DammeronYou do realise it's 1440p? Why use clearly overspecced inputs if the display is not gonna utilize their bandwidth? And, as people already mentioned - the MSRP is 700.

10b 1440p is only good for about 200Hz over DP 1.4.
The DP 2.1 connector is mostly the same as 1.4 and the major change was encoding. To not have it but still pay HDMI royalties and not even have HDMI 2.1 is really rather cheap. This display will not work as advertised spec without DSC.

FoulOnWhiteThis kind of prooves my point. Left is a LG stand from a 32" 1080 165hz, and right is the one off my Dell 34" UW, which is height and tilt adjustable. The LG stand is crappy.

Certainly but the vast majority still sticks with the shitty stand. I remember fixing lack of height adjustment with books ;)

Glossy WOLED panels are the best at retaining their Black levels under the harshest lighting conditions (lookie here: tftcentral.co.uk/articles/the-oled-black-depth-lie-when-panel-type-and-coating-matters)

27" is probably close to ideal with 1440p, leading to good pixel density without being ungodly small.

At 699? If the pricing remains somewhat similar in europe (I'll settle for 699-749 euro), then this may be what I've been looking for in a monitor!

Here's yet another red flag for QD OLED. This has been clear for awhile, but the difference, relatively, is staggering, now that people actually realize how important the black point luminance is. A well calibrated VA can already achieve 0.3 ;) I'm sitting in front of one.

Contrast and luminance are so very odd, numbers are highly deceiving. In static contrast, you need upwards of 1000:1 steps to even remotely notice a difference, especially as you go beyond 2000:1; you can put a 3000:1 and 5000:1 VA next to each other and be hard pressed to see differences, in fact, you will probably only see them clearly in a dim lit room. And then when it comes to blacks (the other end of the spectrum: identifying luminance, instead of looking for the biggest gap between bright and dark), we're super sensitive. You can clearly tell the difference between a 0.2 and a 0.1 black point. There is something about 'pitch black' that makes it special and extremely hard to achieve, and we're sensitive to it. Not illogical either: pitch black means we're blind. We don't like that.

Below graph shows; WOLED is nearly twice as dark as QD OLED - or better at lower lux, and its good to realize 150-200 is typical there. Its a difference that makes you wonder why you'd even bother with anything other than WOLED, after all, the black point is its biggest advantage compared to LCD. It also puts a different lens on 'high brightness'. Very bright screens are NOT an advantage. Only go brighter if you need to be able to see things better, otherwise lower brightness = better. The closer you can get to the lowest possible black point, the more the image will pop, as static contrast will rise exponentially the lower you go.

Nice example of less being more.



Oh lol there it is.

QD-OLED black levels aren't great if you use your computer in a very bright room (I'd consider >150 Lux to be quite bright for a home office) and if you have limited control over lighting. If you have half-decent blinds or curtains that can block light, then it becomes largely a non-issue. You don't need to be in pitch black for QD-OLED black levels to look very good. And equally important to static contrast in my opinion is black uniformity, and all OLEDs have perfect black uniformity while all LCDs are prone to backlight bleed, VAs are prone to off-axis gamma shift in dark content, and we won't even talk about how awful IPS is for uniformity.

QD-OLED (and OLED in general) is far from a perfect technology and comes with a lot of tradeoffs. But if you can mitigate or live with those, it's still a pretty amazing display tech.

At these prices... no. I don't care how good OLED is. If it's 700-900 (in Europe) bucks for 27 inch, no thanks. Pure and simple. For that much money, i can get OLED TV or many monitors that look good enough to me. Until they DRASTICALLY reduce the prices, this tech is a no go for me.

AnimalpakIt has the same base as my Swift PG279 monitor from 2017...

Where you hoping for a REVOLUTION of monitor stand technology? Like... what do you want, really? It's a stand. I prefer these typical stands over the awful non-functional stands that Asus was producing.

ChomiqI dunno why people still care/complain about desk stands if you can get better ergonomics with VESA monitor arm and pretty much every monitor supports the VESA standard. Even if the stand is like some uber 1337 design there are always VESA mounting points underneath.

I'm actually confused about people complaining about functional monitor stands. Monitors with flat bases keep functional space on a desk, monitors with pointy, spindly legs take up space that can't be filled practically and as you said, if you don't like either, a cheap VESA stand will do.

starfalsAt these prices... no. I don't care how good OLED is. If it's 700-900 (in Europe) bucks for 27 inch, no thanks. Pure and simple. For that much money, i can get OLED TV or many monitors that look good enough to me. Until they DRASTICALLY reduce the prices, this tech is a no go for me.

I personally don't mind spending a lot on a monitor. It's actually the thing I'm most likely to spend money on because I typically plan on keeping them for 4-10 years. That being said I wouldn't buy this monitor as I'm more looking towards 32-38" 4k OLED UW for the future.