Thursday, September 30th 2021

This View is Spectacular - CORSAIR Debuts the XENEON 32QHD165 Gaming Monitor

CORSAIR, a world leader in enthusiast components for gamers, creators, and PC builders, today announced the XENEON 32QHD165, a stunning new monitor built from the ground up for gamers and creators, featuring an ultra-slim 32-inch QHD screen with a cutting-edge IPS LED panel to produce a beautiful 2560x1440 image. With up to a 165 Hz refresh rate, along with AMD FreeSync Premium certification and NVIDIA G-SYNC compatibility to keep up with every frame of the latest games, the XENEON 32QHD165 offers a terrific combination of powerful specs, smart features, and thoughtful design that power users need. Integrating seamlessly into the CORSAIR iCUE and Elgato Stream Deck software ecosystems for convenient, customized control, the XENEON 32QHD165 is uniquely positioned to take center stage in a modern gaming and streaming setup.

An ultra-thin micro-bezel surrounds the XENEON 32QHD165's 32-inch screen, offering a minimal border ideal for multi-monitor setups. Its IPS LED panel utilizes Quantum Dot technology with 100% sRGB, 100% Adobe RGB color space, and DCI-P3 (98%) color gamut - ensuring the superb color accuracy critical for creators that work with applications like Adobe Photoshop, After Effects, and DaVinci Resolve. Moreover, HDR400 support provides a wide brightness range for high realism in both very dark and brightly lit scenes. With a viewing angle of up to 178° horizontally and vertically, the XENEON 32QHD165's image looks great from anywhere, even if you're standing nearly parallel to the screen.
When playing fast-paced games at high settings, gamers need a monitor that can keep up. That's why the XENEON 32QHD165 outputs a refresh rate of up to 165 Hz, more than twice that of a standard monitor. Paired with adaptive sync technology from both AMD FreeSync Premium certification and NVIDIA G-SYNC compatibility, gamers experience smoother visuals and less screen tearing, further aided by a rapid 1 ms response time.

The XENEON 32QHD165's uniquely designed die-cast aluminium stand opens up new possibilities for streaming setups. An innovative built-in mounting point atop the stand features standard ¼" threading, enabling compatibility with rigging systems such as Elgato Multi Mount and simplifying your setup by securely mounting a camera, light, or microphone above the monitor itself.

The XENEON 32QHD165 integrates with both CORSAIR iCUE software and Elgato Stream Deck software to unite your monitor with the rest of your setup even further. iCUE enables adjustment of all on-screen controls, removing the need to ever reach behind the monitor for the physical controls. Through iCUE, you can instantly swap your custom settings when switching between playing games, watching movies, working in Photoshop, or anything else - even doing it at the touch of a button on your Elgato Stream Deck or CORSAIR iCUE NEXUS Touch Screen.

The myriad connections and clever cable management built into the XENEON 32QHD165 make it a convenient central hub for your desktop. With 2x HDMI 2.0 ports and 1x DisplayPort 1.4, as well as 2x USB 3.1 Type-C and 2x USB 3.1 Type-A ports, you can connect a plethora of gaming peripherals and streaming devices. The XENEON 32QHD165's sturdy and stylish aluminium stand incorporates built-in cable routing to organize and hide your cables from view, ensuring that your battlestation is always tidy and photo-ready. With screen tilt from -5° to 20° and 100 mm of adjustable height, the stand keeps the screen positioned exactly where you need it. If you'd rather mount your monitor, a 100 mm x 100 mm VESA mounting point lets you secure it to a wall or mount arm with ease.

Availability, Warranty, and Pricing
The CORSAIR XENEON 32QHD165 Gaming Monitor is available immediately from the CORSAIR webstore and the CORSAIR worldwide network of authorized retailers and distributors. Initial availability will be in North America, UK, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and New Zealand. The CORSAIR XENEON 32QHD165 is backed by a three-year warranty including a ZERO DEAD PIXEL policy, alongside the CORSAIR worldwide customer service and technical support network. For up-to-date pricing of the CORSAIR XENEON 32QHD165, please refer to the CORSAIR website (Editor's note: It costs $799.99 in the USA).

Web Pages
To learn more about the CORSAIR XENEON 32QHD165 Gaming Monitor, please visit: corsair.com/xeneon-monitor
Add your own comment

46 Comments on This View is Spectacular - CORSAIR Debuts the XENEON 32QHD165 Gaming Monitor

#26
isvelte
Chaitanyaand no mention of power consumption figures.
Also its odd that native and max resolution are different.
Coz there are older 1440p monitors that doesnt accept a console (playstation) 4k signal so the console will think you are using a 1080p, no in betweens, so most modern 1440p monitors nowadays do this, scale it themselves.
Posted on Reply
#27
TheLostSwede
News Editor
ChaitanyaIs that 68W with 100% brightness and USB hub fully loaded or just monitor running at 100% brightness no connected USB devices or "typical" power draw?
I don't know, that was from the manual.
Posted on Reply
#28
MentalAcetylide
TheLostSwedeIt has an impressive height adjustable range.

Not at all keen on the stand though, that takes up an insane amount of desk space for what?
Either for giraffe necked individuals or those inclined to boot it to the moon when it breaks. I don't understand how they consider this a gaming monitor. It "might" be good for work where color accuracy is important, but gaming? bah! :shadedshu:
Posted on Reply
#29
Chomiq
Ferrum MasterI haven't seen more ridiculous and useless panel review in ages.

It is the LG panel, with the utterly weak contrast, ain't it. That's why it is not mentioned anywhere.

Link to full written review:
pcmonitors.info/reviews/corsair-xeneon-32qhd165/

So no, it's not ridiculous and useless review and no it's not an LG panel and contrast is around 1000:1 so normal for IPS.
Posted on Reply
#31
Chomiq
TheLostSwedeNot a cool move by that site.
What's not cool about it? Getting pissed that some random on a forum is dissing on them without even watching the first 30 seconds of video? Literally, the disclaimer comes in 15 seconds into the video and is mentioned multiple times during the review.
Posted on Reply
#32
TheLostSwede
News Editor
ChomiqWhat's not cool about it? Getting pissed that some random on a forum is dissing on them without even watching the first 30 seconds of video? Literally, the disclaimer comes in 15 seconds into the video and is mentioned multiple times during the review.
Then be upset with the forum user, don't hang out the site.
Posted on Reply
#33
Chrispy_
ChomiqWhat's not cool about it? Getting pissed that some random on a forum is dissing on them without even watching the first 30 seconds of video? Literally, the disclaimer comes in 15 seconds into the video and is mentioned multiple times during the review.
The written review looks solid.

Whilst I'm not siding with Ferrum Master or Vayra here, it's easy to link the video in isolation from its written review, and it's not completely unreasonable to assume that someone would use the chapter marks or timestamps to skip to the section of interest and skip the verbal disclaimer.

PC Monitors themselves state "The video below summarises some of the key points raised in this written review and shows the monitor in action."

In other words, even at 43 minutes long, it's not the review but just some additional content covering some of the key points and in no way represents the actual review methodology.

I can easily forgive people thinking that a 43 minute video is a full review, and I can easily forgive someone missing the verbal disclaimer by skipping forwards because 43 minutes is far too long for what is described as a summary of some of the key points.
Posted on Reply
#35
Dr. Dro
Eh, regardless... I don't think anything Vayra said is anything even remotely unreasonable, if anything it may be a bit of personal opinion but if the channel is upset enough about it to call people on the thread a bunch of clueless trolls, then to me, that means that there is something going on.

Anyway, like I said earlier, too pricy. The C1 is objectively superior in almost every single metric and costs within $100 of this thing. If you have 800 for this monitor, you probably have the 900 to 1k for a 48 C1, unless you buy monitors every day I doubt the change is going to matter and your eyes will love you for it.

I'm hopeful I can grab a C1 soonish, i've been using my RTX 3090 at 1080p to get 120 Hz out of my aging Sony X900F, and that's a proper waste :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#36
Chaitanya
TheLostSwedeI don't know, that was from the manual.
Interesting they aren't clarifying the whole specifications of monitor. From Hardware unboxed review power consumption at 200 nits is quite reasonable but not sure why Corsair wasn't forthcoming of these figures on their product page.
Posted on Reply
#37
Ferrum Master
Oh a drama while I was working. I forgot my popcorn.

It is the worst kind a review indeed.

Looking at the tomshardware review it kinda clarifies, it is weak, there is an immense difference between 900 or 1000 actually also the totally terrible black levels on HDR modes. The unit pretty unusable for there price. It ain't some 200$ monitor, then I wouldn't argue about it at all. SO far it is an overpriced and already EOL piece of plastic with an ugly stand.

Posted on Reply
#38
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
Chaitanyaand no mention of power consumption figures.
Also its odd that native and max resolution are different.
Both my 32" 1440p screens can do 4K quite well, just not natively. Seems like they use the same panel for 1440p 144hz and 3840p 60hz, and it's just upto the firmware to decide which one to use.
Posted on Reply
#40
R-T-B
TheLostSwedeThen be upset with the forum user, don't hang out the site.
Exactly. Tweeting about a forum rando is just petty.
MusselsBoth my 32" 1440p screens can do 4K quite well, just not natively. Seems like they use the same panel for 1440p 144hz and 3840p 60hz, and it's just upto the firmware to decide which one to use.
Panels only have one native mode. They literally have physical pixel limitations they have to scale to the firmware can't just get around. At most, it can rescale.
Posted on Reply
#41
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
R-T-BExactly. Tweeting about a forum rando is just petty.


Panels only have one native mode. They literally have physical pixel limitations they have to scale to the firmware can't just get around. At most, it can rescale.
There's something odd about it, when the scaler comes off as native res that i've not seen before

(Yes, i forgot the ' thingy at first)

The one on the right is native res... While yes i agree LCD can only have one native res, they've done something to optimise the latest 32" panels to work well with 4K natively
These monitors work with my chromecast devices natively at 4K 4:4:4 and RGB, with HDR working as well.
PC's don't see it, but HDMI devices do.
Posted on Reply
#42
Chrispy_
MusselsThere's something odd about it, when the scaler comes off as native res that i've not seen before

(Yes, i forgot the ' thingy at first)

The one on the right is native res... While yes i agree LCD can only have one native res, they've done something to optimise the latest 32" panels to work well with 4K natively
These monitors work with my chromecast devices natively at 4K 4:4:4 and RGB, with HDR working as well.
PC's don't see it, but HDMI devices do.
That's just cleartype; subpixel antialiasing for text only. It's kind of irrelevant since text looks fine with cleartype even on a potato screen.

Where things go to hell at non-native resolution is high-contrast straight edges.
Posted on Reply
#43
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
Chrispy_That's just cleartype; subpixel antialiasing for text only. It's kind of irrelevant since text looks fine with cleartype even on a potato screen.

Where things go to hell at non-native resolution is high-contrast straight edges.
Trust me, if i run 4K on any other screen here they look like ass.

Someone asked how this monitor can support 4K, when its native 1440p and all i've said is that already exists as a feature.
Posted on Reply
#44
Chrispy_
MusselsTrust me, if i run 4K on any other screen here they look like ass.

Someone asked how this monitor can support 4K, when its native 1440p and all i've said is that already exists as a feature.
I'm just saying that text is a terrible example to compare native 1440p and downscaled 4K on a 1440p display, because ClearType is common yet single-scenario example of subpixel antialiasing.

Even if you were comparing 1440p native to 4K downscaled, you're still not performing an apples-to-apples test since the text of the left (presumably native) has ClearType disabled, so represents an image without AA, whilst the right example (presumably downscaled) has the bi/tri/cubic filtering and is thus anti-aliased.

What you've managed to do is prove that AA looks better than jaggies, and I don't think you need to preach to the choir about that one! A fairer comparison (but still irrelevant to downscaled resolutions outside of text-only comparisons) would be 1440p native with ClearType vs 4K downscaled (with or without, it's not going to help much either way).

The real comparison between native and downscaled is going to be a crisp, sharp image with plenty of high-contrast, or, if you really want to brutalise the 4K downscaled image's chances, go for wireframe CAD.
Posted on Reply
#45
isvelte
MusselsBoth my 32" 1440p screens can do 4K quite well, just not natively. Seems like they use the same panel for 1440p 144hz and 3840p 60hz, and it's just upto the firmware to decide which one to use.
The only reason why its there is because of playstation not knowing what 1440p is, 4k↓1440 looks a little bit better than 1080p↑1440p.

I dont know why someone would use it on pc when native 1440p just looks better. This is not even hdmi 2.1 or dp 2.0, youd also sacrifice a lot of refresh rate if you use dsr.
Posted on Reply
#46
Mussels
Freshwater Moderator
Chrispy_I'm just saying that text is a terrible example to compare native 1440p and downscaled 4K on a 1440p display, because ClearType is common yet single-scenario example of subpixel antialiasing.

Even if you were comparing 1440p native to 4K downscaled, you're still not performing an apples-to-apples test since the text of the left (presumably native) has ClearType disabled, so represents an image without AA, whilst the right example (presumably downscaled) has the bi/tri/cubic filtering and is thus anti-aliased.

What you've managed to do is prove that AA looks better than jaggies, and I don't think you need to preach to the choir about that one! A fairer comparison (but still irrelevant to downscaled resolutions outside of text-only comparisons) would be 1440p native with ClearType vs 4K downscaled (with or without, it's not going to help much either way).

The real comparison between native and downscaled is going to be a crisp, sharp image with plenty of high-contrast, or, if you really want to brutalise the 4K downscaled image's chances, go for wireframe CAD.
It wasnt about the AA and cleartype - it's the point that if i did that with any other monitor, i'd have a blurry smeared mess or missing rows of pixels in that text

This is very different to the software scaling like DSR, when it comes to forcing a resolution input - if a monitor cant handle it, you can tell, fast.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 23rd, 2024 20:12 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts