NEC EA294WMi Review
by Chris Heinonen on February 10, 2014 6:00 AM ESTThe NEC EA294WMi encompasses 68.67% of the AdobeRGB colorspace. As sRGB is 68.9% that is within any margin of error for measurements on the primary and secondary colors. So we see full sRGB coverage, but nothing beyond as we are using regular white LED backlights here.
Input on the NEC is measured using the Leo Bodnar lag tester. Since it is a 1080p display (albeit wider) it should be very accurate when measured with a 1080p source. The average lag for the three measurement positions is 27.16ms, or 1.6 frames with a 60Hz game.
This isn’t fast compared to other displays so the NEC might not be the best monitor for serious gaming, or even the best 21:9 monitor for it. The ASUS MX299Q, with the same aspect ratio and resolution, has only 9 ms of lag and the LG EA93 is under 15ms. Usually I think of the 21:9 displays as good for gaming, with a wider field-of-view, but I’d have to recommend the other models over the NEC for this.
Power Use measures at 48 watts at maximum backlight and 18 watts at minimum backlight. Again these numbers are okay but the ASUS and LG both perform better among 21:9 displays. The candelas per watt is very low at minimum brightness but only because the NEC display has such a low minimum light level. I will start to collect data at an additional value, like 80 cd/m2, to make this more accurate. 18W minimum makes the NEC look much worse as it's minimum output is so low; the ASUS uses less power (16W) with 63 cd/m2 instead of NEC's 8 cd/m2.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
37 Comments
View All Comments
ShieTar - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link
> 3360 x 1440? That's nice!The LG Electronics 34UM95-P actually comes with 3440 x 1440, so its even a bit wider (2.39:1). I've ordered this one around Christmas, but it still hasn't arrived yet. Current prediction by the shop is a delivery around Feb. 20th.
piroroadkill - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
19" 4:3?I've only really seen 19" 5:4 - 1280x1024.
Colin1497 - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
Back in the day I know we had a lot of 1600x1200 Dell monitors, but they may have been branded as 20" instead of 19"? Eventually they ended up paired with 1920x1200 24" monitors before being phased out...DanNeely - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
I know there were 20" 1600x1200 panels, I've got NEC and HP versions of them, but don't think I ever saw them in a 19" version.kwrzesien - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
Maybe he meant 19" CRT's? We had a host of them from Mitsubishi and they worked great at 1280x1024 @ 85Hz, or 1600x1200 @ 60Hz. They were our "coding" monitors, our production user spec was still at 1024x768 on a 14" CRT at the time!!! (where is the horror emoticon when you need it!)purerice - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
A lot of monitors vintage '98 were 20 or 21" but 19 or 19.8" viewable with 1600x1200 resolution.It could just be a difference between official vs viewable size.
GTVic - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
That is what I have, Dell 2007FP + Dell U2410 plus a matching pair at the office. Both monitors have 1200 vertical pixels, unfortunately the height is not identical, 2107 would have been a near perfect match.blackmagnum - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
It's still 1080p. Good for movies and spreadsheets but bad for reading Anandtech (unless you want it towering over your head).DarkXale - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link
Its rather intended to be used instead of two adjacent 1280x1080 monitors. You completely eliminate the border in the middle which provides greater flexibility in how you display your content.In other words, maximising it to use the entire width is doing it wrong.
KnightRAF - Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - link
Exactly. It's a 1080p high monitor that's wide enough to view two webpages side by side without problems due to the window not being at least 1024px wide.