Nixeus NX-VUE27D : A 27" $450 WQHD (2560x1440) IPS LED DP-Only Monitorby Ganesh T S on October 1, 2013 8:00 PM EST
- Posted in
In August 2012, Nixeus launched the VUE27, a 27" WQHD (2560x1440) S-IPS LED monitor with a $430 price tag. However, the high demand led to a backlog and the monitor currently retails close to $500. The follow-up was a 30" WQXGA version priced at $700, the Nixeus VUE 30. As expected, the price has now increased to $890. By providing US-based service / warranty, they managed to win over quite a big segment of the market which was being served by eBay sellers based in Korea. However, with Monoprice getting into the game, the competition in this market has become hot. In order to counter the pricing pressure, Nixeus is introducing a new model, the NX-VUE27D. While the earlier models had a wide variety of input ports, Nixeus is making this one DisplayPort only. Fortunately, for the $450 pricing, a Mini-DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable as well as a DisplayPort cable are bundled.
The claimed features specifications of the NX-VUE27D are as below:
- 27" IPS LED Backlight Display Monitor
- 2560 x 1440 WQHD
- Compatible with Thunderbolt and DisplayPort output devices
- 16.7 million True Colors
- 100% sRGB Color Gamut
- VESA Mounts 3.937" x 3.937" (100mm x 100mm)
- Height Adjustable Base Stand with Tilt, Swivel and 90° Pivot
- Edge to Edge Plasma Infused Glass to reduce reflection
- Thin Bezel Design
- 2 Year Limited Warranty
- Brightness: 380cd/m2
- Native Contrast Ratio: 1000:1
- Viewing Angles:178° horizontal/178° vertical
- Refresh Rate: 60Hz
- Response Time: 6ms (Gray to Gray)
- Pixel Pitch:0.233mm
- Input Port: DisplayPort
- Power Consumption:72 watts
- Accessories included: Mini-DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable (for compatibility with Mac, Macbooks, and Thunderbolt devices), DisplayPort cable, Quick Set-up guide and external power supply (North America)
The Nixeus NX-VUE27D is slated to ship on October 22, 2013, with pre-orders currently on at Amazon and Comp-U-Plus.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
Origin64 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - linkAs a gamer, I cant agree more. Upon switching to 120Hz it gets so much easier to land precision snipes in FPSs with double the framerate and half the latency, and clicking individual zerglings in SCII is hardly a challenge anymore. Playing more casual games in 3D helps massively for immersion, although with games like Rome II TW I do notice I'm running into the limits of Full HD resolution; zoom out a quarter of the way and you dont see more than 2 blocky pixels of all those beautifully modeled units.
My next screen has got to be at least 2560*1440 120Hz, and preferably those 2 numbers will increase even more the next few years.
Now there's just the long wait left until cinema figures out 24Hz isnt smooth if youre used to seeing 5 times that. Every movie I watch is a slide show and it's driving me crazy. 48fps is better, but thats about the same as tv (50/60hz) and we can do even better than that.
EzioAs - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - linkIf you have a 120Hz monitor and would like to watch your videos at 120fps, give SVP (Smooth Video Project) a try. There are settings so that you can play your videos at your monitor native refresh rate. I only have a 60Hz monitor so I can't tell you the 120fps experience but even then, to me there is no going back to watching videos at 24fps.
nathanddrews - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - linkSVP works well for 72Hz and 96Hz, too. Personally, I prefer the pure 24fps of film over the artifacts that interpolation brings. Even at maximum quality (minimum artifacts), SVP still has disruptive artifacts - in addition to running your CPU+GPU at max power! With synchronized pull-down or frame-multiples (48/72/96/120), the "film look" works fine for me. Some films are better than others, however. YMMV
abhaxus - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - linkBought a qnix qx2710 glossy recently myself. Very pleased with the quality, and got an overclock to 96hz out of the box with the included dvi cable. Could probably go higher but don't feel like investing more money on the slight chance I get higher frame rates. One dead pixel in a hardly noticeable place, better black levels than my Asus 23" IPS. Arrived in less than two days from the opposite side of the world.
HisDivineOrder - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - linkI suspect that 1440p and 1600p will become the new 1080p and 1200p. Then 4K will slot in where 1440/1600p were.
Then I imagine 1080p will drop to where 720/768p were and 720p will fall to the bottom of the barrel where basically the giveaways are.
ShieTar - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - linkGiven the state of current TV content, one could also assume that 1080p will be the new 1080p, and remain so for annother decade. 1440p, 4K and multi-monitor solutions will then remain firmly outside the mainstreams field of view.
Sunrise089 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - linkMake it 16:10 for $500 or even $550 and it's an easy sale. I have no desire to deal with 16:9 in a display I need to use for more than just content consumption.
Samus - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - linkYou'll barely noticed the difference between 16:10/16:9 at 27"+ 1440p.
JPForums - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - linkPerhaps you barely notice the difference between 16:10 and 16:9 at 27"+ 1440p.
However, neither size, nor pixel density can do a thing to change the shape of the 16:9 to look more like a 16:10. For people like myself and (apparently) Sunrise, 16:10 is preferred.
Interestingly, 16:10 was originally chosen as the aspect ratio that most closely approximates the more precise and active portions of the human visual range. The movie and broadcast industries were the ones to champion 16:9. The hilarious part of it is, as soon as monitor manufacturers started adopting 16:9 (1.7778:1), movies moved on to wider aspect ratios up to 2.35:1. To give a few examples from different eras The Matrix, Xmen Origins Wolverine / First Class, Batman Dark Knight (changes between ratios), and Fast Five all make use of 2.35:1 framing. So now, people give up the extra vertical resolution and still have to deal with black boarders.
JaBro999 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - linkI also despise 16:9, but the cost of a 30" 16:10 monitor is really prohibitive. With the price of Korean imports and off-brand 30" monitors hovering around $900-$1000, that's just too darn much of a gamble. Despite working on 24" 16:10 monitors every day, I find my myself leaning towards a 27" purchase for my home use.