Quantcast

Acer Predator X27 4K HDR Gaming Monitor Review & Comments

Kotatsu Neko

Suspended
Can someone explain why PC monitors are so expensive? For that price, you could get a 65" 4K OLED TV. It wouldn't have GSync, but next year's model will have the TV equivalent (HDMI 2.1), and the picture quality will be vastly superior.

I use an ultrawide on my PC which is a great aspect ratio, but the actual quality of the screen is dismal. It's low resolution (3440x1440), SDR, has no local dimming, has insane amounts of IPS light bleed, is incredibly dim (300nits), the black levels are utterly laughable, and it has tons of horrible LCD afterblur and smearing in motion. It's a Dell and cost around £600 on sale (I believe the normal price was around £800). I've been looking for something better for a while, but there just isn't anything.

There was a time when PC monitors put TVs to shame. Those days are long, long gone. PC monitors are a joke.
 

peahead

Well-known Member
The G-Sync module is this monitor alone is said to cost around $700 and the fact it has a FALD backlight and a 144hz @ 4K it all adds up.

The price is still insane i would never pay this but some people will just to have the latest and greatest.
 

BRAKKUS1

Distinguished Member
I'm assuming this uses one of those low glow IPS panels?
 

lgans316

Distinguished Member
£1,799 sounds like a bargain when you have tiny iPhones selling for £1,000 lol

The price we pay as an early adopter. Embrace it or steer clear of it.
 

Perceiver

Standard Member
Just been supplanted by new Asus PG27UQ-X and an updated Acer model X27(p?)

Mini Led display
576 fald zones
2304 mini led lights
Gsync ultimate
 

Chamberlain

Well-known Member
Can someone explain why PC monitors are so expensive? For that price, you could get a 65" 4K OLED TV. It wouldn't have GSync, but next year's model will have the TV equivalent (HDMI 2.1), and the picture quality will be vastly superior.

I use an ultrawide on my PC which is a great aspect ratio, but the actual quality of the screen is dismal. It's low resolution (3440x1440), SDR, has no local dimming, has insane amounts of IPS light bleed, is incredibly dim (300nits), the black levels are utterly laughable, and it has tons of horrible LCD afterblur and smearing in motion. It's a Dell and cost around £600 on sale (I believe the normal price was around £800). I've been looking for something better for a while, but there just isn't anything.

There was a time when PC monitors put TVs to shame. Those days are long, long gone. PC monitors are a joke.
So true. I have a high end PC but i feel like i cant really take advantage of it properly unless i hook it up to my TV. Most monitors are average or way too expensive.
 

rosscouk

Member
The price is just ridiculous. I have just put together a new PC, reasonably high end but I didn't update the graphics card (I still have my NVidia 970), as I only have a 24" 1900x1200 HP monitor. I thought, wrongly, I would be able to find a widescreen, 32", HDR monitor at a reasonable refresh rate. So its really not worth updating the graphics card if I can't do the monitor. I did hear AOC are getting close with their Agon AG353UCG, but its not out until later this year and I still haven't seen a price.
 

BobbyMac

Banned
The price is just ridiculous. I have just put together a new PC, reasonably high end but I didn't update the graphics card (I still have my NVidia 970), as I only have a 24" 1900x1200 HP monitor. I thought, wrongly, I would be able to find a widescreen, 32", HDR monitor at a reasonable refresh rate. So its really not worth updating the graphics card if I can't do the monitor. I did hear AOC are getting close with their Agon AG353UCG, but its not out until later this year and I still haven't seen a price.
£2k
 

Greg Hook

Moderator & Reviewer
Can someone explain why PC monitors are so expensive? For that price, you could get a 65" 4K OLED TV. It wouldn't have GSync, but next year's model will have the TV equivalent (HDMI 2.1), and the picture quality will be vastly superior.
A few reasons why they are so expensive, the G-Sync module in the monitor is very expensive,they can get away with it and the usual early adoption fee.

When you have people who can afford to pay £1200 for a graphics card, what is £1800 on a Monitor to get the best out of that graphics card?

Also, you won't get a TV that can do the high refresh rates that some PC monitors can do and compatiblity with FreeSync or G-Sync.
 

Kotatsu Neko

Suspended
A few reasons why they are so expensive, the G-Sync module in the monitor is very expensive,they can get away with it and the usual early adoption fee.

When you have people who can afford to pay £1200 for a graphics card, what is £1800 on a Monitor to get the best out of that graphics card?

Also, you won't get a TV that can do the high refresh rates that some PC monitors can do and compatiblity with FreeSync or G-Sync.
Why is GSync so expensive when FreeSync is free? They're basically the same thing. Same with HDMI 2.1.

I could never justify spending £2000 on a tiny LCD panel. It's just nuts. Even if it was an OLED it would still be grotesquely overpriced.
 

Greg Hook

Moderator & Reviewer
Why is GSync so expensive when FreeSync is free? They're basically the same thing. Same with HDMI 2.1.
Quite simply it is so expensive because Nvidia can get away with it.
If AMD were any competition to Nvidia you wouldn't see such a massive premium for G-Sync and £1200 graphics cards. Nvidia/AMD market share is roughly 70/30. So miles ahead, which is why they get away with the prices they do. Similar case with Intel.
 

Goodmane

Active Member
Quite simply it is so expensive because Nvidia can get away with it.
If AMD were any competition to Nvidia you wouldn't see such a massive premium for G-Sync and £1200 graphics cards. Nvidia/AMD market share is roughly 70/30. So miles ahead, which is why they get away with the prices they do. Similar case with Intel.
It's what people think, and it explains the price disparity, but unless you're buying a really high end card like a gtx1080ti, rtx2080 or rtx2080ti, it's often worth buying AMD imo. The AMD Vega 64 is not far behind an rx2070 at stock for example, and you can buy the best variant (the Sapphire Nitro) for around £350.
 

Kotatsu Neko

Suspended
It's what people think, and it explains the price disparity, but unless you're buying a really high end card like a gtx1080ti, rtx2080 or rtx2080ti, it's often worth buying AMD imo. The AMD Vega 64 is not far behind an rx2070 at stock for example, and you can buy the best variant (the Sapphire Nitro) for around £350.
RTX is the big thing now on PC though, which means you have to go NVidia. When I watch those Digital Foundry videos of raytracing on vs off, the difference is so enormous I know for sure it's what I'll want the next time I upgrade.
 

Goodmane

Active Member
RTX is the big thing now on PC though, which means you have to go NVidia. When I watch those Digital Foundry videos of raytracing on vs off, the difference is so enormous I know for sure it's what I'll want the next time I upgrade.
Can you link to the videos please? I saw a few demos that look great, but nothing worth having on current hardware...

I'd love to have ray tracing, but I don't think it's worth thinking about yet unless you will buy a 2080 or higher for over £600. By the time ray tracing in games is amazing, the current cards with the exception of the very top end may not be suitable imo, and you may be better off with raw power to keep ultra settings on textures etc.

The lower tier AMD cards offer better prices, more reliable freesync support (unless you will spend more on a g-sync monitor) and better frame rates (unless you buy the 2080 / 2080ti). Just my opinion!
 
Last edited:

Member 830298

Active Member
When you weigh up the positives and compare it to the price, it really doesn't seem as expensive as it first seems. Like lgans316 said, think about the price people pay for iPhones these days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trending threads

Top Bottom