Nixeus VUE 30: 30" 2560x1600 IPS Monitor Review
by Chris Heinonen on August 20, 2013 6:00 AM ESTWith the Nixeus VUE 30, I was looking for something that can drive down the prices of 30” LCD monitors while providing a display that is high quality for a general user. After using it and testing it, I feel like it has split the middle on this and made a choice that I don’t really agree with.
Having a 30” display is very nice. Even the slight increase over a 27” 1440p display is noticeable, and I just can’t get enough desktop space for getting work done. The prior 30” to come by here, the Dell U3014, was very nice but also aimed to a more discriminating user group that is willing to pay the extra money for its features. The Nixeus aims for a more general user, and the price reflects that.
What doesn’t reflect that is the use of a wide-gamut CCFL backlight. Most people don’t use AdobeRGB aware programs or content and don’t have a need for this. If the Nixeus VUE 30 had an sRGB mode that reduced the gamut I wouldn’t care, but it lacks that. Because of that it is using a feature that is aimed at a higher-end market but in a product targeting a more general user group. If there isn’t going to be that sRGB mode, I’d rather see a standard gamut CCFL or LED backlight that lets more people see their images and games without over-saturated colors.
That makes the target of the Nixeus, and a recommendation for it, less clear. If you are someone that uses the AdobeRGB gamut and wants a 30” display, then I think the Nixeus is probably a great choice. The overall bench tests are very good, and in AdobeRGB mode the gamut is also pretty accurate. Finding a comparable AdobeRGB 30” monitor is also quite expensive. Searching at Newegg finds nothing below $1,000 and the Nixeus is currently $730 at Amazon as I write this. That 30% savings is quite large and makes the Nixeus a very good buy there.
If you don’t use AdobeRGB then it’s trickier. If you want a really accurate image and use the sRGB gamut, you have to look elsewhere. If you’re planning to use the Nixeus for general office work and productivity, and some gaming, then you will probably be OK with it. The grayscale can come out very accurate in the end, and that matters more for general work than an accurate color gamut does. If you just don’t care about image quality and care about having more screen area, then the Nixeus will be fine as well.
At $730 the Nixeus is much cheaper than prior 30” panels but still carries a significant premium over a 27” display. The VUE 27 is $475 at Amazon, so those extra 160 vertical pixels, 3" diagonal, and the larger gamut are costing you over 50% more than a 27” display. Is that extra price worth it? That’s more for you to decide. I really hope the VUE 30 is the start of a downward trend in 30” displays that will mirror the one we have seen with 27” displays. I also hope we will see some that either have standard gamut backlights or an sRGB mode, to fix the one major complaint I have with the VUE 30.
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.