Displays typically don't produce the exact same image across their entire surface. We've quantified the uniformity of the PB287Q by taking a series of luminance readings in different regions of the panel. We set the brightness level at 200 cd/m² at the center of the screen before starting.
There's a 15% variance from the darkest region, at the top left corner of the screen, and the center. These results surprised me, honestly, because my eyes couldn't detect the differences in white levels. For what it's worth, the PB278 has very similar light distribution; the luminance of its darkest region is 86% of the center's.
I've chosen to convey backlight bleed using a picture rather than a series of measurements. The PB287Q's black levels are fairly uniform, with only a bit of light bleed at the bottom left corner of the screen.
Asus rates this monitor's optimal viewing angles at 170° of vertical range and 160° of horizontal range. I pushed past that a bit and took some pictures.
The color shift is pretty dramatic if you're looking at the screen from way above or below. Then again, I have no idea why you're looking at your desktop monitor from the ceiling like that. Maybe you should come down from there.
I should say in this context that the PB287Q's viewing angles, though clearly not as wide as an IPS panel, appear to be wider than a lot of TN panels. Also, the consequences of going beyond them aren't as dire. Notice how, in the shots from well above and below the screen, the image doesn't begin to turn inverted and get that "film negative" look like some TN panels do. From the sides, the display just looks dimmer, with no apparent color shift.
TN panels tend to be quick, and this one is no exception. Asus says it's rated for a gray-to-gray transition time of one millisecond or less, quite a bit less than the five-millisecond rating for the PB278. The thing is, input lag comes from many sources, including the scaler chip inside the monitor. The PB287Q's single-tile, 4K-ready scaler ASIC is brand new, so we'll want to see how it performs. To find out, we compared both of our test subjects against my old Dell 3007WFP-HC. The 3007WFP-HC's IPS panel isn't particularly fast, with an 8-ms gray-to-gray spec, but this monitor has no internal scaler chip, so there's no input lag from that source.
Our screenshots of the timers tell the story. The PB278 keeps pace with the 3007WFP almost exactly, while the PB287Q runs 16 milliseconds, or a single frame at 60Hz, behind the big Dell. The GPU-based display cloning mode we're using here has some lag of its own built in, so a difference of one frame in the final output is almost nothing.
Here's power consumption. Dunno what else to say about that.
|Hynix slides tease vertically stacked memory with 256GB/s of bandwidth||13|
|HP's new Intel-powered Win8.1 tablet costs $99||0|
|Catalyst 14.9 drivers improve performance, CrossFire scaling||33|
|Photoshop heading to Chromebooks—in streaming form||17|
|Chinese vendor preps $81 tablet with Bay Trail and Windows 8||20|
|VR-Zone posts purported Broadwell-U specs, anticipates CES debut||14|
|The typical enthusiast PC is more decked-out than you might think||120|
|Microsoft Indonesia President: Windows 9 will be free for Win8 users||67|
|Micron's M600 solid-state drive reviewed||18|