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 than sampling only the 100 percent saturations. Since there are no color management controls on the PXL2790MW, we're only showing the post-calibration graphs (although we’re sure they'd look pretty much the same out-of-box).

The color that’s most off the mark is blue, with oversaturation that begins at the 60 percent level. Green, yellow, and cyan are pretty much spot-on perfect at all saturations. Red and magenta are fairly close to their targets. The small errors on the CIE chart are more than balanced out by the near-perfect luminance values. Only 80 and 100 percent blue are below the line. All other colors and levels are within three percent of perfect. This has a tremendously positive effect on the final Delta E values, which are well below the threshold of visibility.
Let’s see how the PXL2790MW stacks up for color accuracy.

This is the most color-accurate panel we’ve measured to date. Even the factory-calibrated Samsung and Asus screens posted slightly higher numbers. For a monitor marketed as business-class, again, the performance is exceptional. While it doesn’t have the wider Adobe RGB 1998 gamut most photo pros require, it would be perfect for video and presentation graphics work. It also makes the PXL2790MW ideal for gaming and movie-watching.
Gamut Volume: Adobe RGB 1998
There are basically two categories of displays in use today: those that conform to the sRGB/Rec 709 standard like HDTVs, and wide-gamut panels that show as much as 100 percent of the Adobe RGB 1998 spec. We use Gamutvision to calculate the gamut volume, based on an ICC profile created from actual measurements. The chart shows the percentage of both sRGB and Adobe RGB 1998 gamuts.

Planar exceeds the sRGB gamut volume by just over six percent here. This is mainly due to the over-saturation of blue, and to a lesser degree, red and magenta. Given the invisible Delta E errors and superb color luminance, we don’t consider that a problem, though. The overall color quality of Planar's display is pretty much unequalled in our experience.
With only 73.3 percent of the Adobe RGB 1998 gamut, this monitor comes up short as a photographer’s tool. But it does deliver a little more color than other sRGB screens we’ve tested. For gaming, video, and productivity, there is none better.
- Planar PXL2790MW: Clarity, Performance, And Accuracy In QHD
- Packaging, Physical Layout, And Accessories
- OSD Setup And Calibration
- Measurement And Calibration Methodology: How We Test
- Results: Brightness And Contrast
- Results: Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response
- Results: Color Gamut And Performance
- Results: Viewing Angle And Uniformity
- Results: Pixel Response And Input Lag
- Planar's PXL2790MW Gets Top Marks For Clarity And Performance
What do you seriously think that another 27" 2560x1440 60Hz monitor that is already in class with a dozen other models identical to it, deserves an award?
As for those overlord monitors, I wasn't impressed by them, mostly because I had it sitting next to a lightboost 2 120hz TN panel. Yes, the overclocked IPS panel has better colour (though that's largely negated by using it on minimal brightness in a dark room, like we've already been talking about), and it's certainly pretty and gives a lot of screen real estate... but it can't compare to a real 120Hz monitor, especially not one with a strobing backlight.
Now this sort of monitor clarity plus an OS that supports decent enlarged fonts would be really nice. Apps that scale well over a range of sizes would be even nicer. A 1000 pixel wide frame may be good for some people no matter how small it is; others of us would like at least a certain number of inches. Support all of us.
(Yes, I know that this isn't the monitor's fault. It's a poor convention in many parts of the software industry.)
QHD is not ready for gaming prime time yet, sorry folks.
Cheers!
As for those overlord monitors, I wasn't impressed by them, mostly because I had it sitting next to a lightboost 2 120hz TN panel. Yes, the overclocked IPS panel has better colour (though that's largely negated by using it on minimal brightness in a dark room, like we've already been talking about), and it's certainly pretty and gives a lot of screen real estate... but it can't compare to a real 120Hz monitor, especially not one with a strobing backlight.
When you say a real 120Hz - I don't get that. I have both 248s and Tempests and I prefer the Tempest all day every day. Monitors are clearly very subjective. Some people complain about strobing, PWm, etc. but it doesn't affect me at all. I prefer an IPS panel over a TN panel. The Tempest is a real 120hz monitor once OC'd so your comment makes little sense to me. Gaming on an IPS 1440 is much preferred and the added Hz makes the overlord the best gaming display for me.
QHD is not ready for gaming prime time yet, sorry folks.
Cheers!
Herpa Durp? QHD has been ready for "gaming prime time" for years now. Fortunately, panels are coming down in price and adoption is increasing as a result.
Your argument would be totally valid for 4K displays right now...excessively expensive, complicated input requirements, killer HW requirements. Very much a niche market.
1440p is **like** totally the new 1080p. Psshhya
It's not a real 120hz display i.e. designed for it. It has significantly more latency, and serious issues with motion blur... where a monitor designed for high refresh rates has virtually no input lag, and (if using lightboost technology set up to strobe), zero motion blur. An overclocked ips panel is still better than a non-overclocked ips panel, but I'll take a TN panel any day. The very high end TN panels look nearly as good as lower-end IPS panels, yet perform way better... and IPS panels don't handle being set to low brightness very well. I agree that IPS is superior for certain things; most notably tasks that require color accuracy. But for a gaming setup, I disagree. (Though a 1440p monitor, you're right, is a wonderful thing.)
That... is absolutely not true. Have you set your monitor up with lightboost, if you aren't using it? Have you gone into windows and your video drivers and told them to run the monitor at 120hz? Most of the time, when people say they can't see the difference between 120hz and 60hz, it's because they didn't set it up and never actually saw 120hz.
If you have it set up right, there is a VERY noticeable difference between 120hz and 60hz. Yes, 1440p is nice too, but you can't just say that one is worthless and the other isn't; I personally bought and returned a VERY nice iiyama recently, because even though it was basically the best on the market, there were notable issues with it while gaming - if there were a 1440p TN panel that didn't have all the issues that IPS panels have (yes, I know TN panels have issues of their own, but those are unimportant for gaming), then I would buy it on day one, and use it for MMOs and, say, racing games, for which a 120Hz monitor isn't as helpful, but which you still want a decent response and minimal ghosting.
For me, this is just another overpriced piece of equipment. Next.
Your argument would be totally valid for 4K displays right now...excessively expensive, complicated input requirements, killer HW requirements. Very much a niche market.
1440p is **like** totally the new 1080p. Psshhya
Well, I know there have been QHD monitors for quite some time, but they're still expensive as hell and don't offer a better "gaming experience" IMO to justify them over FHD@120/144Hz. Until QHD comes in 120/144 Hz, they won't be on my "must have" list at all. Specially with the crappy as hell colors.
Cheers!
Happy Thanks Giving!