The Acer Predator X27 has almost every feature you might ever want in a monitor

[EunSoo]

...it might be easier to list what it doesn't have instead of what specs it does have...

 

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3192843/displays/acers-predator-x27-g-sync-hdr-monitor-is-infused-with-every-feature-you-could-ask-for.html

 

Acer has just officially announced the Predator x27 after teasing it last CES. Lets go straight into what its specs:

• 4k (3840x2160p)
• 144hz
• 27"
• 1000 nit
• HDR
• 99% Adobe RGB
• G-Sync
• Nvidia's ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur)
• Quantom Dot
• Tobii eye-tracking

While all of those features together stand out and make this an extrordinary monitor, what really stands out is that 1000 nit brightness. While the highest nit for monitors has been 400, this monitor is able to achieve 1000 nit with its 384 backlights. 

 

Quote

This is basically the holy grail of PC displays, folks. But it isn’t the only one; Asus is working on a G-Sync HDR monitor of its own with similar specs. Neither company has released crucial pricing or release-date info, however. Considering the premium on current G-Sync panels and the no-compromises list of luxurious features in the first G-Sync HDR panels, don’t expect the Predator X27 to be cheap—or the firepower needed to use it to its full capabilities. You'd need not one, but two $700 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics cards to even come close to hitting 144Hz at 4K resolution in most games.

This monitor is literally insane. The only thing I can think that would make it better would to be an ultrawide and be an OLED, but its still the first of its kind in many aspects. But I can only imagine how much this baby will cost.

[Bcat00]

27inch......

no ty, call me when its 32 inch

[Remixt]

Please give me now. Pleaseeeeee.

[thenastyjbenny]

Sorry if I sound like an idiot...

 

If it's HDR, does that make it IPS, or can it be TN and HDR? 

 

I'm basically asking if it's IPS.

[Humbug]

no freesync

[Remixt]

1 minute ago, JR8 said:

Sorry if I sound like an idiot...

 

If it's HDR, does that make it IPS, or can it be TN and HDR? 

 

I'm basically asking if it's IPS.

IPS for sure.

[thenastyjbenny]

Just now, Remixt said:

IPS for sure.

Thanks.

 

Killer setup btw. What's it called?

[EunSoo]

Just now, JR8 said:

Sorry if I sound like an idiot...

 

If it's HDR, does that make it IPS, or can it be TN and HDR? 

 

I'm basically asking if it's IPS.

Unless TN can now get 99% Adobe RGB then it has to be IPS but it doesn't specifically say in the article which is why I choose not to say it. 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

no freesync

AMD has nothing that can push 144hz at 4k anyways. Hopefully dual top Vega cards or 3 of them will get you somewhat close but alas, where the fuck is Vega? 

[Remixt]

Just now, JR8 said:

Thanks.

 

Killer setup btw. What's it called?

Thanks! Arctic Fire.

[EunSoo]

6 minutes ago, Bcat00 said:

27inch......

no ty, call me when its 32 inch

probably the reason they choose 27" is because for most people using it as a monitor on a desk, 32" is too big for them. Yes, there are plenty of people who would say the opposite but for a lot of people (including me) 27" is the sweet spot.

[EunSoo]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

AMD has nothing that can push 144hz at 4k anyways. Hopefully dual top Vega cards or 3 of them will get you somewhat close but alas, where the fuck is Vega? 

and it lets them use ULMB, which in case you haven't seen in person, is super cool.

[WMGroomAK]

8 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

You'd need not one, but two $700 GeForce GTX 1080 Ti graphics cards to even come close to hitting 144Hz at 4K resolution in most games.

 

8 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

how much this baby will cost.

And here is why I won't bother with it...  Considering the cost of the monitor (and the NVidia and gaming aesthetic fees) plus the hardware you would need to push out gaming to it (unless you really need to play Minesweeper at 4K HDR), it's nowhere near a realistic use for most people.  Nice to wish for on the rare occasion you might win the lotto or strike it rich in Vegas, but still not affordable.  Would prefer it to be at 21:9 myself...

[Humbug]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

AMD has nothing that can push 144hz at 4k anyways.

Point taken,

 

but neither does Nvidia. Although they are closer.

[WereCat]

12 minutes ago, Bcat00 said:

27inch......

no ty, call me when its 32 inch

 

32" is the bare minimum for 4k imo. 34"-36" sweet spot ... But the other features are nice.

[Suika]

I need to know pricing, because I don't know if I need to sell one kidney or both.

[AntonChigurh]

So how many of my major organs will I have to sell to buy this?

[alexyy]

1 minute ago, WereCat said:

32" is the bare minimum for 4k imo. 34"-36" sweet spot ... But the other features are nice.

You're alone in that regard 27" is fine for 4k, Especially for everyone with a desk.

 

 

[WereCat]

Just now, alexyy said:

You're alone in that regard 27" is fine for 4k, Especially for everyone with a desk.

 

 

 

I am not alone

[EunSoo]

1 minute ago, WMGroomAK said:

 

And here is why I won't bother with it...  Considering the cost of the monitor (and the NVidia and gaming aesthetic fees) plus the hardware you would need to push out gaming to it (unless you really need to play Minesweeper at 4K HDR), it's nowhere near a realistic use for most people.  Nice to wish for on the rare occasion you might win the lotto or strike it rich in Vegas, but still not affordable.  Would prefer it to be at 21:9 myself...

Honestly, I see it more like the Predator 21x. Something completely overkill that 99% of people can't afford BUT this time for a monitor it actually has some use and I think it can be bigger than something I will just wish for. Hopefully in 5 years, this kind of specs will be afforable. Now that we know that a IPS 4K panel can hit 144hz, 1000 nits, 99% AdobeRGB all at once, I want to see when that can be something I can get (without selling an organ and taking out a mortgage).

[Suika]

3 minutes ago, WereCat said:

I am not alone

Ordinarily I would side with you, I hate Windows scaling with enough passion to limit the size of the monitors I buy by resolution, but all of the specs outside of 2160p makes me not care.

[Mira Yurizaki]

13 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

Unless TN can now get 99% Adobe RGB then it has to be IPS but it doesn't specifically say in the article which is why I choose not to say it. 

Absolute color accuracy has nothing to do with the panel type. There are some TN monitors with better color accuracy than some IPS monitors.

[Mira Yurizaki]

23 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

• HDR
• 99% Adobe RGB

This to me implies on a technical level, it's not compliant with either HDR10 or Dolby Vision, since either require support for the Rec.2020 color space.

 

23 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

• Quantom Dot

I really wish display companies would stop listing this as a spec until they actually use Quantum Dots as the color element and not just the lighting element. That's like saying your OLED backlit LCD is an OLED display.

 

Then again they say LED backlit LCDs are LED displays.

[jasonvp]

For all the "Why doesn't it have..." posts:

 

This is the same panel from AU Optronics that Asus is using in their new, $2000 model; also shown at CES this year.  Both were shown in the NVidia booth, not in the Asus and/or Acer booth.  Why?  Well good odds are that NVidia subsidized the creation of this panel through AU Optronics, meaning it's A)only going to have NVidia tech in it, and B)likely limited to whatever NVidia wanted to pay for.

 

I don't expect this Acer model to cost a lot less than Asus' $2000.  Maybe a little, but not by much.  It's going to be hella-'spensive.  And they aren't going to sell too many of them.

[Humbug]

9 minutes ago, jasonvp said:

For all the "Why doesn't it have..." posts:

LOL, that's only cause of the thread title.