Acer XB273K - G-Sync, 144Hz, HDR 400

Legend

Legend

Legend

Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2006
Posts
7,224
Well this looks interesting... and suggests Nvidia aren't limiting their new (and expensive) G-Sync 1.4 module to 1000 nit panels.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3301170/displays/acer4k-144hz-hdr-gaming-monitors-ifa.html

The also announced XV273K seems to be the first 4K 144Hz FreeSync monitor, which is nice.

And I must say, kudos to Acer for being so up front and honest ahead of time in respect to the BLB and Glow we should expect. :D

XB273_K-_BLB.jpg
 
I'm happy their is a (much cheaper!) Freesync option too, and tbh I'd have no problems getting one if I had a Vega 64 (I'd run run Medium/High where needed, and less taxing or optimised games at full bore) :cool:
 
I've read the G-Sync model, the XB273K is expected to retail at €1499 Euros / $1299 dollars - still seems very pricey for the spec.
https://techreport.com/news/34039/acer-xb273k-makes-4k-144-hz-and-g-sync-a-bit-more-accessible
No FALD, it uses edge lighting instead
400 nits instead of 1000
No Quantum dots

Interesting piece of info form Anandtech:
Bandwidth requirements of 4Kp144 8-bit monitors exceed what DisplayPort can deliver today; therefore, to stay within the bandwidth limits of the interface, the displays will either be limited to a 120 Hz refresh rate with full 4:4:4 chroma subsampling, or use 4:2:2 subsampling to get to 144Hz+
Click to expand...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13294/acer-unveils-predator-xb273k-4kp144-displayhdr-400-gaming-lcd
 
JediFragger said:
Doesn't FS2 strictly need the Vesa HDR 600 as a minimum? Somewhere in the back of my mind that is floating around...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not. That would be a nice requirement to have. There are several FreeSync 2 monitors with only VESA HDR400 support. For example the BenQ EX3203R, AOC AG322QC4, LG 32GK850F and LG 34GK950F.
 
VESA DisplayHDR 400 is a waste of time in my opinion. it's such a vague certification structure it's there mainly so manufacturers can advertise HDR, but in reality there's no decent/real HDR performance offered by those displays. When used, these really seem to offer is either a 10-bit colour depth support or a wider gamut (around 90 - 95% DCI-P3 common) or sometimes both. They don't really seem to have any local dimming support which is what makes higher dynamic ranges/contrast ratios possible in the first place. and there is no increaed peak luminance either, just a slightly higher than normal normal max brightness of around 400 cd/m2. So you do get some benefits from the wider colour space sometimes and perhaps the 10-bit colour depth, but the core of what makes HDR (the improved dynamic range) is not supported or offered.
 
Baddass said:
VESA DisplayHDR 400 is a waste of time in my opinion. it's such a vague certification structure it's there mainly so manufacturers can advertise HDR, but in reality there's no decent/real HDR performance offered by those displays. When used, these really seem to offer is either a 10-bit colour depth support or a wider gamut (around 90 - 95% DCI-P3 common) or sometimes both. They don't really seem to have any local dimming support which is what makes higher dynamic ranges/contrast ratios possible in the first place. and there is no increaed peak luminance either, just a slightly higher than normal normal max brightness of around 400 cd/m2. So you do get some benefits from the wider colour space sometimes and perhaps the 10-bit colour depth, but the core of what makes HDR (the improved dynamic range) is not supported or offered.
Click to expand...

Very true, but people are easily fooled. I've seen numerous comments online with people exclaiming the HDR 400 label to be a reason to get a certain monitor over another, when in reality it's such a low qualifying standard it will make little to no difference as you say. Clearly the whole HDR branding thing was getting out of hand, but I don't think the VESA solution has actually helped very much, most people are still very much in the dark. I guess it's a step in the right direction and it was all such a mess that VESA did the best they could.
 
Yup, as a monitor reviewer or more to the point somebody who advises users on which monitors to buy, the very existence of DisplayHDR 400 models is annoying. The whole premise of HDR is exceptional contrast delivered with local dimming and careful mapping of shades onto a wide gamut. Not only are these displays devoid of effective local dimming, they either have a gamut that's too narrow or is simply not used properly for HDR. I often see manufacturers go all out to compensate for their lack of local dimming by simply making things universally bright under HDR.

To add insult to injury, they sometimes oversaturate shades by mapping things inappropriately, even if the monitor's gamut should handle HDR content quite well if allowed to do so properly. So you end up with an oversaturated, overly bright image with washed out dark shades and crushed bright shades. And frankly it looks worse than SDR.
 
Legend said:
Very true, but people are easily fooled. I've seen numerous comments online with people exclaiming the HDR 400 label to be a reason to get a certain monitor over another, when in reality it's such a low qualifying standard it will make little to no difference as you say. Clearly the whole HDR branding thing was getting out of hand, but I don't think the VESA solution has actually helped very much, most people are still very much in the dark. I guess it's a step in the right direction and it was all such a mess that VESA did the best they could.
Click to expand...
i kind of wish they hadn't bothered with the HDR 400 spec, and stuck with 600 and 1000 which do at least seem (at the moment) to represent models with some form of local dimming and improved HDR performance. The 400 spec always felt to me like the manufacturers ganged up on VESA to come up with something so low spec, and meaningless, just so they could certify their monitors and fool buyers in to thinking it's an HDR screen, when most of the time it really isn't. My full HDR article available here by the way: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/hdr.htm
 
Baddass said:
i kind of wish they hadn't bothered with the HDR 400 spec, and stuck with 600 and 1000 which do at least seem (at the moment) to represent models with some form of local dimming and improved HDR performance. The 400 spec always felt to me like the manufacturers ganged up on VESA to come up with something so low spec, and meaningless, just so they could certify their monitors and fool buyers in to thinking it's an HDR screen, when most of the time it really isn't. My full HDR article available here by the way: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/hdr.htm
Click to expand...

I always suspected there was some sort of collusion going on there... the HDR 400 cert is just so virtually worthless, I can't believe anyone in the industry lends it serious credence. It's nothing more than a badge designed to fool consumers and shift more units.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom