[TFTCentral - Review] Acer XB270HU - 27" 144Hz IPS G-Sync

[QuantumPion]

From what I saw, the Swift had a rough launch. Poor availability and then bad QC. I found it hard to believe people would get 4+ units all with dead pixels, but enough stories surfaced that it seems to have been true. I got lucky and picked up an open box Swift from new egg and it was in perfect shape. I'm guessing it was simply refused at delivery or something.

I personally went through 4 defective units before giving up. One was DOA, one had stuck pixels, the other 2 had way out of whack color calibration.

 

[know of fence]

Actually I'm really excited about this monitor, I just dislike the fact that Nvidia is trying to push 2560x1440 native as the new stopgap thing, just because that's what Display Port and video cards can barely handle right now.

IMHO when it comes to moving pictures resolution is completely overrated, as there is just a 1.5 foot (46 cm) gap, between the point where our eyes stop seeing pixels and where it's possible to discern a difference between say 1080p and 720p (or 96dpi and 54dpi). Video or games, played with a controller in 720p in 4-to-1 scaling, should look perfectly fine from 3.5 feet (about a meter) away.
People have preconceived notions about 720p/HD, because they usually don't see it scaled up to 4K or 2.5K screens or because of the low bitrate of Youtube 720p compression. HD is a pretty good baseline, and neither internet speed nor drive space is improving all that fast.

Temporal resolution vs screen resolution should make for an interesting comparison particularly if you can run a game in 100 FPS/Hz ULMB, in 720p vs. say 2K 50FPS G-sync.

 

[imaheadcase]

They are showing up on acer site for sell. Only $800?! I thought be more than that..
http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/UM.HB0AA.001

 

[GoodRevrnd]

$800 msrp hmmm... wonder what we'll actually be able to get it for shortly after launch. I'd really like to grab one of these. Seems like it's quite a bit better than the Asus which goes for pretty near $800 so maybe there won't be any deals to be had.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

build quality is lacking; i.e. premium performance, but cheap construction (not necessarily bad)... the $800 price isn't surprising

 

[Black Octagon]

build quality is lacking; i.e. premium performance, but cheap construction (not necessarily bad)...

Eh? Says who? The TFTCentral review says:

"The materials were of a good standard and the build quality felt good as well. It felt more premium than some more basic Acer office range models we had seen in the past and we were pleased. There was no audible noise from the screen, even when conducting specific tests which can often identify buzzing issues. The whole screen remained very cool even during prolonged use as well which was pleasing."

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm

 

[ComputerGuy2006]

IMHO when it comes to moving pictures resolution is completely overrated, as there is just a 1.5 foot (46 cm) gap, between the point where our eyes stop seeing pixels and where it's possible to discern a difference between say 1080p and 720p (or 96dpi and 54dpi). Video or games, played with a controller in 720p in 4-to-1 scaling, should look perfectly fine from 3.5 feet (about a meter) away.
People have preconceived notions about 720p/HD, because they usually don't see it scaled up to 4K or 2.5K screens or because of the low bitrate of Youtube 720p compression. HD is a pretty good baseline, and neither internet speed nor drive space is improving all that fast.

I completely disagree. I sit a tad over 2 feet away from my monitor.

I can see individual pixels on my dell u2711 (108 PPI) without any problems.

My goal is to one day have a monitor that I can add a single pixel dot and not be able to see it. Once I get to that point, I will be happy with the PPI.

I even ran this test with my phone (251 PPI), I added dots so each would be a single pixel, placed it at the same distance my monitor is (2 feet), and I could still see the pixels (although harder to see).

My estimate is 300-400 PPI will be the sweet spot for about ~2 feet away. Right now the only thing that has close to that PPI is 4k at 15".

 

[bystander36]

I completely disagree. I sit a tad over 2 feet away from my monitor.

I can see individual pixels on my dell u2711 (108 PPI) without any problems.

My goal is to one day have a monitor that I can add a single pixel dot and not be able to see it. Once I get to that point, I will be happy with the PPI.

I even ran this test with my phone (251 PPI), I added dots so each would be a single pixel, placed it at the same distance my monitor is (2 feet), and I could still see the pixels (although harder to see).

My estimate is 300-400 PPI will be the sweet spot for about ~2 feet away. Right now the only thing that has close to that PPI is 4k at 15".

The goal is not to "not see" stand alone pixels. The goal is not to see the individual pixels when it is part of a line or other item. You'll always see stand alone pixels no matter what the PPI is. You are supposed to see the pixel. You just aren't supposed to notice all the pixels that make up objects as separate pixels.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Eh? Says who? The TFTCentral review says:

"The materials were of a good standard and the build quality felt good as well. It felt more premium than some more basic Acer office range models we had seen in the past and we were pleased. There was no audible noise from the screen, even when conducting specific tests which can often identify buzzing issues. The whole screen remained very cool even during prolonged use as well which was pleasing."

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xb270hu.htm

from the same review

"The light from the power LED does spill out a little under the two buttons it is adjacent to, but nothing serious, just a minor build quality quibble."

"The Asus does have the edge we felt in appearance, design and build quality"

then there's the glossy plastic on the bezel and base

again, I didn't say it was bad, just that it was lacking or cheap (maybe should have specified cheap-looking; choosing glossy plastic is pretty much the #1 way to scream that your product is cheaper than it really is, even if it isn't, they should know better by now)

at any rate my point was that, with this monitor, you're paying for the screen's performance first and foremost and everything else is about it pales in comparison (and again, isn't necessarily bad, just not as good, and thus not as expensive as it could be)

 

[ComputerGuy2006]

The goal is not to "not see" stand alone pixels. The goal is not to see the individual pixels when it is part of a line or other item. You'll always see stand alone pixels no matter what the PPI is. You are supposed to see the pixel. You just aren't supposed to notice all the pixels that make up objects as separate pixels.

But if you cannot see individual pixels, that means you can never see separate pixels no matter the circumstance. For example even on my phone, I can easily make out separate pixels in a line (when AA is not used and the pixel has good contrast from its background) when its about 10 inches from my face. With enough PPI, this would be impossible.

The day when a single black pixel on a white background cannot be seen or detected by the eye at a normal distance is the day I think we will finally be at the highest PPI we need.

 

[know of fence]

But if you cannot see individual pixels, that means you can never see separate pixels no matter the circumstance. For example even on my phone, I can easily make out separate pixels in a line (when AA is not used and the pixel has good contrast from its background) when its about 10 inches from my face. With enough PPI, this would be impossible.

The day when a single black pixel on a white background cannot be seen or detected by the eye at a normal distance is the day I think we will finally be at the highest PPI we need.

Aliasing used to be this ugly artifact especially if you you scaled up low-res jagged edges on a large television. But aliasing now at higher-res and high-poly is more of an issue with flicker during camera movement, our pattern recognition brain is drawn to high contrast edges especially if they are rapidly changing. This edge-flickering may not ever go away without an anti-aliasing filter.

I chose 2 ft and 96 dpi as a kind of common, though soon 20 year old standard and according to my calculations 251 ppi at 10" is pretty much it's equivalent, ever so slightly worse. Anyone can assess the future of monitors and content by moving away from any screen and measuring distance at which your eye is satisfied. I guess one could easily devise a double-blind test using a series of pictures in 1-to-4 scale resolutions (say 1080p and 540p) and try to find a distance at which they are indistinguishable. You could let people guess which resolution is which and wait for the replies to approach a 50:50 right/wrong split.

What is the result of your pixel error in a single line test? From what distance (at which dpi) don't you notice a single pixel above or below a horizontal line any more after some blinking? Granted this is a bit of a worst case scenario, for busy pictures and video the distance should be much closer.

 

[ComputerGuy2006]

I chose 2 ft and 96 dpi as a kind of common, though soon 20 year old standard and according to my calculations 251 ppi at 10" is pretty much it's equivalent

Maybe your calculation is off, or maybe my eyes work differently... but my 108 ppi at 2 feet is MUCH easier to see pixels then pixels on my 251 ppi at 10 inches.

Anyone can assess the future of monitors and content by moving away from any screen and measuring distance at which your eye is satisfied.

I do not want to move away. I am nearsighted, so I like thing to be close ish (within 3 feetm, but I found 2 feet is most comfortable). Besides, the farther you move away, the smaller your monitor relatively gets, so you are just wasting money if you do that.

I guess one could easily devise a double-blind test using a series of pictures in 1-to-4 scale resolutions (say 1080p and 540p) and try to find a distance at which they are indistinguishable. You could let people guess which resolution is which and wait for the replies to approach a 50:50 right/wrong split.

Some people that might be true. Some people have bad vision. Some people back in the day even argued they saw no different between DVD and 1080p bluray.

Personally I used to use a CRT monitor (SAMSUNG 997DF). Switching between different resolutions really opened my eyes how extra PPI made things so much cleaner and crisper. It is sad that my +10 year old CRT monitor (1600x1200 at 19") has about the same DPI as my monitor today....

What is the result of your pixel error in a single line test? From what distance (at which dpi) don't you notice a single pixel above or below a horizontal line any more after some blinking? Granted this is a bit of a worst case scenario, for busy pictures and video the distance should be much closer.

I tried your test, what I would do is look away from my monitor, back up, look back at my monitor and see if I could tell were the pixel was, results:

Without my glasses:
I could easily see it till ~45", and effectively could not see it once I hit ~55" (at ~60" id have big problems knowing if a pixel was there or not).

With my glasses:
I could easily see it till ~55", and more or less lost sight of it at ~~75"

That seems VERY far to me. That would mean id need to be ~4 feet from my monitor. My 27" monitor at that distance looks like a 12.8" inch monitor compared to my regular 2 feet distance (over 2x smaller on both height and width, so in a silly math way the PPI would be OVER 400) .... Obviously that is not a solution to this problem.

Besides, you do realize that by moving away from a monitor you are basically reducing its apparent size while increasing its apparent PPI

 

[bystander36]

But if you cannot see individual pixels, that means you can never see separate pixels no matter the circumstance. For example even on my phone, I can easily make out separate pixels in a line (when AA is not used and the pixel has good contrast from its background) when its about 10 inches from my face. With enough PPI, this would be impossible.

The day when a single black pixel on a white background cannot be seen or detected by the eye at a normal distance is the day I think we will finally be at the highest PPI we need.

Yeah, if you got to a point where a pixel can't be seen, you definitely won't notice aliasing, but that is a huge waste of resources. Especially with todays hardware. Again, the goal is to not notice that objects are made up of individual pixels. Not to make it so a pixel, on its own, is not visible. That is overkill.

We just want our images to look clean, crisp and free of jagged edges.

 

[ComputerGuy2006]

Yeah, if you got to a point where a pixel can't be seen, you definitely won't notice aliasing, but that is a huge waste of resources. Especially with todays hardware. Again, the goal is to not notice that objects are made up of individual pixels. Not to make it so a pixel, on its own, is not visible. That is overkill.

We just want our images to look clean, crisp and free of jagged edges.

I agree its a big waste of hardware to get to that point, but I think that is where we will want to be eventually.

In the meantime I find higher PPI helps. I can either get low resolutions (like 720p) and use huge AA, or get higher resolutions (1440) and use a lot less AA. I find the higher resolution makes things look crisper and cleaner. So many AA processing and 3d tricks these days add too much blur.

If the GPU was about 1000-2000 times faster we could probably render a pixar like movie in realtime and 720p would look about as good. Until then uping the resolution and using less rending power is a cheap easy way to make things look good.

 

[bystander36]

I agree its a big waste of hardware to get to that point, but I think that is where we will want to be eventually.

In the meantime I find higher PPI helps. I can either get low resolutions (like 720p) and use huge AA, or get higher resolutions (1440) and use a lot less AA. I find the higher resolution makes things look crisper and cleaner. So many AA processing and 3d tricks these days add too much blur.

If the GPU was about 1000-2000 times faster we could probably render a pixar like movie in realtime and 720p would look about as good. Until then uping the resolution and using less rending power is a cheap easy way to make things look good.

I doubt, in our lifetime, we'll reach a point where monitors can display a pixel and not be visible to the naked eye. It'll likely take about 1000x more pixels than we have. It's not going to be a realistic feat.

We already reach the point where we are below what the human eye can see in size, but because it is light, it shines bright enough to see. We'd have to go away from light as a means to show a pixel to become realistic.

 

[imaheadcase]

When people start talking about quality of picture, i remind them going from DVD to 720p no one thought it a big deal. But going from 720p to 1080p is now a big deal because you can see the difference when you switch back after using 1080p for so long.

 

[Excessi0n]

What is the result of your pixel error in a single line test?

I can see that there's something on the line out to about ten feet. If I draw a single-pixel black line at a slight angle from vertical, I can see the aliasing when moving my head out to a minimum of ~20 feet (where I bump up against the opposite wall). At that point the aliasing is subtle but still noticeable without looking hard.

It's an ~90-95 DPI monitor that I sit 2-3 feet from, so that implies that I would need a DPI in the realm of 350-500 to make the pixel unnoticeable during use and at least twice that to quash worst-case aliasing.

 

[Annisman*]

Just pre-ordered one from http://www.shopblt.com/item/acer-um.hb0aa.001-27in-widescreen-lcd-2560x1440/acer_umhb0aa001.html

for 748$, not bad ! Some people in Germany or something already have em.

 

[Gryz]

The first ones have been sold in Germany.
Only 1 webshop so far.
749 Euros. In stock. First ones have already arrived at their buyers.

 

[imaheadcase]

They are showing up on amazon.com links..$877 preorder. Usually ships within 6 to 10 days

More than originally listed. But still fine by me. Im going to wait till actually amazon.com has them and not affiliates though.

 

[QuantumPion]

Monitor is in stock at Newegg.

 

[imaheadcase]

Monitor is in stock at Newegg.

Yep just ordered mine, came here to post as well.

Little more expensive than some, but better than others, and still cheaper than what i was expecting them to go for. Shows shipping April 2nd though. I don't order from newegg much anymore, the shipping they use is really wack now from beginning days. I guess amazon prime has made me expect more

 

[QuantumPion]

Mine lists as packaging already and I got overnight delivery.

 

[xorbe]

Mine arrives in a couple days! Someone mentioned it in the Titan X thread on OCN, and after reading the TFTCentral review, I immediately pulled the trigger. This is the screen I've been waiting for forever!

 

[GoodRevrnd]

lol already out of stock. also full msrp :x