Acer Announces Single New Predator, Trio of New Nitro Gaming Monitors With 27" Diagonals

[Raevenlord]

Acer at IFA 2018 today announced new monitors catering to both NVIDIA and AMD users - those who want to take advantage of either G-Sync or FreeSync capabilities in gamer-centric monitors, that is. As it stands, Acer has been using the Predator branding for its G-Sync enabled monitors, while the Nitro lineup stands on AMD's side. For NVIDIA, Acer is sticking its guns on the single XB273K - a $1,299 with G-Sync, 144 Hz refresh rates, and an IPS panel, running at 4K resolution. The Predator XB273K covers 90 percent of the DCI-P3 gamut, and is VESA DisplayHDR 400-certified. It also offers Acer's exclusive VisionCare technology to help your eyes manage long gaming sessions with technologies including flicker-free, low-dimming and blue light emission reduction. Oh - and it includes a shroud to protect your gaming feats from prying eyes.



On the AMD side of the equation, things are rosier and more full of life. The new Nitro monitor comes in three hardware configurations and price-points, making this, effectively, three new products. The differentiating factor here is the panel's resolution or technology - which one might say Is the entire monitor. The Nitro XV273K features UHD resolution and an IPS panel, features 90% DCI-P3 coverage and goes for $899 (it's the FreeSync equivalent to the Predator XB273K above, but has another trick up its sleeve). The Nitro (XV272U) features a lower resolution WQHD IPS panel - but goes for $499 and 95% DCI-P3 coverage. The XF272U offers the same WQHD resolution, but with a TN (twisted nematic) panel - this brings pricing down to $449 and covers 90 percent of the DCI-P3 gamut.



All of these Acer monitors feature Acer's Visual Response Boost feature, which brings response times down to the holy grail 1 ms. All of them feature the same 144 Hz refresh rates, are VESA DisplayHDR 400-certified and include six-axis color adjustments for making tweaks to color, hue and saturation - as well as black level controls with 11 steps of fine-tuning.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Joss]

The Nitro XV272U is exciting, 1440p, IPS and 144hz. And at $499 is reasonably priced.
Anyone knows if this is an AU Optronics panel?

 

[MxPhenom 216]

The Nitro XV272U is exciting, 1440p, IPS and 144hz. And at $499 is reasonably priced.
Anyone knows if this is an AU Optronics panel?

Thats the one im eyeing really hard.

 

[MrAMD]

Please make the 4K versions in 32+ inches.. 27" is too small for 4K. Don't know why manufacturers keep forcing 4K on small screens.

24" = 1080p
27" = 1440p
32" = 2160p

 

[Enterprise24]

Bullshit 1ms marketing gimmick as usual.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Where are them 200Hz ultrawides?

So the $1200 4k screen is GsyncV1 and not GsyncHDR right, the HDR400 statement threw me off.

 

[xorbe]

So the XB273K is an X27 without HDR then? (Or should I say, HDR 400 vs HDR 1000).

 

[B-Real]

If i check the specs, the XV273K is the same as the XB273K with the difference of Freesync - G-Sync and the price difference is 400$. What a joke.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Please make the 4K versions in 32+ inches.. 27" is too small for 4K. Don't know why manufacturers keep forcing 4K on small screens.

24" = 1080p
27" = 1440p
32" = 2160p

That's your opinion. I think 27-28" is fine for 4K displays. In fact, I can't use anything bigger, as I'd be sitting too close to the screen, which would be uncomfortable.

 

[MrAMD]

That's your opinion. I think 27-28" is fine for 4K displays. In fact, I can't use anything bigger, as I'd be sitting too close to the screen, which would be uncomfortable.

Just saying 1440p is already perfect for 27 inch displays. And 4K really only shines on larger panels while keeping high pixel density. I've had both, 28" & 32" 4K, and you really only to start to see the advantages when you scale the panel size up.

 

[Crustybeaver]

Please make the 4K versions in 32+ inches.. 27" is too small for 4K. Don't know why manufacturers keep forcing 4K on small screens.

24" = 1080p
27" = 1440p
32" = 2160p

I hear this sort of comment quite a lot, so just to clear up some confusion and misconceptions that you may have. The optimum viewing distance for a 27" monitor is 2.7ft. Most PC desk setup viewing distances would be approximately that. A 32" monitor has an optimum viewing distance of 3.2ft. So ultimately a 27" is not too small, it's all relative to how close you see to get the optimum picture. Now consider yourself educated.

https://www.inchcalculator.com/tv-size-viewing-distance-calculator/

 

[medi01]

Good to know that XB273K features 4k resolution, while XV273K only lousy UHD at god knows which refresh rate, but with some unexplained trick up its sleeve.


PS
Surprised TN matrix is on par with IPS in color gamut.

 

[MrAMD]

I hear this sort of comment quite a lot, so just to clear up some confusion and misconceptions that you may have. The optimum viewing distance for a 27" monitor is 2.7ft. Most PC desk setup viewing distances would be approximately that. A 32" monitor has an optimum viewing distance of 3.2ft. So ultimately a 27" is not too small, it's all relative to how close you see to get the optimum picture. Now consider yourself educated.

https://www.inchcalculator.com/tv-size-viewing-distance-calculator/

Thanks for the condensing comment... As if I didn't already know that. Which by the way is somewhat an moot argument compared to PPI on desktop configurations. People either want higher pixel density on the same size panel or keep high pixel density on larger screens which 4K provides both. 4K on 27" is fine. I've had that for years but once you go up you really see the other advantages, and imo the better implementation.

 

[Crustybeaver]

Thanks for the condensing comment... As if I didn't already know that. Which by the way is somewhat an moot argument compared to PPI on desktop configurations. People either want higher pixel density on the same size panel or keep high pixel density on larger screens which 4K provides both. 4K on 27" is fine. I've had that for years but once you go up you really see the other advantages, and imo the better implementation.

It's not moot because PPI and optimum viewing distance are relative. A 27" monitor with UHD resolution has a PPI of 163, a 32" screen with the same res has a PPI of 137. It just means to see the same picture quality to the point where you can't see the difference between the two ideally the viewing distance for the 27" would be around 2.7ft and the 32" around 3.2ft. So it's clearly apparent that either you don't have 20/20 vision or more likely you sit further from your monitor than the targeted audience.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Just saying 1440p is already perfect for 27 inch displays. And 4K really only shines on larger panels while keeping high pixel density. I've had both, 28" & 32" 4K, and you really only to start to see the advantages when you scale the panel size up.

Then Sir, I think you should go see an optician, as you need some eye sight correction. On a 4K screen, I can have two side by side 1920 wide windows open, which I can't on a lower resolution screen, regardless of physical size. As a productivity tool is way superior to lower resolution screens, at least for what I work with, so I can see the benefit just fine on a 27" screen.

 

[Vayra86]

I hear this sort of comment quite a lot, so just to clear up some confusion and misconceptions that you may have. The optimum viewing distance for a 27" monitor is 2.7ft. Most PC desk setup viewing distances would be approximately that. A 32" monitor has an optimum viewing distance of 3.2ft. So ultimately a 27" is not too small, it's all relative to how close you see to get the optimum picture. Now consider yourself educated.

https://www.inchcalculator.com/tv-size-viewing-distance-calculator/

Yep, and then ergonomics come into play and if you sit that close to that diagonal, you're leaning forward most of the time, which is going to kill your back and neck. And with larger diagonals you will be looking left and right all the time, which is also killing. There is a reason those PPI's have been rather stagnant over decades of monitor products.

Now, consider yourself properly educated. PPI between 95-120 is the sweet spot, going over that is a waste of pixel density and you might as well get lower res or higher diagonal. Of course, personal taste may be different, but its simply not healthy.

Good to know that XB273K features 4k resolution, while XV273K only lousy UHD at god knows which refresh rate, but with some unexplained trick up its sleeve.


PS
Surprised TN matrix is on par with IPS in color gamut.

Many TNs are in a good place these days when it comes to color accuracy and even contrast. But, tone shift still exists.

 

[Crustybeaver]

Yep, and then ergonomics come into play and if you sit that close to that diagonal, you're leaning forward most of the time, which is going to kill your back and neck. And with larger diagonals you will be looking left and right all the time, which is also killing. There is a reason those PPI's have been rather stagnant over decades of monitor products.

Now, consider yourself properly educated. PPI between 95-120 is the sweet spot, going over that is a waste of pixel density and you might as well get lower res or higher diagonal. Of course, personal taste may be different, but its simply not healthy.

Leaning forward? I have a Herman Miller chair, head sits firmly against the head rest. No head, neck or back issues. You're talking about your bum. 95-120 PPI is not the sweet spot because one size doesn't fit all. To say anything over that is wasted is utter nonsense. On your logic you're saying that I couldn't tell the difference between 1440p and 4K at my viewing distance. Feel free to reference my link I posted earlier about screen size/resolution and the optimum viewing distance. This is basic stuff, not sure how people are still getting confused.

 

[Joss]

On a 4K screen, I can have two side by side 1920 wide windows open, regardless of physical size

You have to consider how small things get with increased resolution on a given size.
On a 27 inch x1440 I scale things to 112%, that's my comfort zone.

 

[Crustybeaver]

You have to consider how small things get with increased resolution on a given size.
On a 27 inch x1440 I scale things to 112%, that's my comfort zone.

Ideally you should try and scale to rounded numbers like 125, 150 or 200 percent to get better scaling and smoothness