C&C if available for best price, otherwise note delivery/surcharges for store.
| Price | Store(s) |
|---|---|
| $188 | JW Computers |
| $189 | Centre Com |
| Umart | |
| MSY | |
| Kogan | |
| Dick Smith | |
| $198 | BPC Tech |
| $199 | Scorptec |
| Mwave | |
| PC Case Gear | |
| digiDirect | |
| CPL Online | |
| $202 | Amazon AU |
| $209 | Computer Alliance |
27 inch ✓
QHD ✓
IPS Panel ✓
100Hz ~
Good price for the specs for home office/casual gaming setup. See previous listings for more discussion on this monitor.
There's certainly a limit to what most people can see/feel! I think ~120 is my sweet spot though my monitor can do 170 (not that my 3060 Ti can always do that at 1440p), though OLED transitions have kinda changed how I view it all too (OLED TV, IPS LED monitors).
Response time is garbagio though, so if you're A/Bing this with something else, they're both just poorly-driven monitors. Central vision has object recognition up to 200 FPS, but central vision is also a very small part of visual acuity and falls well inside the full field of vision of this monitor at intended sitting distances (40-60 cms).
At the periphery, your motion perception benefits right up to a clean 1000 FPS (maximum response time would need to be 0.5ms across all transitions).
Do not buy this for gaming, it's the same panel binning as old, slow office monitors, just bundled with a newer Tcon.
So what should one buy in the ~$190 price range?
A fast 1080p monitor, or move up to the $210-$250 QHD 165Hz options that aren't Samsung G3 or G5.
Who is sitting at 40-60cm from the 27" monitor?
Most people, once you factor in typical desk sizes.
You don't push it back far like a 27" FHD monitor because then you won't really benefit from the resolution increase.
Is the monitor matte or glossy?
Matte.
Nice one. Looking for a secondary monitor. This might fit the bill.
I have two of these, absolute ripper monitors for the price
I have two I use for my work pc, they are great for the price.
Tempting indeed. WQHD btw
WQHD typically refers to 21:9 or 32:9 aspect ratio, this is 16:9.
Technically all of them are 'widescreen', but when was the last time you used anything with a native 4:3 aspect ratio like old CRT monitors and TVs? 16:9 has been the standard for over 20 years.
Well, it’s in the website’s description, so perhaps erroneously.
It is technically widescreen, but you're not getting 4:3 QHD in this century in a standard monitor. It's a 27" monitor with 2560x1440 resolution, this is a pretty normal thing, and the deal is OK so long as you understand it's not a monitor suitable for gaming.
WQHD refers to 16:9, UWQHD is 21:9 and DQHD is 32:9
If we're being strict, yes, but it's a confusing term when it's the narrowest format most people use today.
I tend to pick opposing '2560x1440 is 2K' as the hill to die on.
Someone on Amazon reviews said this supports VRR for his Xbox, which means that's over HDMI 2.0b. Not bad.
Not necessarily in bandwidth, it might just have HDMI VRR support. Response times are arguably not good enough for 60Hz gaming, let alone 100Hz. XBox would only deliver 60 and 120Hz anyway.
it's always Dell for me
No difference . MSI for me.
iv got one as my work screen in portrait.
can fit email up top and invoicing down the bottom perfectly
a big improvement over 1080p
use code "4LB4969JSI" at checkout @jw for $10 off. so it's $178 + delivery instead
Ideal!
100hz is my jam for gaming, I spent a long time testing and it seems I stop reliably being able to A/B refresh rates after 95~97hz.