HP EliteDisplay E271i Review: Solid Performance From A 27" Screen

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd like to see what the difference in the actual manufacturing costs/panel prices are for QHD vs FHD for large screens - pixel density is certainly not a problem.

I'd guess it's merely a chicken/egg issue - people won't buy high-res screens until they are cheap and they won't be cheap until lots of people buy them.
 


That is the beauty of Capitalism. The rich have more than enough money, and will be more likely to spend money on something new. Companies wanting to maximize profits, try and make production cheaper. When company X makes production cheaper than company Y, then Y undercuts X and yay cheaper products.
 
Honestly from what I can tell this display is worth the money you pay. I might just have to pick up two of these and see what I can't do with them.
 
meh, meh, meh, meh, meh. Toms, please leave these bland, generic products on the shelves of staples and office max where they belong. There is NOTHING impressive, interesting, or even noteworthy about a 27" 1920x1080 monitor today. I don't care if it makes gremlins when wet. At that resolution and size, it's just not going to be a good looking screen. Reading text on 27" 1920x1080 monitors SUCKS.

Aside from the fact that compared to the QHD monitors you can pick up for under $300 this is garbage, it's just a silly format. Dated resolution on a cheap panel that's too big.
 
I have 3 2560x1440 Overlord Tempests. Would NEVER use a 1080 panel again - especially an IPS. And TN panels? Forget it - IPS is so pretty at 1440.
 


I understand where you are come from bot not every is looking for an extreme like that. If I had one of those I wouldn't complain. The monitor I currently have is better than this one, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't use this monitor. Tom's I believe is just trying to cater to everyone they can. So i say this kind of review is good for everyone.
 
This is a massive 27 inch monster sitting with in 12-18 inches of your face while sitting at a desk.

Why on earth would anyone want 1920x1080 on a screen 27 inches diagonal? Are you looking for pot holes between the pixels?

The reason I say this is, I work with media all day, We currently create, edit and produce 4k video and store it for transfer to quad layer blu-ray disc's (200GB).

Also, if you use any digital camera over 8MP, you will get close to a 1:1 pixel ratio at 4K resolutions.

We want to see a continuous image and seeing the gaps between the pixels is distracting.

24 inch monitors should have a minimum 4k pixel resolution, 708 might be able to get away with 4k on a 27 inch, but 8k would be better.

Now, lets look at the other side, How much would a 24 inch 1920x1080 flat trinitron cost you back in the day? $6,000 ? $12,000?
 
Good to know that HP are releasing good quality monitors.
For this size and price though .... I would ne looking at the Asus VG27AH.
Seems to provide more value.
Specs may not match the HP ... but can you "see" the difference?
On the other hand, the reviews of the VG27AH indicate that the 2D/3D experience is excellent.
Has anyone tried this with games? I don't see a mention of that.
 
"Wow what a great 27" monitor for $350; I am impressed. I doubt you would see much difference between this and the $1000 27" Dell."

Oops sorry, did not see the 1920 x 1080 resolution - this just doesn't work well with a 27" screen.
 


HP makes several good monitors. Some have been very highly rated. Their "Dream Color" monitor is still probably the best color monitor on the market, though NEC may compete with it.
 
I agree with the commenters regarding a relatively low resolution on a large screen. Larger dimension screens are good for people with poor eyesight, but there comes a point where sharpness starts to suffer. I've seen 24" & 27" monitors are 1080p. For general(?) computing, it's too soft.
For me, the point of having a larger screen is to have more 'usable' real estate. I want to be able to put more on screen while maintaining sharpness. Larger dimensions at the same resolution doesn't offer this.
Who here would rather have a 24" screen at 16:9 versus 16:10? I believe the numbers would highly favor the 16:10 crowd.
Summarizing: The majority of us buy larger monitor for increased resolution, not just to make our existing images bigger.
 
I went from a 25.5" Samsung 1920x1200 monitor to a 27" LG 1440p monitor. While not a large leap in size, it's a huge leap in screen real estate because the windows can be smaller yet still perfectly readable. I'll never go back to 1080/1200p and find it vastly superior to a three-monitor setup.

The only downside is that you need to up your GPU bigtime if you game. I took a huge hit in games like Far Cry 3 with a single GTX 680, going from ~45fps at ultra high quality settings on the 1200p monitor to barely above 30fps on the 1440p. Was able to find a second 680 on eBay at a decent price and now enjoy 55-60fps at the same ultra high settings. Between the monitor and two GPUs, I spent about $1,600 just on them. But wow is it gorgeous.
 
Conventional wisdom is that 1080p panels are cheaper because they're turned out in large numbers for TV's. Panels with more pixels (please let's not mis-use the term "resolution") sell for more perhaps for several reasons:

1) They may be made in smaller numbers
2) Their consumer base may be more willing to pay a higher margin
3) Their yield/QC may be tighter than TV panels
 
While the actual display qualities of this panel are pretty impressive I feel resolution trumps all of that. I got a huge 30 inch 2560x1600 korean monitor for 520 dollars on ebay. Zero dead/stuck pixels. While I doubt the color accuracy or contrast ratio is as amazing as this HP I only paid 170 more dollars and got a ton of resolution to play with and 3 inches larger screen.

Once you use QHD screens you cannot go back to FHD. I had a 24" 1920x1080 and loved it. QHD screens were super expensive at this time and I thought why would you even need anything over 1920x1080. It looks awesome. Then when I finally used one it blew my mind. Your working space feels endless and so expansive. When I'm stuck on a 1080 monitor it feels so crammed and claustrophobic.

I will trade color accuracy and contrast ratio for cheap QHD any day of the week. Luckily I don't have to anymore. I highly reccomend scanning craigslist for high end monitors. I got a beautiful Dell u3014 2560x1600. The guy wanted 750 and I talked him down to 515. Huge discount and only thing wrong with it was a scratch on the bezel.
 
There are plenty of cheaper WQHD screens out there with the Overlord being the best for gaming since it is the only 120hz capable 1440 IPS display on the planet.
 
Or one could pay $300 for an overclockable (most of the time) korean 1440p monitor... i recommend the X-Star brand, a favorite of Tek Syndicate, the cheapest one and with great colors and quality control.
 


Those are PLS panels - Samsungs - not true IPS LG panels. Plus all PLS panels darken very noticeably when overclocked meaning you are doing something to the TCON and panel.
 


And the fact that it is PLS is bad? :\ Better than TN.
 


Not in and of itself. PLS panels just don't overclock well colorwise making them second fiddle to IPS panels. That is why they are bad for OCing. Other than that I am sure they are fine and agree definitely a leg up over TN panels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom