform well. The most impressive screen here is still the Auria, which delivers great color accuracy at a very attractive price point.

Gamut Volume: Adobe RGB 1998

There are basically two categories of displays in use today: those that conform to the sRGB standard like HDTVs and wide-gamut panels that show as much as 100 percent of the AdobeRGB 1998 spec. We use Gamutvision to calculate the gamut volume, based on an ICC profile created from actual measurements.

All of the IPS panels based on either LG or Samsung glass are sRGB/Rec 709 screens, and not designed to render the full Adobe RGB 1998 gamut. Even though the HP ZR2740w displays the highest percentage, it is a tad bit over-saturated for hi-def video and gaming content. When we say a tad, we mean barely noticeable. A perfect value would be 68.8 percent, assuming of course that the primary and secondary colors are on their targets. In real-world use, a gamut volume between 65 and 75 percent means natural and accurate color in nearly all situations, except for professional photo work, where you really need the enlarged gamut.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 36 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    KOKing , May 16, 2013 10:24 PM
    I've had one of these HPs at work for a couple of months (replacing an early 24" 1920x1200 IPS), which I've set fairly low), but as this review says, it's not really necessary. I was a little disappointed that, possibly because of the aspect ratio change to 16:9, it doesn't _feel_ like a lot more screen real estate.
  • -8 Hide
    Immoral Medic , May 16, 2013 11:13 PM
    Add 120hz, THEN it's enthusiast level.
  • -2 Hide
    bit_user , May 16, 2013 11:18 PM
    Where are all the OLED monitors? They should be cheap and plentiful, by now!
  • 8 Hide
    cangelini , May 16, 2013 11:59 PM
    SIDDHARTH MISHRAUseless review, the uniformity on these screens is pathetic, tried three of each, the color temp difference across the screen is over 1000K. Toms has very poor reviewers, only prad.de and overclockers.ru do reliable screen reviews. And btw the U2713HM is regularly on sale for $500 or so, the ZR2740W is now an overpriced relic lacking even an OSD.

    Screen uniformity is covered on page eight, and low points on both screens are discussed.
  • 0 Hide
    flong777 , May 17, 2013 2:03 AM
    Am I right by saying that the Asus monitor has more accurate color and better grayscale performance.
  • 2 Hide
    Marcus52 , May 17, 2013 2:07 AM
    Surprised that the Asus has slightly better lag results, as one of the reasons for not having an OSD is to reduce lag, and it can make a big difference. Of course, how you measure lag can get different results, and I've seen much lower numbers for the ZR2740w:

    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr2740w_v2.htm

    tftcentral is showing the HP as having far less lag than the Asus panel.
  • 4 Hide
    ceberle , May 17, 2013 5:07 AM
    The Asus certainly calibrates better than the HP; mainly because it can be calibrated. The HP is slightly better out of the box for grayscale and its chromaticity is also a touch better. Both screens have identical color to the eye. Only the instruments can tell the difference.

    Christian
  • 5 Hide
    ceberle , May 17, 2013 5:12 AM
    Regarding the lag results: It's hard to compare numbers from one review to another when the testing methods are so different. With our high-speed camera procedure, the only fair comparison is between the monitors we've tested. I would defend our response test as definitive though. Actually watching the screen draw in slow motion leaves no room for interpretation. The lag test is also consistent since we use the same signal chain for every screen. There is never a change in video cards, drivers, peripherals or any other device that might affect the result.

    Christian
  • 3 Hide
    dgingeri , May 17, 2013 7:22 AM
    I have the HP ZR2740w, and have for over a year now. It's a great looking monitor, and it performas well by my standards, but suffers from a significant lack of both reliability and support. HP's support is massively fragmented. It took me over three hours on the phone to get to the department that actually handled the support for this monitor. (It is a "Commercial" monitor, not business or personal. It's splitting hairs mighty thin, but that's the way HP's support is separated out.) When I finally got through, they sent a tech with a replacement monitor the next day. However, it also has two major hardware issues that render it useless when they occur. Most of the first run monitors had the power supplies die within months. The second run monitors had a serious issue with the control boards. All of them have issues with the USB hub, but it least the monitor keeps working if you don't have the USB cable plugged in. As an owner of one, I would not, under any circumstances, recommend this monitor to anyone.

    HP: the perfect example of a company falling apart because it is both too big and too fragmented.
  • 0 Hide
    ubercake , May 17, 2013 8:42 AM
    Does anyone know how absolute input lag of the IPS monitors compares with that of higher end TN-panel monitors?
  • -1 Hide
    maxinexus , May 17, 2013 9:02 AM
    Who cares about 1440p...where are the 4k gee how long does it going to take!!!
  • 1 Hide
    sempifi99 , May 17, 2013 9:52 AM
    I have had this HP monitor for about 2 years now. It is a good and solid monitor. It turns on in a matter of seconds and the 12 ms response time is not a problem at all. Though I do wish it was a bit quicker, but you can not have everything at this price point. Also, there is software calibration to adjust the color output so the lack of monitor adjustment did not bother me at all.


    What I don't understand is the difference of input lag compared to other reviews. The Acer has been measured at 16.6 ms while the HP is an amazing 3.6 ms with a CRT being used as the zero set point. I am not sure the exact toms hardware testing methodology but it seems to synthetic, not representing real world performance.
  • 0 Hide
    ceberle , May 17, 2013 12:56 PM
    The testing procedure is explained in the review. We shoot video at 1000 fps of a black to white screen draw. Then we simply count the number of frames it takes for the white field to fill the screen. The input lag is measured the same way. The video shows the pattern generator's lights flashing when the signal is sent to the monitor. We count the frames between the flash and the full rendering of the pattern to arrive at the input lag measurement. We do this five times and average the results.
    -Christian
  • -1 Hide
    Nintendo Maniac 64 , May 17, 2013 1:35 PM
    So I guess I'm the only one interested in a monitor's upscaling quality? I mean, we don't always play the latest AAA games - I myself like to play some Touhou from time to time, but it's locked to a 640x480 window which is pretty tiny on a high-res display. That leaves you with fullscreen which puts you at the mercy of your monitor's and/or GPU's upscaling ability.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , May 17, 2013 2:24 PM
    Hp when oh when are you going to make a 30 inch 2560 x 1600 led or oled display or better yet a 4K ready version at 30 inches or better??
  • 1 Hide
    Spooderman , May 17, 2013 5:17 PM
    Considering the cost of such a panel, probably not for the next 5 or so years.
    soldier2013Hp when oh when are you going to make a 30 inch 2560 x 1600 led or oled display or better yet a 4K ready version at 30 inches or better??

  • 0 Hide
    mczak1 , May 17, 2013 8:43 PM
    No workaround for other resolutions? Seriously? Last time I checked gpus had output scalers (since about 15 years or so...). Maybe you need to activate it manually if the driver can't figure out the monitor can do scaling on its own but pretty sure it should work...
  • 1 Hide
    agnickolov , May 17, 2013 10:54 PM
    Quote:
    With UHD (Ultra HD, 4K, or 2160p) just around the corner, QHD represents the highest pixel count that you can put on your desktop right now.

    Technically, there's also 2880x1800, but it's only on iMac-s so far. Still, the panels exist...
  • 0 Hide
    MasterMace , May 17, 2013 11:46 PM
    1440 and 1600p are now old. 2160p is where it's at :) 
Display more comments