Viewsonic rolls out 27-inch VX2739wm LCD monitor with 1ms response time
By Donald Melanson 
posted May 6th 2010 8:03PM
posted May 6th 2010 8:03PM
If there's one thing LCD manufacturers live for it's "world's first" claims, and Viewsonic has now snagged yet another with its new VX2739wm monitor, which it claims is the world's first full HD 27-inch monitor with a 1ms response time. In addition to that standout spec, you'll also get a 100,000:1 contrast ratio, a pair of discreetly built-in speakers, an "anti-glare" panel, a four-port USB hub, and the usual trio of HDMI, DVI and VGA connectors -- not to mention a suitably slim design. Look for this one to be available from all the usual sources starting today for $349.
That's fast
@ALBGunner04 and that response time makes a difference how...?
also, damn she's hot.
@ALBGunner04 That's what she said =(
@ALBGunner04
Fast, yes...but 1920 X 1080 at 27inch...That won't look too good...I mean, the pixel density is quite a bit lower than other 27inch monitors...and it isn't 120Hz/3D-ready...probably (almost definitely) using a TN panel...so all the more disappointing...Still, viewsonic makes pretty good looking monitors...
and Damn...She is hot...
@ALBGunner04
fast and not badly priced. It's a shame the resolution is so bad.
@David Bailey
yeah, does she come with the monitor? :)
@ALBGunner04 it's fast...but it's not even spec'd at 120 HZ. They've got the display capable of WAY past 120HZ...but no 120HZ
@manofchao5 No she delivers it.
@ALBGunner04
T he HD craze has ruined monitors. A 27 inch screen should d have a much higher resolution than 1920x1080...
@ALBGunner04
I wonder what's the point of these hyper-fast displays. I understand gamers care about those milliseconds, but what kind of eye sight can notice a difference between this and say an 8ms panel?
I'm probably missing something crucial here, and will most likely sound like an ignorant by saying this, but I'll say it anyway: 100 FPS translates to 10ms/frame, so any 10ms display or below should suffice. By the same token, being 1ms this panel would allow gaming at 1000 FPS. Is that even feasible?
@kapanak
Agreed. I won;t buy a 22/24" that's not at least 1200 vertical lines. Shit the MacBook Pro 17" screen has that... At 27 or 30" 1600 vertical, if not 1440 as a "compromise" is the standard accepted resolution.
1080 is a TV screen, not a monitor.
@AltairDusk: I agree that the resolution is crappy for that size screen.
However full 2560 x 1600 screens are well over $1000 so it's not quite apples to apples.
@LEDfoot and all of those screens are using TFT or IPS panels.... I would love a reasonably priced 27" monitor with the 2560 1440 resolution. I'd be happy with TN panel.
I wish she came standard.
@bravokiloromeo
damn. she just gave me a 1ms response time
@skyblaze
Sounds like you need to work on your stamina a bit ;)
@bravokiloromeo
He said response time, not uptime!
@Wowzers
Touché, good sir *tips hat*
Hello
Hey, what happened to Display port? No, I'm not talking Apple's mini display port. I'm talking about the regular display port, the one that is supposed to be the standard in PCs. It's like it's dead on arrival with almost nothing supports it.
Is that legit 100000:1 or is that dynamic?
@The Dead Marxist Trio
It doesn't really matter since there's no standard way to measure it.
i guarantee that if they put her on the box, this will sell like hotcakes.
@Stevenk
Did you figure that out all on your own...or did you get some help?
What resolution is "Full HD" anyways? Last time I checked a computer I didn't have an option for "Crappy", "Partial HD", "Full HD". This is a computer monitor... if it's 27" and only 1080p resolution (read 1920x1080) then that's a pretty sorry resolution for a screen. Something up in that size and I expect higher resolution than what I can get out of a 20~22" monitor.
@Kuipo it's $350, what do you expect.
I can see this as something for my dad though. "Full HD" creates too small text on a ~22" monitor. And boosting the font size in Windows is not elegant. a giant ass 27" would look much better.
@Kuipo - Why do people call this a monitor? Since when have monitors come with built-in speakers? It's a TV.
@GeekPI I suppose I was thrown by the title of the article, the summary, and the webpage all calling it a monitor, and the fact that it has drivers available for six versions of windows, and has built in USB ports, and supports both VGA and DVI, and is shown plugged into a computer on the Viewsonic webpage. My bad.
@GeekPI since when did LCD monitors not have cheesy built in speakers?
@Kuipo
Man that is a freaky avatar.
On topic, I was like lol what with the speakers. I can see use for the hub because unlike my Logictech G11, the monitor is powered, likely USB 2.0. My 21" Samsung, like 3 years old now I think, is 1680 x 1050, and I've seen a 23" new Samsung with 1900 x 1080. The difference is pretty remarkable how much more screen you have.
I can imagine density issues in the extra 4 inches.
@GeekPI
Speakers do not a TV make. Some LCD monitors have had built-in (and usually poor) speakers since the days when 4:3 aspect ratios were the norm.
By some standards, it is not a television unless it has a tuner. By that definition, my HDTV would not be a television, but it has analog video inputs (component, S-video & composite) which this monitor lacks.
Wowww. I can dig the 27" monitors.
@Awesomesquared
Still waiting for quad HD resolution on them though. Until then, I'm not upgrading.
@Abe yeah... im typing this on the 27" imac so im pretty content with my res right now..
While the price isn't horrible, 1920x1080? That's what I run on my 19" monitor currently. My 27" will do 2560x1440!
@lowtolerance 1920x1080 on a 27" is a pretty reasonable dot pitch
@rekit It's got a dot pitch of over .3mm. That's not reasonable, it's actually pretty bad, considering most entry level monitors have a dot pitch of around .26-.28
Damn shes hot
Who cares? Response time is useless...
Here's a better one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254043
Bigger, better resolution, less expensive.
@Johnny Rockets dude, LOOK AT THE GIRL.
@fanboy
LOL
@Johnny Rockets
but it does not have a 100,000:1 contrast ratio, only 15000:1.
@Motoken
What does that matter?
I honestly have no idea.
I doubt the average user would be able to tell the difference (or care).
who gives a frack about response time anymore. they are all low enough. what is the resolution!!!! i dont care about the monitor size as much as the resolution. also considering the price, the monitor probably sucks hard core and only idiots will buy it
Really wish there was more 2560x1440/1600 monitor on the market....
So the fastest crappy colors yet!
It's a trap!
We need more monitors with Displayport compatibility.
The screen! It responded before I typed this!
120Hz? No? Not buying.