Unfortunately, as I went to test this display using SMTT, which I’ve used for the past year, I found my license has expired. Furthermore, the author has stopped selling licenses right now, so we can’t use it anymore. This is unfortunate as it let us easily determine input lag versus pixel response time, and nothing else does that as well. With that gone, I went to three different options to test the lag on the Dell U3014:

  • The Leo Bodnar Lag Tester
  • FlatPanelsHD lag timer
  • 3DMark03

Using the FlatPanelsHD test, it was a straight 49 or 50ms each time on the U3014. Since you have to mirror this on a CRT, that means running at 1920x1080 resolution on the Dell so the usual caveats apply, though it was the same lag with 1:1 pixel mapping or with scaling, so at least that introduces no additional penalty.

Using 3DMark03, I managed to measure right around 37.3ms, and with the Leo Bodnar lag tester I measured 33.8ms. All of these were while running in Game Mode, so the least input lag that I saw was two frames. Because I don’t live in a vacuum, I also looked at the results that TFT Central managed with the same display, since they have an oscilloscope that I don’t and they found virtually no lag at all. I think the 50ms number is really off, as there are issues with using a Flash timer for measuring lag. The Leo Bodnar actually gives three results, 28.4, 34, and 38.9, depending on if you are high, middle, or low on the screen, and so that low one more closely matches up with the 3DMark one, where the FPS counter is at the bottom.

Because of this, I think the Leo Bodnar average of the three is the most accurate number that I can produce right now. Of course, that is over HDMI and not DisplayPort or DVI, and at 1080p, so the reliability of that number is admittedly low, but there is no better solution available to me to measure it right now. I’d like to produce a better number than that, but sadly I can't at present. Hopefully SMTT will come back, as it produces a much better number with more verifiably accurate data, but right now I’m stuck with this method.

Processing Lag Comparison (By FPS)

Power Use on the Dell is pretty good, considering the size of the panel. With an all-white screen at full backlight, it uses 77 watts of power. With the same screen and minimum backlight, it uses 33 watts of power. Given that 27” CCFL monitors can use well over 100 watts, to get this out of a 30” LCD is very good and a testament to the GB-LED backlighting system. To put this into a new way of measuring, at maximum backlight the U3014 produces 12.19 Candelas per Watt, and at minimum it produces 4.11 Candelas per Watt. I’ll try to use Candelas/Watt going forward, as it allows for uniform evaluations of power efficiency across all screen sizes. There are only a few monitors in here now, but I will try to go back and add more as I can.

LCD Power Draw (Kill-A-Watt)

Candelas per Watt

We’ve already looked at Gamut a bit with the AdobeRGB charts, but I’m going to use the Gamutvision chart to see exactly how much of the AdobeRGB gamut is covered. According to its data, we see that 97% of the AdobeRGB gamut is accounted for. The Dell specs call for 99%, but with our slight under-saturation in red that probably accounts for the difference. It is still a very good number overall and should satisfy those that need the expanded gamut of AdobeRGB.

LCD Color Quality

Display Uniformity Dell U3014: Great Performance with a Few Limitations
Comments Locked

84 Comments

View All Comments

  • twotwotwo - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    Wow, kind of surprised at monitors with 30+ millisecond lag times. I know it's not *that* long. But it is longer than my ping time to Google, and it's hand to monitor, not over a wide-area network. :)
  • cheinonen - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    I really think this is more of a factor of target markets. Games don't use AdobeRGB gamuts, or really need uniformity correctly like photo and graphics work do. If the processing for those features adds a bit of gaming lag I don't think Dell would consider that a big downside, since that isn't the target market anyway. As I said in the review, I'm only so certain on those lag numbers, as other people found much better ones, but methods for measuring lag on a 30" display are a little lacking right now.
  • Kurge - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    It has excellent lag times, well above average. It has a game mode which apparently they didn't test?
  • cheinonen - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    The lag times are using the game mode. I'll update the text later to reflect this fact.
  • Sabresiberian - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    Tftcentral reports a significantly lower lag time in gaming mode:

    http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u3014.htm

    They are using a different method than they did a few months ago, and all the numbers are lower than what they used to report. They claim it is more accurate.
  • AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - link

    cheinonen, lag sucks for normal use, not just gaming! Most people are slower mouse users than myself; I demand responsiveness. I also don't want audio/video out of sync.
  • Martin_Schou - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    To be fair, a ping is typically only 32 bytes. A 2560x1600 monitor has 4 million pixels, each of which needs at least 32 bits of data.
  • JlHADJOE - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    To be fair, the distance to your monitor is typically only 3 feet. A ping to google's servers is probably several hundred miles, each hop of which needs to go through routing equipment which adds its own latency.
  • Sabresiberian - Monday, April 15, 2013 - link

    Number of pixels doesn't seem to be the cause of greater lag, added OSD and connection types make a big difference.
  • asdftech - Friday, April 19, 2013 - link

    Throughput and latency are different things.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now