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

i am waiting with a credit from a failed ROG Swift to pull the trigger on this as soon as i can
 
Nicholars said:
Well when freesync comes out in the next few months, if it works as well as Gsync, nvidia / manufacturers will have no choice to either sell Gsync at the price it costs them to add it, or for nvidia to enable freesync in drivers... Nobody other than people who only buy nvidia is going to pay an extra £200 for something you can get for an extra £50 (probably), if gsync prices don't drop I will be getting an AMD card for freesync, hopefully nvidia will allow freesync through drivers but I don't know how likely they are to do that, the ASUS MG279Q looks better than this Acer and will be freesync only, well it will probably be similar as uses the same panel but it looks nicer and asus is better than acer and does not have a cheap looking stand lol. Why have acer put glossy plastic and orange on a "premium" monitor it makes it look like a £100 monitor.
Click to expand...

I responded to another uninformed individual on the interwebs earlier, who had a similar mindset. To save myself some time, I'm just going to copy/paste what I wrote him for your benefit:

I don't have a GSYNC monitor yet. But I will be picking up the new 144Hz 1440p IPS GSYNC monitor from Acer. I was going to get the ROG Swift but didn't want to settle for a TN panel. GSYNC and the accompanying ULMB tech is absolutely amazing.

Secondly...your statement is utterly idiotic. You said you will buy the better product, in your price range. 2 things. You have no idea what FreeSync would cost. You're assuming there is no cost associated with the custom asic scaler and design modification required. Any manufacturer that implements FreeSync is going to incur additional costs, and is also guaranteed to have a markup because business and economics, and also because FreeSync is ONLY supported by AMD, and only on some of their cards. Intel and Nvidia have not signed on to support it. So anyone that puts the money into developing and manufacturing these monitors will require an even higher manufacturer markup than the competing GSYNC monitors due to much lower potential "FreeSync" customer base. If Intel signs on to FreeSync, then we can re-evaluate this argument. But for now, this is economics 101.

So you're bashing an existing technology, by comparing it to a not-yet-public technology, without knowing how the 2 compare (for example, there will be no ULMB or 3D Vision support for FreeSync), and without even knowing the price difference between the two. You're making an uninformed assumption, and making a complete judgment based on it. And that is wrong. AMD has Nvidia beat in one aspect of the GSYNC/FreeSync wars, and that is in naming theirs FreeSync, making people think it's actually free. And making people think it is exactly like/has all the features of GSYNC (which it is/does not). That's actually an impressive marketing win, when you consider the number of people such as yourself who've been confused to the point that you think Nvidia shouldn't charge money for taking a risk on R&D and creating custom boards and technology (which is something the manufacturer would normally have to do), and also for thinking manufacturers like to go to extra lengths to add premium niche features at a cost, without adding their own substantial markup. And at the same time...not realizing that monitor manufacturers will have to create a special asic scaler to be able to able to add FreeSync. And they're doing all of that for what...AMD? The company that is only getting 30% of current desktop GPU sales?

When calculating R&D recovery costs, it is based off of expected sales volume. Since the expected sales of FreeSync are lower, due to fewer people being able to use it, they have to start off with a higher markup to recoup the additional costs of the hardware and also the implementation in design of FreeSync. And seeing that AMD owners are usually "value shoppers" they may find it harder to justify paying extra for FreeSync if it turns out, for example, that GSYNC has a total premium of $200, and FreeSync still has a premium of $120 (this would of course also include the fact that FreeSync does not include ULMB, which could be added separately, but which is then even more costs that would align it even more closely with GSYNC prices).


BOTTOM LINE: Thinking FreeSync will end up being Free or almost Free, is foolhardy. As with everything in life...you get what you pay for. FreeSync *can be* (but not necessarily will be) more successful in the non-enthusiast/non-gamer market. But considering the forum we're on, and the monitors and price ranges we are discussing, whether you pay $800 for the GSYNC version or $700 for the FreeSync version without ULMB (best case scenario on pricing...but I doubt it'll vary that much), we're not talking about enough of a difference to forego certain features. FreeSync is simply intended to not leave AMD in the dust with no adaptive sync options. Because that would lead to even more AMD users jumping ship to Nvidia, and that reduction in competition would be bad for everybody.
 
MadBlax said:
Was tempted by the Rog Swift, but at $999.99 in Canada couldn't do it. This will probably cost the same but it's an IPS, so I can justify it in my head. I just can't do TN anymore, I hope this thing is amazing.
Click to expand...

You can still get the ROG Swift in Canada for $867 CAD before taxes. It's a tough decision to make as I'm thinking about the $133 savings with guaranteed Nvidia 3D Vision support and 1ms response time, to an unknown price unknown availability IPS from Acer with potentially no support for Nvidia 3D Vision. I hope I have the willpower to resist buying it this week. Lol.
 
MadBlax said:
Was tempted by the Rog Swift, but at $999.99 in Canada couldn't do it. This will probably cost the same but it's an IPS, so I can justify it in my head. I just can't do TN anymore, I hope this thing is amazing.
Click to expand...

At this point in time I would wait. Buying TN in 2015? Heck, I ditched TN in Jan 2007, it has always been garbage. It's like buying a membrane keyboard.
 
TN then is quite different from TN now, at least Swift's TN isn't as bad as some might think it is.

Still, I would agree with waiting, I don't think Swift is going to magically going up in price if this monitor flops
 
after gaming on an IPS monitor for a few years I realized that I don't actually look at my screen from all kinds of different angles.
 
This thread is going to be glorious once issues start creeping up after release.
 
mope54 said:
after gaming on an IPS monitor for a few years I realized that I don't actually look at my screen from all kinds of different angles.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Swift's biggest issue is the grainy matte coating... its 8-bit TN panel looks way better then the lightboost shit TNs of yester-year.
 
deasnutz said:
This thread is going to be glorious once issues start creeping up after release.
Click to expand...

lol, I wouldn't call it glorious, but so far even the most hyped of monitors has not been without issues. It seems like you take the good with the bad on ANY monitor and just prioritize what's most important to you. I'm sure this new Acer will be no different.
 
side by side the Swift seems to be contending just fine.

We discuss color accuracy a lot but IPS monitors, at least the ones we're mainly purchasing, crush blacks to pretty much non-existence. In fact, that was the main reason I even considered going back to a TN panel. It was less about response rate. I play mainly Dota2 and D3 lately with a smattering of BF4. I couldn't see anything in the shadows and that was only marginally better after calibration.
 
alienate said:
Nothing can touch IPS in color accuracy even head on.
Click to expand...

If you're using this monitor for gaming though, what exactly is "accurate" when it comes to colors in game? It's not like you're viewing a photo of a real life object so does the accuracy really matter all that much?
 
MistaSparkul said:
If you're using this monitor for gaming though, what exactly is "accurate" when it comes to colors in game? It's not like you're viewing a photo of a real life object so does the accuracy really matter all that much?
Click to expand...

You're right, because game art designers obviously pick colours at random and do not adhere to a standard. They definitely do not make their games look a certain way to evoke certain moods, tone or use colours and shades to impress players or emphasize something.
 
Last edited:
Obviously they do, but how do you exactly tell if a color is 'accurate' or 'inaccurate' without looking at a color calibrated design documents to compare it to?

Sure, a 6bit + PRC would look dramatically different to say an 8bit, but could you really compare game color accuracy between similar panels without an actual reference?
 
NCX said:
You're right, because game art designers obviously pick colours at random and do not adhere to a standard. They definitely do not make their games look a certain way to evoke certain moods, tone or use colours and shades to impress players or emphasize something.
Click to expand...

Never said they don't. Just saying if the color of your grass in battlefield isn't the proper shade of green does it really matter THAT much? I think the main reason why people prefer IPS over TN for gaming wasn't always due to better "accuracy" but rather because the colors appeared more "vibrant" than TN and that reason being due to TN panels being 6 bit and using harsh matte coating vs glossy ips.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Never said they don't. Just saying if the color of your grass in battlefield isn't the proper shade of green does it really matter THAT much? I think the main reason why people prefer IPS over TN for gaming wasn't always due to better "accuracy" but rather because the colors appeared more "vibrant" than TN and that reason being due to TN panels being 6 bit and using harsh matte coating vs glossy ips.
Click to expand...
I think that's partially true but it's also related to the fact that professionals used IPS screens for their work, and those screens were incredibly expensive relative to TN panels, and a whole lot of discussion arose surrounding the technical reasons for those extra costs, and then when IPS panels dropped in price compared to TN panels gamers started jumping on the "premium" monitors regardless of the fact that a lot of IPS technology isn't really conducive to twitch gaming.
 
mope54 said:
after gaming on an IPS monitor for a few years I realized that I don't actually look at my screen from all kinds of different angles.
Click to expand...

TN color shift is visible head on also. That's the problem. You don't get the same colors on the top and bottom of the screen. You change the height of your seat, slouch over, or otherwise change the height of your head relative to the screen and the colors shift. It's terrible.
 
You also have to factor in monitor size. At 24", maybe you can get away with TN color shift without it being too noticeable.

At 30"+, it's going to be a joke. You won't even be able to look at it straight on without noticeable color shift.

Also, the color shift completely fucking sucks when you rotate monitors (portrait mode). If you think TN color shift sucks in landscape orientation, try portrait mode. It's utterly horrible.
 
That's hyperbole. The type of color shift from one end of the screen to the other is shades of a color, not actual changing colors. I haven't used a TN monitor for about three years, but I'm comparing my Swift right alongside my Monoprice zero-G. The black crush is horrific on the Monoprice. I was able to calibrate it but the other problems associated with IPS in relation to gaming can't be fixed.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Never said they don't. Just saying if the color of your grass in battlefield isn't the proper shade of green does it really matter THAT much?
Click to expand...

That depends on how high ones standards are and which monitor(s) set their standard.

MistaSparkul said:
I think the main reason why people prefer IPS over TN for gaming wasn't always due to better "accuracy" but rather because the colors appeared more "vibrant" than TN and that reason being due to TN panels being 6 bit and using harsh matte coating vs glossy ips.
Click to expand...

The bit depth doesn't matter; TN gamma shift and the strong coatings they use reduce the colour vibrancy and accuracy.
 
Can we take this to another thread please? You gents can make a new thread about the Zero-G and Swift, korean, TN, IPS etc... I would read it, but came here for the XB270HU.
 
This monitor looks amaze-ballz. It may be better than EVERY monitor in existence today.

Thoughts?
 
I asked about that on the first few responses of this thread and the response was that the pre-order price would probably be a little higher than MSRP, so it should be either that or lower by the time it hits the states if it remains accurate.
 
I haven't heard a peep about this and it's supposed to be shipping in a week or two?
Anyone else heard any news?
 
The XB270HU (TN version with Freesync instead of G-Sync) has been postponed until April at the earliest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top