Acer XB270HAbprz 27 inch Gaming Monitor Has G-sync
Click here to post a comment for Acer XB270HAbprz 27 inch Gaming Monitor Has G-sync on our message forum
Lowice
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.
Lane
Actually, i was ask me the same reading the article..
Anyway, bravo Acer for the name, i think they beat anyone on it.
Netherwind
Don't buy this. 1080p on a 27 inch monitor can't be pretty.
War child
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.
TheDeeGee
Lego Block Pixels ?
ElementalDragon
0.o i'm using a 27" 1080p monitor (Asus VE278Q), and it looks just fine.
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.
SoloCreep
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.
ElementalDragon
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.
kanej2007
Another 1080p monitor? Would of better being at least 2k.
Lane
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.
Netherwind
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.
RealNC
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.
ElementalDragon
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.
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.
CPC_RedDawn
Your sir, must have some alien-like eye sight to see "blocky" images on a 27" 1080p screen.
I use a 22" 1080p screen and it looks perfect. I also go round my friends house who has a 55" 1080p 3D panasonic plasma and that also looks gorgeous.
Not quite sure what you have been looking at, you sure you wasn't checking out "HD READY" monitors that are actually 1080i or 720p lol :P
southamptonfc
It sounds like you might need an eye test!
Aura89
...why do people keep stating 2K, 2K means nothing, or everything, and anything, depending on what you mean by 2K
For instance, i could read your post as saying "Another 1080p monitor? Would of better being at least 1080p." since 2K can refer to 1080p....
2K isn't a resolution, but a definition of a realm of resolutions. At least with 4K and monitors everyone knows it means 3840x2160, but in regards to 2K, it's not marketed as 2K. What you likely mean is 1440p, which is marketed as 1440p...
I agree...a 55" 1080p tv is not a good resolution for a TV, 4K resolution starts really showing at 55" and above, but even as far down as 46. And as a monitor? 1080p is HORRIBLE for a 55", 27" 1080p monitor is cutting it close, 32" 1080p is pretty much as far as it can be taken before it's no longer suitable for a monitor at all. Note: i did not say not suitable as a TV, i said not suitable for a monitor, of which you are much, much closer to.
Juliuszek
Hi,
This monitor just showed up in the nearby store and I'm gonna buy this next week. I was thinking about it for quite a while because it is a lot of money for me... I hope G-SYNC is worth it. I am not interested in 3D and I will not use it. 1920x1080 is optimal for me, as I think that higher resolution would be too much for my GTX, and even if I upgrade my GTX, then shortly there will be newer (more demanding) version of my favorite title and I will have slower FPS again 🙂 . I do not see "pixels" on 27'' 1920x1080 displays, so this should not be a problem. At first I wanted to wait for other models/manufacturers, but it looks that in the nearest future it will be the less expensive choice. I will post my opinion after I hopefully get this monitor and after I test it.
Juliusz
Neo Cyrus
It's not that bad from a distance, from close up where it's typically used it's not that bad either if you don't know what a 1440p 27" looks like. If you do know however, then it's horrible.
Aura89
Delete
Xendance
You better see an optometrist then 😉
