Acer Launches Low-Cost 4K 150 Hz HDR400 IPS 28″ Gaming Monitor Featuring AMD FreeSync Premium VRR

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Those on a budget have a new option for a 4K gaming display as Acer launches the low-cost Nitro XV282K V3 for $429.99. This new display features a 28-inch 16:9 IPS HDR400 (400 nits) panel with an overclock 150 Hz refresh rate, 1 ms GTG response time, and support for VRR with AMD FreeSync Premium via HDMI 2.1 or DP 1.4. It has a color gamut of 90% DCI-PC, 1.07 billion colors, and a 10-bit color depth (8-bit+FRC). Other features include a stand with swivel and height adjustment, 2x 2W speakers, a headphone jack, an anti-glare screen, Display 1.4, and HDMI 2.1 ports.

See full article...

 

[Grimlakin]

HDR400 means... don't plan to use HDR with this monitor... ever.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Sad but true. It helps a little, very little at 400. Noticeable but only just barely.

 

[Brian_B]

Sad but true. It helps a little, very little at 400. Noticeable but only just barely.

In Windows I find it causes more harm than it helps, particularly at these "just barely HDR" levels.

There are a few specific titles where it still Wows, but far more issues where things just get washed out and look worse. Whereas on consoles - no issues with it at all and it just looks great across pretty much every title, which kinda blows my mind that there can be such a disparity.

The monitor I have now is HDR600 and I leave HDR just turned off most of the time.

Windows HDR sucks.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

With my LG OLED's (C2/C3/C9) and Sony Z9D HDR is downright spectacular most of the time but it has to be fully supported in the game and not rely on Windows like Starfield does. The Deadspace remake did the same but I have to give that team credit for at least configuring it correctly in the game while Starfield is useless. I saw the same with RE7 Biohazard and it wasn't until issues with Starfield came up that I now realize what was happening (although RE7 still looked pretty good).

Yeah, everything I read about HDR on consoles for most games just blows my mind away in comparison to Windows. Such a shame it doesn't have a more uniform approach. I'll also add that I have suspicions regarding on how HDR is being processed and sent to displays in Windows. I've found that with my CRG9 it's a very mixed bag but then also with the two HDR400 displays I've had.

 

[DrezKill]

Sad but true. It helps a little, very little at 400. Noticeable but only just barely.

I've had two HDR400 monitors (one VA and one IPS), and in both cases turning on HDR actually made things look worse.

Windows HDR sucks.

[SIGH] Unfortunately that is also true. Ever since it first came around on consoles with PS4 and every XB1 model except the original base model (for some f*cking reason), HDR usage, support, and quality has left PCs in the dust. That sh1t ain't right. Also I swear HDR worked better when it was GPU-driver-controlled, and nVidia and AMD were handling things themselves. But Microsoft just HAD to go and wrest control away from them, and demand that they and their OS have full control over HDR sh1t instead. Done more harm than good, I would say (especially in the early days of the switchover).

Yeah, everything I read about HDR on consoles for most games just blows my mind away in comparison to Windows. Such a shame it doesn't have a more uniform approach.

For realz man.

I'll also add that I have suspicions regarding on how HDR is being processed and sent to displays in Windows.

And your suspicions are probably well-founded.