Many of you asked for a round-up of 27" IPS-based displays, and here it is. Although these screens feature similar specifications, you might be surprised at how much they differ, both in performance and price. Which of the three is right for you?
Any enthusiast spending a significant amount of money on a high-end system should own a display of comparable quality. After all, what good does a pair of GeForce or Radeon cards do you if the most attractive graphics settings are obscured by a lackluster screen?
We really appreciate technologies like AMD's Eyefinity, which make it possible for you to buy a trio of smaller 22- or 23-inch monitors and work across multiple displays. We have several guys doing that in the Tom's Hardware office. But then there are the folks who simply prefer a single workspace and ultra-high resolutions. In those cases, a larger 27- or 30-inch display is the better choice.

We already covered smaller 22" and 23" TN-based LCDs in Three-Way 22" LED LCD Roundup: Dell, LG, And Samsung and Three-Way 23" LED LCD Roundup: Dell, HP, And Samsung. However, we also received a number of requests that we look at larger screens based on IPS panels.
There's a general perception that IPS-based displays offer superior performance to those based on TN technology, but that isn't always the case. Although in-plane switching does improve the viewing angle issues and color reproduction suffered by twisted nematic displays, not all IPS screens are created equal. Our results in this roundup demonstrate that, even between three different screens, you can end up with a vastly dissimilar experience.
| Brand | Dell | DoubleSight | NEC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model | UltraSharp U2711 | DS-277W | MultiSync PA271W |
| Panel Type | H-IPS | H-IPS | H-IPS (P-IPS) |
| Screen Size | 27" | 27" | 27" |
| Max Resolution | 2560x1440 | 2560x1440 | 2560x1440 |
| Aspect Ratio | 16:9 | 16:9 | 16:9 |
| Response Time | 6 ms | 6 ms | 7 ms |
| Brightness cd/m^2 | 350 | 350 | 300 |
| Contrast Ratio | 1000:1 | 1000:1 | 1000:1 |
| Speakers | No | No | No |
| VGA | 1 | 2 | - |
| DVI-D (HDCP) | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| DisplayPort | 1 | - | 1 |
| HDMI | 1 | 1 | - |
| Tilt | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Energy Star Qualified | No | No | No |
| Refresh Rate | 60 Hz | 60 Hz | 60 Hz |
| Warranty | Three-year | Three-year | Four-year |
- 27" IPS LCD Roundup: Dell, DoubleSight, And NEC
- Dell UltraSharp U2711 (27" IPS)
- DoubleSight DS-277W (27" IPS)
- NEC MultiSync PA271W (27" IPS)
- Display Profile And Tilt
- Our Benchmarking Approach
- Out-Of-Box Performance: Brightness And Contrast Ratio
- Out-Of-Box Performance: Color Accuracy And Gamut
- Out-Of-Box Performance: Maximum And Minimum Brightness
- Calibrated Performance: Brightness And Contrast Ratio
- Calibrated Performance: Color Accuracy And Gamut
- Black And White Uniformity, Viewing Angles
- Power Consumption
- Response Time, Input Lag, And Final Words
The lowest price of the three 22" TN panel monitors you reviewed was $180. A quick Newegg search shows several similar panels from names such as Acer, Asus, etc. starting at $140. (And, in the gaming, as well as office environments, 2 or 3 monitors are now more common than one single large one.)
Although just a regular sum up of the available 22-24 VA panels would be great.
You should review a 2560x1600 120hz IPS monitor.
Oh wait...
2560x1600 isn't supported at 120hz over DVI-D (dual link)
IPS monitors can't do 120hz with today's technology
Bummer!
F
I am somewhat disappointed that 27" monitors nowadays don't use 2560*1600 panels.
That resolution makes much more sense to me for a monitor that is not targetted at the average consumer.
Personally I would love a 2560*1920 (or 2048) screen @ 120Hz, but if I understand correctly link speed becomes an issue here.
Why is it that displays for mobile phones are increasing in pixel density, but desktop displays don't improve in this regard?
For a next review I would really like to get a better understanding of (high-resolution) 120Hz monitors. What are the (dis)advantages of 120Hz for regular/2D usage, etc...
CNet used to do stuff like this, so did PC Mag. They stopped. Bothers me. I have to rely totally on Amazon/Newegg/TigerDirect user reviews for screen info.
^^ me
It seems that 1920x1080 is the new norm, which is annoying because I don't see why I should have to give up vertical resolution just to fit the standard of the current high definition videos. 16x9 vs. 16x10 is a debate right now for me. I would rather have 16x10 because more screen real estate is better, but it seems that the 16x10 front has stagnated. All the new goodies are going into 16x9, with the exception of the 30" 2560x1600 models.
here is an excellent screen review site
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/index2.html