Dell S2719DM 27" QHD HDR Monitor Review: Style Meets Performance

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlistairAB

Honorable
May 21, 2014
220
56
10,760
0
I guess I just got unlucky. I ordered it right when it came out, clearly the best looking picture I've seen from a 1440p screen. But my black uniformity was awful with bleed everywhere. I ultimately bought the new Samsung 32" 4k monitor for $400 and am much happier.

Nice to see though that Tom's got one with fantastic black uniformity, maybe I should have just ordered a second one.....
 

truerock

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2006
216
4
18,695
1
I'm not sure I understand that 60Hz is a "Con"
You can't get 120Hz in a 4k UHD monitor. That would require HDMI 2.1 which is not something you can buy for a Windows 10 PC at this time.
Am I missing something?
Is Tom's saying >>all<< 4k UHD monitors have a con of a maximum 60Hz?
 

truerock

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2006
216
4
18,695
1
OK... I'm reding the article again. It's just stupid. The subject is 4k UHD monitors. The reviewer is mentally confused and trying to compare 4k UHD monitors to other monitor form factors.

The author needs to write a different article about the state of 4k UHD monitors in general compared to typical 1080p monitors or something like that.
 


I had the exact same thought. The price point of this monitor and its features are extremely competitive if not class setting. You have to spend over $400 (USD) to get a faster 1440p 27" monitor, and that's not even including one for Freesync or G-Sync. Further, I am one who doesn't see the major performance improvement past a consistent 60Hz/60FPS gameplay experience or a 120Hz/120FPS experience.

This is why I've always overkilled on GPU power. I want to make sure the minimum frames in games don't dip down to near or below the 60FPS/60Hz sync limit. Also, the GPU doesn't have to work as hard. I've tried a G-sync 144Hz monitor and just didn't appreciate the cost difference vs. performance. I guess my eyes are getting older.

Anyway I've been very happy with my Dell U2713HM 1440p that is now five years old. It cost over $500 but for the time was top of the line. In fact I have four Dell monitors I've never had problems with any of them dating back to a 2000-built 19" Trinitron G420S CRT built by Sony. If my 1440p monitor dies, I'd snap one of these up in a heartbeat.

Also, I hope one day we can all have some sort of HDR standard because the different formats of it are not the same kind of tech and really not directly comparable:

HDR10 [originally proprietary only to Samsung & Sony]
Dolby Vision
HLG
Advanced HDR

Off topic: I see my Dell G420S CRT monitor is selling on eBay for $450 plus! A photographer pro friend tells me that these old CRTs are still in high demand for their color reproduction. I think I just found my ticket to my next hardware upgrade.
 


If only this was a 4k monitor you may have had a point.
 


It's a QHD i.e 2K monitor. I don't think the author is the one confused. :pt1cable:
 
I think the cons should list the lack of VESA, not a conn for everyone but then neither is 60 Hz. Personally on the spec chart I think VESA mountable should be there and if it was show the VESA mount size like 100x100 etc.
 

truerock

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2006
216
4
18,695
1


Wow... do I feel stupid. I've been so focused on upgrading to 4k UHD that I forgot what QHD was.
In my limited brain space there is only 1920x1080p and 3840x2160 UHD. Everything else is just noise that I ignore. If I had noticed the article was about a QHD monitor I wouldn't have even read it.

Thanks for pointing out my stupidity. I was really confused about 60Hz being a "Con".

 


Not stupid at all. As stated, I questioned that comment as well from the reviewer as a 60Hz QHD monitor owner.

Oh wait: I sense some sarc there! LOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS