Read more.Quote:
FreeSync and a high refresh rate for £250.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
FreeSync and a high refresh rate for £250.
The bad:-
No G-Sync
Only 1920*1080
Only 24"
iworrall - you forgot "TN panel". 270ukp for a TN panel screen seems terrible value to me, when you consider similarly sized IPS panels with decent response start around 120ukp. I appreciate 144hz is the selling point for TN here, but I doubt most graphics card setups could sustain anything like that in modern games outside of Minecraft etc.
10-herpy-80-derpy-P for £-derpy-270?!
Could be 50000Hz refresh rate, it would still be complete derp....
What a waste, still 24 inch, and still 1080p, gaming monitors should be forced to at least 34 inches and above, and no less than 4K..That is why I run Sli x2 980ti Philips kicked it off with the first 4k 40 inch BDM4065UC monitor, why not just build forwards on that for gaming? it's like we have gone backwards...24 inch 1080p..REALLY!! ???
^^Are you serious? Not every PC gamer has the budget for a rig like that. And yes, people can still class themselves as PC gamers even with average machines.
at 1080 might as well just buy a flat screen tv it would be cheaper and work the same ..
Or even low spec machines ;) My old 580GTX plays many games at 1080p at high or better. Which is better than any console out there and on a card thats only worth ~£60! I'm sure 4K 144hz is lovely but not essential... Do agree though this is an expensive monitor for what it is which is a shame as I was thinking about a new freesync 1080p-1440p monitor for when I potentially grab a new polaris GPU later in the year.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3s-gtech
To be honest, having bought a 27" 1080p monitor in the last six months and been horrified at how naff it looks as a monitor (you sit too close for 1080 at that size), I've now bought a Dell 1440p 27" IPS panel for not too much more than this monitor and it looks fantastic. Sure, it doesn't have FreeSync (not bothered, I'm an NVidia fan) or G-Sync (not bothered, never seen the need for it in anything I play), nor does it do 144Hz (again, not bothered since I've never actually seen a problem with my games running at 60Hz). But it looks fantastic and I don't actually need a grand's worth of graphics cards in a power hungry setup to drive it either - my GTX760 plays Elite at Ultra settings in 1440p if you are willing to take some frame rate drop (which is where *sync _might_ come in handy), or on High at a solid 60fps. I just can't see the justification for this price for TN, *sync technology or no, and certainly not for 1080p and 24".
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/24-a...hdmi-dvi-d-subQuote:
Originally Posted by cheesemp
Also a 144Hz panel, but at £190 quite a bit cheaper, perhaps that is one for you to consider. And yes, 144Hz is lovely and I wouldn't want to go back :)
Some of the comments on here though, wow. My wife has the AOC monitor I linked above in her PC, and yes to drive that at the full steady 144Hz requires more GPU power than 4K at a steady 60Hz, but here is the fun part... for most of us you really don't have to. That is the whole point of adaptive sync, if you get a slightly laggy frame it smooths it out for you. My wife's PC is a small shoebox one, so it only has a R7 360 in it, and it works fine for her.
So, her monitor and GPU together cost as much as a GTX970 on its own and provides a super experience on a not silly budget.
Note for the reviewer: Readers might have liked to hear how you found the monitor when coupled up to a GTX960 or similar. That wouldn't give you adaptive sync, but 144Hz on its own is pretty smooth so I think it would be a valid budget gaming build. How does it feel on a modern IGP even?
Edit to add: For those that want pixels the size of your fist, you can get 27" monitors for less than this as well: http://www.ebuyer.com/720610-aoc-g27...onitor-g2770pf but at that size I think you need to be looking at 1440p and those start at £400 so not exactly a budget purchase.
I agree with you on the monster pixels in a 27" FHD, but QHD at 27" starts at about £300 if you shop around - a certain competitor site (starts with 'e' and ends with 'buyer') has a Samsung 27" QHD for 299.99 today, and Dell will sell you a 25" QHD for less than the review model cost. I pisked up my Dell 27" QHD for £350 (again, just got to keep an ye for the discounts and promotions). Again, no fancy pants syncing and super picky gamers will balk at the response times, but for the vast majority of mere mortals the superior viewing angles and more vibrant picture are more noticeable than anything else. Certainly I have no problems playing Elite and CSS/CS:GO on it, and I suppose I'd be classed as a casual gamer like most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Totally agree that they should include a decent spread of test rig as most people will have GTX960/970 or equivalents from AMD or roughly similar older cards rather than a 980Ti or SLi/xFire.
Sorry I meant 1440p gaming monitors start at £400, which means the 120Hz or 144Hz ones. At that price range they come with Freesync, add another hundred at least for Gsync.Quote:
Originally Posted by cflymo
My monitor at home was £450 for a 27" 144Hz 1440p setup. At work I use Dell IPS monitors, and very nice they are too. At no point ever at home have I found myself thinking the image quality was lacking though, I think you have to go either some years back or right down the cheap end of the monitor market to get a TN panel bad enough to get a bad image.
Absolutely, I was thinking more of viewing angles etc. I simply cannot use TN panels as if I position them as I like them, I can't see half of what's on screen, but even if that were not a problem I do prefer the vibrancy of IPS over TN. And it's nuts just how my NVidia gouge for the G-Sync licenses. AMD definitely have a strong upper hand there.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Still, it's good that there's so much choice and competition in the market as prices for the more advanced features are starting to get more realistic for most people.