This was posted 8 years 3 months 5 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • out of stock

Dell SE2716H 27" Curved Monitor 1920x1080 at 60hz 16:9 - $357.60 @ Dell eBay

550
Dell SE2716H 27" Curved Monitor 1920x1080 at 60hz 16:9 - $357.60 @ Dell eBay
Go to Deal
Cashback
spackbace on 17/08/2016 - 19:00 ebay.com.au (2509 clicks)
Last edited 17/08/2016 - 19:01
CHOICE20

Another markdown by Dell today (thanks Ham/blueskittles for the initial heads up)

RRP $559, marked down to $447.20, so now $357.60 with the eBay sale :)

Market Price is around the $500 mark

Diagonally Viewable Size: 68.5 cm 27 Inches (27-inch wide viewable image size)
Aspect Ratio: Widescreen (16:9)
Panel Type, Surface: Vertical alignment , anti glare with hard coat 3H
Optimal Resolution: 1920 x 1080 at 60Hz
Contrast Ratio: 3000: 1 (typical), Dynamic Contrast Ratio : 8 Million:1
Brightness: 300 cd/m2 (typical)
Response Time: 6 ms (gray to gray) FAST Mode
Viewing Angle: 178° vertical / 178° horizontal
Adjustability: Tilt
Color Support: Color Gamut (typical): 85% (CIE1976), 72% (CIE 1931)5 16.7 Million colors
Pixel Pitch: 0.3114 mm x 0.1038 mm
Backlight Technology: LED
Display Type: Widescreen Flat Panel Display
Display Screen Coating: Antiglare with hard-coating 3H
Audio Output: NA

Original 20% off Selected Stores on eBay deal

Computing 27inch Computer Peripheral Dell LCD Monitor

Related Stores

eBay Australia
eBay Australia
Marketplace
Dell
Dell

closed Comments

  • BlitzR on 17/08/2016 - 21:17
    +5

    Wish the max Res would be higher

  • ca6leguy on 17/08/2016 - 21:27
    +2

    Resolution is dismal.

      • WeatySmalls on 17/08/2016 - 21:49
        +10

        I think you would find a lot of people would disagree. 1440p for a 27' monitor is optimal in my opinion.

        Let's not get ahead of ourselves with your 4k exaggeration

        • kaio on 17/08/2016 - 21:52

          4K at reasonable price can only get slower response ones.

          1440p is minimum now.

        • llama on 17/08/2016 - 21:56
          -3

          I think you would find a lot of people would disagree. 1440p for a 27' monitor is optimal in my opinion

          I think that we ALL would like a 27" 1440p curved IPS for $357

          So, when you find one please let us know…. I agree that would be optimal.

        • Pacify on 18/08/2016 - 15:11
          +1

          agreed, I don't think 1080p 27inch screens are worth buying. Either go down to 24 or pay more for a 1440p

      • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 00:25

        This is ozbargain. We want our prices low and our resolutions high!

  • 8millpond on 17/08/2016 - 21:38
    +3

    better pay a higher price for 144p if you really want 27 inch

    • StewBalls on 18/08/2016 - 09:22

      Just FYI, 144p is only 13.33% of the vertical resolution of 1080p. I wouldn't pay more for less… :P

  • kaio on 17/08/2016 - 21:51
    +1

    FHD? are you kidding?

  • beyondtool on 17/08/2016 - 21:53

    I'm happy with my 27in curved Samsung which has 1080p res. Then again it also supports free sync and has a VA panel, not an LED panel like this curved Dell one. If you are going curved, it's only for gaming as I can't see any other compelling reason to do so. In that sense I can't understand why one would want this Dell one? Maybe watching movies, but the contrast ratio is too low?

    • llama on 17/08/2016 - 21:59
      -1

      In that sense I can't understand why one would want one?

      Wank factor. However technically a curved screen does help with the need to refocus each time you look from centre to corners of the screen.

      Would look pretty cool as a triple monitor setup too, I guess.

      • beyondtool on 17/08/2016 - 22:15
        +1

        Why would you want triple monitors, unless you are gaming? I honestly wouldn't pick one for surfing the net or productivity. Photoshop sucks on a curved screen.

        • llama on 18/08/2016 - 18:13
          +2

          Why would you want triple monitors, unless you are gaming?

          Most modern workplaces use dual monitors, so it's nothing extreme to have multiple screens.

          The hassle with twin is that the join / bexel is in the centre, so the obvious solution is a central screen and 2 flanking it either side.

          My main machine at home uses 5 screens (3 down, 2 above). I cannot work productively without about 4000 pixels horizontal, preferably a lot more. I would choose triple over single EVERY DAY.

          What do you do… ALT TAB, or just open one task at a time?

        • spackbace on 18/08/2016 - 18:15

          @llama:

          My main machine at home uses 5 screens

          Jees, what do you do?

        • llama on 18/08/2016 - 18:25
          +2

          @Spackbace:

          Jees, what do you do?

          Anything I like. And many things at once.

          My desktop sits on one screen - the taskbar is 4 rows tall.

          But seriously, if I was reading Ozbargain I would open the deal on a different monitor… that way I could look at the deal page and Ozbargain at the same time without ALT+TAB to switch back and forth.

          Look at the tossers here saying that 1080p is "not enuv peekzels". I find single monitors absolutely painful now days, irrespective of how big or high-res.

          Lots of people run triple like this: http://cdn.overclock.net/8/8e/8ed3e4b2_stand5.jpeg

          But productivity is probably better using portrait like this: http://static.homeworkspaceideas.com/wp/2015/08/31145223/17-…

        • beyondtool on 18/08/2016 - 21:28

          @llama:
          Alt Tab occasionally. I think two screens is fine for productivity because you are never compare more than two screens at a time. The center bezel only matters in FPS games. I can't see how you would even look at 5 screens at once? I would just use Virtual Desktops instead. Windows Key + Ctrl + Left / Right – Switch to the virtual desktop on the left or right.

          Each to their own I guess. But it's funny how everyone whines about AMD being too power consuming and then sport 5 monitors…

        • llama on 18/08/2016 - 22:18

          @beyondtool:

          I think two screens is fine for productivity because you are never compare more than two screens at a time.

          I appreciate that many people only use computers for simple tasks. I regularly work on at least 6 active windows simultaneously. I am right now updating 4 product leaflets and must ensure that the exact same tech data changes are made on each one. Having them all on screen at the same time makes this far easier and less error prone.

          At the same time, I am also doing other more interesting things - there is a graphics editor open, plus Ozbargain, Ebay, Email, 2 connections to my work server, folders, etc, etc. There are currently 18 tabs open in the taskbar, but I just returned to the office so that's just what I didn't close down when I left earlier.

          I can't see how you would even look at 5 screens at once?

          I don't look at 5 screens at once. I look at ONE screen at once. I can't see how people can have windows stacked in layers and have to continually switch between them to check something…. so slow and cumbersome.

          The center bezel only matters in FPS games.

          The centre bezel matters in ALL applications because you never position a window that straddles it - hence you are looking to one side all the time. It's ergonomically atrocious having your neck twisted like that continuously.

          I would just use Virtual Desktops instead. Windows Key + Ctrl + Left / Right – Switch to the virtual desktop on the left or right.

          I would just use my eyes… not one single keystroke required to instantly switch to the REAL desktop on the left or right. And I can see all of them, so the one that's visible is not obscuring others.

          But it's funny how everyone whines about AMD being too power consuming and then sport 5 monitors…

          Not sure what AMD has to do with anything, but I don't bother with "costs" - I consider return on investment. Putting an extra 2 monitors on a desk might cost (say) $500 over (say) 3 years = $3.33 per week or just 9 cents per hour. If the worker costs $50 per hour, you are paying 1.4 cents per second - so if each ALT+TAB takes 1 second, then you only have to save 7 ALT+TABS per hour and you are in front.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 17/08/2016 - 22:37
      +3

      This monitor has a VA panel as well.

      • Lukian on 18/08/2016 - 10:50

        Oh, delicious. Loving the VA contrast ratio & blacks.

        • beyondtool on 18/08/2016 - 21:36

          Colour accuracy is off unfortunately. http://au.pcmag.com/dell-se2716h/40094/review/dell-se2716h

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 18/08/2016 - 22:28

          @beyondtool: Meh, I prefer accurate blacks over accurate everything else. Unless you directly compare, you can't really tell if colours are 100% accurate. Average accuracy is good enough in my books, as long as the end result is aesthetically pleasing. Can't say the same for non-true blacks. Same reason I love my OLED phone.

  • [Deactivated] on 17/08/2016 - 23:54
    +1

    Curved 1080p??? Why, it's not wide-screen???

    • Linkachu on 18/08/2016 - 00:29

      It is wide screen, just not ultra wide

  • cyrax83 on 17/08/2016 - 23:55

    Awful res for the size

  • love2buy on 18/08/2016 - 08:32

    How many do I need to make a complete circle?

    • StewBalls on 18/08/2016 - 09:05
      +9

      Dunno, but there's enough whiny comments about the resolution here for a full circle-jerk.

      • Praeto on 18/08/2016 - 11:47

        Monitors generally last a very long time, and are more likely to be replaced due to upgrading rather than replacing a dead one. While this monitor might appear like a bargain at this price, you're likely to be upgrading it much sooner. When you're buying something that will last you 10 years, look at its price annualised. I have half a dozen Dell monitors that I love, but I invested in the better ones so that they'd last me awhile.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 08:33
    -6

    Very low resolution, not good for your eyes. Can't believe these are still in the market. This resolution is lower than old CRT monitors.

    • inittobinit on 18/08/2016 - 09:16
      +4

      How is this not good for your eyes?

      If anything, this 'very low' resolution on a larger display will mean larger pixels per inch increasing readability.

      • StewBalls on 18/08/2016 - 09:24
        +1

        12yo gamer logic…they only r-e-s-t-e-c-p big numbers! ;)

        • spackbace on 18/08/2016 - 10:06

          Aww stewie up voted me :)

        • spackbace on 19/08/2016 - 00:11

          And stewie neg voted me? :(

      • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 13:56
        -1

        low resolution on a larger display will mean larger pixels per inch

        This is a comment from someone who disagrees with my comment and got upvoted almost the same as my downvotes, felt sorry for humanity! You need to get back to math at school! :) Either we are getting dumber or my IQ is far higher than people could understand!

    • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 13:29

      No guys (and girls or ladies and gentlemen?), I am actually talking about reading text, coding and graphics jobs. Even for daily use these 1080p have very low resolution specially for 27". They are only good for gaming and other multimedia entertainment that's why I upvoted the deal. Now you are a bunch of whining kids who have never worked with a higher resolution monitor if ever worked at all! :)

      • inittobinit on 18/08/2016 - 23:55
        +1

        So basically you're making a collective conclusion on this product based on its lack of suitability for a type of application for which it CLEARLY isn't intended for, given that Dell has accounted for these applications with its other offerings in its line up.

        You've totally ignored the fact that this product is totally suitable for the market its intended for.

        Last time i checked not everyone was a coder or a graphics designer.

        Reading your flawed arguments from my 3440x1440 display.

        • [Deactivated] on 19/08/2016 - 00:04

          Your answer was in that very comment you replied to yourself!

        • inittobinit on 19/08/2016 - 10:00

          @pal:

          'only good for gaming and other multimedia..'

          Still bashes product.

  • rocklinsuv on 18/08/2016 - 09:46

    Is it just me thinking the resolution is a bit low?

    • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 13:33

      No all the professionals know this resolution belongs to napoleon times! Only morons who have never worked with CRTs and higher resolution monitors are keeping these 1080p monitors producing lines alive.

  • swamprat96 on 18/08/2016 - 11:55

    No VESA mount holes so out for me unfortunately

  • Fuzor on 18/08/2016 - 12:28

    Wait a second. Why are people complaining about fullHD resolution? Am I behind the times…my fullHD tv still looks fine to me

    • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 13:36

      You are left behind in the history, but if works use it, my intel 80386 computer still works too, not for me though.

      • rocklinsuv on 18/08/2016 - 13:43

        I still have one 80486 in my house. My dad needs it to run the Assemble language compiler. And he is keeping a lot of 3.5 inch disks.

        • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 13:58

          oh, you guys are genius. I am glad to know some smart people are still around. say hello to your genius dad :)

        • rocklinsuv on 18/08/2016 - 14:16

          @pal: But anyway, I would never want to use that machine for the rest of my life :)

    • O15 on 18/08/2016 - 17:43
      +1

      This isn't a TV, it's a desktop monitor. You will not be sitting 6 feet away from it.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 13:51
    -2

    FYI, a 1080P 27" has 85 ppi, 24" has 96 ppi and your 4 years old iPhone or android phone even with very smaller screen has more than 500 ppi pixel density. While it still might be watchable, if you like to watch a movie at 600x800, it is harmful to your eye if you are creating contents, working with graphics projects, coding or reading too much text. Be nice to your eyes, use an old CRT monitor or buy a higher resolution.

    • ProspectiveDarkness on 18/08/2016 - 17:52

      it is harmful to your eye if you are creating contents, working with graphics projects, coding or reading too much text

      [Citation needed]

      Also no, pretty much no 4 year old phone (especially not iPhones, seeing none of them have that high density, at all) had 500 ppi. 720p was the standard until 2013.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/08/2016 - 20:20
        -2

        Looks like you missed the point.

    • buckster on 19/08/2016 - 21:43

      From someone who works in a relevant field there is no harm caused to eyes/vision by doing this.

  • O15 on 18/08/2016 - 17:42

    Can I neg this for being the same price as a BenQ 1440p 27" which I picked up last year?

    This isn't a very good deal.

    • spackbace on 18/08/2016 - 17:43

      You can, if you can find that same monitor for that price today

    • llama on 18/08/2016 - 18:16

      Can I neg this for being the same price as a BenQ 1440p 27" which I picked up last year?

      No, that would be unfair because your Benq is not CURVED, is it?

      • beyondtool on 18/08/2016 - 21:20

        And probably LED

        • O15 on 19/08/2016 - 06:01
          -1

          Umm… As is the one in the OP? I think you're still confusing backlight (LED) with panel technology (VA, in this case).

          Now, if you want to compare panel tech, my screen has this one beat, with an AHVA panel.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join