AMD Ryzen 5 3600X review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Team Group T-Force 4133 MHz 16GB DDR4 review
ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII HERO (Wi-fi) review
MSI MEG X570 Godlike review
Corsair NightSword RGB gaming mouse review
Corsair MP600 PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD review
Palit GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER JetStream review
MSI GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER Gaming X TRIO review
Palit GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER JetStream review
AOC Q2781PQ Has 4-side borderless WQHD AH-IPS Panel
Nice screen eh ? AOC recently announced the launch of their new 27" Q2781PQ display, featuring an AH-IPS panel and a 4-side borderless design. The AH-IPS panel offers a 2560 x 1440 resolution, 4ms G2G response time, 1000:1 contrast ratio, 350 cd/m2 brightness.
According to the press release it has 5.7 mm black borders on the upper, left and right sides and a 6.25 mm border on the lower side so overall very similar along all sides. It also comes with an interestingly design asymmetric stand. It has 178/178 viewing angles and a standard sRGB gamut. The screen is flicker free also. There are D-sub, 1x DisplayPort and 2x HDMI connections provided and the stand has a basic tilt adjustment only.
- Size 27"
- Resolution 2560x1440@60Hz
- Inputs D-Sub , HDMI , Displayport
- Response time 4 ms
- Features Plug and Play, i-Menu, e-Saver
The 4-side borderless AH-IPS panel delivers beautiful imagery with true-to-life colors and extra-wide viewing angles. The top-quality performance is further supported by a range of smart features, including e-Saver to reduce your power consumption and Flicker-free technology to minimize eye strain. With a built-in headphone jack, DisplayPort and two HDMI connections, you can get to work or start enjoying your favorite entertainment in no time.
- Monitor Line Style-line Monitor Size 27 Inch
- Screen Format 16:9
- Brightness 350 cd/m2 (type)
- Contrast Ratio 1000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio 50M:1
- Viewing Angle 178/178
- Response time 4 ms
- Maximum Resolution 2560x1440@60Hz
The AOC Q2781PQ will be available in July 2016 at an MSRP of £279 / 349 EUR / 339 USD.
kegastaMmer
Senior Member
Posts: 299
Joined: 2015-09-17
Senior Member
Posts: 299
Joined: 2015-09-17
#5277648 Posted on: 05/23/2016 10:15 AM
looks like a winner to me , getting this one
looks like a winner to me , getting this one
JoseyWales
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 2005-04-09
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 2005-04-09
#5277828 Posted on: 05/23/2016 03:57 PM
Borderless my purple buttock.. Unless the pixels go all the way to the bezel it is not borderless. Micro-bezel would be a better term, and more accurate..
Borderless my purple buttock.. Unless the pixels go all the way to the bezel it is not borderless. Micro-bezel would be a better term, and more accurate..
wsgroves
Senior Member
Posts: 164
Joined: 2011-02-22
Senior Member
Posts: 164
Joined: 2011-02-22
#5277830 Posted on: 05/23/2016 03:59 PM
I personally do not know why anyone buying a monitor now would not go 4k. I had a 1600 monitor since the original Apple display and a 4k display blows them so far out of the water it is not even funny.
This is speaking only if you dont want the crazy 144 hz monitors etc.
I personally do not know why anyone buying a monitor now would not go 4k. I had a 1600 monitor since the original Apple display and a 4k display blows them so far out of the water it is not even funny.
This is speaking only if you dont want the crazy 144 hz monitors etc.
eclap
Senior Member
Posts: 31501
Joined: 2005-01-08
Senior Member
Posts: 31501
Joined: 2005-01-08
#5277848 Posted on: 05/23/2016 04:26 PM
I personally do not know why anyone buying a monitor now would not go 4k. I had a 1600 monitor since the original Apple display and a 4k display blows them so far out of the water it is not even funny.
This is speaking only if you dont want the crazy 144 hz monitors etc.
you kinda need a LOT of power to push 4k at 60+ fps. That's why.
I personally do not know why anyone buying a monitor now would not go 4k. I had a 1600 monitor since the original Apple display and a 4k display blows them so far out of the water it is not even funny.
This is speaking only if you dont want the crazy 144 hz monitors etc.
you kinda need a LOT of power to push 4k at 60+ fps. That's why.
James Frazer
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2013-11-30
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2013-11-30
#5277875 Posted on: 05/23/2016 05:10 PM
I personally do not know why anyone buying a monitor now would not go 4k. I had a 1600 monitor since the original Apple display and a 4k display blows them so far out of the water it is not even funny.
This is speaking only if you dont want the crazy 144 hz monitors etc.
I agree with eclap... I'll be getting a 1070GTX later this year and I still don't think I'll go 4K, especially as I need 2 monitors and a decent panel is around £400.
Personally I think I'll be quite happy with 2x 25" 1440.
I personally do not know why anyone buying a monitor now would not go 4k. I had a 1600 monitor since the original Apple display and a 4k display blows them so far out of the water it is not even funny.
This is speaking only if you dont want the crazy 144 hz monitors etc.
I agree with eclap... I'll be getting a 1070GTX later this year and I still don't think I'll go 4K, especially as I need 2 monitors and a decent panel is around £400.
Personally I think I'll be quite happy with 2x 25" 1440.
Mineria
Senior Member
Posts: 3825
Joined: 2007-05-05
Senior Member
Posts: 3825
Joined: 2007-05-05
#5277882 Posted on: 05/23/2016 05:19 PM
I personally do not know why anyone buying a monitor now would not go 4k. I had a 1600 monitor since the original Apple display and a 4k display blows them so far out of the water it is not even funny.
This is speaking only if you dont want the crazy 144 hz monitors etc.
Because not everyone can afford to buy an 1080 SLI setup.
Just check Steam and you see that most of their customer base doesn't have enough horse power to go 4K.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Besides that, I want to see you rendering a game to 3 or more 4K displays (which is one of the thoughts when going bezel-free/border-less).
To get back on topic:
Like others mentioned, that display is not border-less, which makes it useless for seamless multi displays, same as other brands that misuse the word bezel-free and border-less.
I personally do not know why anyone buying a monitor now would not go 4k. I had a 1600 monitor since the original Apple display and a 4k display blows them so far out of the water it is not even funny.
This is speaking only if you dont want the crazy 144 hz monitors etc.
Because not everyone can afford to buy an 1080 SLI setup.
Just check Steam and you see that most of their customer base doesn't have enough horse power to go 4K.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Besides that, I want to see you rendering a game to 3 or more 4K displays (which is one of the thoughts when going bezel-free/border-less).
To get back on topic:
Like others mentioned, that display is not border-less, which makes it useless for seamless multi displays, same as other brands that misuse the word bezel-free and border-less.
Extraordinary
Senior Member
Posts: 19316
Joined: 2010-04-21
Senior Member
Posts: 19316
Joined: 2010-04-21
#5277900 Posted on: 05/23/2016 05:48 PM
I'd go for this one, would have been nicer with higher refresh rate, but with a single card setup, 1440p is about the sweet spot
Not a bad price, and about time I moved away from 1080p
I'd go for this one, would have been nicer with higher refresh rate, but with a single card setup, 1440p is about the sweet spot
Not a bad price, and about time I moved away from 1080p
kegastaMmer
Senior Member
Posts: 299
Joined: 2015-09-17
Senior Member
Posts: 299
Joined: 2015-09-17
#5278194 Posted on: 05/24/2016 05:33 AM
even "if" the 1080 does 4k 60+fps across most games , doesnt mean 4k will magically be mainstream. for that to happen, 1stly 4k displays should be a bit more lower in price about 250$-350$ i guess, which isnt happening too soon. And a mid range should be able to get 1080 perf, which again is not happening anytime soon. 4k is great, but its still very much UBER for the time being
even "if" the 1080 does 4k 60+fps across most games , doesnt mean 4k will magically be mainstream. for that to happen, 1stly 4k displays should be a bit more lower in price about 250$-350$ i guess, which isnt happening too soon. And a mid range should be able to get 1080 perf, which again is not happening anytime soon. 4k is great, but its still very much UBER for the time being
sverek
Senior Member
Posts: 5093
Joined: 2011-01-02
Senior Member
Posts: 5093
Joined: 2011-01-02
#5278203 Posted on: 05/24/2016 06:40 AM
60 hz... meh. I'd consider getting korean monitor and OC it 96hz.
looks like a winner to me , getting this one
60 hz... meh. I'd consider getting korean monitor and OC it 96hz.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 2007-01-19
no vesa mount, no deal.