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.
Current page: Results: Pixel Response And Input LagPrev Page Results: Viewing Angle And Uniformity Next Page NEC EA294WMi: More Than Just a Wide Screen
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Christian Eberle is a Contributing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He's a veteran reviewer of A/V equipment, specializing in monitors.
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
$750 for this! bahh!Reply
Triple Post! Triple Post! Triple Post! But yeah too much moneyReply
11821147 said:Triple Post! Triple Post! Triple Post! But yeah too much money
Darn thing lagged on me!
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
No and screw LG and others that model them.Reply
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.Reply
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.
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
I would prefer 2560x1600 on a 24" screen myself.11822582 said:This 1080p trend needs to stop.
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.
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