Uncalibrated
Before calibrating any panel, we measure zero and 100 percent signals at both ends of the brightness control range. This shows us how contrast is affected at the extremes of a monitor's luminance capability. We do not increase the contrast control past the clipping point. While doing this would increase a monitor’s light output, the brightest signal levels would not be visible. This would result in crushed highlight detail. Our numbers show the maximum light level possible with no clipping of the signal.
Our comparison group for this review is the last five displays reviewed at Tom’s Hardware, plus the Samsung S27B970D. Since it’s the only other factory-calibrated monitor we’ve tested, it makes sense to include it.
All of the luminance measurements are taken in the PA279Q’s sRGB mode.

At over 306 cd/m2, this is a fairly bright panel. It’s hard to imagine one needing greater light output than this.
The maximum black level is not quite as solid.

This a below-average number compared to the monitors we’ve tested this year, placing 10th out of 15 screens. If you use the PA279Q at its maximum brightness setting, blacks show up a little gray. The Samsung unit displays visibly better blacks than the rest of the field.
Fortunately, the max contrast number is respectable thanks to its high light output.

Asus comes up just under 1000 to 1, which is a decent performance. We would have no problem using the monitor this way. As you’ll see later, its nearly perfect gamma makes the image pop nicely, regardless of brightness setting.
For the next group of measurements, we turn down the brightness control to its minimum setting, and leave the contrast unchanged. The PA279Q measures 84.7725 cd/m2, which is well above our minimum standard of 50 cd/m2. We recommend staying above that level to avoid eyestrain. We’d like to see a lower number to help improve contrast at this level.

The Asus’ high output at minimum brightness hurts its minimum black level number a bit. Still, .0861 cd/m2 is decent. The monitor looks pretty good this way, retaining the image depth of higher brightness settings.
We’ll wrap up this section with the minimum contrast comparison.

The PA279Q’s minimum contrast is within a hair of its maximum contrast, which shows consistent performance. While it doesn’t have the lowest black level in our test group, it retains a reasonably high contrast ratio through the entire brightness range.
After Calibration
Since we consider 200 cd/m2 to be an ideal average for peak output, we calibrate all of our test monitors to that value. In a room with some ambient light (like an office), this brightness level provides a sharp, punchy image with maximum detail and minimum eye fatigue. It's also the sweet spot for gamma and grayscale tracking, which we'll look at on the next page.
We start with the calibrated black level. This can sometimes rise a bit from the monitor’s default state. We consider the tradeoff in contrast well worth the gain in color accuracy.

Although you can calibrate a slightly better black level in the PA279Q’s User modes, we opted for sRGB due to its more accurate color gamut. A tested .2007 cd/m2 is still excellent. You’ll get the same numbers in the Adobe RGB mode. By comparison, the S27B970D’s black level suffers a bit after calibration.
Here are the final calibrated contrast numbers.

There is a slight contrast improvement in the sRGB mode when you set brightness to 200 cd/m2. This is definitely the PA279Q's sweet spot. Since the only control available in this mode is brightness, you can achieve our same result without an instrumented calibration. Samsung's offering finishes last in this group due to its higher black level.
ANSI Contrast Ratio
Another important measure of contrast is ANSI. To perform this test, a checkerboard pattern of sixteen zero- and 100-percent squares is measured. This is somewhat more real-world than on/off measurements because it tests a display’s ability to simultaneously maintain both low black and full white levels, and factors in screen uniformity. The average of the eight full-white measurements is divided by the average of the eight full-black measurements to arrive at the ANSI result.

Only two other displays best the PA279Q in ANSI contrast, and they just so happen to be in this comparison group. Thanks to minimal light leakage pixel-to-pixel, Asus' PA279Q is one of the best monitors we’ve tested. The real-world result is more depth, more dimension, and more punch in the image.
- Asus PA279Q, The Cadillac Of Monitors?
- Packaging, Physical Layout, And Accessories
- OSD Setup And Calibration Of The PA279Q
- 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
- Asus' PA279Q May Very Well Have It All
And are not happy with Dell and HP...
You should be smiling now!
Also at some places you can even get this around $800..
Liking the new Eizo model w/ 240 Hz mode too.
Not this year but sometime next year I'd love to upgrade my system. I built my current workstation when the phenom 1 chip came out and other than a CPU upgrade after the phenom 2 came out and graphics card revision (old one died) I've not needed to do anything else to it. Starting to get a bit long in the tooth though.
120 cd/m2 would be ideal for a darkened room but we calibrate to 200 to better replicate an average viewing environment. Most graphics pros would opt for a darker space but the average user will have more ambient light to compete with. Since we're reviewing all types of displays, we need to place them on equal footing.
-Christian-
If you want "pixel perfect" from Achieva, it'll cost you the same. Quite a gamble, big savings vs. a few dead pixels.
It's technically the same panel, but it's a rejected panel by Apple and sold to 3rd parties like Achieva. That means dead pixels and irregular lighting and color are normal. That also means fewer input options (to save money), hardly any screen controls and settings (to save money), no height or tilt adjustment (to save money), cheaper components internally (to save money), and of course, a very weak warranty.
Tie all this in with poor build quality (some of those displays have been reported as having dirt behind the panel!), and IMO it's just not worth the savings/risk. And considering manufacturers of these "affordable" QHD monitors use cheaper internal components, I'd be most concerned about how long the thing will last even if I got a perfect panel. That would always be in the back of my mind every time I touched the power button.
So while you may be saving 50%, you are paying elsewhere by short changing yourself. I know what 5 dead pixels are like on a QHD monitor, because I had them on my ASUS PB278Q 27". They were concentrated within a 4-inch square in the middle of the screen and impossible to not notice. That monitor is known to have a pretty high dead pixel rate. I promptly returned it to Fry's and stepped up to the more professional factory Adobe RGB calibrated LG 27EA83.
In addition to 10tacle's reason, you also lose the USB ports on that model.
Guess that kinda depends. I don't know why many people would spend $800+ on a 27" display only to hook it up to a cable box or PS3. That much money will get you a very nice, rather large, TV.
As do I. Sadly, the price premium for 16:10 over 16:9 is pretty ridiculous. A quick search on Newegg shows the only 2560x1600 monitor with USB 3.0 is a $1500 30" Lenovo.
I only wish this thing was 120Hz
Liking the new Eizo model w/ 240 Hz mode too.
60 Hz is really about all that's needed to fool the human eye.
TVs went to 120 Hz because of a problem peculiar to displaying movies. Most movies were shot at 24 fps. 60/24 = 2.5 which isn't an even integer. If you try to display them on a 60 Hz screen, you end up having to show one movie frame for 2/60 sec, the next frame for 3/60 sec, then repeat. The result of this uneven timing is something called judder, where smooth motion (especially panning shots) appear to stutter.
With a 120 Hz refresh, you can show each movie frame for 5/120 sec, and a smooth panning shots remain smooth. 240 Hz is just the same thing except for 3D video - 120 Hz for the left eye, 120 Hz for the right eye.
So unless you're planning to watch a lot of 24 fps movies, 60 Hz is just fine. And unless you're planning to watch 3D movies shot at 24 fps, 240 Hz is overkill. If you're watching video shot at 30 or 60 fps, it'll look the same at 60 Hz, 120 Hz, or 240 Hz.