Review Index:
Feedback

Acer XB280HK 28-in 4K G-Sync Monitor Review

Author:
Subject: Displays
Manufacturer: Acer

Technical Specifications

Here they come - the G-Sync monitors are finally arriving at our doors! A little over a month ago we got to review the ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, a 2560x1440 144 Hz monitor that was the first retail-ready display to bring NVIDIA's variable refresh technology to consumers. It was a great first option with a high refresh rate along with support for ULMB (ultra low motion blur) technology, giving users a shot at either option.

Today we are taking a look at our second G-Sync monitor that will hit streets sometime in mid-October with an identical $799 price point. The Acer XB280HK is a 28-in 4K monitor with a maximum refresh rate of 60 Hz and of course, support for NVIDIA G-Sync.

The Acer XB280HK, first announced at Computex in June, is the first 4K monitor on the market to be announced with support for variable refresh. It isn't that far behind the first low-cost 4K monitors to hit the market, period: the ASUS PB287Q and the Samsung U28D590D both shipped in May of 2014 with very similar feature sets, minus G-Sync. I discussed much of the general usability benefits (and issues) that arose when using a consumer 4K panel with Windows 8.1 in those reviews, so you'll want to be sure you read up on that in addition to the discussion of 4K + G-Sync we'll have today.

View Full Size

While we dive into the specifics on the Acer XB280HK monitor today, I will skip over most of the discussion about G-Sync, how it works and why we want it. In our ASUS PG278Q review I had a good, concise discussion on the technical background of NVIDIA G-Sync technology and how it improves gaming.

The idea of G-Sync is pretty easy to understand, though the implementation method can get a bit more hairy. G-Sync introduces a variable refresh rate to a monitor, allowing the display to refresh at wide range of rates rather than at fixed intervals. More importantly, rather than the monitor dictating what rate this refresh occurs at to the PC, the graphics now tells the monitor when to refresh in a properly configured G-Sync setup. This allows a monitor to match the refresh rate of the screen to the draw rate of the game being played (frames per second) and that simple change drastically improves the gaming experience for several reasons.

View Full Size

Continue reading our review of the Acer XB280HK 4K G-Sync Monitor!!

Acer XB280HK Technical Specifications

From a pure specifications point of view, the Acer XB280HK 4K 28-in monitor looks nearly identical to the ASUS PB287Q and the Samsung U28D590D.

View Full Size

View Full Size

The panel is a 28-in screen with a 3840x2160 resolution and a rated 1ms grey-to-grey response time. It is a TN panel which of course creates a certain mindset for some users that tend to be very particular about their displays. (We'll talk more on that a bit lower on this page.) The brightness is rated at up to 300 cd/m2 and the contrast ratio is 1000:1. These are all pretty standard specifications for this class of 4K monitor but obviously the stand out is the NVIDIA G-Sync technology support

View Full Size

The white LED backlight is side-lit and color reproduction is pretty good, though not as good as the ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q based on our Spyder color analysis. We hit a 97% sRGB while the ASUS 2560x1440 was able to reach 100% - but you'd be hard pressed to see the difference in person.

View Full Size

A major concern for users critical of TN panels are color reproduction and color shift at wider viewing angles. This is the image of the screen taken with my Canon 7D at fixed aperture settings straight on.

View Full Size

Here is the viewing angle from the right side...

View Full Size

...and the left side. Both of these are pretty damn good for a TN panel.

View Full Size

The top viewing angle is a bit more blown out than we would like to see but this still falls on the acceptable side for us.

View Full Size

The bottom viewing angle...not so much. It didn't take a very wide angle to get near complete color inversion when looking up at the display. Now to be fair, this is about as unlikely of a scenario as you are ever going to have for the viewing angle of a desktop monitor, but it is important if you were planning to mount the Acer panel up on a wall or use it in a portrait configuration.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the quality of the TN panel in the Acer XB280HK and even the more display-purist in our office had no issues gaming on it during our time with the screen.


September 24, 2014 | 09:26 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

4K packed into 28 inches doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Especially if it's TN. Such an IPS panel I could see being used by video/photo editors, but for everything else I've though the point of 4K was to enable 32 inch and larger monitors without horrible pixel desnities.

September 24, 2014 | 02:59 PM - Posted by Alex Atkin UK (not verified)

I disagree, the goal of higher pixel density is to make the pixels invisible.

The pixels are easy to see on my 1080p 24" monitor. It took 720p to make them start to disappear on a 5" screen (Galaxy Note 2) and the increase to 1080p (Galaxy Note 3) is immediately obvious, the detail in the image is astonishing.

Also when looking at photos, being able to render more of the grain due to a higher resolution AND smaller pixels, will give a better perceived colour and contrast reproduction.

As such, I don't think 4k for smaller monitors is overkill at all. The tiny screens on our phones have proven that a high ppi DOES make a difference. Essential? No. Nicer? Definitely.

September 25, 2014 | 04:08 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

make the pixels invisible
I really wish people would stop doing that.
Say 'indistinguishable' or 'indiscernable'.
Pixels are what forms the image. If they were invisible, you couldn't see the image.

December 12, 2014 | 05:41 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If you said that to someone in real life, they'd probably think you a pompous douche-bag.

Good thing it's just the internet.

September 26, 2014 | 02:21 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If only Windows and associated applications were all High-PPI optimized. Android embarrasses most windows programs in this regard.

September 24, 2014 | 09:57 AM - Posted by BBMan (not verified)

Reading this review makes me think that 4k will probably be the last resolution I will care about. Some 1080p made me think I was on set with some movies as it was. 4k may do the same with a 70" UHD screen- and my living room has plenty with a 46". As far as movies goes, unless I want to open a movie theatre, 8k (the next real standard that may come along) makes no sense.
I have to agree with the first poster. A 28" is just too small- not a lot of people have a demand for 4k on a 28" unless you're upconverting 1080p fliks :p . For me it's a matter of real estate to display a lot of things on and I don't want to turn my monitor into an eye-chart. 30"+ screens are the market for this. That said, too much bigger and I may have to put an eye doctor on retainers.

September 24, 2014 | 03:05 PM - Posted by Alex Atkin UK (not verified)

The upgrade to 4k is not about giving you more screen real-estate like it used to be. Its about adding more detail to everything on that screen so it longer looks like a bunch of pixels.

Looking at text on my 24" 1080p monitor after looking at it on my Galaxy Note 3 is quite uncomfortable, its just so blocky. Its a lot easier on the eyes when there is so much detail there it looks print quality.

It will give a bit more screen real-estate too though. Things like the task bar have to be kept a certain size so you can make out what the icons actually are. With a higher ppi you could easily make it smaller and still tell what they are, thus wasting less space. The same may also apply to title bars, scroll bars and tool bars in general.

Also, you might not want all text to be tiny but using a bit of the screen to dock a widget to show your latest tweets or something in a tiny font is WAY more practical. I have always found those sorts of things take up too much small because you can't make the font small enough due to a lack of ppi.

September 24, 2014 | 10:09 PM - Posted by waiting for 8K (not verified)

Don't worry about buying an eye-chart. As you get older you want to place the monitor 3 feet then 4 feet away. This avoids wearing the reading glasses. The 5K monitor will be released in October, and the 8K monitors in a year or two. You got to get one of those.

September 24, 2014 | 10:09 PM - Posted by waiting for 8K (not verified)

Don't worry about buying an eye-chart. As you get older you want to place the monitor 3 feet then 4 feet away. This avoids wearing the reading glasses. The 5K monitor will be released in October, and the 8K monitors in a year or two. You got to get one of those.

November 7, 2014 | 01:59 PM - Posted by aparsh335i (not verified)

I don't think you get it. That's ok, stick with your 1080p.

September 24, 2014 | 10:19 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Is this monitor limited to 60 Hz for all resolutions? Can it do 1080p at 144 Hz or 1440p at 120 Hz? That seems ideal to me. If a G-Sync monitor can do up to 4K60 and all other resolutions up to 144 Hz, all with G-Sync functionality, then you could experience the best of all worlds.

September 24, 2014 | 10:49 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Very interested to know this too, would be a nice solution to wanting a 4k monitor and wanting a 120hz monitor

September 24, 2014 | 11:45 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Right? It's not like a new idea (multiple resolutions and max refresh rates).

September 24, 2014 | 11:55 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I'll look into this today!

September 24, 2014 | 02:31 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

I set the panel to 1920x1080 and we were still limited to a 60 FPS refresh rate.

September 24, 2014 | 03:13 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Thanks for looking!

I'm still pretty excited about this display, but that is disappointing. I'm using a 1080p 144 Hz Asus right now and as much as I want 4K and G-Sync, I don't want to let go of my high refresh rate. Better luck next time, Acer.

October 1, 2014 | 01:10 PM - Posted by annoyingmouse (not verified)

How did the Panel look at 1080p? I'm considering a 4k monitor for reasons other than gaming, but I do game too and can't afford to upgrade video cards that often.

Does it simply use four pixels for one, or does it use a lot of interpolation? How does it look overall from a distance of 4 - 5'?

September 24, 2014 | 12:46 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

With a 1ms response time, the panel itself should be capable of higher refresh rates, but is limited by the DP bandwidth at 4k.

September 24, 2014 | 02:14 PM - Posted by PapaDragon

Frequency:55-75hz Vertical (thats the key)
No..This panel isnt made to run that high.

But maybe at 1440p you might.."might" get 75hz using a pixel clock patcher.

My question , can this monitor run Gsync at lower resolution than 4K just in case you dont have that extra horsepower to run a game at its native resolution?

September 24, 2014 | 01:09 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I think the overclockable Korean monitors still offer a better deal overall: at >60hz refresh rates, Gsync is less useful, and you get an IPS display for well under half the price ($290 now on ebay). The lack of vendor lock-in (as well as the ability to use older GPUs) is also a nice benefit.

September 24, 2014 | 01:32 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

manually set up a global FPS cap with rivatuner at 59 and your gsync will never turn into vsync...

gratz, now its totally lagless even if your games cap the framerate

September 24, 2014 | 02:32 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Interesting - could maybe do this with NVIDIA's Frame Rate Limiter as well.

Though I'm not sure if this would solve all the problems that V-Sync COULD introduce.

September 25, 2014 | 07:52 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/

See the 3rd chart for results.
The guys 143fps cap didnt cut down all the input lag, but a 120fps cap cut it all out.

It works apparently.
And with a manual global fps cap you can make sure ur gsync NEVER turns into vsync and u will always get as much lag as vsync off.

September 24, 2014 | 02:14 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Yes id like to know if lower res increases refresh as i have just bouight my second 780 ti and am running SLI and am torn between this and rog swift....WHAT IS BETTER pixel or refresh rate? I currently have the Asus PB278Q at 2560 x 1440p

September 24, 2014 | 03:11 PM - Posted by Alex Atkin UK (not verified)

Did you actually test how the viewing angles actually perform in portrait? I'm interested to see how Pinball Arcade would work on this.

September 24, 2014 | 03:38 PM - Posted by Technical Diretor (not verified)

Please share this with Everyone you can that would be thinking about 4k

http://www.thx.com/test-bench-blog/when-does-4k-matter/

This is from the experts folks - based in scientific fact.

In a nutshell, as gamers that can be seduced by numbers, the hype could waste you dollars. Been in the business years and marketing has always been about numbers.

Basic rules -
Like a microscope, your eye must be absolutely closer to 4k (or btw the UHD 8k in the wings) meaning that maybe just maybe being 2 feet away from PC monitor you MIGHT see a difference

19 - 24, Seriously doubt it unless you are a foot away 32 inch and greater yes maybe 4k is a choice. Sadly I am buying the new Philips 27" - and I hope I am far enough away its 1080p is fine.

Take a look at the specs on the new GTX980 series cards in 4k. Back to the 40's and low 50's FPs. Folks that means if you want 4k any other series card is STUPID waste.That also means you are back in the same old ball game of SLI bridging the 9 series until they bring out a significantly faster tech.

Summary:

Again, please warn all you can that 4k is a marketers dream, and a reality frought with wasted money nightmares for the common man.

September 24, 2014 | 03:55 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

if 4k not great now then should i keep my 2560 x 1440p monitor @ 60hz or get the Rog Swift monitor 2560 x 1440p @144hz with gsync?

my 2 GTX780 TI in SLI are itching to have the best possible output!!

September 24, 2014 | 04:01 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

2560 x 1440p @144hz with gsync

September 24, 2014 | 05:01 PM - Posted by Technical Diretor (not verified)

The gysnc is going to do far more than 4k does and the Philips I mentioned is 4k

While the sli setup you have is tops now, you will be disappointed with the perfoemance in 4k - just like the GTX980 is showing. Basically (not exactly) think of your 2 7 series as one GTX980

That said, you could run that monitor in 1080p - but could save money with another model.

Here is another good article:

http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/

September 24, 2014 | 05:03 PM - Posted by Technical Diretor (not verified)

oops flubbed up the philips is Gsync I meant, and 1080p native

September 25, 2014 | 09:05 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

2 780 ti not going to be enough for 4k with eyecandy not just GPU power but the limited 3GB vram

4k is not worth it at all even with gsync.

Stick with the higher hz panels with gsync because you also get ULMB this you wont get with 4k panel becasue of the 60hz limit

September 24, 2014 | 03:58 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Totally agree with above. 4K for a 28 monitor makes little sense. For G-Sync gaming monitors of this size, the ROG swift rules supreme for the time being.

October 17, 2014 | 11:26 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

That link isn't very relevant with regards to pc gaming. You normally sit much closer when gaming, then you do watching tv. I'd say, and this is backed up by the few reviews out there, getting 4k on a 28 with g-sync, produces some awesome gameplay. It obviously depends on what equipment you have now... if you've got something like a rog swift, you're not going to really miss not having 4k.

The only thing holding me from jumping now to 4k is for a unit that gives the option of control between 60-144hz.

September 24, 2014 | 04:19 PM - Posted by Polycrastinator (not verified)

Out of interest, why do you run MSAA at all on a 4K monitor? I just picked up one of the cheap (relatively) Samsung 4K monitors, and I've been running it with a single 760 (yes, really). For stuff that's hard on the GPU I just pixel double at 1080p, but I've been surprised at how good stuff looks at 4K with all the antialiasing turned off. Given AA is really there to deal with jaggies on lower resolution screens, you don't need it at 4K (IMO), and turning it off gives you mostly acceptable performance with a lower cost card.
All that said, with the price drops in 760s, I'm probably going to grab another to run in SLI so I can play more games natively in 4K.

September 24, 2014 | 05:03 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

You're right, the benefits of AA are lessened at 4K but they are still noticeable, especially in games with a lot of foliage like Crysis 3.

May 11, 2015 | 10:23 AM - Posted by Ninjawithagun

Ryan, I would like to add a caveat to what you said regarding the use of AA at 4K resolutions. I disagree with your assessment partially. It really is dependent upon monitor size. I own the Acer XB280HK 4K G-Sync 28-inch monitor and can tell you now that there is absolutely no discernable difference with AA cranked all the way up or with it disabled. However, I also own the Acer B326HK 4K 32-inch monitor and can tell a little bit of enhancement in overall sharpness with AA on versus AA disabled. Is it worth the huge performance hit for a very minor improvement in overall sharpness that most people probably won't notice anyway? I say no. So, for the sake of argument and comparative analysis, the bottom line is that it will be up to the individual of whether or not enabling AA when running games at 4K is beneficial or not. For me, it's not.

September 25, 2014 | 01:05 AM - Posted by fade2blac

Products with variable refresh rate support and more screen real estate (both pixels and physical size) are finally materializing. In general, this is a good thing. 4k could well become the defacto standard due to the symbiotic relationship with the TV market. However, it seems many would agree that it's hard to justify the need for/benefit of 4k on such small screens.

This product appears to be geared towards PC gaming (high-end enthusiast), but as Ryan points out in the review, the combination of physical size and resolution throws off the relative balance of a contemporary gaming system. One needs to throw a lot of GPU power at gaming on just one 4k display. Then one has to deal with ups and downs of the desktop experience with such high pixel density. And on top of it all, there is the early adopter tax which puts prices out of reach for most people. Maybe these downsides will subside over time since the useful life span of a monitor is often much longer than a GPU, etc.

Current e-tail pricing curve:

~$130+ 24" 1080p 60Hz monitor
~$200+ 27" 1080p 60Hz monitor
~$300+ 32-39" 1080p HDTV
~$330+ 27" 1440p overclockable monitor (eg. QNIX QX2710)
~$500+ 28" 4k fixed refresh monitor
~$800+ 28" 4k G-Sync monitor

I will repeat the challenge from my post on the earlier news article announcing these monitors.

Is it asking too much for a display with the following?
1) a good 27" 1440p non-TN panel
2) support for a variable refresh range of at least 24-96 Hz
3) tech that doesn't lock buyers into a single GPU vendor
4) a retail price around $300-325 or less

If you build it...we will buy!

P.S. You can leave out the anemic built-in speakers...but if you must add something make it an integrated USB hub/charger sporting 1A or more per port please.

September 24, 2014 | 05:01 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I have a hard time justifying a monitor that does not exceed 60hz as a gaming monitor regardless G-Sync.

September 25, 2014 | 06:22 AM - Posted by Angry

I was REALLY looking forward to this review.
And Im a little saddened that it cant do above 60hz even on lower resolutions.

I wanted to experience high refresh rate (being on 60hz LCDs since CRT days) and 4k if I wanted.

Granted I understand that it takes a significant GPU setup to get close to 60 at 4k, but Id like to have been able to use lower resolutions and higher refresh rates.

Guess I may go with the ROG swift and Nvidias DRS if I need.

September 25, 2014 | 08:59 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Gsync doesn't work under 30FPs
4k is too demanding and people will easily hit this threshold

September 25, 2014 | 12:18 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Since G-Sync is gonna be obsolete as soon as DisplayPort 1.2a comes out. I am gonna wait and save the extra cash for something useful instead. like a better graphics card upgrade for example.

September 29, 2014 | 07:45 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If its not EXACTLY as good as gsync AT THE VERY LEAST then its 100% worthless.

Everyone with a brain will pay a few bucks more for the solution that actually SOLVES those problems not TREATS them again.

Bottom line is that we dont even have a freesync beta monitor for reviewers... so its all vapourware right now.

But if freesync indeed is just as good as gsync then i will lock myself to the vendor who is able to deliver a 21:9 120hz monitor with their tech first. I dont particularly care about BRANDS.

May 11, 2015 | 11:21 AM - Posted by Ninjawithagun

You really do not understand anything that has been described with regards to G-Sync versus FreeSync. FreeSync is inferior and will always be inferior to G-Sync. FreeSync does NOT have dedicated hardware to handle the rendered frames or to monitor when the graphics card is ready to render the next frame. G-Sync does this with dedicated hardware. The G-Sync module has a dedicated processor and onboard VRAM to store rendered frames. This is the main reason why G-Sync is able to maintain much smoother frame rendering even when in the low 20FPS range. FreeSynce does not have any dedicated module, so no processor or VRAM to store rendered frames. That is why FreeSync has such a limited dynamic frame rate sweet spot. It has NOTHING to do with the DisplayPort implementation. It has everything to do with the hardware implementation of the scaler within the monitor and how it communicates with the graphics card. Nothing will change with DisplayPort 1.2a or DP 1.3...Nvidia's G-Sync solution will continue to be the superior and more expensive solution. You do get what you paid for, remember that!

September 30, 2014 | 03:48 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I'm somewhat surprised about the number of people commenting here (and in other places) about how 4k at 24/27/28 inches is pointless, as though sharper displays are a bad thing

October 1, 2014 | 08:47 AM - Posted by Tarosu (not verified)

Hello, I have a few concerns regarding this monitor, which have not been covered in this review.

As I see it, this monitor could theoretically fulfill the following 2 ideas:
1. 4k monitor for general usage
2. gsync monitor for 1080p.

So, my main concern is about gaming on this monitor at 1080p. I already understand that even at 1080p 60hz remains, but I still have a few questions:
1. Theoretically, due to simple pixel doubling, this monitor should not be less sharp at 1080p than a comparable 1080p monitor at the same size. Is this really the case?
2. Does the gsync mechanism operate when set to 1080p resolution?

Basically, what I was really looking forward is a gaming-review, but not at 4k which is still unpractical today, but at 1080p with this monitor. Any chance the review could be extended to this?

October 1, 2014 | 07:50 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Hard to say. It depends largely on the scaler (in either the monitor or the GPU). You can view the increased 4x4 pixel replacement as subpixel sampling of the original pixels. The convolution that produces the 4x4 pixel uses contributions from adjacent pixels in the original image to estimate the 4x4 physical pixels as subsamples. The technology has been getting really good at this for the last ten years at least.

October 29, 2014 | 02:07 PM - Posted by annoyingmouse (not verified)

1. Yes, 1080p scaling is pretty good. I wouldn't go as far as to say it could pass for native resolution within 3 feet, but maybe within 4 or 5.

2. Yes, gsync functions outside of native resolution.

btw, I'm using a single gtx980 and I've found I can play Watch Dogs and Shadow of Mordor just fine at mostly high settings, but I do have to sacrifice AA in Watch Dogs to use the 'very high' presets. I disabled DoF and motion blur in all games, but that's because I detest those effects, not for performance.

October 29, 2014 | 02:20 PM - Posted by annoyingmouse (not verified)

Also, on the scaling front, you can use DSR to enable 7.6K (33megapixel!), but so far, only CoD4 and older games are playable at this setting. Skyrim made for a really sharp 4320p slide show until it crashed a few minutes later...

October 1, 2014 | 07:41 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I think I must be the last human left on this planet who doesn't give a damn about game performance. But I do care about creating, reviewing, and presenting a lot of information literally head on. The vertical gain in resolution is as important to document viewing as g-sync is to gamers to handle busty GPU rendering. I want to get one full document page on screen without compromise of being cut off vertically. Maybe two side by side (or four) in continuous page layout mode.

The goal is provide as small amount of eye movement as possible. Of course because I had them, I mount two side screens at angle facing me, one in Portrait mode for email, and the other in landscape mode for secondary display. But these screens are not in focus for much of what I do. A little head turning is acceptable for secondary usage. I also think that at sitting distance the effective limit of a screen is in the neighborhood of 30 inches or just north of that, lest again there is too much eye and head movement, and the feeling that the monitor wants to overwhelm and eat you (sorry, my tin hat slipped).

The new 21:9 35 inch screens at 1080P leave me totally perplexed. Who wants them? I don't think gamers because 21:9 doesn't have the vertical resolution for effective scene display and requires too much side to side eye and even head movement to take in the entire display. 35 inches at 20 to 30 inches distance cuts just too large an angle to be a convenient field of view. For information display they are useless except for absurdly long line charts that probably contain too much information content already. Obviously they are mismatched to standard movie ratio of 16:9. I can only guess that the manufacturers talked themselves into this as badly a few years back as they did 3D which nobody in any appreciable numbers really wanted either. But perhaps I miss something obvious.

October 2, 2014 | 09:08 AM - Posted by BBMan (not verified)

No, you're not alone. And 16:9 is the "wide-screen" standard use for movies. As far as gaming goes, you have to consider the owners and audience of this site.

That said, there are things I don't miss about the 4:3, but it did make "open book" paging nice. I've settled on the 1920x1200 both personally and professionally for now. I deal in huge databases and spreadsheets as well as all the business mail and documents. I'm kind of looking at 4k as a single-screen solution of a multi-monitor demand.

So I hear your pain when the market caters to people have all the time in the world to get ready for the zombie apocalypse or watch the Walking Dead in HD. I would rather have my monitors geared to the presentation of information and help me get to solutions fast. So, sigh, I'd wait for these "ice-breaker" early offerings give way to more options that appeal to the rest of us.

October 6, 2014 | 11:47 AM - Posted by annoyingmouse (not verified)

Late 2008 - early 2009 saw two monitor trends I don't like: glossy, and 16:9. To some extent, the matte supports won back that option, but unfortunately, we didn't do so well in the war for 16:10. With that said, given enough space\pixels, I can make wide screen work for me.

October 2, 2014 | 09:18 AM - Posted by BBMan (not verified)

Note to management: Double posting is occuring because your site sometimes goes "blank" and single-lines something like "The page you are on is no longer there" So intuitively I back arrowed and tried again. So I not sure as to why, but I think this is why you have all the repetitive posts.

October 2, 2014 | 03:29 PM - Posted by Wye (not verified)

Let me start positive:
After watching closely the 4K progress for over 4 years, I've been looking forward to this monitor since it was announced a few months ago and it has the potential to be the beast monitor of the year.

But this review is not the first. And not the best. There are a few issues with G-Sync at low fps and this article fails to mention it. G-Sync is for variable fps. And TN at low fps causes flickering because TN refreshes too fast. Think CRT monitors at 30-60hz verticals.

Because of either blatant incompetence or shilling combined with ass-kissing and have to officially handover to pcper.com this prestigious award:

THE MOST PATHETIC REVIEW EVER.

To the clueless guys(read 98% of media and review sites), one last message: there is ONLY ONE TN 4K PANEL out there. Yes its the Innolux Chi Mei Optoelectronics one. There is zero value to review the panel. The other 300 reviews have done it already.

Instead, review the electronics particulars of the implementer.
Ghaaahhhhh, fkin idiots, you tire me. /foam mouth

October 18, 2014 | 05:34 PM - Posted by Rex Aevum (not verified)

I have a few questions about this monitor, which I will mainly use for gaming (90%) and everyday us, I don't do any picture or video editing:
1. I have a Gtx 970 and I am considering getting another for SLI, will I be able to run news games on high to ultra with AA turned off or very low at 40-60 FPS?
2. Is 4k really that impressive in games, or will 1440p be enough, for me not to tell the difference? The screen is around 2-3 feet away from my eyes.
3. Is 4k still too demanding and should I hold off from buying a new monitor now, or would getting something like the ROG Swift be better?
4. How is the color reproduction, color bleed, and viewing angles?
5. How is scaling with Windows 8.1?

October 25, 2014 | 05:05 PM - Posted by Roxy (not verified)

1. Two GTX 970 would be all right if paired with a decent CPU/motherboard. Some games you'll cap 60fps even with your normal ultra settings and AA. Where as others will be better with AA off - also some shadow/ambient occlusion reductions.

2. As mentioned in my previous post, at these screen sizes, no it's not that noticeable. You have to sit almost a foot away from the screen to really tell. And if the game doesn't use native 4k or higher textures, then the only benefit from 4k is the overall image quality -particularly in the LOD/long distance views). It won't do anything for your texture quality.

3. It actually works out that driving 4k content takes roughly the same horsepower as driving a 120hz/144hz monitor. However I personally feel that driving a 120hz 1440p monitor is easier and of course smoother than pushing 4k. I also mentioned in my post that these 4k panels do not like multi-gpu setups. Either way, if you want 1440p, get a Catleap IPS panel instead. The Swift is overpriced TN panel.

4. Color reproduction is surprisingly good, no bleed. The viewing angles are poor, especially vertically.

5. Someone else will have to answer that.

October 25, 2014 | 05:05 PM - Posted by Roxy (not verified)

1. Two GTX 970 would be all right if paired with a decent CPU/motherboard. Some games you'll cap 60fps even with your normal ultra settings and AA. Where as others will be better with AA off - also some shadow/ambient occlusion reductions.

2. As mentioned in my previous post, at these screen sizes, no it's not that noticeable. You have to sit almost a foot away from the screen to really tell. And if the game doesn't use native 4k or higher textures, then the only benefit from 4k is the overall image quality -particularly in the LOD/long distance views). It won't do anything for your texture quality.

3. It actually works out that driving 4k content takes roughly the same horsepower as driving a 120hz/144hz monitor. However I personally feel that driving a 120hz 1440p monitor is easier and of course smoother than pushing 4k. I also mentioned in my post that these 4k panels do not like multi-gpu setups. Either way, if you want 1440p, get a Catleap IPS panel instead. The Swift is overpriced TN panel.

4. Color reproduction is surprisingly good, no bleed. The viewing angles are poor, especially vertically.

5. Someone else will have to answer that.

October 25, 2014 | 05:05 PM - Posted by Roxy (not verified)

1. Two GTX 970 would be all right if paired with a decent CPU/motherboard. Some games you'll cap 60fps even with your normal ultra settings and AA. Where as others will be better with AA off - also some shadow/ambient occlusion reductions.

2. As mentioned in my previous post, at these screen sizes, no it's not that noticeable. You have to sit almost a foot away from the screen to really tell. And if the game doesn't use native 4k or higher textures, then the only benefit from 4k is the overall image quality -particularly in the LOD/long distance views). It won't do anything for your texture quality.

3. It actually works out that driving 4k content takes roughly the same horsepower as driving a 120hz/144hz monitor. However I personally feel that driving a 120hz 1440p monitor is easier and of course smoother than pushing 4k. I also mentioned in my post that these 4k panels do not like multi-gpu setups. Either way, if you want 1440p, get a Catleap IPS panel instead. The Swift is overpriced TN panel.

4. Color reproduction is surprisingly good, no bleed. The viewing angles are poor, especially vertically.

5. Someone else will have to answer that.

October 21, 2014 | 02:27 PM - Posted by Me (not verified)

Can you post please the colour calibration settings you use for this monitor?

October 25, 2014 | 04:59 PM - Posted by Roxy (not verified)

I own one of these and the B2888 from Iiyama which is made from the same panel.

Take my word for it when I say that there is little need for these products to exist.

If you all ready own something around the 27-30" the 16:9 format and overall size of these panels, is most likely going to feel like a downgrade.

If you own an IPS panel, then this will feel like a downgrade. I know there is debate about how you don't need wide horizontal viewing angles, and that is somewhat true. However the vertical plane of these panels is noticeably poor. A lot of people like to put a little back tilt on their screen, and as soon as you do that with these monitors, you get the inverse contrast. Even when slightly forward tilted, the top 1/3 of the screen is still darker than the rest. You effectively have to sit above the monitor in order to get a somewhat uniformed contrast/brightness spread.

If you don't have a REALLY good computer, there's quite a few 3d games that will be unpleasant to play. Even if you 'max' out Crysis 3 right now on a 1600p monitor, you won't with 4k. A lot of graphics options will have to be lowered.

Additionally these panels have built-in scalers that cannot be disabled. This induces input lag and causes vertical screen tearing and frame latency blips. Even when you use programs to lock your frame rate to the refresh rate, to ensure a capped 16.9 ms frame latency, it's not enough. Furthermore mulit-gpu setups do not like these panels because of how they are actually two mini panels combined in one.

The monitors can be overclocked to 70hz, but it provides no discerning difference.

If you all ready own a nice quality 27-30" 1440p or 1600p monitor, whether it be TN, IPS etc, then do not buy these 4k TN products. Get yourself a 1440p 120hz 'catleap' monitor. That's a much better use of your GPU horsepower.

October 25, 2014 | 05:06 PM - Posted by Roxy (not verified)

@Rex Aevum

1. Two GTX 970 would be all right if paired with a decent CPU/motherboard. Some games you'll cap 60fps even with your normal ultra settings and AA. Where as others will be better with AA off - also some shadow/ambient occlusion reductions.

2. As mentioned in my previous post, at these screen sizes, no it's not that noticeable. You have to sit almost a foot away from the screen to really tell. And if the game doesn't use native 4k or higher textures, then the only benefit from 4k is the overall image quality -particularly in the LOD/long distance views). It won't do anything for your texture quality.

3. It actually works out that driving 4k content takes roughly the same horsepower as driving a 120hz/144hz monitor. However I personally feel that driving a 120hz 1440p monitor is easier and of course smoother than pushing 4k. I also mentioned in my post that these 4k panels do not like multi-gpu setups. Either way, if you want 1440p, get a Catleap IPS panel instead. The Swift is overpriced TN panel.

4. Color reproduction is surprisingly good, no bleed. The viewing angles are poor, especially vertically.

5. Someone else will have to answer that.

May 12, 2015 | 07:22 AM - Posted by Wilfredo Fornes (not verified)

Hello, I was wondering if this monitor can handle 2k at 120hz or 144hz. I only have a gtx 980 so is a bit weak for gaming at 4k high and get 50fps constantly. I ask this because if I play a game very detail demanding like crisis 3, I would love to down the resolution and get better performance.
Thanks a lot.

Best regards.

Wilfredo Fornes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.