Official Acer [XB270HU] 27" 1440p 144Hz G-Sync IPS ULMB Monitor Thread

mope54 said:
I understand the article fine enough, thank you very much for your condescension.

As stated earlier, in order to get anywhere near what they're talking about you have to maintain the frames at a solid 144 fps. If you can do that then you don't need G-sync.

Look at my rig, I can't maintain 144fps when playing BF4 at 1440p so the Predator can't match the quality of the Swift for me.

(and btw, I'm referring to tftcentral's claim that the Predator's best refresh rate being 2-3x slower than the Swift's as "slightly" slower an embellishment, not your statements)
Click to expand...

Shrug, I don't think I was condescending. Attaining 144 FPS still doesn't mean you don't need G-Sync. You will still run into tearing issues unless you turn on V-Sync. Hello input lag.

mope54 said:
I don't know but the reviewer is really playing fast and loose with his verbiage.

When comparing the rate of 5.9 (predator) to 2.9 (swift) he calls the predator "slightly slower"

but when comparing the predator to itself, at 60 to 120 to 144, he calls the differences:
8.7 "on par with the best IPS", 6.3 "quite significant", and 5.9 "amazing" respectively, even though those deltas are smaller than between it and the swift.
Click to expand...

While I understand your perspective, you must take overshoot into account. 5.9 to 2.9 may not mean much with the Swift's overshoot. With the virtually zero overshoot Acer, those numbers you listed for that display can be more impressive as they lower.
 
I plan on taking overshoot into account...in April when it's released :D

Can't compare them side by side until it's released and that's still 2 months away, at best.
Just saying that I'm skeptical until I have it in front of me.

If AUO has this nailed as well as described then the implications are huge and not just for gaming.
 
I would never buy this for ULMB. Coming from the Eizo fg2421 and the Swift, doing 85hz or 100hz strobed is pretty nasty.

Still will get this screen (whenever) for Gsync/IPS, for the more vivid and clearer image.

I don't get how it's better than the Swift in terms of speed though, seeing as 120hz/normal od is seemingly being compared to the Swift at 144hz/extreme od.

Donations? Why? Is this in his spare time? One of Jerry's Kids?
 
You are discussing about the differences in response times with the rog swift and this acer of a few ms... I may be wrong here but as long as the pixel response times are always lower than 1 frame at 144hz then it should be fine should it not? Especially with ULMB mode I doubt there will be any noticeable difference in motion blur between the swift and the acer... eg. 1 frame at 144hz = ~6.9ms and all response times are well under that on the acer, so with ULMB especially it should look just as clear as the rog swift while also having better image quality due to being AHVA and not having any overshoot.
 
Vega said:
So basically Eizo:
+Best strobing backlight display as it can stay bright while maintaining a fairly good 2.2ms MPRT.
+120 Hz Strobing
+VA Contrast is incredible
+VA Black depth amazing
+Semi-gloss AR
+Works equally well with all GPU's
-Only 1080p
-Only 24"
-high display lag
-VA black crush
-Some edge contrast/focus issues
-High variation in quality control

Acer:
+IPS colors
+IPS viewing angles
+1440p
+Decent 27" size
+144 Hz G-Sync
-IPS glow
-Max 100Hz strobing
-Low strobing brightness
-Contrast is good for IPS, can't compete with VA
-Black depth is good for IPS, can't compete with VA
-NVIDIA GPU only for it's G-Sync/ULMB features

o matte film
o unknown manufacturing quality

I do think the Acer is a stronger buy than the Swift. TN on the Swift just erases a lot of pro's versus it's con's.
Click to expand...

Let's not skimp:

Asus Swift

+8bit panel overcomes typical TN color quality limitations
+1440p
+3D vision
+ULMB at 120hz
-TN panel still means you have bad viewing angles
-highly more variable quality
-NVIDIA GPU only for it's G-Sync/ULMB features


o matte film
 
Nicholars said:
You are discussing about the differences in response times with the rog swift and this acer of a few ms... I may be wrong here but as long as the pixel response times are always lower than 1 frame at 144hz then it should be fine should it not? Especially with ULMB mode I doubt there will be any noticeable difference in motion blur between the swift and the acer... eg. 1 frame at 144hz = ~6.9ms and all response times are well under that on the acer, so with ULMB especially it should look just as clear as the rog swift while also having better image quality due to being AHVA and not having any overshoot.
Click to expand...

It's stuck at 85hz or 100hz for ulmb, so can't really compare it to the Swift with ULMB in effect.
 
deasnutz said:
It's stuck at 85hz or 100hz for ulmb, so can't really compare it to the Swift with ULMB in effect.
Click to expand...

Mm that is not ideal but still at 144hz as the response is way under 6.9ms I would think the amount of blur on this would not be much noticeably worse than the swift unless you have some sort of eagle vision.
 
Last edited:
Nicholars said:
You are discussing about the differences in response times with the rog swift and this acer of a few ms... I may be wrong here but as long as the pixel response times are always lower than 1 frame at 144hz then it should be fine should it not? Especially with ULMB mode I doubt there will be any noticeable difference in motion blur between the swift and the acer... eg. 1 frame at 144hz = ~6.9ms and all response times are well under that on the acer, so with ULMB especially it should look just as clear as the rog swift while also having better image quality due to being AHVA and not having any overshoot.
Click to expand...

If you're running ULMB you want all the pixel transitions to complete in the time when the backlight is off. At 100Hz (max refresh rate with ULMB on the Predator) and at the longest pulse width (maximum brightness) the backlight is off for 7.5ms for each strobe. The longest transition measured by tftcentral is 6.9ms, so in perfect conditions you'll be cutting it pretty close. You can lower the pulse width to leave the backlight off for longer, but you lose brightness.

For comparison, the Swift running at 120Hz and max pulse width, the backlight is off for 6.5ms while the longest measured transition is 4.4ms. That's significantly more margin for error, and a higher refresh rate as well.
 
wow phenomenal response time! i'm loving my ROG Swift so i'm not in the market for a new monitor, but i'm anxious for people to get this and report their impressions.
 
This monitor makes me more impatient waiting for the asus freesync screen that uses the same panel, if its at least £200 cheaper and has the same response times, lag and contrast ratio, that will be ideal.
 
Nicholars said:
Mm that is not ideal but still at 144hz as the response is way under 6.9ms I would think the amount of blur on this would not be much noticeably worse than the swift unless you have some sort of eagle vision.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about ULMB? Have you used it?
 
deasnutz said:
Are we talking about ULMB? Have you used it?
Click to expand...

I was yes...

No I have not used that monitor but I used ULMB on an eizo foris which i returned for other reasons...

Anyway the response times on this monitor are very good and are promising for more monitors using the same panel.

Even if the ULMB mode on this monitor isn't great I think that response time at 144hz would still look more than good enough.

How the **** did they get from average IPS response time of about 8.5ms which has been like that for years down to 5.5ms with no overshoot, that is very impressive work from AUO.
 
Last edited:
Pechendko said:
Impressive performance after calibration @ shitty factory settings.

Is it really that expensive for manufacturers to get their monitors decently calibrated at the factory? Because running every game in borderless windowed mode to take advantage of icc profiles is a huge pain in the ass.:mad:
Click to expand...

Wait, what? i didn't know this!.

So people run their games in windowed fullscreen to get the .icc profile to work?
 
Nicholars said:
I was yes...

No I have not used that monitor but I used ULMB on an eizo foris which i returned for other reasons...

Anyway the response times on this monitor are very good and are promising for more monitors using the same panel.

Even if the ULMB mode on this monitor isn't great I think that response time at 144hz would still look more than good enough for me because motion blur bothers me less than image quality eg. I would not buy a TN screen even if it has 0.000000001ms response time.
Click to expand...

The Foris doesn't use ULMB. It doubles the frames, then strobes. But yes, any genius could see this monitor has good response times. ULMB at 85hz/100hz still is weak for anyone concerned with motion blur (which you are not, but thanks for the input).
 
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm

Response times were very impressive and fast, and beyond what we expected from an IPS-type panel. We were expecting response times to be around the 8.6ms mark at best, which is what we'd experienced fairly consistently from other modern IPS panels. The refresh rate dynamically affects the overdrive control on this model, so response times reach down to 5.5ms G2G by the time you reach 144Hz. Best of all, if you stick to the 'normal' OD mode, all this is achievable without introducing any overshoot. The fastest TN Film models like the Asus ROG Swift PG278Q might have had slightly faster pixel transitions by a few ms, but their overshoot was at moderate levels. We actually preferred the artefact-free fluidity of the panel here and response times were low enough to be able to cope with the high frame rates offered. That's been the problem with overclockable Korean models, leading to common issues with ghosting and blurring even though you get a more fluid feel to the screen thanks to the overclocked refresh rate. Here, the pixel response times are very good so combined with the high refresh rate, it's a great gaming experience. As we've already mentioned, you also get the added benefits of the image quality offered from the IPS-type panel as compared with TN Film models.
Click to expand...



Regarding ulmb/strobing , (seems to indicate that it will blur due to transition time outside of strobing at higher ms response times too).
http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1777

A 6ms GtG screen is too slow for clean 120Hz strobing.
Even a 3ms GtG screen is too slow for clean 120Hz strobing; as real-world GtG is often 6ms.

You really want 1ms GtG, to have most (>99%) of real-world GtG complete inside a vertical blanking interval (the time not spent scanning the screen) -- a tiny fraction of an LCD refresh cycle.
Click to expand...
 
deasnutz said:
The Foris doesn't use ULMB. It doubles the frames, then strobes. But yes, any genius could see this monitor has good response times. ULMB at 85hz/100hz still is weak for anyone concerned with motion blur (which you are not, but thanks for the input).
Click to expand...

I am... But not as much as some people... I would think 5.5ms response time at 144hz with no ULMB would be good enough. Pretty huge improvement over 60hz 8.5ms IPS anyway,
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm





Regarding ulmb/strobing , (seems to indicate that it will blur due to transition time outside of strobing at higher ms response times too).
http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1777
Click to expand...

This monitor doesn't have 120Hz strobing anyway, and later in that post he says existing IPS screens (pre-Predator, presumably) would be "quite adequate" at 75Hz. 100Hz does seem like it would be right up against the limit, just looking at the numbers. There's no way this thing can scan out and completely transition in that 7.5ms, and even tftcentral noted the lower part of the screen is less clear.
 
No mention of the perceived black depth ruining glossy black bezel (not surprised) which renders the high measured contrast meaningless. It seems Acer lazily implemented an sRGB gamma curve, though gimmick loving gamers should love the 1.9 setting which "Black Equalizes" the gamma slightly, like BenQs (Acer missed a marketing opportunity). Doubt 3D would look nice due to the lack of a true semi-glossy (TV's) or glossy coating.

The actual lengths of colour streaks will be like 1-2mm shorter on the PG278Q when G-Sync is enabled, but it overshoots, offers less clear (strong matte coating) and vivid image quality. The PG278Q's only true advantage arises when ULMB is enabled at 144hz when gaming at very high frame-rates. Yes it has 3D, but the grainy matte coating creates a very visible screen door effect when 3D is enabled.
 
Last edited:
that increase in mm and ms can be a lot. We are back to almost 6ms ips response time. Does the swift's overshoot really put them on equal footing? I'd really like to see some pursuit camera pictures of both.
The ag texture takes some getting used to on the swift and I'd prefer glossy, but the ag is more obnoxious in desktop/app and still image usage than in gaming. I use a glossy ips for desktop/apps anyway. I have no interest in 3d personally either. You can only use ulmb mode at 120hz too btw, not 144hz. 144hz only supports g-sync, with an 'overclocked' g-sync module at that. As for image quality, again, the highest % of color swatch variation is going to be visible on photo work not most if not all games. IPS color uniformity of brightness across the whole panel is way better though. I get a TN shift/shadow 'bubble' edge, usually at the top in my configuration/placement more like a little ledge casting a slight gradient shade onto the top edge. Of course if I bob my head around it is going to shift worse but I don't do that gaming. The color saturation on the swift is lush for what colors it has (and what colors games actually utilize).

That said I actually want the ips gaming panels to be great, and if the 34" 21:9 144hz g-sync ones don't smear I would be all over one.
 
Last edited:
those who own that Asus ROG TN monitor clearly need to accept the fact that the Asus Rog will be the 2nd best gaming monitor when the Acer comes out.

I am already seeing a handful of ROG owners in this thread after the TFT review trolling the Acer solely because they own the ROG, lol.
 
I'm very interested in especially the 21:9 version. I follow as many threads on new gaming panel tech as I can. I'd gladly upgrade to 21:9 144hz g-sync when they come out a bit later in the game. Acer and samung are a few mfg's coming out with them. However if they still have ips level of smear blur but the spiel is "the less overshoot and ips quality make it a worthwhile tradeoff" I won't be interested in a smearing panel. I really hope they don't but ~ 6ms response time doesn't seem to fit the bill. I brought all this stuff up because I WANT to be wrong about it, not the other way around as you are implying.
 
NCX said:
No mention of the perceived black depth ruining glossy black bezel (not surprised) which renders the high measured contrast meaningless.
Click to expand...

You really need to stop spreading misinformation. I've already proven your image to be completely useless. The black levels are drastically different between them:

YzLn13B.png
 
jaguax said:
You really need to stop spreading misinformation.
Click to expand...

It's glare caused by the glossy black bezel which is clearly reflecting light from above and below. Not sure why you are in denial, especially about something which can be figured out by using simple logic.
 
Last edited:
TroyX said:
those who own that Asus ROG TN monitor clearly need to accept the fact that the Asus Rog will be the 2nd best gaming monitor when the Acer comes out.

I am already seeing a handful of ROG owners in this thread after the TFT review trolling the Acer solely because they own the ROG, lol.
Click to expand...

lol yes, muttering various justifications about why the rog is still better etc.
 
NCX said:
No mention of the perceived black depth ruining glossy black bezel (not surprised) which renders the high measured contrast meaningless. It seems Acer lazily implemented an sRGB gamma curve, though gimmick loving gamers should love the 1.9 setting which "Black Equalizes" the gamma slightly, like BenQs (Acer missed a marketing opportunity). Doubt 3D would look nice due to the lack of a true semi-glossy (TV's) or glossy coating.

The actual lengths of colour streaks will be like 1-2mm shorter on the PG278Q when G-Sync is enabled, but it overshoots, offers less clear (strong matte coating) and vivid image quality. The PG278Q's only true advantage arises when ULMB is enabled at 144hz when gaming at very high frame-rates. Yes it has 3D, but the grainy matte coating creates a very visible screen door effect when 3D is enabled.
Click to expand...

It would be better with a dark grey bezel but I think you are being slightly over dramatic about it... For example my Sony TV has a glossy black bezel and it doesn't RUIN the TV (although it is a VA screen with a glossy screen coating).... But yes a grey bezel would be better and hopefully the asus version should have a grey bezel. "RUINS" and "MEANINGLESS CONTRAST RATIO" are a bit over dramatic though :D
 
Nicholars said:
lol yes, muttering various justifications about why the rog is still better etc.
Click to expand...

Where? You didn't actually reference anything.

So, to clarify, to priviledged owners of the 2nd best, only available, gaming monitor are the ones who are butthurt? Riiiiiiiiiiight.....sounds like someone couldn't possibly imagine affording both.
 
Review is amazing. I hope it around $800, i have newegg store credit from the Acer 4k i returned.
 
Last edited:
Nicholars said:
It would be better with a dark grey bezel but I think you are being slightly over dramatic about it...
Click to expand...

Your Sony TVs bezel is much thinner, you sit much further away, the glossy coating enhances the perceived black depth, and the TV's black level is >2.5x deeper than these monitors.

VG248QE with glossy black bezel vs glossy monitor with glossy black bezel. This photo is from 2013, is slightly over-exposed and was taken with a different camera and room lighting, but proves the same thing. Imagine how much worse the matte monitor+glossy black bezel would look if I took the photos close enough to capture the glow and cranked the brightness.

It's quite misleading to praise a monitors high measured contrast/low black level without taking the bezel into account given how much of an impact it has on the perceived black depth.
 
Last edited:
With everything this monitor offers I would gladly pay $1200 for this as opposed to a 21:9 60hz non G Sync non ULMB IPS with terrible bleeding. Can't wait to replace my 248QE with this:D
 
NCX said:
Your Sony TVs bezel is much thinner, you sit much further away, the glossy coating enhances the perceived black depth, and the TV's black level is >2.5x deeper than these monitors.

VG248QE with glossy black bezel vs glossy monitor with glossy black bezel. This photo is from 2013, is slightly over-exposed and was taken with a different camera and room lighting, but proves the same thing. Imagine how much worse the matte monitor+glossy black bezel would look if I took the photos close enough to capture the glow and cranked the brightness.

It's quite misleading to praise a monitors high measured contrast/low black level without taking the bezel into account given how much of an impact it has on the perceived black depth.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but if this was the only monitor available, was priced £200 lower and nothing else coming out then I would still buy it even with a black bezel. But as the Asus will be out soon with the same panel, priced £200 cheaper, with a grey bezel etc. it is not worth buying this at the price they want for it. This screen does look a bit cheapo with the glossy plastics and orange bits for a £700 monitor, looks like its worth about £200. its also interesting how all manufacturers must know about the bezel making the black depth look worse.. yet they still release glossy black bezels and matte coatings, they also know that IPS glow looks terrible, but don't bother to fix it.. 99% of consumers probably don't even think about "perceived black depth due to bezel color"
 
Last edited:
Nicholars said:
I agree with you but if this was the only monitor available, was priced £200 lower and nothing else coming out then I would still buy it even with a black bezel. But as the Asus will be out soon with the same panel, priced £200 cheaper, with a grey bezel etc. it is not worth buying this at the price they want for it. This screen does look a bit cheapo with the glossy plastics and orange bits for a £700 monitor, looks like its worth about £200. its also interesting how all manufacturers must know about the bezel making the black depth look worse.. yet they still release glossy black bezels and matte coatings :S
Click to expand...

Just wondering where did you find the pricing on it? Maybe I'm just an idiot and missed it in the TFT review page.
 
Nicholars said:
Well it is on OCUK pre-order for £690, I expect that will be about right as it has Gsync.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-077-AC&groupid=17&catid=1120
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yeah the price bump for including G Sync does suck but the main thing turning me away from the Asus MG279Q is no confirmation of ULMB as I consider it a must have for certain fast paced fps games :( otherwise if Asus manages to include some form of ULMB or whatever they wish to call it then I'm probably going to jump ship for that.
 
TroyX said:
those who own that Asus ROG TN monitor clearly need to accept the fact that the Asus Rog will be the 2nd best gaming monitor when the Acer comes out.

I am already seeing a handful of ROG owners in this thread after the TFT review trolling the Acer solely because they own the ROG, lol.
Click to expand...
It's not conceivable that some of us would buy it upon release? It's not coming for a few months and possibly months afterward before it's widely available.

Do you thin the ROG Swift will suddenly become useless? Or if someone wants to sell theirs for a discount you think no one will buy a used Swift for a few hundred less than new and likely nearly half the price of the Predator?

The 980 will be 2nd best soon enough and then what? If a 980ti exhibits some trade-offs and 980 owners critique it, will they be jealous and angry that they no longer have the best card? or isn't that just the way technology works?

I really don't understand why some people personalize these threads so often in the way that they do.
 
NCX said:
It's glare caused by the glossy black bezel which is clearly reflecting light from above and below. Not sure why you are in denial, especially about something which can be figured out by using simple logic.
Click to expand...

....there's no way a flat bezel reflects that much light onto the screen.
 
flod said:
....there's no way a flat bezel reflects that much light onto the screen.
Click to expand...

He's talking about perceived black depth under non-zero lighting condtions. The glossy bezel will always appear darker because it doesn't diffuse as much light.
 
i know. but you can't talk about its effect on "perceived black depth" without first ensuring that the compared monitors have the same actual blacks. in the pictures of the hp monitors it's clear that the actual black in the pictures are way different:

jaguax said:
YzLn13B.png
Click to expand...

i think ncx is saying that the reason there's a grey splotch on the glossy bezel hp monitor is due to the glossy bezels. even if this is the case (which i highly doubt... more likely a case of accidental additional illumination in that picture from something else) it doesn't showcase the more subtle effect of the bezel's color on perception.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top