Acer XB270HU 27-Inch IPS 144Hz G-Sync Monitor Review
Grayscale Tracking And Gamma Response
Our grayscale and gamma tests are described in detail here.
The default Warm color temp preset on the XB270HU is still a bit cooler than D65, especially at the higher brightness levels. The errors become visible at 60 percent and above. The only way to improve upon it is to adjust the RGB sliders as we've done below.
With a few tweaks and a change in the contrast control, grayscale tracking is now very flat with all errors below two Delta E. It's not quite in the realm of a professional screen but it's close. This is excellent performance.
Here is our comparison group.
Out of the box, the XB270HU comes in just below the three Delta E threshold. While it's a decent average error level, it's mainly supported by greater accuracy at lower light levels. The brighter steps have a visible blue/green tint.
Calibration drops the average error to a very low 1.18dE. Now all brightness levels show a perfect neutral gray tone. The Overlord wins the day here because it requires a software LUT calibration. All the other screens are calibrated with their OSDs.
Gamma Response
This is one of the best gamma results we've seen in a while. In looking over all our past data, we can see that IPS has a distinct advantage over TN in gamma tracking. It's not a universal constant; some TN screens show excellent gamma. But nearly all the IPS panels we've measured track extremely well. Not only does it improve the viewer's perception of dynamic range, it helps with color gamut accuracy as well.
Here is our comparison group again.
Gamma doesn't get much tighter than this. A .09 variance is about as close to perfect as we've seen. Even the Overlord Tempest with its LUT calibration can't quite match the XB270HU.
We calculate gamma deviation by simply expressing the difference from 2.2 as a percentage.
The average gamma value is 2.15; a little below the line, which means it's a tiny bit too bright. Will you see the difference? We can't and we doubt anyone will. What you're seeing here is gamma tracking with no peaks or dips at all.
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