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

[Chaitanya]

Power Consumption (On) 68W
Power Consumption (Sleep) <0.5W
Power Consumption (Off) <0.3W

***Image is downscaled to native resolution.
But it can only do 30 or 60Hz.

Is 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?

 

[isvelte]

and no mention of power consumption figures.
Also its odd that native and max resolution are different.
View attachment 218902

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.

 

[TheLostSwede]

Is 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.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

It 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!

 

[Chomiq]

I 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.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1443887872038379527

https://twitter.com/x/status/1443888127672737793

https://twitter.com/x/status/1443889047903121414

Link to full written review:

Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 - PC Monitors

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.

 

[TheLostSwede]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1443887872038379527

https://twitter.com/x/status/1443888127672737793

https://twitter.com/x/status/1443889047903121414

Link to full written review:

Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 - PC Monitors

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.

Not a cool move by that site.

 

[Chomiq]

Not 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.

 

[TheLostSwede]

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.

Then be upset with the forum user, don't hang out the site.

 

[Chrispy_]

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.

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.

 

[Chomiq]

Then be upset with the forum user, don't hang out the site.

And he was:

If any of you are members of Tech Powerup, please respond to the clueless trolls over there - https://techpowerup.com/forums/threads/this-view-is-spectacular-corsair-debuts-the-xeneon-32qhd165-gaming-monitor.287342/#post-4617000.

He even linked the specific post by @Vayra86

It's you that's trying to play it like he's pissed at TPU.

 

[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

 

[Chaitanya]

I 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.

 

[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.

 

[Mussels]

and no mention of power consumption figures.
Also its odd that native and max resolution are different.
View attachment 218902

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.

 

[Sybaris_Caesar]

@Chomiq @TheLostSwede
What the hell?! You two even use the same avatar in Twitter And the swedish smartass even names his account as LG

 

[R-T-B]

Then be upset with the forum user, don't hang out the site.

Exactly. Tweeting about a forum rando is just petty.

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.

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.

 

[Mussels]

Exactly. 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.

 

[Chrispy_]

There's something odd about it, when the scaler comes off as native res that i've not seen before
View attachment 219332View attachment 219333
(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.

 

[Mussels]

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.

 

[Chrispy_]

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.

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.

 

[isvelte]

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.

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.

 

[Mussels]

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.