Acer XB270HU 27-Inch IPS 144Hz G-Sync Monitor Review
Brightness And Contrast
To read about our monitor tests in-depth, please check out Display Testing Explained: How We Test Monitors and TVs. Brightness and Contrast testing is covered on page two.
Uncalibrated – Maximum Backlight Level
Today's comparison group is a mix of G-Sync, FreeSync, IPS and TN panels. G-Sync screens include the Asus PG278Q and our review subject, Acer XB270HU. FreeSync is represented by the Acer XG270HU and BenQ XL2730Z. Rounding out the group is Monoprice's 120Hz IPS display and the Overlord Tempest X270OC.
The XB270HU puts out plenty of light and exceeds the manufacturer's claim by 10.6577cd/m2. That's a good thing because as you can see, there's a significant drop in brightness when ULMB is engaged. Acer chose not to include a variable pulse-width adjustment and it's sorely needed. Other screens we've tested can significantly reduce blur and maintain a longer pulse, resulting in more light.
If you can game at the lower light level created by ULMB, you'll be rewarded with a fantastic black level; .0979cd/m2 is barely visible unless the room is in total darkness.
Some monitors' blur-reduction feature reduces overall contrast but not the XB270HU. While the output reduction is large, contrast stays pretty much the same. The main bummer is you can't use G-Sync or 144Hz and ULMB at the same time. The upside is this Acer posts one of the best contrast results of any gaming monitor we've tested.
Uncalibrated – Minimum Backlight Level
This monitor has one of the widest-ranging backlight controls we've ever seen. At 5.7802cd/m2 you can't see much on the screen. It does make for a great black level measurement though.
.0057cd/m2 is the lowest black level we've ever measured on any monitor or television including our reference Pioneer Kuro plasma HDTV. Of course you'll be experiencing some eyestrain since there is so little peak output.
Contrast stays consistent throughout the backlight's adjustment range and the XB270HU retains its first-place contrast ranking. Please refer to our settings on the previous page if you want 50, 80, 100, 120 or 200cd/m2 for your peak white level.
After Calibration to 200cd/m2
The calibrated black level is very low thanks to well-designed RGB sliders and excellent gamma tracking, which we'll talk about on the next page. Blacks like these result in an image with superb depth and contrast.
Even after reducing the Contrast control two clicks, the XB270HU retains the top spot in our on/off contrast tests. To see this along with very accurate grayscale and gamma means this is one of the best-looking gaming monitors we've used to date.
ANSI Contrast Ratio
ANSI contrast is a little lower because of hotspots in the upper-left and lower-right corners of the screen. The hotspots aren't visible in the black field test, but the higher readings hurt overall intra-image contrast measurements just a little. This is still an excellent result though; we're very impressed with the quality of Acer's panel.
Have others been getting XB270HU out of the box with no dead pixels or noticible light bleed?
Yes... It was expensive but this is hands down, the best monitor I've ever owned.
Is what I meant to say. First comments get me a little overenthused sometimes!
Not to mention Acer is pretty good about the RMA process and replacement panels. Favorable to ASUS's "Under ten dead pixels is normal and not covered under warranty" policy...
It may be a nice monitor but that is still a hard sell given it is an Acer.
I was thinking the same thing but the difference between that and the ROG Swift is only 2ms black to white. This is more where the rubber meets the road.
I'd argue that a panel capable of a measured sub 5ms response really is indistinguishable from a panel that may offer 2ms advantages (ROG Swift). Gamers should be more concerned over the combined (response + signal processing) lag times, of which the XB270HU actually does better than the Swift. Of course, the ROG Swift and XB270HU both perform extremely well in this regard but the Swift simply cannot match the IQ of an IPS panel.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/content/acer_xb270hu.htm#lag
From TFTCentral:
"TN Film models like the Asus ROG Swift PG278Q might have had slightly faster pixel transitions by a few ms, but their overshoot was at moderate levels. We actually preferred the artefact-free fluidity of the panel here and response times were low enough to be able to cope with the high frame rates offered."
That said, I do think the price is a bit high but what other display can offer the same specifications?
Just looked it up and around 260 MPH or 119 M/S. It's going to take at least 1 frame just for your impulse to make it to your arm. That's after you see it and unconsciously react or consciously respond to the situation. Maybe I just am not understanding exactly HOW it makes a real difference. If you have any links or videos that prove otherwise,I would truly like to see them and I will freely admit I am wrong on this point.
This twitch CSGO "I need 200 fps to play right" thinking reminds me of audiophile wishful thinking over oxygen free audio cable being better than regular cable.
My IPS panels glow far less than any of the TN's I've ever owned. the last TN panel i owned glowed at off angles so badly you could see it at the top and bottom of the display even when sitting in its sweet spot. made using it at night difficult.
*edit* for gaming purposes, IDK about passive, like movie watching. I could see higher maybe then.
It is the peace of mind knowing that at least it wasn't the monitor that got them fragged... The 60Hz meatshields are always left wondering what happened during KillCam.
The faster you see what's on screen the faster you can react to it. You gain 26 milliseconds reaction time at 144 fps vs 30 fps. That's fps not hz.
1. This is still under the cycle time of 144Hz (6.94ms)
2. Colors rarely go from one end of the spectrum to the other. And even then, it's only the sub channels that may do it and humans are less sensitive to color than pure luma.
To put in perspective why response time is kind of meaningless, check out this post: http://www.overclock.net/t/1221711/what-does-response-time-2-ms-gray-to-gray-mean-in-specs#post_16578402 (note that a 14ms monitor somehow looks better than a 5ms monitor)
Also to those who claim 144Hz is automagically superior, just because you receive more information doesn't mean it's meaningful to you. The few tests I've found where there were as blind as possible testing between 60Hz and 144Hz, there's no conclusive evidence to suggest that 144Hz is objectively superior. I mean, we can blame media for making us used to 24FPS (but you also have to understand that those are preprocessed to hell and back to smooth out the motion whereas games have no such thing).
I mean, the average conscious reaction time for a visual cue by humans is allegedly 0.25 seconds. You could do better, if you were trained so that muscle memory takes over. And really, you can probably get that at 144Hz or 60Hz. I used to play StepMania and DDR at a paltry 30FPS and kick butt. Sure I prefer the 60 FPS versions now, but once muscle memory takes over, frame rate to a certain point is moot.
1.000692286 milliseconds — time taken for light to travel 300 km in a vacuum
2 milliseconds to 5 milliseconds - typical response time in LCD computer monitors, especially high-end displays
2.27 milliseconds — cycle time for A440 (pitch standard), the most commonly used pitch for tuning musical instruments
3 milliseconds — a housefly's wing flap
3.3 milliseconds — normal delay time between initiation and detonation of a C4 explosive charge
4 milliseconds — typical average seek time for a 10,000 rpm hard disk
5 milliseconds — a honey bee's wing flap
5 milliseconds to 80 milliseconds — a hummingbird's wing flap
8 milliseconds — 1/125 of a second, a standard camera shutter speed (125); fastest shifting time of a car's mechanical transmission
10 milliseconds (10 ms) — a jiffy, cycle time for frequency 100 Hz
16.67 milliseconds (1/60 second) — a third, cycle time for American 60 Hz AC electricity (mains grid)
16.68 milliseconds (1/59.94 second) — the amount of time one field lasts in 29.97 fps interlaced video (commonly erroneously referred to as 30 fps)
20 milliseconds — cycle time for European 50 Hz AC electricity
31.25 milliseconds - a hundred twenty-eighth note at MM = 60
33.367 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 29.97 fps video (most common for NTSC-legacy formats)
41.667 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 24 fps video (most common cinematic frame rate)
41.708 milliseconds — the amount of time one frame lasts in 23.976 fps video (cinematic frame rate for NTSC-legacy formats)
50 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Lamborghini Aventador
50 milliseconds — cycle time for the lowest audible tone, 20 Hz
60 milliseconds — cycle time for European 16.7 Hz AC electrified railroad power grid
60 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Ferrari 458 Spider
62.5 milliseconds — a sixty-fourth note at MM = 60
5 to 80 milliseconds — typical latency for a broadband internet connection (important for playing online games)
100 milliseconds — the time interval between gear changes on a Ferrari FXX
125 milliseconds — a thirty-second note at MM = 60
134 milliseconds — time taken by light to travel around the Earth's equator
150 milliseconds — recommended maximum time delay for telephone service
185 milliseconds — the duration of a full rotation of the main rotor on Bell 205, 212 and 412 helicopters (normal rotor speed is 324 RPM)
200 milliseconds — the time it takes the human brain to recognize emotion in facial expressions
250 milliseconds — a sixteenth note at MM = 60
300 to 400 milliseconds — the time for the human eye to blink
400 milliseconds — time in which the fastest baseball pitches reach the strike zone
430 to 500 milliseconds — common modern dance music tempos (120–140 BPM)
495 milliseconds — an approximate average of the round trip time for communications via geosynchronous satellites
500 milliseconds — an eighth note at MM = 60
860 milliseconds — average human resting heart cycle time
Over 75-80Hz improves both the image quality, motion, and fluidity of a game to a pretty large extent. Sit down and game with a 60Hz IPS panel for a few hours and switch to the XB270HU, the difference will be night and day. Why would technical review sites praise the benefits high refresh/144Hz if they did not believe the combination of low response/lag times and high refresh rates were superior to 60Hz 16.67ms panels?
For blur, the benefits are easily demonstrated.
http://testufo.com/#test=framerates