Acer Nitro XV273K - 27", 4k, 144Hz, Strobing, 10-bit, 97%+ DCI-P3, HDR 400, Freesync/"Gsync"

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_nitro_xv273k.htm#vrb
TFT Central Recommended (their "highest" award).

Ticks every box one could want (except for those that don't want IPS panels). Only missing FALD, which lowers the level of HDR to only 400, but at $900, it's $1100 less than the X27 Predator. A tradeoff that I think is worth it.
4K, 144Hz, Freesync, 97%+ DCI-P3 (as shown in testing), HDR 400, 10-bit (8+FRC, but a very good implementation), PWM Free, 2x DP 1.4 (of course), 2x HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2, <$1000.


Not sure why no one on the board is talking about it. Part of the reason I suspect is that most don't consider AMD quite up to snuff for 4k gaming with their current lineup of cards. Very true. But some of us do play some older games or games that have lower requirements that can definitely reap the benefit of higher resolution, higher hz, and Freesync. Like those of us playing CS:GO, StarCraft II, Diablo III, WarCraft III, etc. Or Indie Games that require a bit less to keep up. Or perhaps catching up on the backlog of slightly older titles.
Or alternatively, people like me just wanting 120Hz while doing desktop work and using AMD for their compute power. This is the one I've been waiting for.


For those wanting a larger size, AUO the panel manufacturer realizes this and a 32" variant is due out the second half of 2019 (according to the TFT central review above).


EDIT: Now available on Amazon for $899:
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XV273K-...1549466162&sr=1-9&keywords=acer+nitro+monitor
 
Last edited:

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
7,012
It's not talked about because why would you buy a display for a AMD GPU that can only run 4K at 40 FPS in modern games?
 

altano

n00b
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
59
It's not talked about because why would you buy a display for a AMD GPU that can only run 4K at 40 FPS in modern games?
I don’t understand this line of thinking although I often hear it. You can use an an Nvidia card with this monitor.

I don’t want gsync and I don’t want to pay for it. I have an RTX 2080 Ti and I’ll be buying this monitor because:
  • I require 4K on the desktop because I never want to see another pixelated piece of text ever again. The 144hz will be welcome here as well, although certainly not required.
  • I mostly play games that my gpu can consistently drive at 144fps (such as Overwatch and old games like Antichamber and Firewatch) so gsync would be completely irrelevant.
  • If I do play modern games, my gpu will be able to drive them at more than 40fps. But, if it struggles at 4K, I’m happy to lower the resolution to keep the FPS high, obviating the need for gsync.
I just don’t see the point of gsync unless you absolutely require (and are willing to pay $300 for) smooth gameplay at the highest of settings and resolution in modern AAA titles. If that describes you that’s totally cool, but that’s obviously not everybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,286
Freesync doesn't work when using dual DP connections so for nvidia users the lack of gsync may not be a big deal. Also it has backlight strobing(which also doesn't work with Freesync) at 144Hz so I would say the appeal of this monitor is 4k 144Hz strobing.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
It's not talked about because why would you buy a display for a AMD GPU that can only run 4K at 40 FPS in modern games?

Please read the op. Tl;dr: That’s a narrow view and only one market segment. There are other use cases.


I don’t understand this line of thinking although I often hear it. You can use an an Nvidia card with this monitor.

I don’t want gsync and I don’t want to pay for it. I have an RTX 2080 Ti and I’ll be buying this monitor because:
  • I require 4K on the desktop because I never want to see another pixelated piece of text ever again. The 144hz will be welcome here as well, although certainly not required.
  • I mostly play games that my gpu can consistently drive at 144fps (such as Overwatch and old games like Antichamber and Firewatch) so gsync would be completely irrelevant.
  • If I do play modern games, my gpu will be able to drive them at more than 40fps. But, if it struggles at 4K, I’m happy to lower the resolution to keep the FPS high, obviating the need for gsync.
I just don’t see the point of gsync unless you absolutely require (and are willing to pay $300 for) smooth gameplay at the highest of settings and resolution in modern AAA titles. If that describes you that’s totally cool, but that’s obviously not everybody.

This monitor is unnecessary for GSync users. Acer is also launching the xb273k at the same time as this monitor, which is exactly the same thing but with GSync. The catch is that it costs $1100, $200 more than this monitor due to the GSync tax. But clearly it’s the way you should go if you’re an nvidia user and you don’t want to spend $1k more on the x27.

But I would look into that if you’re going to be purchasing a high end RTX. There is no reason to *not* have GSync when you could just have it.


Freesync doesn't work when using dual DP connections so for nvidia users the lack of gsync may not be a big deal. Also it has backlight strobing(which also doesn't work with Freesync) at 144Hz so I would say the appeal of this monitor is 4k 144Hz strobing.

This only requires one DP connection. That’s why this fits into a dream monitor like the x27.

That is correct. Strobing can’t work at the same time, for those that want it. But I would also say that’s probably limited to people that want to play twitch shooters competitively. I’m happy to never turn it on and be flicker free. So there is definitely more than one type of user for this monitor.
 

bigbluefe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
1,055
This would be an awesome monitor for emulation.

Old games need 4k for CRT shaders, certain games run at more than 60hz, you want low lag, and you need variable refresh for all the different hardware refresh rates. Probably the best use case for it.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
7,012
I don’t understand this line of thinking although I often hear it. You can use an an Nvidia card with this monitor.

I don’t want gsync and I don’t want to pay for it. I have an RTX 2080 Ti and I’ll be buying this monitor because:
  • I require 4K on the desktop because I never want to see another pixelated piece of text ever again. The 144hz will be welcome here as well, although certainly not required.
  • I mostly play games that my gpu can consistently drive at 144fps (such as Overwatch and old games like Antichamber and Firewatch) so gsync would be completely irrelevant.
  • If I do play modern games, my gpu will be able to drive them at more than 40fps. But, if it struggles at 4K, I’m happy to lower the resolution to keep the FPS high, obviating the need for gsync.
I just don’t see the point of gsync unless you absolutely require (and are willing to pay $300 for) smooth gameplay at the highest of settings and resolution in modern AAA titles. If that describes you that’s totally cool, but that’s obviously not everybody.

I never said you couldn't use a NVIDIA card. VRR is the single largest advancement in gaming displays in the last decade. Something you can't use with this display and a NVIDIA GPU. Especially when you run demanding scenarios like high refresh 4K.

Just because your GPU can run extremely low demand/ancient games at 4K/144 FPS, doesn't mean it is superior to G-Sync. All that means is you will either have to deal with screen tearing or high input lag due to V-Sync. G-Sync eliminates both of those problems at once if configured properly.

Running non-native always looks terrible, especially when you could run native resolution at a lower FPS but still smooth due to G-Sync. There is a huge reason G-Sync and Freesync exist. If you don't want to run VRR, have fun.
 

Greyson

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
78
Just because your GPU can run extremely low demand/ancient games at 4K/144 FPS, doesn't mean it is superior to G-Sync. All that means is you will either have to deal with screen tearing or high input lag due to V-Sync. G-Sync eliminates both of those problems at once if configured properly.

Nvidia's Adaptive Sync is pretty good. You'll get tearing when you lose frames but it solves the input lag problem and works on any monitor.
 

pippenainteasy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
1,084
For those wanting a larger size, AUO the panel manufacturer realizes this and a 32" variant is due out the second half of 2019 (according to the TFT central review above).

I wonder if there will be a gsync variant? That Acer XB321HK is getting a little long in the tooth (2+ years) as the only large screen 4k Gsync display...
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
I wonder if there will be a gsync variant? That Acer XB321HK is getting a little long in the tooth (2+ years) as the only large screen 4k Gsync display...

Yes. I mentioned it a few posts down. The xb273k is the Gsync variant. It carries a $200 premium versus the FreeSync variant and is priced at $1100. Still it’s far cheaper than the x27. Definitely the monitor to buy in terms of value and how crammed with top end features it has.

It will be coming out at the same time as the FreeSync variation.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,286
Yes. I mentioned it a few posts down. The xb273k is the Gsync variant. It carries a $200 premium versus the FreeSync variant and is priced at $1100. Still it’s far cheaper than the x27. Definitely the monitor to buy in terms of value and how crammed with top end features it has.

It will be coming out at the same time as the FreeSync variation.

Except it's not $1100. Acer's own website lists it at $1,300.

https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/predator-model/UM.HX3AA.P01
 

bigbluefe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
1,055
I wonder if there will be a gsync variant? That Acer XB321HK is getting a little long in the tooth (2+ years) as the only large screen 4k Gsync display...

The market is starving for a 30"+ monitor with those specs. Man this industry blows.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
There's a $200 reason in this case (assuming they ever launch these monitors at the prices they've been quoting)

I acknowledge that everyone has a budget. If it's that hard of a budget then "I guess". But considering that Monitors get updated the least by buyers (in most cases, some people are fanatics), spending a little more up front for something over the next 5 years seems worth it. Especially when it's literally the item that is interacted with the most on the computer.


The market is starving for a 30"+ monitor with those specs. Man this industry blows.

AUO says they know and they're working on it. But yes, it's their bad that they're slow about it.
 

HiCZoK

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
860
Not many talk about it because there is no point to 4k 144hz if best cards can do about 60 in new games.

I am all in searching for 4k monitor for ps4 and pc but 4k 60 with best possible iq.
144hz would be nice option for old games but not for twice the price of 60hz models
 

HiCZoK

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
860
Now that we have Acer Nitro topic..
Is VG270KBMIIPX the same but 60hz? because it's over 2 times cheaper. No adjustable stand but has vesa mounting holes. This makes it 100$ cheaper than lg 27uk600 when it comes to 4k 60 monitors but it's newer ? edit: the 1440p version is 144hz and has strobing apparently for pretty good price... Marketing on these monitors is bad... naming scheme is even worse.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
Not many talk about it because there is no point to 4k 144hz if best cards can do about 60 in new games.

I am all in searching for 4k monitor for ps4 and pc but 4k 60 with best possible iq.
144hz would be nice option for old games but not for twice the price of 60hz models

Even if GPU power is the concern for you, that problem will be solved within the next several years. Meaning this monitor would allow you to grow into it and is therefore more "future proof" (even more so with the use of adaptive sync). Obviously no piece of tech is truly future proof, but these features are the ones that are going to be sought after more and more.

Frankly, the only way they could make this product better is if they put in FALD (which would give top end HDR), made it true 10-bit, and increased the size slightly (when AUO comes out with the 32" version, that will probably be ideal).
Still, even without those features this monitor should be good for at least 5 years. Maybe 7+ if you don't chase every piece of updated tech. But even to that point if you're buying multiple monitors and TV's all the time those could easily add up to buying once and buying well, which frankly I'd rather do. It's just buying methodology. I'd rather buy top end and ride that for more years than continually buy middle or low end and wait for that to catch up to what I already have. That's especially true in monitors where clearly its taken them 6 years or more to finally develop a product like this.


Now that we have Acer Nitro topic..
Is VG270KBMIIPX the same but 60hz? because it's over 2 times cheaper. No adjustable stand but has vesa mounting holes. This makes it 100$ cheaper than lg 27uk600 when it comes to 4k 60 monitors but it's newer ? edit: the 1440p version is 144hz and has strobing apparently for pretty good price... Marketing on these monitors is bad... naming scheme is even worse.

That isn't how panels work. Obviously tech to tech and generation to generation is built upon one another (so manufacturing techniques will be similar). But no, for all intents and purposes this is a different panel.
Yeap, naming in general for most tech companies is awful. But that's a two fold problem: one you're dealing with engineers a lot. And two, so many products come out it's hard to have any sort of naming consistency without using numbers. But yes, I agree with you. I also think there are generally too many product models. These companies might be better served with fewer more targeted models than their scattershot approach.
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
2,043
I personally find these monitors overpriced from a value to me (personally) perspective. Yes it’s a lot cheaper than the ridiculously priced fald versions but it’s still quite small and flawed IMHO. At this price I’d want 32-42” and fald and 10bit with hdr1000.
The real reason these monitors are this expensive are the R&D combined with low volumes. My hope is that some 2019 tvs with 120hz VRR and HDR and FALD are available at the same price point
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
366
Another AUO panel with terrible uniformity (and no FALD trying to even hide it), no thanks.

The 160Hz LG Nano IPS 27" already announced seems much more interesting. Finally something else than AUO crap.
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
I personally find these monitors overpriced from a value to me (personally) perspective. Yes it’s a lot cheaper than the ridiculously priced fald versions but it’s still quite small and flawed IMHO. At this price I’d want 32-42” and fald and 10bit with hdr1000.
The real reason these monitors are this expensive are the R&D combined with low volumes. My hope is that some 2019 tvs with 120hz VRR and HDR and FALD are available at the same price point

Good luck. It will eventually get there, but considering how many years it took to get these specs, I'm not going to hold my breath for a price drop on sets like this any time soon. However, for what it's worth, obviously I'd rather have this for much less. But considering that this single monitor can be used for critical grading and then gaming in a single unit, it has a value proposition that's hard to beat.


Another AUO panel with terrible uniformity (and no FALD trying to even hide it), no thanks.

The 160Hz LG Nano IPS 27" already announced seems much more interesting. Finally something else than AUO crap.

Kay. Well if LG releases something with similar specs at CES and can beat this in price/performance, I'm all for it.
 
Last edited:

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
I'll talk about it as soon as I can BUY the freaking thing. :)

You can buy it now from at least two places:
Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Acer-XV273K-...1549466162&sr=1-9&keywords=acer+nitro+monitor
Acer themselves:
https://store.acer.com/en-sg/monitors/performance/nitro-xv273k-p

It's nice to see that Amazon is selling the monitor $300 below Acer themselves. Now that nVidia has decided to support Freesync, this is also a viable, less expensive option for nVidia owners.
 
Last edited:

RavenX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
308
Not many talk about it because there is no point to 4k 144hz if best cards can do about 60 in new games.

Yes because everyone only plays new games. No one ever played older games that can be run at 120+ frames at 4k right? :rolleyes:
 

ZeqOBpf6

Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
840
I thought this was the specs of the X27? Is the difference just the FALD? Is that really that good of a feature? JFC
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
I thought this was the specs of the X27? Is the difference just the FALD? Is that really that good of a feature? JFC

Short answer yes. X27 has FALD which allows true HDR1000 vs only HDR400 as found in this unit. As a result the amount of dynamic range/contrast ratio in the x27 is much higher. But if it’s a feaure you can live without you can save $1100. FALD/HDR1000 is a killer feature, but right now it just costs too much (for my budget).
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Short answer yes. X27 has FALD which allows true HDR1000 vs only HDR400 as found in this unit. As a result the amount of dynamic range/contrast ratio in the x27 is much higher. But if it’s a feaure you can live without you can save $1100. FALD/HDR1000 is a killer feature, but right now it just costs too much (for my budget).

Slightly longer answer: not only is it a budget issue, but I can't say that I'd be fond of the artifacts involved either. Perhaps I wouldn't notice them- but I run an OLED in the living room, so I rate that a bit unlikely for myself.
 

riffcho

n00b
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
41
Another AUO panel with terrible uniformity (and no FALD trying to even hide it), no thanks.

The 160Hz LG Nano IPS 27" already announced seems much more interesting. Finally something else than AUO crap.

No 32"?
 

capnstabn

Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
534
Short answer yes. X27 has FALD which allows true HDR1000 vs only HDR400 as found in this unit. As a result the amount of dynamic range/contrast ratio in the x27 is much higher. But if it’s a feaure you can live without you can save $1100. FALD/HDR1000 is a killer feature, but right now it just costs too much (for my budget).

x27 is 1800 now right? I thought I even saw it for 1450 on sale somewhere over the holidays.
 

Ors

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
241
It's not talked about because why would you buy a display for a AMD GPU that can only run 4K at 40 FPS in modern games?
Actually it's gsync certified, so freesync will also work with nvidia cards. Gsync might still be marginally better, but for sure not $200 worth better, VRR support is there for both manufacturers...
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
Actually it's gsync certified, so freesync will also work with nvidia cards. Gsync might still be marginally better, but for sure not $200 worth better, VRR support is there for both manufacturers...

In fairness to Vega, you're quoting a post before nVidia made that announcement and also executed "open source" adaptive sync on their drivers/video cards. But, like I noted elsewhere, I disagree with the notion that just because things aren't there today/now, that we shouldn't buy for the specs we want for the future (and also enjoy slightly older games or competitive games at high refresh rates on AMD video cards. Like say StarCraft 2, CounterStrike and its iterations, DOTA, etc... which there are plenty of applications in which AMD video cards could use higher refresh rate at 4k).
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
2,043
Pricing still seems high to me for what this is. There are a lot of other panels coming in 2019 for > 27” 4k and > 60hz, and some of them will be sub 1k.
Regarding “why don’t they make monitors with x spec”? the common answer is that the panels aren’t available. As the panels become available you start seeing monitors. Thankfully lots of new panels in 2019
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,405
Pricing still seems high to me for what this is. There are a lot of other panels coming in 2019 for > 27” 4k and > 60hz, and some of them will be sub 1k.
Regarding “why don’t they make monitors with x spec”? the common answer is that the panels aren’t available. As the panels become available you start seeing monitors. Thankfully lots of new panels in 2019

You're the second person in this thread to say that. As far as I know there are only 5 displays on the market that meet these specs, and they all are literally using the same AOC panel. The X27 is one of them. There is a Gsync Variant of this same model, the xb273k. And then there are two displays made by Asus which are basically the same as the these two Acer models.

If you've got a list of them, then please by all means post them up in this thread. I 100% advocate the free market, choice, and multiple manufacturers to drive the cost down. But generally speaking I'm only interested if basically it's out now or launching with the next few weeks. Talking about a monitor that "will launch at some point at some time with magical specs and a bargain price" is pointless and impractical.

This monitor is available today (and when I made the OP was only a few weeks out, with test models already out to reviewers). And nothing else touches these specs short of the X27 at $2k. Keep in mind, this thing literally does it all. If all I wanted was 4k at 120Hz+, yeah, there will be plenty, but not with that % of DCI-P3 color space or have strobing, no PWM, 10-bit, etc. It's not just "one spec" for me. It's about having a full package. It's this "full package" that makes this monitor significant. Not just 4k with high Hz.


Is this significantly better than a ZisWorks X28 or X39?

I wouldn't know. Check a review and compare it to the review on the OP. Is it capable of doing the same things? Does it have the same % of color spaces? Is the input lag quick enough to actually support 120Hz or 144Hz? You can do comparisons yourself if you know the targets you're looking for.
 
Last edited:
Top