Acer XB270HAbprz 27 inch Gaming Monitor Has G-sync

#4899777 Posted on: 08/26/2014 10:42 AM

---

Someone make a 1080p IPS Gsync already damnit!

Elimination of screen tearing is much more of a benefit at 60fps than at 120+fps.

And not everyone has the money to blow on high speed monitors.

Yes the Gsync component might cost more than the monitor itself. Blame it on Nvidia.

#4899858 Posted on: 08/26/2014 01:02 PM

---

Don't get this...Does it have G-sync or does it only support the G-sync modul??

Acer is to lauch a 27 inch Gaming Monitor with G-sync. The XB270HAbprz (blimey that name!). It uses a 1920 x 1080 panel that has a fast 1ms G2G response time and 144 Hz refresh rate support. Importantly this screen also supports NVIDIA's G-sync module.

#4899881 Posted on: 08/26/2014 01:56 PM

---

Don't get this...Does it have G-sync or does it only support the G-sync modul??



Actually, i was ask me the same reading the article..

Anyway, bravo Acer for the name, i think they beat anyone on it.

#4899891 Posted on: 08/26/2014 02:10 PM

---

Don't buy this. 1080p on a 27 inch monitor can't be pretty.

#4899893 Posted on: 08/26/2014 02:12 PM

---

Does a non Gsync version of this exist? perhaps that it what they mean by the ability to support the module.

Much like Asus screen which current owners can upgrade to gsync.

#4899914 Posted on: 08/26/2014 02:39 PM

---

Lego Block Pixels ?

#4899927 Posted on: 08/26/2014 02:55 PM

---

Don't buy this. 1080p on a 27 inch monitor can't be pretty.

0.o i'm using a 27" 1080p monitor (Asus VE278Q), and it looks just fine.

Someone make a 1080p IPS Gsync already damnit!

Elimination of screen tearing is much more of a benefit at 60fps than at 120+fps.

Probably won't be done. Why? Because i'm pretty sure the vast majority of gamers would prefer a higher refresh rate and faster response time over better color reproduction and lower refresh rates/response times.

#4899990 Posted on: 08/26/2014 04:15 PM

---

Why not? I hope you don't think you can see pixels at 1080p.. As I type this I am on a 1080p 42 inch screen and its beautiful for gaming.

#4900190 Posted on: 08/26/2014 08:12 PM

---

So you imply that the vast majority of gamers actually use or can afford to get those high speed gaming monitors? Might as well have the monitor industry stop producing 60Hz screens.

Even if I were indifferent to refresh rate and color quality, I would still mind the cost.

Probably the only barrier to having Gsync on IPS monitors (if it is a barrier at all) would be the fact that the Gsync module at $200 could easily cost more than the monitor itself. You know who to blame for that.

Regardless I will be waiting for monitors supporting Adaptive Sync or FreeSync. No running away with that one.

#4900407 Posted on: 08/27/2014 04:03 AM

---

I can't imagine there being no price hike on Adaptive Sync/FreeSync monitors as well. Kinda like one article that i just recently read mentions:



http://techreport.com/news/26919/freesync-monitors-will-sample-next-month-start-selling-next-year

And when they say that the guy AT AMD expects entry-level models to start out at 24hz.... yea.... good luck with manufacturers not running away with prices.

As for what i said about what gamers would prefer... i didn't mean it the way you implied. Yes, if someone has the money, they're going to go for the best monitor they can get.... that being 120-144hz and probably with G-Sync. If that's out of their budget, the next thing they'd probably consider would be dropping G-Sync, and looking for a high refresh rate, with potentially a smaller display size. If that's still out of their budget, 60hz would be the next step down, and they'd then probably look more towards the response time.... which we all know IPS isn't really the king of.

I'm just saying that color reproduction isn't really at the top of the list of requirements of gamers looking for a high-end monitor.... and display manufacturers know that.

#4900436 Posted on: 08/27/2014 05:37 AM

---

Another 1080p monitor? Would of better being at least 2k.

#4900463 Posted on: 08/27/2014 06:44 AM

---

I can't imagine there being no price hike on Adaptive Sync/FreeSync monitors as well. Kinda like one article that i just recently read mentions:



http://techreport.com/news/26919/freesync-monitors-will-sample-next-month-start-selling-next-year

And when they say that the guy AT AMD expects entry-level models to start out at 24hz.... yea.... good luck with manufacturers not running away with prices.

.

He's honest to say that, its not them who will decide the price for it, so he cant fix the price for brands.

Actually, well we dont know for prices, time will tell what brand will do, but monitor prices will not forcibly be drive by this, i dont know if you have seen, but prices are going down for non 4k monitors and even 4K monitors are now enter the market at the 27" 1440p price, you cant forcibly add a tons of money for one feature, specially if it cost nearly nothing, because your direct competitor will get all the latency to beat you on price with same or more features...

Maybe first models will get a "premium" charge, but i seriously expect to see this DP standard become a real standard features for TV and monitors. whatever if it will be with 1.3-1.4 DP... I will not be too surprised to see other connections standard ( like Thunderbolt or the equivalent of AMD) suddenly using the same concept, if not for adaptative refresh rate, for lower power consumption.

#4900539 Posted on: 08/27/2014 07:55 AM

---

I'm on another forum where most users seem to agree upon that 1080p is best on up to 24 inch. But I guess we're all different.

I checked out a 27 inch 1080p monitor a month ago and found the image to be too blocky.

#4900634 Posted on: 08/27/2014 11:00 AM

---

The article forgot to mention one important factor: Like the ASUS ROG SWIFT monitor, this Acer monitor has an 8-bit TN panel as opposed to other TN monitors who only have 6-bit panels with dithering.

#4901122 Posted on: 08/28/2014 02:08 AM

---

Actually, well we dont know for prices, time will tell what brand will do, but monitor prices will not forcibly be drive by this, i dont know if you have seen, but prices are going down for non 4k monitors and even 4K monitors are now enter the market at the 27" 1440p price, you cant forcibly add a tons of money for one feature, specially if it cost nearly nothing, because your direct competitor will get all the latency to beat you on price with same or more features...

True... there are more affordable 4k monitors now. But you also have to look at something else. I've yet to see a reasonably priced 4K monitor that can actually DO 4K at 60hz. Every one i've seen, in the budget end of the spectrum, uses a panel that's capable of hitting that 4K resolution, but at only 30hz.... which is kind of a buzzkill for the vast majority of people.

Which could turn into exactly what the dude at AMD said.... starting out with monitors supporting FreeSync, quite possibly at a decent price, but also quite possibly with a sub-60hz refresh rate to make up for "costs" imposed by the manufacturer.

I'm on another forum where most users seem to agree upon that 1080p is best on up to 24 inch. But I guess we're all different.

I checked out a 27 inch 1080p monitor a month ago and found the image to be too blocky.

Well... of course the best screen size for any given resolution would be the lowest screen size that a specific resolution comes in. That results in a higher PPI count.

As for "checking out" a 27" 1080p monitor.... where did you do so? I never trust display quality at stores and such, ESPECIALLY if it's like Best Buy with their "Wall-o-Monitors" which you know damn well are probably all connected to the same system or small group of systems or something along those lines. Nothing blocky at all with my monitor.