Over the past 18 months, we’ve all been happy to watch as the price of 27” 1440p monitors has steadily fallen. With cheaper import panels becoming available, the cost of moving up to a high resolution panel has fallen considerably. I reviewed the Nixeus VUE 27 last year as it was the cheapest way at the time to get a 1440p panel while still getting a US warranty. Now Nixeus is back with a 30” monitor, the Nixeus VUE 30. With the 16:10 aspect ratio that commenters continually ask for and an IPS panel, will this mark the shift of a downward trend for 30” monitor prices as well?

The design of the VUE 30 is similar to the VUE 27 that I previously reviewed. The controls for the display remain in the lower-right and it has the same OSD interface of its predecessor. Since the OSD was one of my faults with the VUE 27 I was hoping to see this improve but it did not. A welcome change, which I also saw on the ASUS PQ321Q, is locating the inputs on the left side of the display and not the bottom. This makes them far more accessible for quickly hooking up a device like a laptop. As the VUE 30 is so large due to the screen size, it has plenty of space to connect cables without them sticking out the sides of the display.

The connections options consist of DisplayPort, DSub, DVI, and HDMI, along with an audio output for headphones. The HDMI port is listed as 1.4a but it does not support 2560x1600 resolutions; if you want the full 2560x1600 resolution you will need to use a DVI-DL or DisplayPort connection. The back of the display is very solid and metal, but the front is a glossy plastic bezel that I would prefer be matte.

As with the VUE 27 the stand for the monitor screws together with some small screws and not with captive screws or a tool-free mechanism. Compared to the VUE 27 the packaging has greatly improved. Parts are well laid out in the package, and there are no cheap boxes or labels that look like it was transferred straight from a foreign assembly line. The initial feeling of opening the VUE 27 was one of my complaints, as it felt cheap and rushed. Nixeus has learned from that and the packing and presentation of the VUE 30 is much improved.

The stand is also improved from the VUE 27 model. It allows for an easier swivel but lacks any height adjustment and is not as solid as a Dell or ASUS stand would be. The VESA mounting holes are a less common 200mm x 100mm pattern, so aftermarket stands might require an additional adapter to be used. The external power brick and its custom connector have been replaced with a standard IEC port, reducing desk clutter.

One key difference with the VUE 30 from other affordable displays is the use of a wide gamut CCFL backlight. This allows for a gamut that goes well beyond the AdobeRGB gamut, as the testing will show later, and is not common to find except in displays aimed at graphics professionals. The displays that target graphics professionals also tend to have sRGB modes to reign in that gamut but the Nixeus does not. We will see in our testing the behavior that this causes.    

Nixeus VUE30
Video Inputs DisplayPort 1.2, DVI-D DL, HDMI 1.4a, Dsub
Panel Type IPS
Pixel Pitch 0.25mm
Colors 1.07 Billion
Brightness 350 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio 1000:1
Response Time 7ms GTG
Viewable Size 30"
Resolution 2560x1600
Viewing Angle (H/V) 178/178
Backlight CCFL
Power Consumption (operation) 130W minimum
Power Consumption (standby) None Specified
Screen Treatment Anti-Glare
Height-Adjustable No
Tilt No
Pivot No
Swivel Yes
VESA Wall Mounting Yes, 100mm x 200mm
Dimensions w/ Base (WxHxD) 27.5" x 22" x 3"
Weight 22 lbs.
Additional Features 3.5mm Output, stereo speakers
Limited Warranty 1 Year
Accessories DVI-DL Cable, Power Cable
Price $730

With an IPS panel, the viewing angles on the VUE 30 are what you expect. Unless you try to sit perpendicular to the display you should be just fine. There is a bit of contrast wash-out at the extreme angles, but nothing you will see in daily use.

Brightness and Contrast
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • DanNeely - Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - link

    Read before you comment. This was answered above; there's no off the shelf hardware to do so at 2560.
  • Sivar - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    "Viewable Size 20""
    Typo -- please fix.
  • abhaxus - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    it's time to end this farce and stop posting input lag numbers that are not at native resolution. I've bought two monitors in the last 8 months (a 23" eIPS Asus and a 27" Qnix QX2710 from Korea) and got NO help from these Anandtech reviews, due to the ridiculous notion that input lag at 1080p is somehow comparable to what it would be with no scaling. Either don't put the number up there, or do the tests at native res.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    Unless the scaler totally deactivates and thus doesn't contribute to lag, running native won't be any less laggy. For most displays, the presence of a scaler is an all or nothing thing. The old Dell 3008WFP had much worse lag than the 3007WFP because it had multiple inputs and a scaler. Unless something has changed, I wouldn't expect native resolution to be less laggy.

    As I noted above, however, the problem is in testing for input lag at native. We used to compare to a CRT, which meant we were limited to CRT resolutions. Now Chris is using the Leo Bodnar lag tester...which has a max resolution support of 1080p. Until someone makes one capable of testing native 4K and WQXGA, Chris doesn't have a way to test input lag at native on these displays.
  • cheinonen - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    Adding to what Jared said, testing on displays that offer both 1:1 mode and a scaling stretch mode, I typically see only 1-2ms of delay difference between them.Most monitors are using cheap, fast scalers that doesn't add that much lag. Things like color management and other features, which you'll see in more displays now, add far more lag because that is more intensive work to do.

    Believe me, if someone makes a lag tester that does more than 1080p I'm buying it. Otherwise buying a scope for a single measurement is just cost prohibitive.
  • HisDivineOrder - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    Seems inevitable that the 2560x1600 will remain mostly niche with 2560x1440 becoming the go-to resolution in the post-4K world that we'll be soon living in. Monitor makers will be selling these 1440p displays hand over fist when people become convinced they want a high resolution display but find the pricetag on 4K to be out of this world and they come back down to Earth, still wanting a higher resolution display than 720p/768p/1080p.

    I doubt they'll make 1600p the go-to resolution, so they'll split the difference and go with 1440p to maximize profits (the exact reason they went to 1080p instead of 1200p).
  • Sabresiberian - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    Frankly, I think about sRGB the same way I think about TN and 16:9 - they are low-quality standards that I would like to see fade away from mainstream monitors. While I agree that any monitor aimed at said mainstream should be sRGB capable, I can't help but think it is really time for the standard to be raised. It is possible to give us full AdobeRGB without breaking the bank - as is proven here.

    This isn't an LCD thing, of course, sRGB pervades the industry all along the path of software and hardware. But, not many people are demanding higher quality color reproduction, so when is it going to change, if ever?

    Well, I'll say it - sRGB is a low-quality standard, and it is time we moved on.
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    You're right, but of course 99% of laptops can't even do sRGB let alone AdobeRGB or NTSC, and laptops are now outselling desktops. I've been using a high gamut HP LP3065 for years, though, and while I notice the oversaturation at times, when I'm working with many imaging programs (Photoshop, even most browsers now, and MS Photo Viewer) appear to recognize AdobeRGB properly.
  • SeannyB - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    I hope some day we'll simply have color management on all OSes (namely Windows and Android), and not just OSX. I'm living with a calibrated and profiled extended gamut 1600p monitor in Windows 7, and it's tough. Windows 7 doesn't assume/remap its shell to sRGB, or any other apps. Only certain software like Adobe's, and a few others with effort (Irfanview, Firefox, Media Player Classic Home Cinema) are "color aware". Google Chrome remaps correctly when viewing JPEGs with colorspace tags, but everything else in that browser is oversaturated. (It doesn't assume sRGB from untagged images and web colors.)

    I think a future of ubiquitous color management will have to happen in a world of ubiquitous OLED displays. That's a future that continuously seems over the horizon.
  • ZeDestructor - Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - link

    There are preferences in FF that sets default colourspace to sRGB (I used it on and off, depending on my mood), so only correctly tagged pictures are rendered with wide gamut.

    For the windows shell, it doesn't matter, and lastly, for the programs, well, Windows' integrated picture viewer is colour aware, as I was surprised to discover. Its all there where it should be. You don't really care what your UI elements look like, but pictures and video you do care.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now