Acer Launches Affordable 4K 150 Hz Gaming Monitor

[TheLostSwede]

When it comes to affordable gaming monitors, Acer tends to be one of the main contenders among the well known brands out there and its latest addition is a 4K model with 150 Hz refresh rate. The Acer Nitro XV282K V3 is an updated version of a model that's been available for a few years now and although Acer didn't do any major changes to the overall specs, apart from that extra 6 Hz on the refresh rate, the company has dropped the MSRP by over half, making the Nitro XV282K V3 something of a bargain.

Feature wise we're looking at a 28-inch IPS panel with HDR 400 support and a 1 ms GTG response time. The panel is a typical 8-bit panel with FRC support for 10-bit dithering with a 1000:1 contrast ratio and a DCI-P3 colour gamut of 90 percent. It also has AMD FreeSync Premium support with a VRR range of 48 to 150 Hz. The port selection consists of one DP 1.4 and two HDMI 2.1 ports and should also feature some kind of USB inputs and outputs, but Acer didn't bother adding those to its website. That said, the older model had both a USB Type-C and Type-B input, as well as four USB-A outputs, so hopefully this was carried over to the updated model. There's also a height adjustable stand with tilt and pivot support. With a US$429.99 MSRP, it's likely that this could become one of the most affordable 4K gaming monitors out there.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[theouto]

>HDR 400 support
>1000:1 contrast ratio

Bit bold of them to advertise HDR when it's only there because, honestly no clue, it might as well not be there, it's just a bright panel

 

[las]

HDR will always be meh on a LCD panel.

Goood to see more 28 inch panels. I'd love to see more and new 28-30 inch 1440p/4K displays (because 32 inch is too big for most people). If I want 4K on a big screen I usually just output to my OLED TV.

1440p with DLAA looks sooo close to 4K. Shockingly close actually..

 

[FoulOnWhite]

HDR will always be meh on a LCD panel.

Goood to see more 28 inch panels. I'd love to see more and new 28-30 inch 1440p/4K displays (because 32 inch is too big for most people). If I want 4K on a big screen I usually just output to my OLED TV.

1440p with DLAA looks sooo close to 4K. Shockingly close actually..

HDR without FALD is pointless. OLED is the only way to view HDR

 

[TheLostSwede]

HDR without FALD is pointless. OLED is the only way to view HDR

Do you get a 4K 28-inch OLED monitor for $430?

 

[sLowEnd]

150hz is such a weird refresh rate

 

[theouto]

Do you get a 4K 28-inch OLED monitor for $430?

Don't forget 150hz

Also man, I wish OLEDs were that cheap, maybe in the future

 

[las]

Do you get a 4K 28-inch OLED monitor for $430?

Nah, but you don't get a quality 4K monitor for this price either.

Going 4K is pointless when panel is dirt cheap anyway.

If you can't afford a proper 4K monitor, how can you afford a machine that will run games in 4K.

 

[Ruru]

28" sounds pretty meh for 4K. At least I wouldn't switch to a smaller one from my 32"

 

[P4-630]

G-Sync compatible? If so what range.

 

[las]

28" sounds pretty meh for 4K. At least I wouldn't switch to a smaller one from my 32"

60 Hz is meh

 

[TheLostSwede]

150hz is such a weird refresh rate

It seems to be what they can overclock the driver board and display panel to.

Nah, but you don't get a quality 4K monitor for this price either.

Going 4K is pointless when panel is dirt cheap anyway.

If you can't afford a proper 4K monitor, how can you afford a machine that will run games in 4K.

The older model appears to be pretty decent.

Acer Nitro XV282K KVbmiipruzx Review

The Acer Nitro XV282K KVbmiipruzx is an excellent gaming monitor. It has a 4k resolution with a 144Hz refresh rate, and it's one of the first monitors to include...

www.rtings.com

See my system specs. I have a step up from this Acer, but it was only $50 more than the old 28" model.

 

[Macro Device]

32 inch is too big for most people

Yet it's ideal for 4K.

27" is only ideal for 1080p (if you prefer a million FPS) and 1440p (if you want maximum fidelity).

I'm personally a 31.5" 1080p enjoyer and the only trio reasons I'm not 100% satisfied are low refresh rate (75 Hz), Freesync absence, and 16:9 form factor. Wish I had a 100+ Hz Freesync 21:9 one. Huge pixels? I don't care, I'm 4 feet away from my display.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

It seems to be what they can overclock the driver board and display panel to.


The older model appears to be pretty decent.

Acer Nitro XV282K KVbmiipruzx Review

The Acer Nitro XV282K KVbmiipruzx is an excellent gaming monitor. It has a 4k resolution with a 144Hz refresh rate, and it's one of the first monitors to include...

www.rtings.com

See my system specs. I have a step up from this Acer, but it was only $50 more than the old 28" model.

interestingly Rtings says your monitor is only 144hz
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/acer/nitro-xv282k-kvbmiipruzx

Edit sorry google mixed up the models, doh, your 4k screen is pretty good

I did try a 4k monitor, but prefer the UW screen instead.

 

[Guwapo77]

If you can't afford a proper 4K monitor, how can you afford a machine that will run games in 4K.

You haven't seen the latest craze - DLSS, FSR, and XeSS?

 

[phanbuey]

Nah, but you don't get a quality 4K monitor for this price either.

Going 4K is pointless when panel is dirt cheap anyway.

If you can't afford a proper 4K monitor, how can you afford a machine that will run games in 4K.

It's for people that dual purpose the monitor -- you're doing work/desktop stuff in 4k for the text fidelity and quality, and you're gaming in 4k DLSS/FSR balanced or performance which still gives noticeably better visual fidelity than stock 1440P.

Best of both worlds really.

high quality 4K ips panels haven't been expensive for a while -- gigabyte M28 and M32 were like $600ish and $700-800ish respectively for almost 2 years now, so this is not crazy low or cheap.

 

[TheLostSwede]

It's for people that dual purpose the monitor -- you're doing work/desktop stuff in 4k for the text fidelity and quality, and you're gaming in 4k DLSS/FSR balanced or performance which still gives noticeably better visual fidelity than stock 1440P.

Best of both worlds really.

Yeah, 4K for work means I don't need two displays. Yes, two displays can have some other advantages, but as I can run two browsers or a browser and a word processor side by side on a 4K display at 1920 wide, makes it a lot more comfortable to work on compared to a 1440p monitor where you're at 1280 wide. Sure, an ultra-wide should be a bit better, but also takes up a lot more space than most 4K monitors, which I don't have at the moment for that matter.
But each to their own, not everyone feel it worthwhile to go 4K.

 

[Pumper]

What a dumb product. The people who have the PC hardware to make use of a 4K 150Hz display are not looking for "affordable" monitors.

 

[TheLostSwede]

What a dumb product. The people who have the PC hardware to make use of a 4K 150Hz display are not looking for "affordable" monitors.

I've never been able to afford a high-end monitor, so yes, there are people looking for affordable 4K monitors.
Admittedly I did skip the older version of this and went with a somewhat better 27" version, as it was only $50 more as pointed out above.
Also, look at the RTings review, it's really not that bad.

 

[las]

It's for people that dual purpose the monitor -- you're doing work/desktop stuff in 4k for the text fidelity and quality, and you're gaming in 4k DLSS/FSR balanced or performance which still gives noticeably better visual fidelity than stock 1440P.

Best of both worlds really.

high quality 4K ips panels haven't been expensive for a while -- gigabyte M28 and M32 were like $600ish and $700-800ish respectively for almost 2 years now, so this is not crazy low or cheap.

4K using DLSS at performance or balanced def don't look better than 1440p using DLAA LMAO. It will look horrible in comparison to 1440p.

I would rather have a high-end 1440p monitor with 240-360 Hz than a cheap 4K lousy panel that is for sure.

You haven't seen the latest craze - DLSS, FSR, and XeSS?

Yeah but going 4K using a cheap panel won't look games look great anyway. Low contrast IPS is kinda meh if your goal is visual quality. 4K/UHD using OLED or even better, QD-OLED, then we can talk.

Besides, 1440p RTX users can simply use DLDSR to get 4K visuals at 1080p or 1440p, without the 4K performance hit. It will look better than using native 4K with DLSS, FSR or XeSS at low presets for sure.

Going 4K is pointless if you don't go with a quality 4K monitor or TV. Looks horrible regardless, meaning zero HDR (or best case useless HDR) and low contrast with low refresh rate (yes below 144-150 Hz is considered low these days, when we talk gaming monitors)

 

[phanbuey]

4K using DLSS at performance or balanced def don't look better than 1440p using DLAA LMAO. It will look horrible in comparison to 1440p.

I would rather have a high-end 1440p monitor with 240-360 Hz than a cheap 4K lousy panel that is for sure.



Yeah but going 4K using a cheap panel won't look games look great anyway. Low contrast IPS is kinda meh if your goal is visual quality. 4K/UHD using OLED or even better, QD-OLED, then we can talk.

Besides, 1440p RTX users can simply use DLDSR to get 4K visuals at 1080p or 1440p, without the 4K performance hit. It will look better than using native 4K with DLSS, FSR or XeSS at low presets for sure.

Going 4K is pointless if you don't go with a quality 4K monitor or TV. Looks horrible regardless, meaning zero HDR (or best case useless HDR) and low contrast with low refresh rate (yes below 144-150 Hz is considered low these days, when we talk gaming monitors)

You have no idea what you're talking about - I've gone through 1440P 240 HZ, 4k OLED, 1440P 240Hz OLED, 3440x1440P ultrawide and vanilla fast IPS 4K.

Short of the 1440P 240Hz OLED, which is $1000, the 4k SS IPS panels are second in line, unless you go with an LG C2/C3 and don't care about 120Hz refresh.

4k DLSS balanced w/ sharpen looks and performs better than 1440P DLAA - it's sharper, more immersive, side by side, 1440P looks like someone took a blur filter to the image. DLAA doesn't account for massive pixel disparity.

1440P with DLDSR upscaling can match vanilla 4K with just DLSS but the framerates tank - if you're purely gaming and want the best then 1440P 240hz oled all the way - but if you do any work on that monitor then these are the runner up for 1/2 the price.

You're mistaking low price with cheap - these 28" panels are the same that are in the M28U, and they are some of the best IPS panels out there.
(16) Gigabyte M28U Review, Awesome Value 4K 144Hz for Gaming - YouTube

 

[FoulOnWhite]

You have no idea what you're talking about - I've gone through 1440P 240 HZ, 4k OLED, 1440P 240Hz OLED, 3440x1440P ultrawide and vanilla fast IPS 4K.

Short of the 1440P 240Hz OLED, which is $1000, the 4k SS IPS panels are second in line, unless you go with an LG C2/C3 and don't care about 120Hz refresh.

4k DLSS balanced w/ sharpen looks and performs better than 1440P DLAA - it's sharper, more immersive, side by side, 1440P looks like someone took a blur filter to the image. DLAA doesn't account for massive pixel disparity.

1440P with DLDSR upscaling can match vanilla 4K with just DLSS but the framerates tank - if you're purely gaming and want the best then 1440P 240hz oled all the way - but if you do any work on that monitor then these are the runner up for 1/2 the price.

You're mistaking low price with cheap - these 28" panels are the same that are in the M28U, and they are some of the best IPS panels out there.
(16) Gigabyte M28U Review, Awesome Value 4K 144Hz for Gaming - YouTube

You have a 4090 though, which not everyone has, so 4k is viable to game with a GPU like that, possibly even native without DLSS etc.

 

[HairyLobsters]

HDR without FALD is pointless. OLED is the only way to view HDR

What about Micro LED?

 

[Wye]

IPS panel with HDR 400 support and a 1 ms GTG response time

There is no such thing is as HDR 400.
DisplayHDR 400 is a sham "certification" created for monitors that don't have the brightness to show HDR.

You're going to get 10+ms response time on IPS.

This will be a dim smearfest.

Cheap - yes. Crappy - yes.

 

[phanbuey]

You have a 4090 though, which not everyone has, so 4k is viable to game with a GPU like that, possibly even native without DLSS etc.

Sure, and that's really why I got the 4090 -- but before the 4090 I had a 3080, 2080ti, 1080ti (stuck with nvidia over amd after the 1080ti because needed DLSS at 4k) etc... all pushed 4k / (1440P when testing the 240HZ va and OLED) - with tweaked settings.


My build tester card (which I still have and use) is a rx570... And even with the 570 I would still pick the 4k over 1440P just because the desktop usage is so much better at that ppi, it feels like a different computer.

I used to actually run a 24" 1440P panel with 125% scale for this same reason. No software uses bitmapped fonts anymore (except for super-custom IDE workstations that developers build for that purpose), and modern OS even at 1440P 27" PPI are not great (ok, but 4k much better).

For gaming you can always tune and tweak the games to run at 4k, especially with FSR2 improving in quality - you have more resolution render options.

There is no such thing is as HDR 400.
DisplayHDR 400 is a sham "certification" created for monitors that don't have the brightness to show HDR.

You're going to get 10+ms response time on IPS.

This will be a dim smearfest.

Cheap - yes. Crappy - yes.

Such a dim smearfest: