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

Features
By
published

Last month, we reviewed AOC’s Q2963PM ultra-wide monitor at 2560x1080. Based on the same LG panel, NEC brings us its EA294WMi. Selling for almost twice as much, does this screen offer two times the performance and features? Our tests give you the answer.

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. 

Christian Eberle
Christian Eberle
Contributing Editor

Christian Eberle is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He's a veteran reviewer of A/V equipment, specializing in monitors. Christian began his obsession with tech when he built his first PC in 1991, a 286 running DOS 3.0 at a blazing 12MHz. In 2006, he undertook training from the Imaging Science Foundation in video calibration and testing and thus started a passion for precise imaging that persists to this day. He is also a professional musician with a degree from the New England Conservatory as a classical bassoonist which he used to good effect as a performer with the West Point Army Band from 1987 to 2013. He enjoys watching movies and listening to high-end audio in his custom-built home theater and can be seen riding trails near his home on a race-ready ICE VTX recumbent trike. Christian enjoys the endless summer in Florida where he lives with his wife and Chihuahua and plays with orchestras around the state.

29 Comments Comment from the forums
  • runswindows95
    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.
    Reply
  • TBC1
    $750 for this! bahh!
    Reply
  • patrick47018
    Triple Post! Triple Post! Triple Post! But yeah too much money
    Reply
  • TBC1
    11821147 said:
    Triple Post! Triple Post! Triple Post! But yeah too much money

    Darn thing lagged on me!

    Reply
  • Vorador2
    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.
    Reply
  • wikiwikiwhat
    No and screw LG and others that model them.
    Reply
  • burkhartmj
    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 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.
    Reply
  • jasonpwns
    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.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    11822582 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.
    Reply
  • mortsmi7
    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.
    Reply