• out of stock

AOC 32" Q3279VWFD8 IPS LCD Monitor 2560X1440 75hz $289 + Delivery (Free Pick Up VIC) @ BudgetPC

190

For those who missed out on the previous deal for this monitor on Ebay (https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/519273)

PickUP is free but delivery costs extra.

AOC - 31.5" QHD - 2560 x 1440 - Gaming Monitor - Refresh Rate: 75Hz - - Smart Response 5ms (GtG) - Brightness 250 cd/m2 - Input Signal VGA, Dual link DVI, HDMI(MHL) & DP - Display Colors 1.073B - AOC Shadow Control - Low Blue Light eye protection

Related Stores

Budget PC
Budget PC

closed Comments

  •  

    I'm guessing this monitor is HDMI-1.4 not HDMI-2.0 as the AOC brochure only mentions HDMI-1.4, and HDMI-1.4 monitors won't sync properly with some graphics hardware e.g. Iris Pro 580 graphics in my Intel Skull Canyon NUC for example ==> all the HDMI-1.4 monitors I've tried just won't work using NUC's HDMI-2.0 output but have found the same monitors that don't work with HDMI-1.4 input are fine using the NUC's displayport if the monitors have a displayport input. This monitor does however have displayport 1.2 input, HDM-1.4, dual DVI and VGA inputs according to the brochure.

    Shipping to NSW South Coast $59.45 unfortunately kills this deal.

  • +1 vote

    Don't be fooled by the bezels in the photo, they are twice as thick in person

  • +2 votes

    Some quick points:

    • These are not superior in quality to the 27" 1440p 144Hz monitors that have been appearing for $310-$400 on sale of late (depending on panel type)

    • 31.5" 1440p is the same pixel density as 25" 1080p at the same viewing distance

    • 27" monitors tend to be cheaper compared to their 31.5-32" counterparts

    • There are even 24" 1440p monitors available if you want to chase pixel density further

    •  

      There any good deals out right now for 27" 1440p 144Hz monitors ?

      • +1 vote

        No, but that doesn't suddenly make this amazing value. Retailers would be fools if they tried to compete amongst directly in this way.

        50 upvotes for these things seems to reflect a TV-like mentality of 'bigger is better', when what you typically want is a more pixel dense experience in the 21-27" range if you're sitting between 30-80 cm from the monitor.

        Post what you like, I'm just making a few points for people who see upvotes flying around and think they're missing out.

        • +1 vote

          Yes it does. None of the points you mentioned are relevant in any way. This is amazing value for someone looking for a high quality 31.5" 1440p 75hz monitor, only other option you have at this prize range is AstiVita, sure.. I trust them with $2 taps and basins, but not with $300 computer monitors.

          32" is the optimal size for a computer monitor, I use this as my second monitor with a 32" 1440p 144hz monitor as my primary monitor. The experience is so much better than when I was just using a a 27" 2160p 60hz monitor, pixel density be damned.

          •  

            @Vinodra: Most people using a 32" monitor are sitting a metre or so back from them. It has its place, and I respect that it's optimal for you, but ergonomics is a thing and the vast majority of people disagree with you.

            Nothing wrong with people getting the opportunity to make a more informed decision for their use case, is there?

            •  

              @jasswolf: So are you the vast majority of people? You literally were just complaining about how many upvotes this monitor gets. Meaning this is a popular monitor… You complaining about it doesnt suddenly mean "the vast majority of people" disagree with me.

              Even taking "ergonomics" into account, this is a much more comfortable experiance if you are someone who opens multiple windows to multitask (most people do), doing that on a 21-24 inch screen is a nightmare, its somewhat tolerable on a 27" screen, but 32" is the perfect size.

              •  

                @Vinodra: My point is about typical viewing distances for a given angular resolution, and how some people readily translate that automatically into 'bigger is better' based on their experience with TVs.

                For someone sitting at a couch, that's 65"-75" for 4K, given they're usually 2-3 m away from the unit. For a 1440p monitor at 40-70 cms, that's ideally 24-27".

                In real terms, the ideal viewing distance for a 32" 1440p monitor is identical 25" 1080p monitor, so you're paying this huge premium to start filling up your peripheral vision.

                Here, you can see that there are a lot more 27" 1440 panels in production than there are 32". It's cheaper to build 27" in terms of materials, but it's easier to produce 32" panels because of manufacturing tolerances. If you were right, there'd be more 32" panels, but there aren't: in fact, there's been 4 times as many 27" 1440p panels than there have been 32" ones.

                As for digging into ergonomics studies, I don't think either of us really have the time, but your logic doesn't add up for the wider consumer base nor the design and manufacture side of things. At 80+ cms viewing distances, or if you value real estate over pixel density (which might be valuable for some productivity use cases on a budget), that's where 32" 1440p comes into the picture for the general population.

                But it is a niche case.

                •  

                  @jasswolf: Multitasking is not a niche use case. There are more important things than pixel density and voewing angel. Also $289 is cheap even in terms of 1080p monitors, thats what makes this amazing value. Not many people think of or even care about "ideal viewing distance" or "pixel density".

                  •  

                    @Vinodra:

                    Also $289 is cheap even in terms of 1080p monitors

                    That's not true at all.

                    Multitasking is not a niche use case.

                    No it's not, but in the context through which you're doing it, most people would use a >32" 4K monitor, a 1080p ultrawide, or two 1080p monitors, the latter of which is actually cheaper than your solution.

                    Not many people think of or even care about "ideal viewing distance" or "pixel density".

                    Not in terms of formally defining it, no, but they do care.

                    •  

                      @jasswolf: Unless you're using a shitty $100 24" dell monitor, it is. A decent, but still cheap 1080p monitor will set you back over $200. See here for an example https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/519717.

                      Even the cheapest 32" 4k screen will set you back well over $500, would much rather use this.

                      I certainly dont care about pixel density. Many people also game on their pc, 1440p is so much better than 1080p in terms of gaming, 4k however, is just not worth it at this point.

                      You will never be able to convince me that using 2 small 1080p monitors is optimal; and I won't be able to convince you othetwise either, so lets just stop this conversation here.

  • +2 votes

    If your not a FPS gamer (eg. WOW, LOL, DOTA) this monitors is excellent for the price and specs.

  • +1 vote

    I say this each time I see this come up. I have 8 deployed in our business. They're excellent for productivity tasks. I also use one for light gaming and it looks good to me, although I'm not in a position to compare it to a monitor twice the price since I don't have one.

  • Top