The market for 21:9 aspect ratio displays has grown a lot in the past year and seems poised to grow more. CES this year saw the introduction of 21:9 displays with 1440 lines of vertical resolution as opposed to 1080, making it a more direct replacement for 27” displays. As more people look for a single display to handle a PC as well as movies, TV, and gaming the popularity of them may increase even further.

The NEC EA294WMi offers some unique features compared to other 21:9 displays. The ability to work in Portrait mode and use a VESA mount is long overdue here. Used in Portrait mode working on long documents is made much easier than when it is in Landscape. Their adjustable picture-by-picture, which adjusts the size based on source resolution, is a useful feature for using the display for two sources at once. Some of the other features, like linking multiple units together, are nice in theory but likely to be utilized little in practice. The NEC also has a large selection of inputs that makes it easy to use with any source you want to connect it to.

However, once we move from the ergonomics and features into performance, the EA294WMi suffers in comparison. The pre-calibration numbers are not anything to really marvel over. They’re okay at best though they do improve a lot after calibration. Additionally the input lag is much higher than on other 21:9 displays, which makes it worse as a gaming monitor than the other 21:9 models I have tested.

With its unique feature set, NEC seems to be focusing more on medical imaging (thanks to DICOM compatibility) and people that need a really tall portrait display. This is something that the other 21:9 displays on the market cannot do. For both of these markets the NEC presents a better option than 21:9 models from other vendors. For home use, with more gaming and general use, I don’t see as much of a benefit for the NEC. I’d pick the other models for gaming, and many of the special features on the NEC might be more useful in a professional setting.

If you want a monitor that can work as a large portrait display, the NEC does a very good job here. If you want a 21:9 display for gaming or dual use, I’d look at the options from LG or ASUS first. They offer lower lag times, better contrast ratios, and better pre-calibration numbers. The NEC EA294WMi isn’t bad; it just isn’t as good as those displays are for most people. And it costs more. Sure, the stand is a big part of that, but is it worth $250 more than the ASUS MX299Q or $200 more than the LG 29EA73-P? Probably not for most people.

Color Gamut, Input Lag and Power Use
Comments Locked

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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now