Microcenter, Auria EQ276WN 2880 x 1620, 27" IPS for $400

[jaydee]

http://www.microcenter.com/product/428348/EQ276WN_27_LED_Monitor

I can't find any information on this, but a higher dpi 27" IPS monitor for roughly the same price as the 1440p is always welcome in my book! The 2560x1440 Auria EQ276W had decent reviews, it slotted in nicely between the $300 DVI-only Korean 27" IPS and the ~$500-700 Dell/HP/Asus 27" IPS monitors with more inputs, features, better calibration and longer warranty.

I think the 30" are too big and too expensive anyway, and from what I hear Linux and Windows don't handle "retina" display scaling all that well, so I'm not real excited about the 4k desktop monitors.

If anyone picks this guy up or sees a review, let us know.

 

[KingFatty]

I asked the Microcenter salesman if he could put one of these boxed monitors (there was a stack) out on display, but he said nope, their display sections are very valuable and they can't just put every screen out that they sell.

I said yeah, I'm sure some of those discontinued one-off display monitors are much bigger money makers than this completely new and unique display resolution you have with stacks of boxes there, oh well.

But you can see the box in the store, so at least that's something...

 

[CrackRabbit]

I have one of the 2560x1440 Auria monitors, and other than the overly bright splash screen on start up I have no complaints about it.

 

[jaydee]

Something I just realized, my AMD HD6570 video card (and probably all 2+ year old video cards), will not be able to display the full 2880x1620 resolution (not even via DisplayPort).

Not only that, but this monitor itself only appears to be able to display the full 2880x1620 via the DisplayPort. The DVI will get scaled down to 2560x1440, HDMI to 1920 x 1080.
http://eqdcorp.com/Websites/eqdcorp/images/files/IPS_Monitors/eq276w-quickinstall.pdf

Here's another thread. Someone posted that 1620p looks like crap, but 1440p looks great. Same person said, despite this, it is a good upgrade over the previous Auria MC 27 IPS model, which he also owned. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1040652408

 

[AkumaX]

i was at microcenter the other day, and saw someone exchange one of these. i had no idea they made 2880x1620 monitors!

i went on mc's site, and searched "auria" + "2880x1620" with no results. now i see that they didn't include either of those terms in the product title

also, i figure DL-DVI wouldn't be able to do it (most i ever see is maxed out 2560x1600 @ 60hz). hope displayport will work fine

also, strange that setting it to a resolution that's non-native (2560x1440) would make it seem better. usually that's a no-no, and it doesn't scale right either (2560->2880 = 11.25% increase)

 

[KingFatty]

Something I just realized, my AMD HD6570 video card (and probably all 2+ year old video cards), will not be able to display the full 2880x1620 resolution (not even via DisplayPort).

Not only that, but this monitor itself only appears to be able to display the full 2880x1620 via the DisplayPort. The DVI will get scaled down to 2560x1440, HDMI to 1920 x 1080.
http://eqdcorp.com/Websites/eqdcorp/images/files/IPS_Monitors/eq276w-quickinstall.pdf

Here's another thread. Someone posted that 1620p looks like crap, but 1440p looks great. Same person said, despite this, it is a good upgrade over the previous Auria MC 27 IPS model, which he also owned. http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1040652408

That guy's saying that this 1620p display's native resolution is really 1440p? That makes no sense, but apparently he claims the EDID information from the monitor is saying that? I dunno, maybe he is mistaken?

Also, maybe he is connecting the display using VGA or something silly It's a shame he never explains how he is physically connecting it, so I think he screwed that up.

I can think of no good reason why a pixel-perfect native resolution would look *WORSE* than a scaled/fuzzy resolution that is not the native pixel resolution?

 

[jaydee]

I agree, something is weird here, if the "native resolution" is actually NOT the highest resolution. It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm no expert.

He's got to be using DisplayPort, that's the only interface that allows 2880x1620 according to the spec sheet.

 

[smackababy]

I agree, something is weird here, if the "native resolution" is actually NOT the highest resolution. It doesn't make sense to me, but I'm no expert.

He's got to be using DisplayPort, that's the only interface that allows 2880x1620 according to the spec sheet.

He could be using something like a DVI to DP converter to "force" the max res, and that is why it looks like crap. No idea.

 

[KingFatty]

I say, spread the FUD and that will make people reluctant to buy the monitor, so Microcenter will have no choice but to put them on clearance new in box and I'll go down and buy all of them.

 

[alexruiz]

I say, spread the FUD and that will make people reluctant to buy the monitor, so Microcenter will have no choice but to put them on clearance new in box and I'll go down and buy all of them.

Good one, will follow your lead!

I have the previous version (EQ276W) QHD 2560 x 1440, and I have been very pleased with the monitor.Despite what the specs said, I was able to get the full resolution with all 4 inputs, but the key to that was the cable.

The provided VGA cable was able to drive 2560 x 1440, and looked quite nicely to be analog, DL-DVI of course was able, as well as displayport. HDMI gave me a lot of trouble, as my supposedly "HDMI 1.4a" cable only was able to do 1920 x 1080. Using a "cheaper" monoprice cable was able to provide the full 2560 x 1440.

If this new model is truly 2880 x 1620, a decent HDMI cable will be able to drive it fully, as well as the DP.

 

[you2]

how is uniformity and bleed ?

 

[Destiny]

The reason why a customer says it looks worst at 2880x1620 is because the IPS panel only actually has 2560x1440 pixels (3.68 million pixels) but is boosted or scaling done by the OS/Graphics card software.... the owner of EQD even stated that in this radio interview on their website:

http://eqdcorp.com/Websites/eqdcorp/images/news/2-Computer_Ed_Radio_1348_-SEG_2.mp3

 

[fleshconsumed]

So basically this is false advertising? Not that I need another 27" monitor but for the sake of the truth!

 

[13Gigatons]

You can't boost resolution. It's 1620 or it's not.

 

[KingFatty]

The reason why a customer says it looks worst at 2880x1620 is because the IPS panel only actually has 2560x1440 pixels (3.68 million pixels) but is boosted or scaling done by the OS/Graphics card software.... the owner of EQD even stated that in this radio interview on their website:

http://eqdcorp.com/Websites/eqdcorp/images/news/2-Computer_Ed_Radio_1348_-SEG_2.mp3

HAhahah well I can't listen to the MP3 of the interview yet, but if this is true, it makes me laugh out loud.

I mean, consider that this monitor is intended to be sold to the enthusiast market, the people who really know about computers (e.g., they will typically know more about the monitor than the salesman in the store).

Do they really think they can 'fool' that kind of buyer with this kind of fake resolution shenanigans? Hah this will backfire and nobody will buy them, because they are insulting the intelligence of the intended market.

If someone can't appreciate the resolution issue, then they are the kind of buyer who will be much happier buying a 1080p 27" display. Who is left to want to even buy this?

 

[KyleSTL]

HAhahah well I can't listen to the MP3 of the interview yet, but if this is true, it makes me laugh out loud.

I mean, consider that this monitor is intended to be sold to the enthusiast market, the people who really know about computers (e.g., they will typically know more about the monitor than the salesman in the store).

Do they really think they can 'fool' that kind of buyer with this kind of fake resolution shenanigans? Hah this will backfire and nobody will buy them, because they are insulting the intelligence of the intended market.

If someone can't appreciate the resolution issue, then they are the kind of buyer who will be much happier buying a 1080p 27" display. Who is left to want to even buy this?

Maybe I heard wrong, but I am pretty sure the EQD president mentioned that the EQ276WN has a higher pixel density than the EQ276W it replaces. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I am seriously doubtful they would release a screen with artificially inflated numbers, because, as you said, it would be the kiss of death to get caught lying (which would happen pretty instantaneously in the tech community).

I say innocent until proven guilty. Let's get this monitor in the hands of a reputable review site and see if this value-priced monitor lives up to the big expectations that come with 2.5K+ res and IPS.

 

[Destiny]

Maybe I heard wrong, but I am pretty sure the EQD president mentioned that the EQ276WN has a higher pixel density than the EQ276W it replaces. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I am seriously doubtful they would release a screen with artificially inflated numbers, because, as you said, it would be the kiss of death to get caught lying (which would happen pretty instantaneously in the tech community).

I say innocent until proven guilty. Let's get this monitor in the hands of a reputable review site and see if this value-priced monitor lives up to the big expectations that come with 2.5K+ res and IPS.

If you listen to the pod cast, the EQD President even stated "the pixelation is still 1440... but resolution boosted to 2880x1620 by [OS/GPU software]" so he is not lying about anything.

Someone even took a picture of the box that says the panel is 2560x1440 with a "Clarity Resolution of 2880x1620":
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=66553198&postcount=15

 

[KingFatty]

Hmm, any theories on how the existing pixels can display more resolution than the available pixels?

I mean lets say I have a 3x3 matrix of 9 pixels total. How do I display 12 pixels of information within that 3x3 matrix of 9 pixels?

Extending the analogy, how do you fit 2880 pixels of information within 2560 physical pixels, and how do you fit 1620 pixels of information into 1440 physical pixels?

A physical pixel is either on or off to display a certain color/brightness. You can't do half a pixel because it would not be capable of showing the specified color/brightness using just a portion of the full pixel.

 

[ezridah]

Have you guys already forgotten about the old "1080i" TVs? They all stated that they were 1080i, but they were still just 720p TVs (either 1280x720 or 1366x768 native res). They were able to say they were 1080i because they could take in and display a downscaled 1080i signal. This is the same thing. You'll be getting more desktop real estate, and be able to see more stuff on your screen, but it is downscaled and apparently looks like shit.

 

[delonm]

Have you guys already forgotten about the old "1080i" TVs? They all stated that they were 1080i, but they were still just 720p TVs (either 1280x720 or 1366x768 native res). They were able to say they were 1080i because they could take in and display a downscaled 1080i signal. This is the same thing. You'll be getting more desktop real estate, and be able to see more stuff on your screen, but it is downscaled and apparently looks like shit.

I am pretty sure this is not correct. 1080i referred to the fact that the display output was interlaced. This means that every other scan line was illuminated every "cycle". This is why 1080i sets tended to have issues with flickering. The TVs did in fact have 1920X1080 pixels however.

1080p sets illuminate each pixel scan line each cycle. On early CRT and DLP sets it was very difficult to tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p content. In fact, most over the air and cable broadcasts still use 1080i as a way to strike a balance between bandwidth and picture quality.

I think 1080i became less relevant for manufacturers as TV display technology migrated away from CRT and DLP and next gen disc formats gain popularity.

David

 

[KingFatty]

But 1080i is "interlaced" where 540 lines are displaying alternately to be interlaced together for 1080i.

I'm curious what this computer display uses. Some weird scaling thing going on, but not using interlacing?

Again, it just seems very mistaken to produce an "enthusiast" level computer display, but then try to pull such a silly trick like this that would only work on a non-enthusiast. So it's fine to try to trick the buyer like this when the buyer is underinformed and just trusting the salesman. But anyone in the market for this size/resolution is not that kind of buyer, and will see through the trick and avoid this display.

I say send the same message by not rewarding these kinds of tricks with purchases. Send a message by refusing to buy it, and don't let them get away with such scammy tricks just to get the higher resolution printed on the outside of the box.

 

[KyleSTL]

If you listen to the pod cast, the EQD President even stated "the pixelation is still 1440... but resolution boosted to 2880x1620 by [OS/GPU software]" so he is not lying about anything.

Someone even took a picture of the box that says the panel is 2560x1440 with a "Clarity Resolution of 2880x1620":
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=66553198&postcount=15

Yeah, I went back and listened and you are totally right, the part of the interview that I caught was this exchange:

Interviewer: "So basically the pixel density is tighter now?"

EQ Guy: "Yes, exactly."

Which implies it was actually a higher density monitor, which it definitely is not. I still think I'm going to buy one of these monitors and run it at its native resolution, since a 'boosted' resolution will do nothing but make things smaller and more blurry. Thanks for your help.

 

[Tdavis5432]

Yeah, I went back and listened and you are totally right, the part of the interview that I caught was this exchange:

Interviewer: "So basically the pixel density is tighter now?"

EQ Guy: "Yes, exactly."

Which implies it was actually a higher density monitor, which it definitely is not. I still think I'm going to buy one of these monitors and run it at its native resolution, since a 'boosted' resolution will do nothing but make things smaller and more blurry. Thanks for your help.

Go buy the one at TD for 289.99 its a 27inch with the pixel density you are going to run anyway and its cheaper!

http://monoprice.shop.rakuten.com/p...hd-2560x1440-dual-link-dvi-vga/254863185.html

 

[hansmuff]

Bought one, love it.

The panel is 2560x1440, looks very, very nice at that resolution. The higher res is a marketing thing and looks like crap.

The screen and the bezel are glossy, so if that's a problem skip the EQ276WN.

 

[jaydee]

Bought one, love it.

The panel is 2560x1440, looks very, very nice at that resolution. The higher res is a marketing thing and looks like crap.

The screen and the bezel are glossy, so if that's a problem skip the EQ276WN.

Thanks for checking in. Do you happen to have a true HDMI 1.4 port and HDMI 1.4 cable to see if full-resolution works with that input?