Dell U2913WM

skuko said:
argh, damn it, i can't decide between u2913wm and u2713hm....it's killing me!
Click to expand...

I'll help you out here. Get the U2913WM because it's 1337. :p

I'm sure you've gone through all of this but the main differences are of course size and resolution. The colour performance, contrast characteristics, screen surface and responsiveness is largely comparable for both.

Physical size differences - the U2913WM is a fair bit wider (slightly wider than a 30" 16:10 monitor) whereas it's also a fair bit shorter. A nice little visual comparison of the screen size difference - http://www.displaywars.com/28,75-inch-21x9-vs-27-inch-16x9.

There are the same number of pixels horizontally on both monitors, but they are tighter together on the U2713HM due to its size. The U2913WM has fewer vertical pixels but less height to spread these pixels. Overall the U2713HM offers the tighter pixel pitch - 108.79PPI for the U27 vs. 96.64PPI for the U29.

It's really a matter of opinion as to which will offer you the more engrossing experience when gaming, watching movies etc. And which size you will prefer for just general desktop browsing. You have more real estate on the U27 but the ultra-wide aspect of the U29 is something that many people really love. It's something quite different.
 
PCM2 said:
I'll help you out here. Get the U2913WM because it's 1337. :p

I'm sure you've gone through all of this but the main differences are of course size and resolution. The colour performance, contrast characteristics, screen surface and responsiveness is largely comparable for both.

Physical size differences - the U2913WM is a fair bit wider (slightly wider than a 30" 16:10 monitor) whereas it's also a fair bit shorter. A nice little visual comparison of the screen size difference - http://www.displaywars.com/28,75-inch-21x9-vs-27-inch-16x9.

There are the same number of pixels horizontally on both monitors, but they are tighter together on the U2713HM due to its size. The U2913WM has fewer vertical pixels but less height to spread these pixels. Overall the U2713HM offers the tighter pixel pitch - 108.79PPI for the U27 vs. 96.64PPI for the U29.

It's really a matter of opinion as to which will offer you the more engrossing experience when gaming, watching movies etc. And which size you will prefer for just general desktop browsing. You have more real estate on the U27 but the ultra-wide aspect of the U29 is something that many people really love. It's something quite different.
Click to expand...

thanks for the insight PCM2 :) i always appreciate your replies. in this case yes, i have thoroughly researched said subject. i have had some 27"monitors before (namely the Fujitsu P27T-6, which i returned as i didn't have a machine to fully take advantage of it at the time), i just find the 21:9 aspect ratio very intriguing and as the main use of the monitor will be gaming and watching movies, it might be really awesome.

BUT

i think i may have found a turning point. diablo 3 - in the current state, the only way to run it in the native 2560x1080 res is to select "windowed fullscreen"

blizzard mentioned they will probably even remove this, because they think it gives players unfair advantage. same goes for starcraft 2 (which i understand, because SC2 is a competitive game).

this leads me to think twice about buying, because i literally hate the forced stretched picture and even though the newer titles will most probably support this resolution, i have doubts about the ratio now.

when i think about it, it kind of reminds me with the entry of 16:9 ratio back in the day, everyone was bitching about that as well, when the common was 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 at the most, remember? :D
 
Last edited:
skuko said:
thanks for the insight PCM2 :) i always appreciate your replies. in this case yes, i have thoroughly researched said subject. i have had some 27"monitors before (namely the Fujitsu P27T-6, which i returned as i didn't have a machine to fully take advantage of it at the time), i just find the 21:9 aspect ratio very intriguing and as the main use of the monitor will be gaming and watching movies, it might be really awesome.

BUT

i think i may have found a turning point. diablo 3 - in the current state, the only way to run it in the native 2560x1080 res is to select "windowed fullscreen"

blizzard mentioned they will probably even remove this, because they think it gives players unfair advantage. same goes for starcraft 2 (which i understand, because SC2 is a competitive game).

this leads me to think twice about buying, because i literally hate the forced stretched picture and even though the newer titles will most probably support this resolution, i have doubts about the ratio now.

when i think about it, it kind of reminds me with the entry of 16:9 ratio back in the day, everyone was bitching about that as well, when the common was 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 at the most, remember? :D
Click to expand...

That's a shame about Diablo 3. Since it is such a new thing (the 2560 x 1080 resolution) there will be some titles that don't support it. I expect in the future that support will be much better. So yes, it reminds me very much of when 16:9 was a new thing and many games didn't support the proper resolution!
 
Hmm thats a real bummer on Diablo and SCII.

Due to low amount of players using super wide they most probably will remove it too.It does offer an advantage though in SCII.I dont see why SCII and D3 do not drive ultra wide res to be honest as its much better suited to those games.And i saw them post about how they test wow at that res so its not all blizzard game thankfully.


At least BF3 supports 21:9.I saw some helicopter footage and i thought to myself yes that actually finally looks like a half decent cockpit view.You see more outside the heli too so u can pay to win as they like to say in BF at least!


Tough choice eh? im skint now and came SO close to busting my CC when the 2913 was on offer for £364 but ill have to wait a few months before i can decide on a new panel.I think U2913 if Diablo III can find a fix.
 
Last edited:
Rofflay said:
Tough choice eh? im skint now and came SO close to busting my CC when the 2913 was on offer for £364 but ill have to wait a few months before i can decide on a new panel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was in the same boat. Was really tempted but it turns out half the games I regularly play wont work with it and software companies seem 50/50 on whether they're going to support the format.

I'm starting to favour the 16:9 u2713hm just because of guaranteed compatibility but to be honest if more games started supporting 21:9 I'd rather have that than 16:9.
 
hartgeh3 said:
I use my 2913wm for a lot of movies but a lot of them are 16:9 and have to change the aspect ratio, unless they are 1.85:1 / 2.35:1
Click to expand...

I spent a lot of yesterday playing with mine. In the end the best experience I've got is to rip the 16:9 blu ray (in this case transformers 3) to .mkv, compress with handbrake (no crop, keep aspect), then when playing with VLC I use the video crop 2.39:1 which fills the screen perfectly.
 
OptimaLnrg said:
I spent a lot of yesterday playing with mine. In the end the best experience I've got is to rip the 16:9 blu ray (in this case transformers 3) to .mkv, compress with handbrake (no crop, keep aspect), then when playing with VLC I use the video crop 2.39:1 which fills the screen perfectly.
Click to expand...

Yep I tried that with VLC player but I use Plex so need to go into the settings everytime to play most of my MKVs, not really a major issue but at least I can get it to fill the screen :)
 
peahead said:
I noticed when looking at these online some say LG 29EA93-P what does the P stand for maybe that is a sign of a revision change ?
Click to expand...

Right now no one knows and its a bit mess of confusion.Basically there is the old revision and apparantly a new revision sent to andtech which no one can seem to find.Lg are quiet on the issue and well LG had listed two different specs at one point.


revision 01 firmware 1.25 is supposed to have wait for it 1ms input lag??

5ms and 14ms listed on different spec sheets and different retailers as well.The dell has around 18ms in game mode and 8ms listed response time using same panel i think.


It is seriously a huge mess.Maybe LG are faking it?
 
Very nice!

But I don't think I could personally justify the loss of vertical compared to 1440
 
I assumed this monitor would leave me with black bars at the side when hooking up an xbox 360, pleasantly surprised it displays on the full screen mind you I know nowt much about monitors and ressy stuff so someone on here may know why it displays full screen?
 
Theres an option within the screens OSD, you probably have it set to full screen and not 1:1. I use mine with an xbox and have the black bars as I can't get used to everything looking so fat :D.
 
Very intrested in this panel as well as the NEC!

Bit of an update, i have just got one of these and running 80hz no probs..
Click to expand...

So are your games running at 80 FPS with Vsync switched on ?

Running at 80hrz, could further improve pixel response times ?
 
Last edited:
Response time doesn't change alongside refresh rate. Perceived blur is reduced, however. I managed to give the AOC q2963Pm a mild overclock of 72Hz (on a Radeon 7950) without any undesirable artifacts or frame skipping ensuing. These 29" monitors do overclock fairly readily but actual mileage will vary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom