Nixeus VUE 30: 30" 2560x1600 IPS Monitor Review
by Chris Heinonen on August 20, 2013 6:00 AM ESTTested using the Leo Bodnar lag tester, I measured 29.23ms of lag with a 1080p signal on the VUE 30. TO use the Leo Bodnar I average the three areas of the screen; top, middle, and bottom, that it can provide data for. With the VUE 30 the Top and Middle were both really low, at 21.6ms and 27.5ms, but it jumped up to 38.6ms at the bottom. I usually see variations of around 7-8ms between the areas, or roughly half the 16.7ms it takes to move between frames, but not a spread of 6ms and then 11ms.
Despite that weird measurement, I didn’t see any tearing or anything else that might be an issue when using the Nixeus for gaming. I’ll just chalk it up to some slightly strange behavior with the scaler and its timing, but not something that I could actually see a problem with. Note also that lag might be lower running at the native 2560x1600, but I can't directly compare that with most other displays as they lack support for that resolution.
Power use is not a good area for the Nixeus. It is rated for < 130 watts of power consumption on the specs, but my unit managed to use over 150 watts at peak brightness. Since the peak brightness was also almost 75 cd/m2 below the specs, that is a large difference there in the power measurements. A white screen also uses less energy than a black screen with an LCD typically, so I’m not sure what would provide a power measurement that low while running at maximum brightness. Most likely Nixeus is rating power use by how much the display requires and not accounting for the efficiency of the power brick; 85% efficiency at 130W would give us 153W, which is close to what I'm seeing, but it's still quite a bit higher than a modern LED backlit display.
Going down to minimum brightness drops the power use to 60 watts, which is much more reasonable. Using my formula to get candelas per square inch per watt, the Nixeus came in dead last among the displays I have tested. All of the 30” displays do poorly here, as their more complex backlighting systems use a lot more power, but the Nixeus is the worst offender.
Running the Nixeus profile through Gamutvision, we see 103% coverage of the AdobeRGB gamut. This falls short of some other displays, but still is full coverage and as we saw it works pretty well when in AdobeRGB mode.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
95 Comments
View All Comments
DanNeely - Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - link
Read before you comment. This was answered above; there's no off the shelf hardware to do so at 2560.Sivar - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link
"Viewable Size 20""Typo -- please fix.
abhaxus - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link
it's time to end this farce and stop posting input lag numbers that are not at native resolution. I've bought two monitors in the last 8 months (a 23" eIPS Asus and a 27" Qnix QX2710 from Korea) and got NO help from these Anandtech reviews, due to the ridiculous notion that input lag at 1080p is somehow comparable to what it would be with no scaling. Either don't put the number up there, or do the tests at native res.JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link
Unless the scaler totally deactivates and thus doesn't contribute to lag, running native won't be any less laggy. For most displays, the presence of a scaler is an all or nothing thing. The old Dell 3008WFP had much worse lag than the 3007WFP because it had multiple inputs and a scaler. Unless something has changed, I wouldn't expect native resolution to be less laggy.As I noted above, however, the problem is in testing for input lag at native. We used to compare to a CRT, which meant we were limited to CRT resolutions. Now Chris is using the Leo Bodnar lag tester...which has a max resolution support of 1080p. Until someone makes one capable of testing native 4K and WQXGA, Chris doesn't have a way to test input lag at native on these displays.
cheinonen - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link
Adding to what Jared said, testing on displays that offer both 1:1 mode and a scaling stretch mode, I typically see only 1-2ms of delay difference between them.Most monitors are using cheap, fast scalers that doesn't add that much lag. Things like color management and other features, which you'll see in more displays now, add far more lag because that is more intensive work to do.Believe me, if someone makes a lag tester that does more than 1080p I'm buying it. Otherwise buying a scope for a single measurement is just cost prohibitive.
HisDivineOrder - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link
Seems inevitable that the 2560x1600 will remain mostly niche with 2560x1440 becoming the go-to resolution in the post-4K world that we'll be soon living in. Monitor makers will be selling these 1440p displays hand over fist when people become convinced they want a high resolution display but find the pricetag on 4K to be out of this world and they come back down to Earth, still wanting a higher resolution display than 720p/768p/1080p.I doubt they'll make 1600p the go-to resolution, so they'll split the difference and go with 1440p to maximize profits (the exact reason they went to 1080p instead of 1200p).
Sabresiberian - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link
Frankly, I think about sRGB the same way I think about TN and 16:9 - they are low-quality standards that I would like to see fade away from mainstream monitors. While I agree that any monitor aimed at said mainstream should be sRGB capable, I can't help but think it is really time for the standard to be raised. It is possible to give us full AdobeRGB without breaking the bank - as is proven here.This isn't an LCD thing, of course, sRGB pervades the industry all along the path of software and hardware. But, not many people are demanding higher quality color reproduction, so when is it going to change, if ever?
Well, I'll say it - sRGB is a low-quality standard, and it is time we moved on.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link
You're right, but of course 99% of laptops can't even do sRGB let alone AdobeRGB or NTSC, and laptops are now outselling desktops. I've been using a high gamut HP LP3065 for years, though, and while I notice the oversaturation at times, when I'm working with many imaging programs (Photoshop, even most browsers now, and MS Photo Viewer) appear to recognize AdobeRGB properly.SeannyB - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link
I hope some day we'll simply have color management on all OSes (namely Windows and Android), and not just OSX. I'm living with a calibrated and profiled extended gamut 1600p monitor in Windows 7, and it's tough. Windows 7 doesn't assume/remap its shell to sRGB, or any other apps. Only certain software like Adobe's, and a few others with effort (Irfanview, Firefox, Media Player Classic Home Cinema) are "color aware". Google Chrome remaps correctly when viewing JPEGs with colorspace tags, but everything else in that browser is oversaturated. (It doesn't assume sRGB from untagged images and web colors.)I think a future of ubiquitous color management will have to happen in a world of ubiquitous OLED displays. That's a future that continuously seems over the horizon.
ZeDestructor - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link
There are preferences in FF that sets default colourspace to sRGB (I used it on and off, depending on my mood), so only correctly tagged pictures are rendered with wide gamut.For the windows shell, it doesn't matter, and lastly, for the programs, well, Windows' integrated picture viewer is colour aware, as I was surprised to discover. Its all there where it should be. You don't really care what your UI elements look like, but pictures and video you do care.