To compare the U27M90’s performance, I’ve lined up a group of 4K 144 Hz monitors in 27, 28 and 32-inch sizes. Sony is unique at this price point for its full-array backlight, so I’ve also included a reference screen, Acer’s Predator X27, which is a four-year-old design but still tops the genre in specs and performance for around $1,800. The others are HP’s Omen 27u, the Eve Spectrum D03, Asus’ VG28U and BenQ’s EX3210U.
Pixel Response and Input Lag
Click here to read up on our pixel response and input lag testing procedures.
A 144 Hz monitor will draw a full white screen in seven milliseconds regardless of resolution. This is fast enough to keep motion blur low and control response quick. At 31ms, the U27M90 is quicker than most of its competitors. I tested in the Game mode, which Sony says has lower input lag and it is indeed about 3ms faster than Standard or Cinema. The only caveat is that you’ll have to calibrate, but if you use my settings from the previous page, the picture quality will be equal to the other modes.
The U27M90 has off-axis image quality comparable to most IPS panels of any resolution or size. The side view goes a bit green at 45 degrees, while the vertical photo shows a blue tint at the same angle. Detail remains clear in the horizontal plane with only a 10% drop in brightness.
To learn how we measure screen uniformity, click here.
My U27M90 sample showed excellent results in the uniformity test, where I measured nine zones of an all-black field pattern. There was no visible glow or bleed at the edges. Color patterns showed no anomalies at any brightness level.
I also had several Sony CRTs...great monitors--remember my last--a 20" "flat-screened" Trinitron that supported my Voodoo3's 1600x1200 res ROOB....;) As an aside, the ATi fury I bought at the time to test--(the original ATi Fury, not AMD's) would not do 1600x1200 stock! I had call ATi and ask them about it and one of the driver programmers I spoke with (in those days you could dial up practically anyone and actually talk to them!) asked me why I wanted to run at 1600x1200...;) I had to actually add the simple instructions into their driver structure at the time to enable 1600x1200--'cause my Trinitron supported it and I wanted to use it!...;)
Sony made great monitors in those days--they were good enough for me and x86 in those years. The Trinitron brand is well known even today, as you mentioned. Originally, it was the Trinitron TV brand. I'm sure this monitor is a good one, I'm just not enamored of the specs. Those high nits make all the difference, in the display, imo.
For gaming it's fine. Productivity not so much.
It really is personal preference. I've been using a Samsung U24E590D 23.6" 4K display for a few years now.
Personally I wanted maximum pixel density, good power usage, not too bulky.
Now I think my eyes aren't as good as they once were, I might get a 27" 4K in the future, maybe something like the one reviewed.
27" could be the "sweet spot" for 4K. And greater than 60HZ refresh is a plus.
Also your distance from the screen and usage style play a big role in the decision.
I lean forward and have my face 1' from the screen to read things for example.
waste of energy to power(which costs more in pwoer bill), generates more heat (not what msot ppl want outside of the winter), and lowers frame rate for a near non discernible image quality.
1440p @ 240+ refresh rate would of been a MUCH more interesting product.