Acer XB270HU 27-Inch IPS 144Hz G-Sync Monitor Review

[boju]

Okay, I hear this all the time and I really want you to explain this to me. How can you possibly see something and react in 144th of a second. Nerve impulses travel at around 220 MPH last I heard,

Just looked it up and around 260 MPH or 119 M/S. It's going to take at least 1 frame just for your impulse to make it to your arm. That's after you see it and unconsciously react or consciously respond to the situation. Maybe I just am not understanding exactly HOW it makes a real difference. If you have any links or videos that prove otherwise,I would truly like to see them and I will freely admit I am wrong on this point.

This twitch CSGO "I need 200 fps to play right" thinking reminds me of audiophile wishful thinking over oxygen free audio cable being better than regular cable.

1ms vs 5ms (Manufacturers listing) does matter in fps gaming. If you play games like Skyrim then I don't think you need 1ms, but if you play BF4 then you need that fast refresh rate. You will feel like reactions and shooting is really slow on a common IPS panel monitor. I know cuz I went from IPS to TN (2ms) and I can't go back for gaming. I wish the colors looked as good as my IPS but it isn't fast enough to keep up with fps gaming. That's why the combination of IPS and sub 4ms response time is so desirable. And when you pair it with 144Hz....icing on the cake. However, quality does matter, not just specs.

Obviously you haven't played any game at 144Hz.., It's not about you need it, its about what you experience and then need. 144Hz is night and day difference, it really does look good. Try it.

Also 4ms GtG is nothing, the signal processing in this monitor is faster than the Rog Swift so peripheral input latency is the least hit.

 

[ubercake]

I think the high refresh rate held a lot more value when we didn't have G-sync. We try to maximize frame rates to minimize perceivable tearing when G-sync is not available. Also, the high frame rates do away with the need for V-sync and associated input lag and stutter, because you don't notice the tearing as much on the high fps/high refresh monitor.

Enter G-sync...
If you have a G-sync monitor you no longer worry about the tearing, so the most important thing is to have high minimum frame rates because you don't have to deal with tearing, but you never want the frame rates lower than frames your eye/brain can discern while playing.

While high frame rates / high refresh combos do add a degree to the crispness and fluidity of the visual experience (e.g. switching TV to sports mode 120 or 240Hz - I know not real increase in fps - or when the Hobbit came out in HFR: High Frame Rate at the theater that was a super smooth and very clear video experience), they're less important when G-sync is in play.

My focus is now to keep frame rates minimum above the 30 mark on my G-sync monitor. At any rate, based on my experience with both high frame rate / high refresh setups, I'd say buying a good G-sync or freesync monitor is worth the expense. It solves the tearing problem and because of it I can run with one video card instead of two or three and have a great visual gaming experience.

Also, you can use the monitor with future gens of video cards. So instead of buying multiple cards at a pop, you buy one flagship (GTX 970 for 1080p or 2560x1080 or GTX 980 for 2560x1440 or 980 ti for 4K). The only drawback is they semi-lock you into one company's tech or the other; Nvidia or AMD.

Now don't get me wrong, I set my G-sync monitor to 144Hz and the frame rate target in Precision X to 120 fps for the fluidity factor, but it's ok if my frame rates dip into the 30s with a demanding workload as during Witcher 3. BF4 lows during multiplayer are in the high 50s and usual frame rates while playing in the 80-90 range with maxed details.

 

[royalcrown]

That's kind of what I am digging at.

Keep in mind that response time is completely meaningless because there's no industry standard. Even if we were to believe Acer's 4ms GtG, we also have to keep in mind:

1. This is still under the cycle time of 144Hz (6.94ms)
2. Colors rarely go from one end of the spectrum to the other. And even then, it's only the sub channels that may do it and humans are less sensitive to color than pure luma.

To put in perspective why response time is kind of meaningless, check out this post: http://www.overclock.net/t/1221711/what-does-response-time-2-ms-gray-to-gray-mean-in-specs#post_16578402 (note that a 14ms monitor somehow looks better than a 5ms monitor)

Also to those who claim 144Hz is automagically superior, just because you receive more information doesn't mean it's meaningful to you. The few tests I've found where there were as blind as possible testing between 60Hz and 144Hz, there's no conclusive evidence to suggest that 144Hz is objectively superior. I mean, we can blame media for making us used to 24FPS (but you also have to understand that those are preprocessed to hell and back to smooth out the motion whereas games have no such thing).

I mean, the average conscious reaction time for a visual cue by humans is allegedly 0.25 seconds. You could do better, if you were trained so that muscle memory takes over. And really, you can probably get that at 144Hz or 60Hz. I used to play StepMania and DDR at a paltry 30FPS and kick butt. Sure I prefer the 60 FPS versions now, but once muscle memory takes over, frame rate to a certain point is moot.

 

[chill1221]

I was nervous after hearing all the QC issues but either they fixed whatever issues people were reporting And I got a perfect one out of the box on the first try (was ready to RMA once or twice because I really wanted this monitor to work as advertised).

Mine came with no dead pixels too! I was worried dropping $750 for it but it was totally worth the money I paid for it. Great monitor!
Have others been getting XB270HU out of the box with no dead pixels or noticible light bleed?

Yes... It was expensive but this is hands down, the best monitor I've ever owned.

I was nervous after hearing all the QC issues but either they fixed whatever issues people were reporting And I got a perfect one out of the box on the first try (was ready to RMA once or twice because I really wanted this monitor to work as advertised).

Have others been getting XB270HU out of the box with no dead pixels or noticible light bleed?

Yes... It was expensive but this is hands down, the best monitor I've ever owned.

 

[Bartendalot]

When Acer announced this and after I saw the tftcentral review I had my heart set on this. But then as people started to get them I heard about the issues. The QC issues seem way above average. Unless there is proof of a real fix I'm staying away from this monitor. Sad. Cuz it has/had so much potential. The specs are what us fps gamers want.

It's great for all types of gamers because it hits all points - IPS, 144hz, 1440p, Gsync.

What I really like is that there is so much headroom as graphics cards continue to improve. I don't think I will be pushing 1440p AAA titles at 144fps for a couple of generations (Volta?)

 

[ToineF]

I am serious about how does it matter when gaming ? I am actually looking at this monitor for the IPS and Gsync. I agree that 60 is too low, but I don't see how 144 hz is necessary. Why not 85 ?

*edit* for gaming purposes, IDK about passive, like movie watching. I could see higher maybe then.

Seriously 144mhz is awesome. It's so much smoother. I have two monitors on my computer. One monitor is running 144 and the other one is at 60mhz and I can see a huge difference.

 

[Eggz]

Other fascinating millisecond milestones...:

1.000692286 milliseconds — time taken for light to travel 300 km in a vacuum
2 milliseconds to 5 milliseconds - typical response time in LCD computer monitors, especially high-end displays
2.27 milliseconds — cycle time for A440 (pitch standard), the most commonly used pitch for tuning musical instruments
3 milliseconds — a housefly's wing flap
3.3 milliseconds — normal delay time between initiation and detonation of a C4 explosive charge
4 milliseconds — typical average seek time for a 10,000 rpm hard disk
5 milliseconds — a honey bee's wing flap
5 milliseconds to 80 milliseconds — a hummingbird's wing flap
8 milliseconds — 1/125 of a second, a standard camera shutter speed (125); fastest shifting time of a car's mechanical transmission
10 milliseconds (10 ms) — a jiffy, cycle time for frequency 100 Hz
16.67 milliseconds (1/60 second) — a third, cycle time for American 60 Hz AC electricity (mains grid)
16.68 milliseconds (1/59.94 second) — the amount of time one field lasts in 29.97 fps interlaced video (commonly erroneously referred to as 30 fps)
20 milliseconds — cycle time for European 50 Hz AC electricity
31.25 milliseconds - a hundred twenty-eighth note at MM = 60
33.367 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 29.97 fps video (most common for NTSC-legacy formats)
41.667 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 24 fps video (most common cinematic frame rate)
41.708 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 23.976 fps video (cinematic frame rate for NTSC-legacy formats)
50 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Lamborghini Aventador
50 milliseconds — cycle time for the lowest audible tone, 20 Hz
60 milliseconds — cycle time for European 16.7 Hz AC electrified railroad power grid
60 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Ferrari 458 Spider
62.5 milliseconds — a sixty-fourth note at MM = 60
5 to 80 milliseconds — typical latency for a broadband internet connection (important for playing online games)
100 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Ferrari FXX
125 milliseconds — a thirty-second note at MM = 60
134 milliseconds — time taken by light to travel around the Earth's equator
150 milliseconds — recommended maximum time delay for telephone service
185 milliseconds — the duration of a full rotation of the main rotor on Bell 205, 212 and 412 helicopters (normal rotor speed is 324 RPM)
200 milliseconds — the time it takes the human brain to recognize emotion in facial expressions
250 milliseconds — a sixteenth note at MM = 60
300 to 400 milliseconds — the time for the human eye to blink
400 milliseconds — time in which the fastest baseball pitches reach the strike zone
430 to 500 milliseconds — common modern dance music tempos (120–140 BPM)
495 milliseconds — an approximate average of the round trip time for communications via geosynchronous satellites
500 milliseconds — an eighth note at MM = 60
860 milliseconds — average human resting heart cycle time

Slow clap . . . faster . . . harder . . . more people join in . . . erupts in standing ovation!

This is great. Thanks!

For blur, the benefits are easily demonstrated.
http://testufo.com/#test=framerates

I did that test at 50, 60, and 80 Hz. The difference between the 50/25 comparison and the 60/30 comparison was much more noticeable than the difference between 60/30 and 80/40.

 

[skit75]

Other fascinating millisecond milestones...:

1.000692286 milliseconds — time taken for light to travel 300 km in a vacuum
2 milliseconds to 5 milliseconds - typical response time in LCD computer monitors, especially high-end displays
2.27 milliseconds — cycle time for A440 (pitch standard), the most commonly used pitch for tuning musical instruments
3 milliseconds — a housefly's wing flap
3.3 milliseconds — normal delay time between initiation and detonation of a C4 explosive charge
4 milliseconds — typical average seek time for a 10,000 rpm hard disk
5 milliseconds — a honey bee's wing flap
5 milliseconds to 80 milliseconds — a hummingbird's wing flap
8 milliseconds — 1/125 of a second, a standard camera shutter speed (125); fastest shifting time of a car's mechanical transmission
10 milliseconds (10 ms) — a jiffy, cycle time for frequency 100 Hz
16.67 milliseconds (1/60 second) — a third, cycle time for American 60 Hz AC electricity (mains grid)
16.68 milliseconds (1/59.94 second) — the amount of time one field lasts in 29.97 fps interlaced video (commonly erroneously referred to as 30 fps)
20 milliseconds — cycle time for European 50 Hz AC electricity
31.25 milliseconds - a hundred twenty-eighth note at MM = 60
33.367 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 29.97 fps video (most common for NTSC-legacy formats)
41.667 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 24 fps video (most common cinematic frame rate)
41.708 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 23.976 fps video (cinematic frame rate for NTSC-legacy formats)
50 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Lamborghini Aventador
50 milliseconds — cycle time for the lowest audible tone, 20 Hz
60 milliseconds — cycle time for European 16.7 Hz AC electrified railroad power grid
60 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Ferrari 458 Spider
62.5 milliseconds — a sixty-fourth note at MM = 60
5 to 80 milliseconds — typical latency for a broadband internet connection (important for playing online games)
100 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Ferrari FXX
125 milliseconds — a thirty-second note at MM = 60
134 milliseconds — time taken by light to travel around the Earth's equator
150 milliseconds — recommended maximum time delay for telephone service
185 milliseconds — the duration of a full rotation of the main rotor on Bell 205, 212 and 412 helicopters (normal rotor speed is 324 RPM)
200 milliseconds — the time it takes the human brain to recognize emotion in facial expressions
250 milliseconds — a sixteenth note at MM = 60
300 to 400 milliseconds — the time for the human eye to blink
400 milliseconds — time in which the fastest baseball pitches reach the strike zone
430 to 500 milliseconds — common modern dance music tempos (120–140 BPM)
495 milliseconds — an approximate average of the round trip time for communications via geosynchronous satellites
500 milliseconds — an eighth note at MM = 60
860 milliseconds — average human resting heart cycle time

Slow clap . . . faster . . . harder . . . more people join in . . . erupts in standing ovation!

This is great. Thanks!

Obligatory copy-paste wiki \deepbow

 

[mikeny]

For my skylake build in the coming months, I was set on the Asus ROG G-sync monitor. Looks like this Acer with an IPS panel caught my attention. I see on newegg; it's $100 more. Justifiable?

 

[sephirotic]

1ms vs 5ms (Manufacturers listing) does matter in fps gaming. If you play games like Skyrim then I don't think you need 1ms, but if you play BF4 then you need that fast refresh rate. You will feel like reactions and shooting is really slow on a common IPS panel monitor. I know cuz I went from IPS to TN (2ms) and I can't go back for gaming. I wish the colors looked as good as my IPS but it isn't fast enough to keep up with fps gaming. That's why the combination of IPS and sub 4ms response time is so desirable. And when you pair it with 144Hz....icing on the cake. However, quality does matter, not just specs.

5 ms difference? That is completely BS. There are lots of myths and placebo in this new stupid FAD of high refresh rate monitors. I have a 60hz 1440p dell with a average measured input lag + response close to 20ms. I also play on a 19" 1536p 100hz CRT with less than 1 ms combined response time and input lag. No 144hz TN screen can touch such high end CRT.
The only games that makes significant difference those extra 20ms are stepmania hero and High paced fighting games such as Street Fighter IV. where you need absolutely instantaneous reflex and 1 frame precision. But that is only on LAN play, Over the internet, makes no difference.
I was a professional CS player and thought that since CS was hitscan I'd benefit from the CRT and kept using even in 2015. Turns out that even though I can perceive a much better fluidity on the CRT, my performance gains were minimal on CS, and that is a hitscan game. BF4 and Arma, are whole different stories since you have to actually compensate for bullet drop in most situations and the last thing that actually makes you a good modern FPS player is a 5ms difference of response time. There are LOTs of other things involved. If you think otherwise, you are a fool that fell for the gimmick and placebo of new "fast" monitors to keep the market recycling new models of displays with no real improvement in quality and motion reproduction.

 

[ubercake]

Also, we see the manufacturers listing - which is bunk since there's no standard test - and then we see the tested listing - using standardized testing - which is only 2ms black to white (which would be even less gTg). 2ms bTw? I would gladly trade that difference for great contrast and color.

This is an IPS monitor built for speed (that doesn't have to be over-driven). Finally!

 

[envy14tpe]

1ms vs 5ms (Manufacturers listing) does matter in fps gaming. If you play games like Skyrim then I don't think you need 1ms, but if you play BF4 then you need that fast refresh rate. You will feel like reactions and shooting is really slow on a common IPS panel monitor. I know cuz I went from IPS to TN (2ms) and I can't go back for gaming. I wish the colors looked as good as my IPS but it isn't fast enough to keep up with fps gaming. That's why the combination of IPS and sub 4ms response time is so desirable. And when you pair it with 144Hz....icing on the cake. However, quality does matter, not just specs.

5 ms difference? That is completely BS. There are lots of myths and placebo in this new stupid FAD of high refresh rate monitors. I have a 60hz 1440p dell with a average measured input lag + response close to 20ms. I also play on a 19" 1536p 100hz CRT with less than 1 ms combined response time and input lag. No 144hz TN screen can touch such high end CRT.
The only games that makes significant difference those extra 20ms are stepmania hero and High paced fighting games such as Street Fighter IV. where you need absolutely instantaneous reflex and 1 frame precision. But that is only on LAN play, Over the internet, makes no difference.
I was a professional CS player and thought that since CS was hitscan I'd benefit from the CRT and kept using even in 2015. Turns out that even though I can perceive a much better fluidity on the CRT, my performance gains were minimal on CS, and that is a hitscan game. BF4 and Arma, are whole different stories since you have to actually compensate for bullet drop in most situations and the last thing that actually makes you a good modern FPS player is a 5ms difference of response time. There are LOTs of other things involved. If you think otherwise, you are a fool that fell for the gimmick and placebo of new "fast" monitors to keep the market recycling new models of displays with no real improvement in quality and motion reproduction.

Notice how I put in parentheses "Manufacturers listing"? I know those numbers aren't accurate and I rely on sites like tftcentral to tell me the true numbers in order to make a fair comparison. For example, my Dell was listed as 8ms but actually it is higher, and I knew this. And it was even more apparent that is was slow when I switched to a "2ms" TN panel monitor. The difference was massive for playing BF3 and BF4. I simply could not use my Dell for fps gaming. I did see and feel the difference in a panel that was designed for improved fps which is what these 1/2ms TN panels do well.

As tftcentral tested we can see that the Acer has an extremely low response time and the only faster one is the ROG Swift. But the Acer has Blur Reduction which is even more effective. Cumulatively this makes gaming a better experience on the Acer. And for fps gaming you need that extra pop in speed to win.

 

[ppalm]

I bought this monitor and am very happy with it, no defects and working perfectly. The only downside I've found is that at higher resolutions I use 150% DPI scaling, with a second 1080p monitor - and I can't seem to find a way to set DPI scaling different for each monitor. It makes the second monitor fairly useless because everything is blown up way bigger than it should be. This can be worked around with browsers via zoom and looks fine, but everything else is a no-go.

As for the comment about 1ms/2ms by another commenter, you are way off-base. As someone who was an early adopter of PVA panels way back when, I've shied away from anything but TN for gaming for a very long time. The PVA panel was so bad I lost serious accuracy in FPSes, MOBA/RTSes, and even had noticeable sound sync issues watching movies. The problem wasn't response time (1ms/2ms/5ms) which causes ghosting, but the total input lag being in the 40-70ms range instead of the 10-30ms range of TN. This problem, as evidenced by Tom's testing in this review, is fixed with high refresh rate IPS panels. What it really boils down to is that it was a 1-2 frame delay from TN, and as you shorten frame time with faster framerates and don't ruin the screen with a bad scaler, the difference becomes negligible. This monitor performs better than my old TN panel for response times.

 

[LuckyDucky]

Went through two of these before I decided to give up. Both had dead pixels, the first one it took it a couple days to develop one. It's a gorgeous display but both of mine were from the June production run and both had problems. I'm just going to hold out and get the x34 when it comes out. That or wait for another panel manufacturer to develop a 144hz 1440p panel.

If you can get one that's defect free then you do have an incredible monitor. It was extremely rough going back to my 1080p 60hz after using this monitor for a weekend.

 

[computertech82]

I think it's a bit stupid paying 800 bucks for a 8-bit monitor. Banding looks like crap. If it was a 12-bit, that would be different.

 

[picture_perfect]

Why is no one mentioning that nobody will actually achieve 144 fps at this resolution? Check the charts. Your'e lucky to get 60 consistently with most games. You need 144 fps for 144 hz to work people!
Christian, before proclaiming one graphic card can "easily" drive these monitors, at least mention what it takes to maintain the rated 144 hz. I don't even think two 980 gtx's will do it for most games. That's a lot of $$$ and microstutters. Also, you do know there are 2 kinds of gamers out there? Casual gamers will like this monitor for the graphics but those that value performance (frames per second, low lag and frame consistency) look for lower resolutions.

 

[spagalicious]

Why is no one mentioning that nobody will actually achieve 144 fps at this resolution? Check the charts. Your'e lucky to get 60 consistently with most games. You need 144 fps for 144 hz to work people!
Christian, before proclaiming one graphic card can "easily" drive these monitors, at least mention what it takes to maintain the rated 144 hz. I don't even think two 980 gtx's will do it for most games. That's a lot of $$$ and microstutters. Also, you do know there are 2 kinds of gamers out there? Casual gamers will like this monitor for the graphics but those that value performance (frames per second, low lag and frame consistency) look for lower resolutions.

Here are the top 100 games on steam by player count. I would estimate there are maybe 8 titles on that list that could not be maxed at 1440p often coming very close to or meeting 144 FPS, using a card at or above the capability of a GTX 970/R9 290. Benchmark titles to not translate into fun games or most played games.

Not to mention, G-Sync takes care of any titles that hardware has trouble maintaining high frames. Most often these titles are single player, where FPS and refresh rate don't really have as much recourse.

CURRENT PLAYERS PEAK TODAY GAME

796,495 918,127 Dota 2
456,811 480,923 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
75,393 75,393 Team Fortress 2
58,117 58,511 ARK: Survival Evolved
54,721 55,351 Football Manager 2015
49,289 49,289 Sid Meier's Civilization V
45,935 48,526 Garry's Mod
40,831 42,131 Warframe
39,315 44,062 Grand Theft Auto V
37,340 37,340 Terraria
37,065 37,521 Clicker Heroes
34,718 34,718 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
32,332 32,344 Trove
26,526 32,033 Rocket League
26,225 26,768 Unturned
24,858 27,229 Arma 3
20,879 20,994 Rust
20,484 22,084 H1Z1
19,646 22,130 Left 4 Dead 2
19,417 20,139 Counter-Strike
17,349 17,349 Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth
14,977 15,006 Path of Exile
13,525 13,597 War Thunder
12,607 12,620 Euro Truck Simulator 2
12,536 12,672 AdVenture Capitalist
11,852 12,372 PAYDAY 2
11,595 11,595 Counter-Strike: Source
11,196 11,251 Total War: ROME II - Emperor Edition
10,654 10,654 Fallout: New Vegas
10,642 10,706 The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
10,615 11,950 DayZ
10,132 10,132 Europa Universalis IV
9,981 9,981 Borderlands 2
9,845 10,200 Mount & Blade: Warband
8,685 8,685 Football Manager 2014
8,071 9,044 Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead
7,676 7,807 Cities: Skylines
7,569 7,569 The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth
7,540 9,295 TERA
7,507 7,583 FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn
7,477 7,570 Magic Duels
7,269 7,665 Heroes & Generals
7,117 7,126 Dirty Bomb
7,005 7,005 Robocraft
6,237 6,324 Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Multiplayer
5,940 6,022 7 Days to Die
5,712 5,977 Company of Heroes 2
5,690 5,694 Elite: Dangerous
5,567 5,567 XCOM: Enemy Unknown
5,383 5,611 Counter-Strike Nexon: Zombies
5,072 5,072 Crusader Kings II
5,049 5,071 Total War: SHOGUN 2
4,834 4,896 Age of Empires II: HD Edition
4,787 4,819 Total War: ATTILA
4,646 4,655 Empire: Total War
4,360 4,360 Time Clickers
4,121 4,123 Kerbal Space Program
4,121 4,132 Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition
4,103 4,301 Sakura Clicker
4,057 4,106 Fishing Planet
3,995 3,999 DARK SOULS™ II: Scholar of the First Sin
3,954 3,954 Space Engineers
3,880 3,926 Farming Simulator 15
3,793 3,916 PlanetSide 2
3,745 3,774 Don't Starve Together Beta
3,516 3,516 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Multiplayer
3,427 3,427 Neverwinter
3,313 3,379 The Forest
3,173 3,184 Marvel Heroes 2015
3,159 3,265 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Phantoms - EU
3,145 3,145 Dying Light
3,142 3,189 Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel
3,024 3,026 The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited
2,927 2,978 Warface
2,796 2,843 Football Manager 2013
2,706 3,164 NBA 2K15
2,597 2,752 Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare - Multiplayer
2,581 2,837 Insurgency
2,560 2,587 Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
2,528 2,670 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
2,518 2,518 Medieval II: Total War
2,444 2,444 Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition
2,415 2,452 Tropico 5
2,361 2,400 APB Reloaded
2,346 2,759 Call of Duty: World at War
2,344 2,404 Company of Heroes (New Steam Version)
2,320 2,486 Star Trek Online
2,317 2,366 Pro Evolution Soccer 2015
2,291 2,294 Starbound
2,284 2,284 Fallout 3 - Game of the Year Edition
2,229 2,239 Dungeon Defenders II
2,224 2,265 Portal 2
2,212 2,243 Napoleon: Total War
2,160 2,286 ArcheAge
2,137 2,175 Prison Architect
2,036 2,059 Project CARS
2,018 2,018 Transformice
2,010 2,010 Pillars of Eternity
2,001 2,001 Don't Starve

 

[Pavel Pokidaylo]

I'd like more reviews to inform people about IPS glow. IPS panels are gerat for image and viewing angles but become completely useless in the dark. To me, they look like the first generation of LCDs with no ambient light. So, people who play games or who watch movies in the dark should stay away. TN panels don't have this issue. And this is why I don't really understand Tom's for recommending IPS for gaming with such conviction. It should come with an asterisk at the end saying: "If you don't play in the dark".

I've never owned a monitor with an IPS panel. For a long time I gamed on a plain ol Dell 1080p 24 inch TN. I paid around $200 for that monitor probably 8 years ago and around that time, a friend of mine got himself a 24inch Dell Ultrasharp monitor. When I played World of Warcraft on his monitor I noticed the difference in color right away. They were vibrant and popped and made my monitors colors look totally washed out. After seeing those colors I always wanted an IPS panel. Last year I was getting ready to buy a new monitor and I was thinking Ultrasharp because the few gaming monitors I read about didn't really impress me. In comes the RoG Swift and I was basically sold from the first post I read. The only thing that concerned me was the "TN" bit. Reading that it was going to be an 8bit TN panel rather than a 6bit and that meant better colors pushed me to wait it out for the Swift. I knew the colors wouldn't be quite like a good IPS screen but all the other goodies + better colors than what I had was too good to pass up. I watched a video of the dude from Asus (don't remember his name, Andy maybe) and he said that the colors were really good and gamers would be hard pressed to really tell the difference between the Swift and an IPS screen, so that helped too. As you can imagine, when I got the Swift and put it on my desk I was blown away. Going from a 1080p TN with washed out colors and no adjustable to stand to this beast. I was not disappointed with the colors of the Swift. I play many graphically intensive titles, currently Witcher 3 and the colors look great to me but I'm sure they would look even better on a good IPS. I've seen many comments about this from people who own the monitor. Some claim the colors are nowhere near as good as an IPS while many say they are about equal and some even say the Swifts colors are better than their IPS screens.

I love my Swift but I have yet to compare it side by side with a high quality IPS screen. When Asus comes out with their version of the Predator I may look into it. That IPS Glow though... I've actually seen pictures of the Swift and the Predator compared side by side and the Predators colors looked a bit deeper but all of the light sources in the picture were just glowing lights. If you were to look at those light sources you would not be able to tell what they were. The lamp post, the candles, all just glowing lights. I'm assuming that this is what IPS glow is? If so, it's pretty bad. I'd like to actually see a light source rather than a glowing light. The other beef I have with the Predator is that it doesn't have 3D. I bought a 3D Vision 2 kit from Nvidia and I love 3D on the SWift at 1440p.

If you don't mind, can you tell me why an IPS monitor is bad in the dark? Thanks

 

[Pavel Pokidaylo]

Why is no one mentioning that nobody will actually achieve 144 fps at this resolution? Check the charts. Your'e lucky to get 60 consistently with most games. You need 144 fps for 144 hz to work people!
Christian, before proclaiming one graphic card can "easily" drive these monitors, at least mention what it takes to maintain the rated 144 hz. I don't even think two 980 gtx's will do it for most games. That's a lot of $$$ and microstutters. Also, you do know there are 2 kinds of gamers out there? Casual gamers will like this monitor for the graphics but those that value performance (frames per second, low lag and frame consistency) look for lower resolutions.

Here are the top 100 games on steam by player count. I would estimate there are maybe 8 titles on that list that could not be maxed at 1440p often coming very close to or meeting 144 FPS, using a card at or above the capability of a GTX 970/R9 290. Benchmark titles to not translate into fun games or most played games.

Not to mention, G-Sync takes care of any titles that hardware has trouble maintaining high frames. Most often these titles are single player, where FPS and refresh rate don't really have as much recourse.

CURRENT PLAYERS PEAK TODAY GAME

796,495 918,127 Dota 2
456,811 480,923 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
75,393 75,393 Team Fortress 2
58,117 58,511 ARK: Survival Evolved
54,721 55,351 Football Manager 2015
49,289 49,289 Sid Meier's Civilization V
45,935 48,526 Garry's Mod
40,831 42,131 Warframe
39,315 44,062 Grand Theft Auto V
37,340 37,340 Terraria
37,065 37,521 Clicker Heroes
34,718 34,718 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
32,332 32,344 Trove
26,526 32,033 Rocket League
26,225 26,768 Unturned
24,858 27,229 Arma 3
20,879 20,994 Rust
20,484 22,084 H1Z1
19,646 22,130 Left 4 Dead 2
19,417 20,139 Counter-Strike
17,349 17,349 Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth
14,977 15,006 Path of Exile
13,525 13,597 War Thunder
12,607 12,620 Euro Truck Simulator 2
12,536 12,672 AdVenture Capitalist
11,852 12,372 PAYDAY 2
11,595 11,595 Counter-Strike: Source
11,196 11,251 Total War: ROME II - Emperor Edition
10,654 10,654 Fallout: New Vegas
10,642 10,706 The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
10,615 11,950 DayZ
10,132 10,132 Europa Universalis IV
9,981 9,981 Borderlands 2
9,845 10,200 Mount & Blade: Warband
8,685 8,685 Football Manager 2014
8,071 9,044 Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead
7,676 7,807 Cities: Skylines
7,569 7,569 The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth
7,540 9,295 TERA
7,507 7,583 FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn
7,477 7,570 Magic Duels
7,269 7,665 Heroes & Generals
7,117 7,126 Dirty Bomb
7,005 7,005 Robocraft
6,237 6,324 Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Multiplayer
5,940 6,022 7 Days to Die
5,712 5,977 Company of Heroes 2
5,690 5,694 Elite: Dangerous
5,567 5,567 XCOM: Enemy Unknown
5,383 5,611 Counter-Strike Nexon: Zombies
5,072 5,072 Crusader Kings II
5,049 5,071 Total War: SHOGUN 2
4,834 4,896 Age of Empires II: HD Edition
4,787 4,819 Total War: ATTILA
4,646 4,655 Empire: Total War
4,360 4,360 Time Clickers
4,121 4,123 Kerbal Space Program
4,121 4,132 Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition
4,103 4,301 Sakura Clicker
4,057 4,106 Fishing Planet
3,995 3,999 DARK SOULS™ II: Scholar of the First Sin
3,954 3,954 Space Engineers
3,880 3,926 Farming Simulator 15
3,793 3,916 PlanetSide 2
3,745 3,774 Don't Starve Together Beta
3,516 3,516 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Multiplayer
3,427 3,427 Neverwinter
3,313 3,379 The Forest
3,173 3,184 Marvel Heroes 2015
3,159 3,265 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Phantoms - EU
3,145 3,145 Dying Light
3,142 3,189 Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel
3,024 3,026 The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited
2,927 2,978 Warface
2,796 2,843 Football Manager 2013
2,706 3,164 NBA 2K15
2,597 2,752 Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare - Multiplayer
2,581 2,837 Insurgency
2,560 2,587 Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
2,528 2,670 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
2,518 2,518 Medieval II: Total War
2,444 2,444 Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition
2,415 2,452 Tropico 5
2,361 2,400 APB Reloaded
2,346 2,759 Call of Duty: World at War
2,344 2,404 Company of Heroes (New Steam Version)
2,320 2,486 Star Trek Online
2,317 2,366 Pro Evolution Soccer 2015
2,291 2,294 Starbound
2,284 2,284 Fallout 3 - Game of the Year Edition
2,229 2,239 Dungeon Defenders II
2,224 2,265 Portal 2
2,212 2,243 Napoleon: Total War
2,160 2,286 ArcheAge
2,137 2,175 Prison Architect
2,036 2,059 Project CARS
2,018 2,018 Transformice
2,010 2,010 Pillars of Eternity
2,001 2,001 Don't Starve

Why is no one mentioning that nobody will actually achieve 144 fps at this resolution? Check the charts. Your'e lucky to get 60 consistently with most games. You need 144 fps for 144 hz to work people!
Christian, before proclaiming one graphic card can "easily" drive these monitors, at least mention what it takes to maintain the rated 144 hz. I don't even think two 980 gtx's will do it for most games. That's a lot of $$$ and microstutters. Also, you do know there are 2 kinds of gamers out there? Casual gamers will like this monitor for the graphics but those that value performance (frames per second, low lag and frame consistency) look for lower resolutions.

Here are the top 100 games on steam by player count. I would estimate there are maybe 8 titles on that list that could not be maxed at 1440p often coming very close to or meeting 144 FPS, using a card at or above the capability of a GTX 970/R9 290. Benchmark titles to not translate into fun games or most played games.

Not to mention, G-Sync takes care of any titles that hardware has trouble maintaining high frames. Most often these titles are single player, where FPS and refresh rate don't really have as much recourse.

CURRENT PLAYERS PEAK TODAY GAME

796,495 918,127 Dota 2
456,811 480,923 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
75,393 75,393 Team Fortress 2
58,117 58,511 ARK: Survival Evolved
54,721 55,351 Football Manager 2015
49,289 49,289 Sid Meier's Civilization V
45,935 48,526 Garry's Mod
40,831 42,131 Warframe
39,315 44,062 Grand Theft Auto V
37,340 37,340 Terraria
37,065 37,521 Clicker Heroes
34,718 34,718 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
32,332 32,344 Trove
26,526 32,033 Rocket League
26,225 26,768 Unturned
24,858 27,229 Arma 3
20,879 20,994 Rust
20,484 22,084 H1Z1
19,646 22,130 Left 4 Dead 2
19,417 20,139 Counter-Strike
17,349 17,349 Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth
14,977 15,006 Path of Exile
13,525 13,597 War Thunder
12,607 12,620 Euro Truck Simulator 2
12,536 12,672 AdVenture Capitalist
11,852 12,372 PAYDAY 2
11,595 11,595 Counter-Strike: Source
11,196 11,251 Total War: ROME II - Emperor Edition
10,654 10,654 Fallout: New Vegas
10,642 10,706 The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
10,615 11,950 DayZ
10,132 10,132 Europa Universalis IV
9,981 9,981 Borderlands 2
9,845 10,200 Mount & Blade: Warband
8,685 8,685 Football Manager 2014
8,071 9,044 Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead
7,676 7,807 Cities: Skylines
7,569 7,569 The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth
7,540 9,295 TERA
7,507 7,583 FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn
7,477 7,570 Magic Duels
7,269 7,665 Heroes & Generals
7,117 7,126 Dirty Bomb
7,005 7,005 Robocraft
6,237 6,324 Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Multiplayer
5,940 6,022 7 Days to Die
5,712 5,977 Company of Heroes 2
5,690 5,694 Elite: Dangerous
5,567 5,567 XCOM: Enemy Unknown
5,383 5,611 Counter-Strike Nexon: Zombies
5,072 5,072 Crusader Kings II
5,049 5,071 Total War: SHOGUN 2
4,834 4,896 Age of Empires II: HD Edition
4,787 4,819 Total War: ATTILA
4,646 4,655 Empire: Total War
4,360 4,360 Time Clickers
4,121 4,123 Kerbal Space Program
4,121 4,132 Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition
4,103 4,301 Sakura Clicker
4,057 4,106 Fishing Planet
3,995 3,999 DARK SOULS™ II: Scholar of the First Sin
3,954 3,954 Space Engineers
3,880 3,926 Farming Simulator 15
3,793 3,916 PlanetSide 2
3,745 3,774 Don't Starve Together Beta
3,516 3,516 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Multiplayer
3,427 3,427 Neverwinter
3,313 3,379 The Forest
3,173 3,184 Marvel Heroes 2015
3,159 3,265 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Phantoms - EU
3,145 3,145 Dying Light
3,142 3,189 Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel
3,024 3,026 The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited
2,927 2,978 Warface
2,796 2,843 Football Manager 2013
2,706 3,164 NBA 2K15
2,597 2,752 Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare - Multiplayer
2,581 2,837 Insurgency
2,560 2,587 Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
2,528 2,670 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
2,518 2,518 Medieval II: Total War
2,444 2,444 Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition
2,415 2,452 Tropico 5
2,361 2,400 APB Reloaded
2,346 2,759 Call of Duty: World at War
2,344 2,404 Company of Heroes (New Steam Version)
2,320 2,486 Star Trek Online
2,317 2,366 Pro Evolution Soccer 2015
2,291 2,294 Starbound
2,284 2,284 Fallout 3 - Game of the Year Edition
2,229 2,239 Dungeon Defenders II
2,224 2,265 Portal 2
2,212 2,243 Napoleon: Total War
2,160 2,286 ArcheAge
2,137 2,175 Prison Architect
2,036 2,059 Project CARS
2,018 2,018 Transformice
2,010 2,010 Pillars of Eternity
2,001 2,001 Don't Starve

Why is no one mentioning that nobody will actually achieve 144 fps at this resolution? Check the charts. Your'e lucky to get 60 consistently with most games. You need 144 fps for 144 hz to work people!
Christian, before proclaiming one graphic card can "easily" drive these monitors, at least mention what it takes to maintain the rated 144 hz. I don't even think two 980 gtx's will do it for most games. That's a lot of $$$ and microstutters. Also, you do know there are 2 kinds of gamers out there? Casual gamers will like this monitor for the graphics but those that value performance (frames per second, low lag and frame consistency) look for lower resolutions.

This is very true. I have the RoG Swift and recently bought an EVGA Classified 980 Ti. I had two MSI 780 Ti Gaming in SLI prior to the 980 ti. Even with these monster cards, I don't get anywhere near 144fps in the taxing titles. Currently playing Witcher 3 and with everything cranked it's usually around 55-60fps sometimes as high as 80+ and sometimes as low as the low 40s. Of course, this is still very impressive for a single GPU. You should see the area of the game where I get 40fps. Of course, a second 980 ti wouldn't hurt The difference between 40fps and 60 fps is huge. The difference between 40fps and 80fps is massive.

Yes with GPUs like these you can run many games at 100+ fps but those are not very demanding games.

 

[GoZFast]

Todays GPUs cannot reach 144FPS in recent games like Crysis and Metro. Until they make a fashionable 144Hz 4K IPS affordable display and that GPUs reach 100+FPS at 4K, I don't see any benefits for this over my Acer 4K bezel-less IPS panel. 144Hz could be useful for TVs with fast-paced sports contents such as car racing. This has no HDMI and a high price of 800$US. You can get a Dell 4K 34'' for that price.

 

[jdwii]

Todays GPUs cannot reach 144FPS in recent games like Crysis and Metro. Until they make a fashionable 144Hz 4K IPS affordable display and that GPUs reach 100+FPS at 4K, I don't see any benefits for this over my Acer 4K bezel-less IPS panel. 144Hz could be useful for TVs with fast-paced sports contents such as car racing. This has no HDMI and a high price of 800$US. You can get a Dell 4K 34'' for that price.

Yet who cares about 4K to be honest 1440P is the sweet spot for gamers. For content creators i guess 4K is worth it but for gaming no way. More hz means in some older titles you can drive it with 144hz i own a 970 and most of my games play at 80fps but dip or go up and i can barely even notice it. You aren't just buying this monitor for 144hz you are getting it for G-sync, IPS, 4MS, and yes actually playable 1440P. Hell even a Titan struggles in 4K screw that resolution for now 1440P will only become more mainstream.

 

[jdwii]

Other fascinating millisecond milestones...:

1.000692286 milliseconds — time taken for light to travel 300 km in a vacuum
2 milliseconds to 5 milliseconds - typical response time in LCD computer monitors, especially high-end displays
2.27 milliseconds — cycle time for A440 (pitch standard), the most commonly used pitch for tuning musical instruments
3 milliseconds — a housefly's wing flap
3.3 milliseconds — normal delay time between initiation and detonation of a C4 explosive charge
4 milliseconds — typical average seek time for a 10,000 rpm hard disk
5 milliseconds — a honey bee's wing flap
5 milliseconds to 80 milliseconds — a hummingbird's wing flap
8 milliseconds — 1/125 of a second, a standard camera shutter speed (125); fastest shifting time of a car's mechanical transmission
10 milliseconds (10 ms) — a jiffy, cycle time for frequency 100 Hz
16.67 milliseconds (1/60 second) — a third, cycle time for American 60 Hz AC electricity (mains grid)
16.68 milliseconds (1/59.94 second) — the amount of time one field lasts in 29.97 fps interlaced video (commonly erroneously referred to as 30 fps)
20 milliseconds — cycle time for European 50 Hz AC electricity
31.25 milliseconds - a hundred twenty-eighth note at MM = 60
33.367 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 29.97 fps video (most common for NTSC-legacy formats)
41.667 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 24 fps video (most common cinematic frame rate)
41.708 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 23.976 fps video (cinematic frame rate for NTSC-legacy formats)
50 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Lamborghini Aventador
50 milliseconds — cycle time for the lowest audible tone, 20 Hz
60 milliseconds — cycle time for European 16.7 Hz AC electrified railroad power grid
60 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Ferrari 458 Spider
62.5 milliseconds — a sixty-fourth note at MM = 60
5 to 80 milliseconds — typical latency for a broadband internet connection (important for playing online games)
100 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Ferrari FXX
125 milliseconds — a thirty-second note at MM = 60
134 milliseconds — time taken by light to travel around the Earth's equator
150 milliseconds — recommended maximum time delay for telephone service
185 milliseconds — the duration of a full rotation of the main rotor on Bell 205, 212 and 412 helicopters (normal rotor speed is 324 RPM)
200 milliseconds — the time it takes the human brain to recognize emotion in facial expressions
250 milliseconds — a sixteenth note at MM = 60
300 to 400 milliseconds — the time for the human eye to blink
400 milliseconds — time in which the fastest baseball pitches reach the strike zone
430 to 500 milliseconds — common modern dance music tempos (120–140 BPM)
495 milliseconds — an approximate average of the round trip time for communications via geosynchronous satellites
500 milliseconds — an eighth note at MM = 60
860 milliseconds — average human resting heart cycle time

Slow clap . . . faster . . . harder . . . more people join in . . . erupts in standing ovation!

This is great. Thanks!

Obligatory copy-paste wiki \deepbow

Actually it only takes are brain 80MS and we are always living in the past ha ha
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/time-on-the-brain-how-you-are-always-living-in-the-past-and-other-quirks-of-perception/

Edit also toms already settled this awhile ago and gamers preferred 120hz monitors over 60hz and they didn't even know which was which.

 

[Pavel Pokidaylo]

Todays GPUs cannot reach 144FPS in recent games like Crysis and Metro. Until they make a fashionable 144Hz 4K IPS affordable display and that GPUs reach 100+FPS at 4K, I don't see any benefits for this over my Acer 4K bezel-less IPS panel. 144Hz could be useful for TVs with fast-paced sports contents such as car racing. This has no HDMI and a high price of 800$US. You can get a Dell 4K 34'' for that price.

You are correct to an extent. There are many demanding games that will not run anywhere near the 144fps mark at 1440p with even the most powerful single GPU. Many of the games I play are very demanding AAA titles and I don't see fps anywhere near that mark. However, there are plenty of games that are not very demanding and can be played at very high refresh rates and that is where a refresh rate above 60fps shines. I still think that 60fps is great but 75 fps is better, 100fps is even better than that and 144fps well you get the picture. Hell, even in demanding titles like Witcher 3, I can turn down a few settings and get close to 100fps, or I can add a second 980 ti for SLI and get around 80-120fps on Ultra settings. I love cranking up all settings to max because the game looks amazing that way but I also like playing at above 75 fps. I'm probably going to order a second 980 ti for SLI sometime in the near future to achieve this. At the end of the day though, it all boils down to what a gamer wants. If you are someone who plays old games or games that just don't require much horsepower to run at 100+ fps and you really see the difference between 100fps and 60fps and you like it, well then there is a point to buying a monitor that can push passed 60 fps right? On the other hand, maybe you like to play the most demanding games with cranked settings and you are happy at say 30fps, you can go for a 4k Monitor and enjoy that. Personally, I want it all.

The two things my RoG Swift doesn't have is a 4k resolution and an IPS panel. I can't say what I would prefer because I don't have a second monitor with 4k or IPS to compare it to. What I do know is that I like the colors on my Swift but would like to compare it to an IPS screen to see the difference first hand and also to inspect this "IPS GLOW" and I would also like to compare the 1440p resolution to 4k and see the difference in that

 

[envy14tpe]

In response to Pavel Pokidaylo. I own a TN and IPS panel monitors. I prefer my IPS for everything other than fps gaming. In all aspects it looks better than TN. The "IPS glow"...not an issue and not really worth counting as a disadvantage.

I also think 1440p is the future sweet spot for games and it is the realistic upgrade from 1080p, which is more than 95% of gamers. Jumping to 4K would require an insane amount of $$$ for GPUs to get decent settings. At 1440p you could get by with one high end GPU, but you won't be hitting 144fps. However, we haven't seen many affordable 1440p monitors. Also, the lowest those 1440p monitors go for around low $300s but they won't be suitable for all gamers (fps). That's why the Asus ROG and Acer Predator are so desirable but not going to be mainstream due to price.

As someone who has never tried a 144Hz monitor I still feel able to say it is better than 60Hz. I know when my computer is running 60fps vs 50fps. And the smoother the play the better the experience is. I wish I could have a display that allowed for even 80fps. That'd be awesome. The benefit above 100fps is subjective but I'm sure over 60fps is noticeable.

 

[Pavel Pokidaylo]

So IPS glow isn't really an issue? That's good to know. What about using it in the dark? Also, are any of your TN panels 8 bit? Do they have decent colors or do they look totally washed out? And yes you are certainly right about it being subjective after 100fps. I notice a difference between 100 and 120 but it's not a big deal to me because I mostly play demanding games that can't reach that. I do play Evolve and Titanfall from time to time but I have not really paid attention to how much better I can see them. I'm sure it helps though. As for 4k.. I've tried SSAA and DSR on my monitor and even there things looked a bit more detailed. I imagine a real 4k monitor would be better than that. But with 4k it's 60fps tops and on top of that you can't even get there unless you have 980 Ti SLI. They need to make a 4k monitor that can do 80+fps and a single GPU that can push those frames at Ultra settings lol