HP Z27q Monitor Review: Aiming For More Pixels
by Brett Howse on December 22, 2015 8:00 AM ESTFinal Words
When HP entered the 5K market with the Z27q, the only real competition was the 27-inch Dell 5K display, but it cost close to $2000. HP came into the market with the same display dimensions and resolution, but undercut Dell by almost $800. $1200 for a display is still a lot of money, but if you are someone that needs high resolution, the HP Z27q needs to be considered.
The overall accuracy of the display is great, especially in the AdobeRGB color mode. sRGB does need some calibration of the grayscale and white point to make it practically perfect, but the calibration of the LUT at the factory by HP is quite good resulting in a decent out of the box experience. The one real issue with this display is that the backlight is uneven, dropping as high as 20% from the center when measured at the top left corner. This is pretty much the same issue that we found with the Z27x, and it would not be surprising to find that both monitors are designed similarly. It is the one blemish on an otherwise great performing display.
People looking at 5K displays have to factor in that it takes a lot of GPU power to drive these. You can’t even drive the display with a single cable; instead you have to use two DisplayPort 1.2 ports and cables to achieve the 5120x2880 resolution. This means that the display leverages MST, and while I’ve heard of people having issues with this, I did not have any issues with MST driving this display with an AMD FirePro card in Windows 10. It will still be a while before we have the DisplayPort 1.3 capabilities to drive this with just a single cable.
The construction of the HP Z27q is not going to win any style awards, but it is functional and for most people, a black monitor is all that is needed. The stand is very easy to use though, with lots of options to tilt -5° to +22°, and the swivel is plus or minus 45°.
Due to the nature of the display, input lag was not able to be tested, since the tester used is HDMI and 1080p. In my time with it, there was no noticable lag at the native resolution.
There are not too many people that need almost 15 million pixels, but there are certainly use cases for a display like this. Editing 4K video is an obvious use case, since you can have the entire 4K video in a pixel perfect window, with enough room for toolbars as well. The gamut is a long way from the Z27x offering from HP, but that is only a 2560x1440 panel. Just like the Z27x the one glaring issue is the uniformity. If HP can get on top of this, they will likely have the display to beat, especially at this price.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
92 Comments
View All Comments
SanX - Monday, December 28, 2015 - link
I am surprized that you have started arguing having no slightestclue in the main basic thing of monitors. It is not the screen 103PPI what
matters but perceived PPI based on resolved angular dimensions of the pixels.
This and other factors also define optimal viewing distance.
The optimal distances are set by the TXH and SMPTE standards
and not the length of your legs. For 4K monitors perceived PPI are
almost whopping 600 and head turning 717 respectively. This makes 43"
TV too small for normal PC use and you have to put it closer to your
nose to utilize this excessive PPI. That in turn what causes discomfort,
and that is why you need larger size TV. Where Anandtech finds such
technodumbos like you? If you will start scaling PPI to be able see
the small fonts clearly that means trashing all 100% of spent money
on your "arguably better quality IPS panel" because those small scaled
fonts look uglier then on even 1080 one.
And yea, go and tell your mom that that you feel +5ms when there always
exists the intrinsic 100ms lag in human reaction. It's not the difference
between 21ms and 26ms which is 20-25% but the difference between
100+26ms vs 100+21ms or less then 4%, you genius. ROTFLMAO.
Tell also mommy that 44 ms is unacceptable for the static content
of the screens like text editing and browsing.
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
> This makes 43" TV too small for normal PC useHilarious. Who could possibly take you seriously?
> this excessive [103] PPI
Again, huh?
> the intrinsic 100ms lag in human reaction
You're confusing reaction time with feedback lag. I score 240ms in online reaction tests but can sense 30ms of feedback lag. Reaction time includes the time to process stimulus and physically move something. Feedback is a different thing, since you're measuring the lag from what you already moved.
There are many thousands of others on the web who agree with what I'm saying. Take a look at the highly respected TFT Central: http://tinyurl.com/ngweqd9 They classify more than 32ms as "some noticeable lag in daily usage"! Whaduya know! 44ms is even off their chart.
Convinced yet? There's nothing wrong with being mistaken and learning, but staying in stubborn ignorance is foolish.
SanX - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
Comprehension problems? Funny, no single my point was gotten. How i know that? I intentionally made a mistake in my numbers and you did not catch that ROTFL. What i said about DPI and lags, can repeat with your own words?This is 4th repeat that 44ms is for static contents use in PC mode. You will not notice the lag there, lag is noticeable if you move mouse fast. For fast games the Game mode exists with 20ms display lag in JU7500 and 26ms in JU7100, see Rtings "PC Monitor" and DisplayLag 2015 database which rate these monitors as excellent or very good. BTW, LG has even larger lag 55ms and i know people who still use it even in games. This is due to another point you did not get while - this is truly hilarious - trying to teach me what is what: in games the human reaction lag is more important than display lag and is always present. Think again about this if you actually can
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
I destroyed pretty much all your claims, and yet you stay in ignorance and say things like "go tell mommy".SanX - Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - link
ROTFL. You can not even repeat in your own words what I said, "destroyer". And yea i'd suggest your mommy to take your Gameboy off.Guspaz - Monday, December 28, 2015 - link
You guys should take a look at the Asus PG279Q. 27", 1440p, IPS panel, 165Hz, G-Sync. I don't think I've seen any detailed reviews of it (the kind that actually benchmark it), although LinusTechTips did measure input lag at 12.5ms, which isn't bad.SanX - Tuesday, December 29, 2015 - link
Minor typos:THX 492
SMPTE 597
sharath.naik - Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - link
To have a usable 5k monitor. Below is the spec that would have the same PPI as a 4k 27 inch monitor.Display size: 36 inch
Screen curved.
Given this is still the minimum size for 5k you will still be sitting very close to the monitor, a flat panel will make it very hard to view the edges. So a curved screen is a must. This is for any manufacturers if they are reading this.
If not the above may be 2 27inch 4k monitors make more sense and is going to be cheaper too, and more convenient in terms of connectivity.
AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, December 30, 2015 - link
Sorry to say, but your "spec" of 5K 36" curved won't be of any use to any manufacturer. They don't choose resolution and size based on what 1 random dude on the internet posted.