Dell goes pro with 27-inch UltraSharp U2711 WQHD LCD monitor (hands-on)
By Darren Murph 
posted January 7th 2010 12:01AM
posted January 7th 2010 12:01AM
You'll also find just about every port known to man: HDMI 1.3, DisplayPort, DVI-D (x2), VGA, composite, component, USB (x4) and an 8-in-1 multicard reader. 'Course, the actual aesthetics are nothing to write home about, but again, this one's being targeted at end users who care less about the bezel and more about true-to-life pixel performance. We had a chance to toy around with the new beast, and frankly, we were mesmerized. Without an in-house color calibrator, we can't speak for those who need oodles of numbers and bar charts to tell if a monitor is performing correctly, but we can say that the panel was remarkably sharp, crisp and accurate -- more so than our (much adored) 24-inch 2408WFP, that's for sure. Be prepared to catch this one next month with an MSRP of $1,049.
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
_103x88.jpg)
WQHD?
@Eraser
Wide Quad High-Definition? If so, it's pretty presumptuous especially since, you know, most people don't consider 1280x720 (which what this is four of) to be the be-all and end-all of "High-Definition".
Now, 3840x2160 would a proper "WQHD". :-P I could really get behind that screen resolution.
@Eraser
2560x1440 would be classified under WQXGA
@Old fogie late bloomer
Not quite WQHD, but IBM did WQUXGA (3840×2400 pixels) back in 2001. At 22-inch and 206 PPI, it costed 18 grand when it launched (microscope not included).
IBM T220/T221 LCD monitors - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors
Hawt
This and a 27 i7 iMac for a perfect pair, 7.4 Megapixels of visual canvas.
WANT
Too bad Jay Z is selling his DOA versions of the iMac, I'm not so much of a fan.
Want...
...a coupon first.
As for the term, I think Dell just made it up.
@pbdye
I think so too, because the most reliable source ever*, wikipedia, doesn't have anything on WQHD.
*Not really.
@pbdye
Oh god yes, I so WANT this monitor and I NEED a coupon.
Wow. Want.
I need to upgrade from my Dell 2005FPW.
@einhanderkiller Don't. Keep the 2005FPW alongside, at least.
The 2005FPW is a god among monitors.
is 27in big enough or will the pixel density be too much? I am getting old now and my sight is not 20/10 anymore...
@chodaboy19
Umm...this is a argument that many people make against a high res/high ppi monitor. It's pointless. You can increase icon size or text size if your vision isn't that great...or get glasses.
@chodaboy19 It's the same pixel density as the new 27" iMac, which isn't any harder to read than a 13" Macbook.
@chodaboy19 I think it will definitely have too much resolution - it will average 109dpi assuming it is 16:9, and that is the highest I've seen in large monitors.
I use dual 27" Dell's now, specifically to get the lower resolution.
Attempting to increase font sizes and icon sizes really doesn't work well in Windows and lots of other contexts. Too much software breaks.
What keyboard is that?
@gregwilker, Microsofts new one. Oh so sexy.
@gregwilker This one: http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/16/microsoft-bluetooth-mobile-keyboard-6000-the-perfect-travel-key/
It's definitely awesome.
27" at 2560x1440? Wonder why they did that. HMMMMMM
@jellotime91 Well, the Cinema HD Display 30" is only a bit bigger and has the same horizontal resoultion.
@revoltracers yes because until Apple introduced the iMac 27" there was no monitor lower than 30" that had this resolution!
@jellotime91
Don't be an idiot. It's not as though Apple set a trend with the 27" 2560x1440. Monitor makers like Apple and Dell use whatever the LCD panel makers choose to make. It's not "OMG DELL COPY APPLE!!!11" It's that they HAVE to make monitors at that size and res because that's what the panel is!
@kkl1014
You took the words right out of my mouth.
@ jellotime91
Take time to research and you wont sound like an idiot when you say "Apple introduced the iMac 27" there was no monitor lower than 30" that had this resolution!"
@kkl1014 except that the 27" iMac is an LED display... not LCD.
So it's not the same panel. :/
@jellotime91
You are a moron.
@jellotime91
It is called aspect ratio.
480/270 = 1.777777...
1280/720 = 1.777777...
1920/1080 = 1.777777...
2560/1440 = 1.777777...
1280x720 X 2 = 2560x1440
Wonder why Apple copied that. HMMMMM?
@jellotime91 Rather than dissing you, I'll explain:
They're both LCD panels. The difference is in the backlighting. The LED in the iMac is LED backlighting that goes behind and lights up the LCD panel, whilst in the U2711 it is probably some kind of CCFL. The LED backlight is more environmentally friendly, I think, but otherwise at this level of monitors it should be more or less the same performance-wise.
Niether of these monitors use LEDs for the panel.
@jellotime91
At least when the 27" dell monitor turns up, rest of the computer will still work.
@NohOne1 And this means what? You can do simple math?
@kkl1014 If they were the first to do it, by definition they set the trend. so what's your point? Don't hurt yourself it's not really a question.
@eminisp where's your research? Did you google ,"nasty gasbag"- wrong search.
@NohOne1
Dude, don't show math to fashion design major. Their head might explode.
@appliance
What?!?!? You sound like an idiot also when you say "where's your research? Did you google ,"nasty gasbag"- wrong search." STFU
@jellotime91
That comment was so stupid, I automatically assumed it was sarcasm. Haha
I don't not understand what this obsession with a microscopic bezel is. I don't know anyone else, but I actually like having something to grasp onto. I mean the bezel on the new Smartbook from Lenovo could be an example of unnecessary bezel size, but really Engadget? THIS is an example of a "bezel done wrong?" I think you need to stop caring so much about minute aesthetics. Especially since this bezel isn't even that large.
@Solidstate89 I thought that bezel was pretty thin. What are Engadget comparing it to?
@revoltracers
Your guess is as good as mine, but apparently there's something just monstrously ugly about that bezel.
*shrugs*
@Solidstate89 It matters more in this case because professionals love to dual monitor these and the smaller the black bar between the screens the better.
@Solidstate89
One word... Eyefinity
How on earth does that "sway you back into the single-monitor camp." I just want two of these.
@magic6435 My thoughts exactly.
@magic6435
Three in portrait?
No 16:10 form factor is a big loss, I never want a 16:9 monitor, even if it is 250x1440
@eyean540 I thought I would feel that way...but as I'm working on one now, I don't miss it so much. Especially since the overall upgrade in size (from 24" to 27") is still a gain in vertical pixel count.
@eyean540
I'm kinda with you... I compromised and got a 1366x768 laptop, but I am still fonder of 16:10, and there's a 1920x1200 monitor sitting on my desk.
Then again, I'd take a 1920x1080 monitor over a 1680x1050 one, so whatever. If you're gonna shell out for this one, though, why not go 30" and get the full 16:10 monty?
@eyean540
+1. Years ago I can't understand why people around do not like fresh new 16:10 widescreen but stick to their old 4:3. Now, I am in the group hate the fresh new 16:9 and would love to find all the way down to the not that new 16:10. For WUXGA, 16:9 means 120 px lose on vertical or you may translate that number into 4 Vista taskbars or 3 Windows 7 taskbars!!
@eyean540 At least it's not 1920x1080. At least it has more pixels than 1920x1200.
@eyean540
Just put your taskbar on the left side and you get pseudo16:10. Windows 7 and OS X are perfectly designed for this.
Yep. IPS weeeee. $1K ooooookay. Coupon mmhmmmmm.
Where can I get on the list?
Makes my 23-inch Dell look small...