In August 2012, Nixeus launched the VUE27, a 27" WQHD (2560x1440) S-IPS LED monitor with a $430 price tag. However, the high demand led to a backlog and the monitor currently retails close to $500. The follow-up was a 30" WQXGA version priced at $700, the Nixeus VUE 30. As expected, the price has now increased to $890. By providing US-based service / warranty, they managed to win over quite a big segment of the market which was being served by eBay sellers based in Korea. However, with Monoprice getting into the game, the competition in this market has become hot. In order to counter the pricing pressure, Nixeus is introducing a new model, the NX-VUE27D. While the earlier models had a wide variety of input ports, Nixeus is making this one DisplayPort only. Fortunately, for the $450 pricing, a Mini-DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable as well as a DisplayPort cable are bundled.

The claimed features specifications of the NX-VUE27D are as below:

  • 27" IPS LED Backlight Display Monitor
  • 2560 x 1440 WQHD
  • Compatible with Thunderbolt and DisplayPort output devices
  • 16.7 million True Colors
  • 100% sRGB Color Gamut
  • VESA Mounts 3.937" x 3.937" (100mm x 100mm)
  • Height Adjustable Base Stand with Tilt, Swivel and 90° Pivot
  • Edge to Edge Plasma Infused Glass to reduce reflection
  • Thin Bezel Design
  • 2 Year Limited Warranty
  • Brightness: 380cd/m2
  • Native Contrast Ratio: 1000:1
  • Viewing Angles:178° horizontal/178° vertical
  • Refresh Rate: 60Hz
  • Response Time: 6ms (Gray to Gray)
  • Pixel Pitch:0.233mm
  • Input Port: DisplayPort
  • Power Consumption:72 watts
  • Accessories included: Mini-DisplayPort to DisplayPort cable (for compatibility with Mac, Macbooks, and Thunderbolt devices), DisplayPort cable, Quick Set-up guide and external power supply (North America)

The Nixeus NX-VUE27D is slated to ship on October 22, 2013, with pre-orders currently on at Amazon and Comp-U-Plus.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • fishfishfish - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    I just bought a QNIX - one of those korea based ebay sellers you mentioned. cheap make and panels are hit and miss.. There is a serious lack of reasonably priced and quality built 1440p & 1600p monitors IMO. With next gen GPU's claiming gaming capabilities at 4k, I wander if most gamers will skip 1440p and 1600p in favour of 4k. Although again that comes down to price.. can't see 4k monitors dropping to < 1000 for at least a few years.. i know i'll be ready when it happens though :)
  • inighthawki - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    My understanding is that both Xbox One and PS4 still have some trouble rendering at 1080p @60hz, let alone 4K. Maybe at best, they have the capability to drive a 4K display for their main UI, but I would be astonished if there were any games that would support it. Even high end PC GPUs like the Titan and the 290X are going to have trouble doing any real gaming at 4K with high quality shaders.
  • psuedonymous - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    1080p displayed on a 1080p panel vs. 1080p upscaled to UHD (4K is a cinema thing, let's not mix things up) with one of the many varieties of computationally cheap post-AA, the 4K panel will look better. It's even an integer multiple of 1080p, so you can pixel-double with no overhead for the game itself and render the UI/HUD at full resolution and have the best of both worlds.
  • Origin64 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    The consoles are going to render UI at 1080 and upscale to 4K (which might work decently with 1:2 pixel mapping, but it'll be advertized as true 4K just like current consoles are supposed to be 1080p), games will be 720-1080p and might not even upscale. If you want 4K compatibility, go PC, and shell out the big bucks.

    If 2 Titans can run 5760*1080 they can run 3860*2160 almost as well, so dual high end cards seem to be the minimum for relatively smooth (40+ fps) play
  • nathanddrews - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    Smooth play at max/ultra settings, yes. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I generally don't play with max settings even when I have the option. For me, high frame rates trump candy every time. I'm not saying I only play CS at 800x600 with low settings, but I'll usually target the native resolution of a display and tweak accordingly.

    I'm all for pushing the candy to the max as they make for pretty screenshots, but I'd really like to see some 4K benchmarks with low and medium settings just to see what is realistic for the sub-$600 GPU crowd. Honestly, nothing is more annoying than swaying grass or exploding debris making it harder to track targets. Pretty to look at, but not helpful in many games.
  • dalingrin - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    Once you go 120hz, there's no going back. I won't touch 4K or 1440p until we get monitors that can handle 120hz at those resolutions.
    While I do definitely want higher density monitors, I would rather see non-TN panels capable of greater than 60hz refresh rates first.
  • tackle70 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link

    I disagree... once you go to higher resolution, you never go back!
  • Samus - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    Likewise, I picked up an HP ZR2740 2560x1440 monitor on ebay for $450 used. Excellent monitor, especially in games; once you go big you never go back. BF3/4 in 1440P is just ridiculous.
  • Rainman11 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    You can get a QNIX/Xstar 1440p PLS that can do 120hz for cheaper than most 120hz 1080p TN monitors. In other words 1080p TN 120hz = waste of money.
  • Novulux - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link

    Some Korean 1440p monitors can overclock to 120Hz, you can also by 120Hz capable PCBs for ~$200.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now