NEC EA294WMi 29" Monitor Review: 21:9 At Twice The Price

Results: Pixel Response And Input Lag

To perform these tests, we use a high-speed camera that shoots at 1000 frames per second. Analyzing the video frame-by-frame allows us to observe the exact time it takes to go from a zero-percent signal to a 100% white field.

The pattern generator is placed at the base of the monitor so our camera can capture the precise moment its front-panel LED lights up, indicating that a video signal is being received. With this camera placement, we can easily see how long it takes to fully display a pattern after pressing the button on the generator’s remote. This testing methodology allows for accurate and repeatable results when comparing panels.

Here’s a shot of our test setup. Click on the photo to enlarge.

The brighter section of the camera’s screen is what actually appears in the video. You can see the lights of the pattern generator in the bottom of the viewfinder. We flash the pattern on and off five times and average the results.

The EA294WMi’s screen draw time is consistent with other IPS screens we’ve tested. Like all of the monitors in our comparison group, there is no visual evidence of motion blur. Fast-moving video looks smooth and natural as it should.

For those concerned with first-person gaming, here are the lag results.

If input lag is a concern for you in fast-paced shooters, NEC's EA294WMi is not the right choice. Its screen draw time is plenty fast, but lag this high might be a problem for gamers with quick reflexes.

To put this into context, 94 milliseconds represent over five frames at 60 Hz. This means when you click your mouse button, a shot will fire five to six frames afterwards. Remembering that the average human reaction time is 200 ms (12 frames), this might not be a problem. But if you're playing competitively, it's a disadvantage, for sure. 

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
29 comments
    Your comment
  • Considering this screen is $805 for this monitor on Newegg, I rather get a nice 2560X1440, like the Dell U2713, for the money, or dual 1920X1200 screens. 2560X1080 really isn't an ideal resolution for any practical application.
    8
  • $750 for this! bahh!
    3
  • Triple Post! Triple Post! Triple Post! But yeah too much money
    2
  • 1061792 said:
    Triple Post! Triple Post! Triple Post! But yeah too much money


    Darn thing lagged on me!
    1
  • Well this is a professional monitor so the high price is not that surprising. Still if i were on the hunt for a monitor this wouldn't be my choice.
    0
  • No and screw LG and others that model them.
    2
  • You could get 2 Dell Ultrasharp U2412M's plus a dual monitor mount for the price of this, it just doesn't make sense at this price point.

    There's also the issue of ultra wide screen. This seems to have a niche market that doesn't exist, a professional grade monitor that's only particularly good at watching movies. People who just watch TV and movies all day aren't going to be willing to spend more than 250 on a monitor [and even this is probably outside what most people would spend], and those who want/need professional features will want as much screen real estate as possible, opting for large 16:9 or 16:10 monitors.

    This is exacerbated by the fact that this aspect ratio is literally ONLY helpful for movies, not even TV. having big black bars on each side during a TV show or older movie that doesn't have the cinematic aspect ratio is way more distracting than the thin bars at the top and bottom created by cinematic movies on normal 16:9/10 monitors.
    2
  • I dislike this new trend. I'd rather have a 27 inch with 2560x1440. Why are we constantly trying to lower our screen resolutions. This 1080p trend needs to stop.
    5
  • 382074 said:
    This 1080p trend needs to stop.

    I would prefer 2560x1600 on a 24" screen myself.

    The problem is the bulk of offer and demand gravitates around 1920x1080 since that is what most common forms of entertainment are optimized for. With 1080p screens starting as low as $90, anything higher than that for 3-5X the price becomes a tough sale so these higher-resolution monitors get pitched and priced as "professional" displays instead of trying to compete for people's desktops.

    I paid $270 for my 24" 1200p display four years ago. Equivalent models today are usually listed around $400. To me, this seems to indicate that mainstream interest in higher resolution desktop displays has regressed, hence the switch to pitching those nearly exclusively at professionals and enthusiasts.
    0
  • Seems to me that if your a fan of the 4:3 ratio, and want a seamless dual monitor experience, this might be the way to go. For once, a person might have reasonable room to put two windows side by side. And it sure as hell takes up less desk space than two separate monitors.
    0
  • Other than possibly using this with an emulator as a DS XXXL, I'm not sure what advantage this has over a 2560x1440 panel and just setting a 2560x1080 custom resolution...

    The only issue I can see would be black bars, but in my experience with a Trinitron CRT if the black bars are actually black and not grey then their presence isn't a problem at all. So being annoyed with "black" (grey) bars usually means you're actually annoyed with your display's poor black level.
    0
  • Like a few others, I'd rather have a 27" with the same resolution (already have an ASUS IPS). Now that G-sync is starting to come out, I'd like to see IPS (or other panels better than TN) come out with G-sync.
    0
  • Some say ultra-wide...I say ultra-SHORT.
    3
  • Why are we calling this 21:9 monitor... I thought the idea was to use the more reduced fraction... Can't we say 7:3 and not insult everyone's intelligence.
    2
  • I have twin 19" 1280x1024 monitors here on my desk and would much prefer one 27" 2560x1440 over my current setup or a 2560x1080. I like more vertical screen real estate.
    0
  • Oh the days when 16:10 was the high end standard. Does no one here remember the glorious days of 2560x1600?

    And BlueAngel, 21:9 is to signify a relationship with 16:9 since everyone knows that. Kind of how 16:10 should be 8:5 but no one says that because 16:10 can be more easily related to 16:9.
    0
  • The Dell 3014 with 2560x1600 LED back light was on sale for like $900 just the other day.
    0
  • If they made a TN version panel with little input lag at this resolution and higher than 60Hz refresh with good contrast, it would be cheaper and sell like hotcakes to gamers. It would also sell to non-gamers because the price would be lower for twice the screen real estate. Most people have little need for precise color accuracy since most aren't photographers or videographers. Most people don't need extreme viewing angles on a computer monitor since they sit right in front of the thing (actually need only around 90 degrees of viewing angle or less if your head is only 12" away from a 29" screen and even less further away). Why haven't they manufactured TN panels in a greater variation of higher resolutions since 1080p and 1920x1200 hit the market, I do not know?

    We've been through days of 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1080, 1366x768, 1600x1900, 1650x1080, 1920x1080, 1920x1200 - I'm sure I probably left a few out - and then it stops and you have to get an IPS if you want more pixels. Does anyone know the business and why they won't give us more pixels on a TN monitor?

    I keep hoping the next review will show us an IPS monitor that will be the one that convinces me to get a higher res screen, but even the OC'd IPS monitors still have the inherent input lag.
    0
  • 299576 said:
    If they made a TN version panel with little input lag at this resolution and higher than 60Hz refresh with good contrast, it would be cheaper and sell like hotcakes to gamers. It would also sell to non-gamers because the price would be lower for twice the screen real estate. Most people have little need for precise color accuracy since most aren't photographers or videographers. Most people don't need extreme viewing angles on a computer monitor since they sit right in front of the thing (actually need only around 90 degrees of viewing angle or less if your head is only 12" away from a 29" screen and even less further away). Why haven't they manufactured TN panels in a greater variation of higher resolutions since 1080p and 1920x1200 hit the market, I do not know? We've been through days of 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1080, 1366x768, 1600x1900, 1650x1080, 1920x1080, 1920x1200 - I'm sure I probably left a few out - and then it stops and you have to get an IPS if you want more pixels. Does anyone know the business and why they won't give us more pixels on a TN monitor? I keep hoping the next review will show us an IPS monitor that will be the one that convinces me to get a higher res screen, but even the OC'd IPS monitors still have the inherent input lag.


    I have only limited knowledge of this, but firstly, TN is a known 'bad' technology. Even if people don't know how or why it's bad, a lot still have heard it is. Not that I necessarily agree, but I also own 2 Dell Ultrasharp monitors because I care for myself. Secondly, I would imagine with most smartphones using IPS that there is an economies of scale in manufacturing that makes TN less cost effective. Don't that for certain, but it wouldn't surprise me.

    I'd say another major reason that pixel increase only goes past 1200p in IPS forms is because people who wouldn't notice the difference between TN and IPS would GENERALLY not notice the difference between a 24-27 inch monitor being 1080p or 1440p, because they mostly watch content that maxes at 1080p and aren't as concerned with insane detail in games. There are always exceptions to this [as you very well might be], but it wouldn't be a large market.
    0
  • 914194 said:
    ... I have only limited knowledge of this, but firstly, TN is a known 'bad' technology. Even if people don't know how or why it's bad, a lot still have heard it is. Not that I necessarily agree, but I also own 2 Dell Ultrasharp monitors because I care for myself. Secondly, I would imagine with most smartphones using IPS that there is an economies of scale in manufacturing that makes TN less cost effective. Don't that for certain, but it wouldn't surprise me. I'd say another major reason that pixel increase only goes past 1200p in IPS forms is because people who wouldn't notice the difference between TN and IPS would GENERALLY not notice the difference between a 24-27 inch monitor being 1080p or 1440p, because they mostly watch content that maxes at 1080p and aren't as concerned with insane detail in games. There are always exceptions to this [as you very well might be], but it wouldn't be a large market.


    I think most people can tell the difference between an IPS and TN monitor, but since responsiveness (through reduced input lag and reduced response times and increased refresh rates) hasn't historically been an aim of IPS monitor manufacturers, to me, TN monitors and IPS monitors are clearly built for different purposes.

    Also, for me, it's not about insane detail but rather the ability to see more of what's going on on a single panel when it comes to gaming. As a matter of fact, I'd like the same level of detail, but the ability to see more on a single panel.

    Another question I've often pondered is I know most people's HDTVs (whether LCD, LED, or LCD/LED) don't use IPS technology, so why can I view them from just about any angle without much color or image distortion at all, but go at a PC from an angle and the TN monitor lets you know?
    0