HDR 400 is useless and 1 ms response time is most likely a marketing trick (technically possible but with big side effects, like tons of overshooting). Still an interesting option, looking forward for in depth reviews

As far as I know, playing countless titles with "unreal" as the first five letters, center screen was taken away by anticheats, because you just didnt have to target, just move around and get someone in the middle of the screen....this, in my opinion, is a grey area cheat. I do have an old philips monitor with "game-mode", it lightens up the dark areas, but I never used it. If someone needs a crosshair from the monitor, as addons might be bannable, then get good, not cheating greymannered.

That VGA port on a 165Hz "gaming" display from 2019... just amazing.

buhehe:

HDR 400 is useless

It beats all the previous HDR monitors doing 200-250 cd/m2. HDR 400 can work in a dark room but is indeed quite underwhelming in decent lit room.

GlennB:

It beats all the previous HDR monitors doing 200-250 cd/m2. HDR 400 can work in a dark room but is indeed quite underwhelming in decent lit room.

I wouldn't even call them HDR if they don't qualify for the minimum certification (400)

Anything below HDR 600 is really not that great for normal gaming setups, and even 600 is pushing it. Unfortunately good HDR gaming screens seem to be rather rare currently, especially if you are not interested in 4K at 27" (because I think its not worth it at that size necessarily, not yet anyway as GPUs struggle to run it properly still).

buhehe:

HDR 400 is useless and 1 ms response time is most likely a marketing trick (technically possible but with big side effects, like tons of overshooting). Still an interesting option, looking forward for in depth reviews

I have the older AG273QS4R4 monitor, which is basically the same as this monitor but its curved and 144hz rather than 165hz, and its also HDR400, I basically see any monitor that is bellow HDR600 as just letting you know its got a good brightness range for using in non HDR mode, I didn't get it for HDR, I got it because most of the other monitors in this price range with the same features that didn't have HDR had bad brightness levels some as low as 200, I never use the thing in HDR mode. I did have a Samsung monitor before this one that could do HDR 600 and that actually looked good in HDR content in a dark room, and even had a little bit of local diming (it had 8 zones I think) the problem with the Samsung monitor though is it had realllly really bad backlight bleed and flickering as well as having one corner of the screen almost looking like it was interlaced, so I traded it for the AOC monitor I have now as it was the same price and could get a new replacement monitor instantly that way.

Personally, i'm going to wait and see if the ' Xiaomi 34-Inch Mi Surface Display' gets an EU release, and at what price, before an upgrade.

buhehe:

HDR 400 is useless and 1 ms response time is most likely a marketing trick (technically possible but with big side effects, like tons of overshooting). Still an interesting option, looking forward for in depth reviews

buhehe:

I wouldn't even call them HDR if they don't qualify for the minimum certification (400)

nevcairiel:

Anything below HDR 600 is really not that great for normal gaming setups, and even 600 is pushing it. Unfortunately good HDR gaming screens seem to be rather rare currently, especially if you are not interested in 4K at 27" (because I think its not worth it at that size necessarily, not yet anyway as GPUs struggle to run it properly still).

Although it isnt very bright the biggest 'wow' factor from HDR is high color gamut, not the fact it makes you squint. I have seen 250nit DCI-P3 95% monitors look really good in HDR and that doesnt even meet HDR400 vesa standards. Id take 300nit 95% DCI-P3 over 600nit 85% any day of the week. contrast is the next biggest factor in impressive HDR and the native 3000:1 of a VA panel is pretty good, epic once you add proper FALD. There is a reason the only panels that can come close to OLED are Samsung VA QLED FALD. Here is a 250nit monitor showing HDR can look great without being super bright, especially in a dark room (who games in a bright room anyway, eww) [youtube=LEd98POv_9g] I am quite pumped for this AOC, quality control on the AOC of the same variant as my ASUS PG279Q IPS was better and had less back light bleed. Should be a banging monitor! the 1MS is of course BS its more likely a 4MS with decent IQ.

It's one thing to say that you don't care about HDR and another thing to say that if you only have the wide color gamut, than that is the whole HDR experience that matters. Sorry, without the extra brightness, contrast and local dimming, there is no HDR, it's just better colors.

Error8:

It's one thing to say that you don't care about HDR and another thing to say that if you only have the wide color gamut, than that is the whole HDR experience that matters. Sorry, without the extra brightness, contrast and local dimming, there is no HDR, it's just better colors.

Yes for certified and the best HDR you need to meet the requirements however the biggest wow factor to HDR is the higher color gamut, you always see people talking about how vivid HDR looks not "oh wow that sun made me squint" or "wow look at how black that black is" (yes high contrast helps with how vivid stuff looks but VA+95% DCI-P3 goes a long way) All I am saying is you can have a nice experience with HDR with the high gamut but people write the monitors off cause they dont blind you with high nits. Id rather 95% DCI-P3 and 400nits over just an SDR color range. The YouTube video above shows it can really help when HDR is done right, go to 5:20 in the video (consoles do it much better then windows currently). Yes id rather a VA panel 2560x1440 27" Monitor with 1024 FALD zones and 1000 nit peak brightness but its also going to cost $1500 USD+ This AOC looks to be great bang for buck provided they can get the gamut high.