GIGABYTE Announces Availability of AORUS AD27QD Tactical Gaming Monitor

[btarunr]

GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd, a leading manufacturer of motherboards and graphics cards, has launched the world's first tactical gaming monitor, AORUS AD27QD, today. Heading into a new market, AORUS is well prepared and confident that the exclusive features on the monitor can give gamers a tactical advantage over their enemies while gaming. AORUS AD27QD is a 27inch flat screen frameless monitor.

It uses an IPS panel with QHD (2560x1440, 2K) resolution and a 144Hz refresh rate in 1ms (MPRT) response time. Not only is the view angle up to 178 degrees, it also meets 95% DCI-P3 standards along with 10bits color, so the monitor can provide users astonishingly beautiful pictures. On top of that, the monitor has passed VESA certified DisplayHDR 400 standards which gives users spectacular display quality; With AMD Radeon FreeSync​ technology, the monitor can provide the most fluent gaming experience to let you enjoy your gaming without picture stripping.



The key idea of our outer design is to replicate the dive of a falcon when it is pursuing its prey. When you look at the back of the product, you can see a falcon diving downwards with the glowing eyes of the falcon on the side of the stand and its wings flapping along with the LEDs flashing on the back of the panel. In order to achieve this, we used digital RGB LEDs instead of traditional LEDs.. We care not only about the appearance of our product as ergonomic design is also important to us so we added in several ergonomic features carefully without affecting the design theme. We designed a handle on the top of the stand so that users can easily move their monitor around without any trouble. We also considered that cable management is important to our users, so we designed a rubber cable tie just below the ports and reserved a hole at the bottom of our stand to let the cables go through nicely.

There are lots of exclusive features on this new monitor and they are all delicately designed to meet the gamers' needs giving them a tactical advantage in game. Features such as Black Equalizer, Aim Stabilizer, GameAssist, hardware information Dashboard, OSD Sidekick, and the most unique feature of all, the Active Noise Cancelling function,are all designed to let gamers gain more control of the game and their PC system.

AORUS' tactical features are explained below:

• Black Equalizer：Brightens up the dark parts in the picture for better visibility in dark areas.
• Aim Stabilizer：This feature will help you reduce the blurriness of the recoil effect while you are shooting in an FPS game. It can also help you trace moving enemies much easier.
• GameAssist：This is a kit of OSD functions that helps you in game. It includes a customizable crosshair, a counter, a timer, and multi-screen alignment lines.
• AORUS Dashboard：We can display hardware information directly on screen, such as mouse DPI and GPU/CPU information.
• OSD Sidekick：You can now control the monitor through this software and control your OSD with mouse and keyboard. A much easier way to adjust your monitor.
• Active Noise Cancelling(ANC)：When you plug your mic into the monitor, it can help you cancel the noise around you. The only thing that goes through the mic when you are communicating with your teammate is your voice.

By utilizing these features well, gamers can create a huge advantage overtheir enemies, making this monitor not just a monitor but tactical equipment; tactical equipment that can help gamers control the tempo of the game better.

The AORUS AD27QD monitor uses a joystick to control its OSD, making controlling the OSD a lot easier. Besides the joystick, the OSD Sidekick software can be used to adjust your monitor with your mouse. Moreover, you can set hot keys for every special feature we provide to adjust or switch features on the fly while you are gaming. In addition, the features are directly displayed on the monitor through the hardware solution so you won't need to worry that the features will be blocked by the game you are playing.

The AORUS AD27QD also provides PIP/PBP display mode, which can let you display 2 screens in one monitor. It will be a lot easier for playing a game and watching the game's guide on YouTube at the same time. Moreover, you can always switch the audio to the one you desire by a simple click. A great solution for people who don't have two monitors.

The AORUS AD27QD monitor also has anti-blue light and flicker free features. With built in power, gamers will only need to carry a simple power cable with them while transporting the monitor, no more heavy adapters. On top of that, the USB port on the monitor can provide 5V/1.5A quick charge, very convenient for gamers to charge up their smartphones.

The stand of the AORUS AD27QD is very flexible as well. It can spin 90 degrees for a vertical screen, rotate 20 degrees sideways and -5 to21 degrees up/down, and its height is adjustable up to 130 cm. The AORUS AD27QD provides 2 HDMIs, 1 DP, and 2 USB 3.0 ports, with an audio jack and a mic jack. Gamers can also update the OSD firmware through the OSD Commander software for the most updated gaming experience.

For more information, visit the product page.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Vayra86]

Tactical? You mean tacky

Also, thanks for providing noise cancelling on a monitor.
I guess they really ran out of good ideas on this one. This is next level BS..

EDIT: NVM its an IPS... with 1ms + horrible overshoot/ghosting. Sweet!

 

[Valantar]

Going by the spec sheet, this actually looks rather nice (unlike the design, which is tacky af), but as mentioned above, we need reviews to actually tell us what image quality is like. If response times live up to the spec, and ghosting (and haloing) is under control across the refresh rate range, this could be pretty good, despite looking terrible. One "innovation" deserves kudos, though, even if it is the most obvious thing ever (and I can't believe this isn't common on monitors in 2019!): the ability to control the OSD through your PC, and thus actually have communication between your PC and your monitor outside of the pure display signal. Seriously, how difficult can this be? I suppose it's a lucky by-product of programmable RGB, as that already requires a USB-connected control board that also interfaces with the OSD. Simple things like not being able to control monitor brightness with the function keys on my keyboard (why?!?) is part of what still makes the PC experience janky and unintuitive. Is it so much to expect your connected electronics to actually communicate with each other in meaningful ways?

 

[ab3e]

But can it run G-Sync )))))) ..............

 

[TheLostSwede]

First quick review here - https://lab501.ro/diverse/prezentare-aorus-ad27qd-gaming-monitor
Sadly lacking any kind of game tests, but I guess they'll do a followup with those.

 

[Octopuss]

Omg, RBG monitor... go away! Where are any producs for humans with half a brain left?

 

[Vayra86]

First quick review here - https://lab501.ro/diverse/prezentare-aorus-ad27qd-gaming-monitor
Sadly lacking any kind of game tests, but I guess they'll do a followup with those.

That looks an awful lot like super standard IPS.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Omg, RBG monitor... go away! Where are any producs for humans with half a brain left?

kinda ironic

 

[Valantar]

That looks an awful lot like super standard IPS.

Well, standard IPS with pretty exceptional calibration, at least. Contrast at 1151:1 is okay, average deltaE at .58 is exceptional, as is maximum deltaE of 1.33 - that is pro grade color accuracy, near reference grade. Uniformity looks pretty decent too. None of this tells us anything at all about motion, though, which i suppose is the most important part. Still that color accuracy combined with the refresh rate and FreeSync puts it quite high up my monitor wish list. I'm not very sensitive to ghosting and the like, though.

 

[Mistral]

But can it run G-Sync )))))) ..............

But can nVidia cards run VRR?

 

[Bonk]

Well, standard IPS with pretty exceptional calibration, at least. Contrast at 1151:1 is okay, average deltaE at .58 is exceptional, as is maximum deltaE of 1.33 - that is pro grade color accuracy, near reference grade. Uniformity looks pretty decent too. None of this tells us anything at all about motion, though, which i suppose is the most important part. Still that color accuracy combined with the refresh rate and FreeSync puts it quite high up my monitor wish list. I'm not very sensitive to ghosting and the like, though.

Is 1ms response time on this IPS panel just a marketing fluff?

 

[Vayra86]

Is 1ms response time on this IPS panel just a marketing fluff?

Most IPS get there with at least some overshoot, which is also referred to as ghosting. A vague double image. Doesn't have to be a huge thing, some overdrive modes are really good and if the monitor has strobing, the effect is also mostly eliminated.

Well, standard IPS with pretty exceptional calibration, at least. Contrast at 1151:1 is okay, average deltaE at .58 is exceptional, as is maximum deltaE of 1.33 - that is pro grade color accuracy, near reference grade. Uniformity looks pretty decent too. None of this tells us anything at all about motion, though, which i suppose is the most important part. Still that color accuracy combined with the refresh rate and FreeSync puts it quite high up my monitor wish list. I'm not very sensitive to ghosting and the like, though.

Yes, doesn't look bad at all. But then you don't get these monitors for color accuracy (most people don't). Contrast is just standard IPS, whether it is 1000:1 or 1150:1 is never noticeable. You need major differences to have an effect there (even 3000:1 versus 5000:1 is only a minor visual difference). Uniformity is an important one though. Another couple I feel are vital to have in order are IPS glow and backlight bleed / black point cd/m.

 

[Valantar]

Most IPS get there with at least some overshoot, which is also referred to as ghosting. A vague double image. Doesn't have to be a huge thing, some overdrive modes are really good and if the monitor has strobing, the effect is also mostly eliminated.



Yes, doesn't look bad at all. But then you don't get these monitors for color accuracy (most people don't). Contrast is just standard IPS, whether it is 1000:1 or 1150:1 is never noticeable. You need major differences to have an effect there (even 3000:1 versus 5000:1 is only a minor visual difference). Uniformity is an important one though. Another couple I feel are vital to have in order are IPS glow and backlight bleed / black point cd/m.

Absolutely - my impression is that noticeable contrast differences are about ratios, not absolute numbers - i.e. an increase from 1000:1 to 2000:1 (100% increase) would be far more noticeable than 3000:1 to 5000:1 (66% increase). I was pointing out 1150:1 as "decent" only in comparison with "bad" IPS displays that fall around 6-800:1 - but I would be quite shocked to see that in a monitor like this. IPS glow is sadly difficult to measure in any consistent way, but it's still important. Backlight bleed is also important, but also variable on a panel-to-panel basis, which makes any sample size of one problematic. Still, the more we know, the better, obviously. In-depth monitor testing is really far too rare, especially considering that it's our main way of interfacing with our computers.

 

[stimpy88]

It was all going so well, its ugly and full of RGB stuff I don't need, but I thought I had maybe found my new monitor... Then I see 1000:1 contrast ratio... That's it, I'm out.

Why don't they get it through their thick heads that IPS is over now. Nobody in their right mind would want a IPS panel with a contrast ratio of a cheap HDTV from 12 years ago, here in 2019, and for a premium price!

There are so many good panel options besides TN and IPS these days, and some offer 5000:1 contrast ratios, but most offer 3000:1, which to be honest, is a day and night difference when sat next to one of these IPS things, I know, I have one and really want to upgrade!

Just give us a nice wide colour support, same as this monitor, a 10bit AVMA panel with 3000:1 contrast ratio, 144Hz support, and no 1080p nonsense, just a nice old 2560x1440 or maybe offer a nice 32" 4K version with the same specs too.

Sell it for a fair price, not this $2,500 BS, and people will buy it, wanna know why? Because you simply cannot get a monitor that offers all these specs at once!

Oh, and none of this curved nonsense, thank you very much!

 

[Valantar]

It was all going so well, its ugly and full of RGB stuff I don't need, but I thought I had maybe found my new monitor... Then I see 1000:1 contrast ratio... That's it, I'm out.

Why don't they get it through their thick heads that IPS is over now. Nobody in their right mind would want a IPS panel with a contrast ratio of a cheap HDTV from 12 years ago, here in 2019, and for a premium price!

There are so many good panel options besides TN and IPS these days, and some offer 5000:1 contrast ratios, but most offer 3000:1, which to be honest, is a day and night difference when sat next to one of these IPS things, I know, I have one and really want to upgrade!

Just give us a nice wide colour support, same as this monitor, a 10bit AVMA panel with 3000:1 contrast ratio, 144Hz support, and no 1080p nonsense, just a nice old 2560x1440 or maybe offer a nice 32" 4K version with the same specs too.

Sell it for a fair price, not this $2,500 BS, and people will buy it, wanna know why? Because you simply cannot get a monitor that offers all these specs at once!

Oh, and none of this curved nonsense, thank you very much!

"IPS is over now" - nah, sorry, that's simply not true. Color reproduction is an area where IPS is still superior to VA both on average and in the best panels. VA has the potential for better response times (though with similar artefacting) and far superior contrast, but whether color or contrast is more important is both a matter of taste and use case. VA also generally has far worse consistency than IPS. There are of course very good VA panels out there, but there are more bad VA panels than bad IPS panels. Still, the "dream monitor" spec list that I've been developing does have a ~34" 3440x1440 VA panel, simply as they seem more readily available at higher refresh rates - particularly with an 1800r curve, which I see as a necessity for a 34" ultrawide. My 27" 16:9 is fine flat, but adding 15cm to each side of the display without curving it would make it look like it's curving away from me. No thanks.

 

[stimpy88]

"IPS is over now" - nah, sorry, that's simply not true. Color reproduction is an area where IPS is still superior to VA both on average and in the best panels. VA has the potential for better response times (though with similar artefacting) and far superior contrast, but whether color or contrast is more important is both a matter of taste and use case. VA also generally has far worse consistency than IPS. There are of course very good VA panels out there, but there are more bad VA panels than bad IPS panels. Still, the "dream monitor" spec list that I've been developing does have a ~34" 3440x1440 VA panel, simply as they seem more readily available at higher refresh rates - particularly with an 1800r curve, which I see as a necessity for a 34" ultrawide. My 27" 16:9 is fine flat, but adding 15cm to each side of the display without curving it would make it look like it's curving away from me. No thanks.

I beg to differ. IPS is an ancient tech that used to be revered in the day where TN panels were the "best", and they had 600:1 contrast ratios, terrible viewing angles and about 65% sRGB colour rendering. IPS may still be the big thing if your a serious graphics or visual effects artist, but general Windows/Internet/Office apps and games do not suffer for another 3% colour accuracy variation. 99% of people probably can't even notice the difference in colour rendering between between a calibrated IPS and a calibrated VA panel.

Your argument made sense 5 years ago, just as it made sense to me, as I would not buy anything other than an IPS 4 years ago when I bought my latest monitor. But I'm fed up with the IPS glow that renders half the screen with a contrast ratio of about 400:1, and I'm quite happy to put up with a 2% colour variation over the screen, compared to the crazy differences in contrast (and colour, logically) I get from my quality IPS monitor now, in order to gain a more modern looking 3000:1 contrast ratio, which is very noticeable, at least to me, and even my wife!

It's funny that you will argue over an IPS versus a VP panel, and it's near imperceptible colour inaccuracies, but you will accept a curved screen? Go figure! I like my geometry nice and undistorted, as well as the bad brightness (and therefore also colour) variations many curved screens suffer with, thank you. I do totally get the argument for a curved screen for gaming and movie watching use, but for me I could not accept it in any other use case. I game, but not exclusively, and I go sit in my home theatre when I want to watch a movie, or TV, the rest of the time is Windows/Internet and office apps for me, I think the average user. If I had unlimited money, I would have a seperate PC and monitor for Gaming, and that would have a nice curved monitor.

I just have $1000 set aside for a new monitor, and not one monitor manufacturer wants it. I refuse to spend more than $2000 on a small PC gaming monitor with awful specs compared to my 4 year old 55" HDTV which cost the same!

 

[Valantar]

I beg to differ. IPS is an ancient tech that used to be revered in the day where TN panels were the "best", and they had 600:1 contrast ratios, terrible viewing angles and about 65% sRGB colour rendering. IPS may still be the big thing if your a serious graphics or visual effects artist, but general Windows/Internet/Office apps and games do not suffer for another 3% colour accuracy variation. 99% of people probably can't even notice the difference in colour rendering between between a calibrated IPS and a calibrated VA panel.

Your argument made sense 5 years ago, just as it made sense to me, as I would not buy anything other than an IPS 4 years ago when I bought my latest monitor. But I'm fed up with the IPS glow that renders half the screen with a contrast ratio of about 400:1, and I'm quite happy to put up with a 2% colour variation over the screen, compared to the crazy differences in contrast (and colour, logically) I get from my quality IPS monitor now, in order to gain a more modern looking 3000:1 contrast ratio, which is very noticeable, at least to me, and even my wife!

It's funny that you will argue over an IPS versus a VP panel, and it's near imperceptible colour inaccuracies, but you will accept a curved screen? Go figure! I like my geometry nice and undistorted, as well as the bad brightness (and therefore also colour) variations many curved screens suffer with, thank you. I do totally get the argument for a curved screen for gaming and movie watching use, but for me I could not accept it in any other use case. I game, but not exclusively, and I go sit in my home theatre when I want to watch a movie, or TV, the rest of the time is Windows/Internet and office apps for me, I think the average user. If I had unlimited money, I would have a seperate PC and monitor for Gaming, and that would have a nice curved monitor.

I just have $1000 set aside for a new monitor, and not one monitor manufacturer wants it. I refuse to spend more than $2000 on a small PC gaming monitor with awful specs compared to my 4 year old 55" HDTV which cost the same!

I agree that too many curved monitors have poor uniformity, mostly caused by poor designs or poor QC. For me, this would be mainly a gaming monitor, though it would see a decent amount of web browsing and stuff too. I purposely avoided getting a curved ultrawide at work (really don't understand why the university I work at offers that as an option), as I far prefer my dual monitor setup for office work. As for distorted geometry, that doesn't really matter much in your peripheral vision, as anything there is distorted anyhow, and the focal area of the human eye is small enough that a ~35" 1800R curved monitor shouldn't be visibly distorted - at least not to the point where I'd be bothered by it. I'm more interested in having all the screen at a similar viewing distance, so that my eyes don't have to refocus all the time if I look around quickly. As I said, for 16:9 27" (and likely larger) flat is perfectly fine, and I wouldn't want a curved 16:9 monitor. But for ultrawides, it seems like the way to go for me.

As for IPS glow, I'm starting to think that I'm either not sensitive to it or simply haven't had enough experience with good monitors that don't have it - I just checked my U2711, and from my normal sitting position I can see some glow in the bottom corners, but that's with a pure black screen. Don't think I've ever noticed it in use. Still, this is a good panel (or at least was, in 2011), so I assume there are panels out there with far worse glow than this. Now you're making me wish I could try out a VA panel for a few weeks to see how I liked it

When it comes to pricing, though, we're in complete agreement. My U2711 was around 5000NOK in 2011, which was very, very high by consumer monitor standards back then. I have yet to find a monitor as good (1440p, 10-bit, >90% Adobe RGB, ergonomic stand) with a modern feature set that isn't significantly more expensive - seven years later. To me, that doesn't add up.

 

[stimpy88]

I agree that too many curved monitors have poor uniformity, mostly caused by poor designs or poor QC. For me, this would be mainly a gaming monitor, though it would see a decent amount of web browsing and stuff too. I purposely avoided getting a curved ultrawide at work (really don't understand why the university I work at offers that as an option), as I far prefer my dual monitor setup for office work. As for distorted geometry, that doesn't really matter much in your peripheral vision, as anything there is distorted anyhow, and the focal area of the human eye is small enough that a ~35" 1800R curved monitor shouldn't be visibly distorted - at least not to the point where I'd be bothered by it. I'm more interested in having all the screen at a similar viewing distance, so that my eyes don't have to refocus all the time if I look around quickly. As I said, for 16:9 27" (and likely larger) flat is perfectly fine, and I wouldn't want a curved 16:9 monitor. But for ultrawides, it seems like the way to go for me.

As for IPS glow, I'm starting to think that I'm either not sensitive to it or simply haven't had enough experience with good monitors that don't have it - I just checked my U2711, and from my normal sitting position I can see some glow in the bottom corners, but that's with a pure black screen. Don't think I've ever noticed it in use. Still, this is a good panel (or at least was, in 2011), so I assume there are panels out there with far worse glow than this. Now you're making me wish I could try out a VA panel for a few weeks to see how I liked it

When it comes to pricing, though, we're in complete agreement. My U2711 was around 5000NOK in 2011, which was very, very high by consumer monitor standards back then. I have yet to find a monitor as good (1440p, 10-bit, >90% Adobe RGB, ergonomic stand) with a modern feature set that isn't significantly more expensive - seven years later. To me, that doesn't add up.

I really can see how nice a huge ultrawide curved monitor would be for gaming, I wish I could try or own a setup like that, but for me, I'm stuck at the desk, and it's a shared home office with the wife, so it needs a certain amount of WAF factor! But I really can understand why you would enjoy that setup, and find your point about the focal area interesting. I come from the CRT days, or should I say portable black and white television as a "computer monitor" generation, and the day I first used an LCD panel was a revelation! Perfect geometry, not magnetic/electrical CRT artifacts of any kind. It was how a computer was supposed to show itself! Keeping that in mind, I can't imagine how I would cope with using the line tool in Photoshop, and cope with the curve being added to it from the screen. I totally understand and accept that when your watching movies or playing most video games, curved is more involving, and more encompassing of your vision, and helps correct human eye optical shortfalls to an extent, but I just can't imagine a UI with falsely curved lines all over the screen... It's probably just me, or at most, my generation.

But god, I do not understand the PC monitor market at all. Glacial does not describe the process it has seen. Infact curved monitors are probably the only new thing to actually happen to them, and maybe shifting from fluorescent backlights to LED is also another "big" move, but that's basically it. The odd thing in my mind, is that LCD tech has come a long way in the HDTV domain, yet almost none of that tech ever filters down to PC monitors, with the exception of high refresh rate panels, which was a HDTV thing 5 years ago, and is only now available to the masses, but even then, only certain panels.

When Samsung announced that they were going to enter the PC monitor market, I thought things would change, as they would basically rebox their HDTVs, but they only did that for the very beginning, and with crap TN panels. No wide colour, no high refresh rate, no IPS or VA, just the same shit everybody else was putting out at the time, and that hasn't changed to this day. Samsung makes the panels, but seldom uses good ones in their monitors, which is odd to me, as they have the vertical integration to make killer monitors, and dominate the market, but then don't...

For years now, the best computer monitors for large screen, high resolution use has been a good quality HDTV, they are 10 years ahead of the PC market. Our only hope is Micro LED, but god knows how that is going to work out, or how long that will take.

 

[Valantar]

I really can see how nice a huge ultrawide curved monitor would be for gaming, I wish I could try or own a setup like that, but for me, I'm stuck at the desk, and it's a shared home office with the wife, so it needs a certain amount of WAF factor! But I really can understand why you would enjoy that setup, and find your point about the focal area interesting. I come from the CRT days, or should I say portable black and white television as a "computer monitor" generation, and the day I first used an LCD panel was a revelation! Perfect geometry, not magnetic/electrical CRT artifacts of any kind. It was how a computer was supposed to show itself! Keeping that in mind, I can't imagine how I would cope with using the line tool in Photoshop, and cope with the curve being added to it from the screen. I totally understand and accept that when your watching movies or playing most video games, curved is more involving, and more encompassing of your vision, and helps correct human eye optical shortfalls to an extent, but I just can't imagine a UI with falsely curved lines all over the screen... It's probably just me, or at most, my generation.

But god, I do not understand the PC monitor market at all. Glacial does not describe the process it has seen. Infact curved monitors are probably the only new thing to actually happen to them, and maybe shifting from fluorescent backlights to LED is also another "big" move, but that's basically it. The odd thing in my mind, is that LCD tech has come a long way in the HDTV domain, yet almost none of that tech ever filters down to PC monitors, with the exception of high refresh rate panels, which was a HDTV thing 5 years ago, and is only now available to the masses, but even then, only certain panels.

When Samsung announced that they were going to enter the PC monitor market, I thought things would change, as they would basically rebox their HDTVs, but they only did that for the very beginning, and with crap TN panels. No wide colour, no high refresh rate, no IPS or VA, just the same shit everybody else was putting out at the time, and that hasn't changed to this day. Samsung makes the panels, but seldom uses good ones in their monitors, which is odd to me, as they have the vertical integration to make killer monitors, and dominate the market, but then don't...

For years now, the best computer monitors for large screen, high resolution use has been a good quality HDTV, they are 10 years ahead of the PC market. Our only hope is Micro LED, but god knows how that is going to work out, or how long that will take.

While I agree with you on some points, on others I think you go a bit too far.

One easily understood explanation for the difference between TVs and PC monitors is cost vs. TAM: TVs outsell PC monitors by probably 100:1 or more, and are easier to produce (if more costly in materials) thanks to far lower pixel densities. Most TVs, even 4K ones, have quite large gaps between pixels, which even shrunk down proportionally to the shrink to monitor size would make for a checkerboard effect when viewed at monitor viewing distances. It's far easier to make a panel for viewing at >3m than 1m.

As for differences in panel quality, that also comes down to manufacturing scale to some degree - producing a good VA or IPS panel is far easier to stomach if you can sell a million of them a year than if you sell 5000 or 10 000, especially if the panel itself is easier to make - the amortization of R&D costs per panel would be so much smaller. But there are also plenty of good panels for PCs - they're just marketed (and priced) as "premium" models, and contrary to TVs, a lot more people have a much more utilitarian view of PC monitors, leading them to buy the cheapest crap they can find, no matter how dumb that is. Then there's all the fake crap in the TV space - most "high refresh rate" TVs a few years back relied on various forms of software and LCD driver trickery to fake smoother motion (remember those "600Hz" ones?). It's not like they had any kind of inputs capable of handling refresh rates above 60p anyhow, so that point is pretty much moot. There has been a growing focus in the TV space on color reproduction, with wider gamuts gaining traction - something that'll hopefully trickle down to PC monitors (it seems to be doing so already), but that'll take time.

Then there's the fact that the general consumer tolerance for spending $1000 or more on a TV is far higher than spending the same on a monitor, even among PC enthusiasts. TVs are seen as multi-use objects for the entire household, while monitors are seen as single-use appliances for one person - and price tolerances vary accordingly. Then there's the (recently clarified, but well known previously) data harvesting and ad delivery in most smart TVs, allowing manufacturers to make money off your purchase long after you've paid for it. Thankfully, monitors don't have that crap.

I agree that it's a shame that the monitor market hasn't reached a lot of its current goals already (readily available HDR, better color gamuts, individual calibration on more products, etc.), but it's also understandable. PC monitors have had a pretty fixed replacement speed throughout their existence, while TVs went from 10-20-year investments to 2-5-year "gadgets" once LCD HDTVs took off. Frankly, I'd like to see the TV makers slow down (seriously. 8k? 8k is useless crap, nobody needs or wants it), particularly due to the millions of tons of e-waste created by their ever-stronger push for replacing your TV with something new and shiny. For now, it would be enough for monitors to catch up to the best TVs.