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

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 hours ago, Aleksiandrovich said:

In my personal opinion these would be the specs for something that would be the holy grail of monitors, of which this monitor simply would need OLED, but maybe a nicer design ?

OLED is meh to be honest. When you still need to constantly worry about burn-in issues (and high brightness is a great way to accelerate burn-in on OLEDs), that's not really a holy grail technology for me.

 

True QLEDs or microLEDs however...

[Orangeator]

No matter your PC, it is bottlenecking this monitor lol.

[Dylanc1500]

42 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

OLED is meh to be honest. When you still need to constantly worry about burn-in issues (and high brightness is a great way to accelerate burn-in on OLEDs), that's not really a holy grail technology for me.

 

True QLEDs or microLEDs however...

Sincere question; why do people call OLED dimming "burn-in," when it is more accurately  burning out? Is it due to the nomenclature from CRT phosphor burn-in and they are just applying that wording to a somewhat similar situation? I ask cause I don't really know who started phrasing it that way, or if it was any one person for that matter.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Sincere question; why do people call OLED dimming "burn-in," when it is more accurately  burning out? Is it due to the nomenclature from CRT phosphor burn-in and they are just applying that wording to a somewhat similar situation? I ask cause I don't really know who started phrasing it that way, or if it was any one person for that matter.

It's a carry-over from CRTs, which technically, as you say, "burn out" because phosphors that are used more often than others degrade faster.

 

It's best not to try to change what's in established lexicon, however.

[Dylanc1500]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

It's a carry-over from CRTs, which technically, as you say, "burn out" because phosphors that are used more often than others degrade faster.

 

It's best not to try to change what's in established lexicon, however.

Oh lord, I would be hard-pressed to try and change it now. I imagine most of the general population doesn't understand the actual function of either technologies. 

 

Do you know if there are any true functioning QLED displays that have been shown yet?

[linustouchtips]

robolox @ 4k 144hz with gsync enabled flawless 

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Do you know if there are any true functioning QLED displays that have been shown yet?

Nothing commercial, even on a prototype level.

[Techicolors]

4 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

OLED is meh to be honest. When you still need to constantly worry about burn-in issues (and high brightness is a great way to accelerate burn-in on OLEDs), that's not really a holy grail technology for me.

 

True QLEDs or microLEDs however...

i personally like how OLEDs look. while QLED look very good and quite close to OLED to the naked eye, just the inky blacks OLED can produce (therefore infinite contrast ratio) and the fact that it doesn't need local dimming (defeating most uniformity problems) make it pretty appealing. while burn-in is something to worry about, it isn't a dealbreaker for LG OLEDs. 

 

if you mean the monitor space, then the only OLED monitor is the Dell UP3017Q. there's a couple of people at overclock forum that have the monitor, actually. and there's a chance tftcentral might get one from Dell for review 

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 minutes ago, Technicolors said:

i personally like how OLEDs look. while QLED look very good and quite close to OLED to the naked eye, just the inky blacks OLED can produce (therefore infinite contrast ratio) and the fact that it doesn't need local dimming (defeating most uniformity problems) make it pretty appealing. while burn-in is something to worry about, it isn't a dealbreaker for LG OLEDs.

When I say "true QLED", I mean using quantum dots as the entire pixel element akin to OLEDs. As far as I know, there are no true QLED displays. Just LCDs with a QLED lighting element.

[BuckGup]

Looks like I'll be picking one up. 27in is sorta small though

[AnonymousGuy]

On 4/28/2017 at 9:30 AM, Dylanc1500 said:

Sincere question; why do people call OLED dimming "burn-in," when it is more accurately  burning out? Is it due to the nomenclature from CRT phosphor burn-in and they are just applying that wording to a somewhat similar situation? I ask cause I don't really know who started phrasing it that way, or if it was any one person for that matter.

Because the lack of colors creates the illusion that an image was "burned in" to the display because on a white screen it appears permanent.

 

A case of "burning out looks like something was burned in".

[rhavimarques]

its not ultrawide.

 

if it was, i would actually consider getting one of these and being happy for the next 10 years. But ultrawide is just too awesome.
i'd rather lower resolution 21:9 then 4k 16:9.

[Notional]

On 28/4/2017 at 2:08 AM, Misanthrope said:

Again I need to keep repeating myself: tell me what AMD GPU can you use to sustain 4k at 90 or 100FPS not even the full 144. Yes G-sync sucks but AMD sucks even more for being utterly fucking pathetic and unable to compete in the high end graphics segment which monitor is directly aimed at.

 

If you want to be pedantic, neither does NVidia.

 

Besides, Vega will be out before this monitor anyways, and most people buy their monitors to use for 4+ years. So I don't see that as a valid argument.

 

Either way, I'm still baffled they make an HDR wide colour gamut, quantum dot screen, and then use a fracking 4:2:2 colour chroma. Seriously wtf are they thinking? Just lower to 120hz. What is the point of having such great colour accuracy, if you are going to show half the colour resolution?

[Misanthrope]

12 minutes ago, Notional said:

If you want to be pedantic, neither does NVidia.

 

Besides, Vega will be out before this monitor anyways, and most people buy their monitors to use for 4+ years. So I don't see that as a valid argument.

 

Either way, I'm still baffled they make an HDR wide colour gamut, quantum dot screen, and then use a fracking 4:2:2 colour chroma. Seriously wtf are they thinking? Just lower to 120hz. What is the point of having such great colour accuracy, if you are going to show half the colour resolution?

Citation needed.

[Notional]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Citation needed.

HDR monitors:

Quote

Acer remained tight-lipped about pricing and availability timeframe of its Predator X27 display, but since AU Optronics is reportedly kicking off mass production of its M270QAN02.2 in July, it is likely that Acer, ASUS and other companies that use the panel may start selling their products on its base in late Q3, or early Q4 2017.

 

As for Vega, it's official release date is Q2.

[niofalpha]

I would buy it if it was 21:9.

 

And I was rich.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Notional said:

HDR monitors:

As for Vega, it's official release date is Q2.

None are confirmed. And neither is the fact that Vega will be any good at pushing the monitor btw so conceding the potential release date (which again I don't think AMD is above more delays) you still have little to no idea if they'll actually have a capable product.

 

If for example it lands at 1080 levels of performance you'd need 2 of them and very high efficiency Crossfire support (when it's usually rather poor in many popular games) to even approach about half of the refresh rate offered here.

 

Just not going to happen, even for Nvidia is a big stretch but they at least have a shot at getting closer to the monitor capabilities with dual Voltas eventually. 

So again to me this continues to be the case: There is no probably need for Freesync on this much of a high end monitor.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

None are confirmed. And neither is the fact that Vega will be any good at pushing the monitor btw so conceding the potential release date (which again I don't think AMD is above more delays) you still have little to no idea if they'll actually have a capable product.

 

If for example it lands at 1080 levels of performance you'd need 2 of them and very high efficiency Crossfire support (when it's usually rather poor in many popular games) to even approach about half of the refresh rate offered here.

 

Just not going to happen, even for Nvidia is a big stretch but they at least have a shot at getting closer to the monitor capabilities with dual Voltas eventually. 

So again to me this continues to be the case: There is no probably need for Freesync on this much of a high end monitor.

 

Panel production is pretty much confirmed. No way any of these monitors (acer, asus, etc.) will release before Vega, but of course, we will have to see.

 

Right now it takes 2x 1080ti to run AAA games at 4K 144hz, and even then you have to lower certain settings. Does that mean this monitor is pointless all together, as NVidia has nothing on the market to max it out? Obviously not. Either way, I hope you can force this monitor to run 120hz with full 4:4:4 chroma, or all the fancy tech is kinda pointless. Seriously why run 4k, when the colour overlay is a measly 1080p?

 

Do you honestly think it takes Vega Xfire to hit just 4k 72hz? Even Fury X is better than that, come on, you're trolling now.

 

There is an exceptional need for freesync, when it's hard to hit vsync. That's the entire point of variable refresh rate. So of course, it would be hugely beneficial to have a 4k freesync monitor. And again, people buy monitors for the long term. They usually outlast 2-3 GPU's.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, Notional said:

Panel production is pretty much confirmed. No way any of these monitors (acer, asus, etc.) will release before Vega, but of course, we will have to see.

 

Right now it takes 2x 1080ti to run AAA games at 4K 144hz, and even then you have to lower certain settings. Does that mean this monitor is pointless all together, as NVidia has nothing on the market to max it out? Obviously not. Either way, I hope you can force this monitor to run 120hz with full 4:4:4 chroma, or all the fancy tech is kinda pointless. Seriously why run 4k, when the colour overlay is a measly 1080p?

 

Do you honestly think it takes Vega Xfire to hit just 4k 72hz? Even Fury X is better than that, come on, you're trolling now.

 

There is an exceptional need for freesync, when it's hard to hit vsync. That's the entire point of variable refresh rate. So of course, it would be hugely beneficial to have a 4k freesync monitor. And again, people buy monitors for the long term. They usually outlast 2-3 GPU's.

A selection of benchmarks:

 

 

 

 

Now I can concede that might estimate could be a bit off but I also need to point out that these are fairly old vs newer games coming out and the tremendously glaring omission of an important point: Crossfire support is usually bad on the games that actually have support for it which leaves out many titles.

 

Crossfire isn't a realistic solution any more than SLI is for Nvidia to me.

[MadyTehWolfie]

Not ultra wide wont buy

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

A selection of benchmarks:

 

 

If 1080ti sli can hit 4k 144hz, then xfire vega can hit at least half that, according to the performance summary. But considering this is the only point you even tried to refute, speaks well for my other points

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Notional said:

If 1080ti sli can hit 4k 144hz, then xfire vega can hit at least half that, according to the performance summary. But considering this is the only point you even tried to refute, speaks well for my other points

With perfect scaling? How many games have very efficient Crossfire scaling? How many have crap scaling? How many have NEGATIVE scaling which is actually a thing btw? How many support no crossfire at all?

 

Your other points are simply laughable: You're advocating that lower refresh rates are benefited from Freesync on a discussion on a high refresh rate monitor. If you want a lower refresh rate Freesync 4k monitor you can buy one right now and save 1200 bucks probably, irrelevant to the discussion here which is 144hz 4k.

[Notional]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

With perfect scaling? How many games have very efficient Crossfire scaling? How many have crap scaling? How many have NEGATIVE scaling which is actually a thing btw? How many support no crossfire at all?

 

Your other points are simply laughable: You're advocating that lower refresh rates are benefited from Freesync on a discussion on a high refresh rate monitor. If you want a lower refresh rate Freesync 4k monitor you can buy one right now and save 1200 bucks probably, irrelevant to the discussion here which is 144hz 4k.

 

How many games have perfect scaling on Nvidia? By your definition, that makes this monitor pointless for NVidia too. But I'm not an advocate for multi GPU systems; never has been.

 

What do you think the point of variable refresh rate is? Is it to give a smooth gaming experience, when FPS drops below Vsync/native refresh rate of the monitor, or something else? We have no idea how Vega will fare yet, but if a single Vega can handle 4K at 60-90hz, then a 120hz 4K monitor with freesync makes a lot of sense. And of course if you play less taxing games, then FPS goes up.

 

This monitor doesn't cost 2k$ because it's 144hz 4K, but because it's HDR.

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, Notional said:

How many games have perfect scaling on Nvidia? By your definition, that makes this monitor pointless for NVidia too. But I'm not an advocate for multi GPU systems; never has been.

 

What do you think the point of variable refresh rate is? Is it to give a smooth gaming experience, when FPS drops below Vsync/native refresh rate of the monitor, or something else? We have no idea how Vega will fare yet, but if a single Vega can handle 4K at 60-90hz, then a 120hz 4K monitor with freesync makes a lot of sense. And of course if you play less taxing games, then FPS goes up.

 

This monitor doesn't cost 2k$ because it's 144hz 4K, but because it's HDR.

It's far more pointless for AMD until they have a product that matches or surpases the 1080ti.

 

Let's say AMD manages to match the 1080ti which is a fairly tall order imho, but for the sake of argument.

 

It means they'll be as good as Nvidia if and when they do, which will probably be this year.

 

Nvidia will probably release Volta this year according to some news items that might or might not be believable. So we're looking at AMD matching Nvidia for 6 to 8 months as the best case scenario before a Volta car improves the top Nvidia offering enough to make a single card closer to the mark. A lot more closer than AMD which will be again at least a full year away after Volta is out (roughly, could vary but they seem to be struggling to release high end cards lately) from responding to that.

 

In 1.5 to 2 years then these manufactures could seriously consider a Freesync version of this monitor. For the time being however Vega is extremely unlikely to change the market share for this top of the line high end offerings so releasing a Freesync one for parity right now would be mostly useless.

 

This is a regrettable situation by the way, but let's not dance around the issue:  It is a shitty situation of AMD's own doing.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Nvidia will probably release Volta this year according to some news items that might or might not be viable. So we're looking at AMD matching Nvidia for 6 to 8 months as the best case scenario before a Volta car improves the top Nvidia offering enough to make a single card closer to the mark. A lot more closer than AMD which will be again at least a full year away after Volta is out (roughly, could vary but they seem to be struggling to release high end cards lately) from responding to that.

 

But how is any of this relevant to the discussion of a monitor? Even IF you buy a 144hz monitor, and your GPU (either brand) cannot max it out in most games, the monitor will at least never be the limiting factor, as well as you can utilize it on the desktop (dat smooth scrolling). NVidia having a better card on the market is irrelevant to one being available for AMD users (freesync). However, I still think you ignore the fact that people buy monitors long term. Do you honestly think AMD won't have a GPU capable of 4k >60hz in the next couple of years? Not even Navi, that comes in 2018?

 

As for Volta, it seems like a panic reaction by NVidia. Whatever happened to HBM2 and 12nm node? Volta will have neither.