![[Pre Order] Acer NITRO VG272UV 27" WQHD 170Hz FS Gaming Monitor $299 + Delivery ($0 to Metro / VIC C&C) + Surcharge @ Centre Com](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/82/698982.jpg?h=474ffb7e)
Acer NITRO VG272UV 27" WQHD 170Hz FreeSync Gaming Monitor
Not sure whether this is a good deal but I bought one. Surcharge — 1.2% Card & Paypal, 2% AmEx.
Scorptec also has the same deal in-stock: $299 + delivery Sold out
[Pre Order] Acer NITRO VG272UV 27" WQHD 170Hz FS Gaming Monitor $299 + Delivery ($0 to Metro / VIC C&C) + Surcharge @ Centre Com
1120
felixyong on 08/05/2022 - 18:05 centrecom.com.au (4695 clicks)
Last edited 09/05/2022 - 13:37 by 4 other users
Last edited 09/05/2022 - 13:37 by 4 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
- 1
- 2
There is a lot more behind what makes a monitor good than that
Elaborate please.
I don't know why people are downvoting me but:
- Contrast ratio
- Black and grey uniformity
- Colour accuracy
- Peak brightness
- Image deterioration from different viewing angles
- Response times and ghosting/overshoot
- Supported inputsI understand most people won't even care about these things but if someone wanted to make sure they are getting what they pay for, these all make a difference.
@nk7: I just thought it was impressive specs for the price. A closer look at the performance, features and build quality should be done before pulling the trigger in case there’s a dealbreaker in there for one’s specific use case
Didn’t neg your comment btw
Brought to where?
To OzBargain.
It’s actually scorptec but OP changed it.
Deals should list store in title as per guidelines. OP is newbie so still getting the hang of things (not too bad, some newbies forget to list the price, lol)Actually when I clicked it was centrecom, and still looks like centrecom
@Bretttick: Originally it was Scorptec but OP changed it after someone else pointed out Centrecom had free postage
Really good deal! IPS instead if VA panel as well so even better
Great spec and price. Would consider this for a 3 monitor set up for my sim rig
Perfect price for instant tax write off
Compare to Dell DGF gaming monitor, is this a bargain?
Yes, specs wise both are identical, but the dell one has higher build quality
Unless there's a review you can link me to that shows that it measurably is in terms of refresh rate compliance and G2G performance etc… Then we have no idea if it's specced identically or not.
Should be. Dell DGF can offer a bit better in-sight specs, but if you only want the main features: 27', 1440p, 170Hz, IPS panel then this one can offer the same. And even when you like the DGF extra stuffs, it's still cost 120+ more at least (last Dell ebay discount price was 419$, but dealbot said pricing will only be higher from now on). That's 40% of this monitor price, and I don't think the upgrade is worth.
This is unreal, definitely a buy if you’re in need of a high spec 2k monitor.
Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Which TV has 170hz?
@abctoz: Obviously if you have no need for a higher refresh rate then a tv may suffice - but a 50" tv is way too big to use as a monitor unless you plan on sitting a few meters away from your desk.
Some people want higher refresh rates on their monitors, not sure why this is difficult for you to understand?
And not sure where the material argument came from? By your logic a $400 TV is worth more than an iPhone because it is bigger?
@abctoz: The amount of material cost does not consider: quality of internal components, cost of creating higher PPI, R&D of higher resolutions and refresh rates, GPU integration such as g-sync or freesync.
There is more material in a Nissan Elgrand people carrier than a 2 seater Ferrari, does the price difference between the two cars confuse you?
@lozzag123: quality of components? are you saying my monitor is going to outlast my tv?
garbage standards taxing average users that don't need them
korean 1440p 144hz monitors were going for $300 5-6 years ago, some of them hit 200hz
but we should thank our corporate overlords for this feast of a monitor its simply incredible value, its has equivalent quality to a F1 car /s
@abctoz: Quality of components as in this monitors panel fits 1440 pixels in the space the TV fits much less, and with better response time, colour reproduction because it is IPS and not VA like your theoretical Korean monitors and TV would be, and features such as Freesync and Gsync and HDR400.
I don't understand why you are even making this argument. You have ignored all of his points that prove your argument to be nonsensical.@Mums Poop Sock: i mean you have to just look at mobile screens to completely refute this, they were smaller and higher in phones earlier, there was a period where they left pc monitors in the dust
the korean monitors were IPS and had good color reproduction
features like freesync/gsync are garbage marketing gimmicks that professional gamers turn off because it introduces unneeded latency
i can go on and on and on, but its wasted energy arguing with the level of discourse here, people can't seem to believe the tech is there, and has been there for years and years. the companies are there to make profit not give you the best value
@abctoz: Adaptive sync isn’t just a gimmick. My brother was getting horrible screen tearing in Doom Eternal. I saw it and told him to try enabling free-sync and it stopped the tearing. No noticeable input lag introduced.
I’d say you’d only want to turn it off in competitive games where high fps and low latency give you an edge@FireRunner: Professional gamers aren't in the market for a $300 monitor. I can tell you that enabling Freesync means that 1% lows and tearing no longer make me feel ill while playing games that struggle to get 90fps on high settings
@FireRunner: it works when the fps is consistent and say below 100. but since this is a 170hz monitor, its not like it matters.
if you want to fix tearing you can simply turn on vsync, 1 frame of input lag is not a big deal when you're playing casually
it works when the fps is consistent and say below 100. but since this is a 170hz monitor, its not like it matters.
I don’t follow this argument, why would the max refresh rate make adaptive sync irrelevant? If you play a variety of games, the more graphically demanding will run at lower fps so adaptive sync will be useful
As for V-sync it just locks the framerate when it runs above the monitors refresh rate. For games running less than it, you’ll still experience tearing.
I enable adaptive sync and there is no perceptible input lag so not sure why you think it’s an issue but then are happy to recommend V-sync which is known to introduce input lag in certain cases
@FireRunner: tearing occurs when you're updating the screen buffer during a frame display. if you're running 170hz yes some frames will show tearing, but that number vs frames that don't have tearing will be way lower, thus it will be hard to even notice it. - so the high refresh the less you need sync methods and they only increase input lag.
I don't want to go too deep down the rabbit hole but suffice to say, under normal circumstances vsync eliminates tearing because it has a few frames of buffer, if you go research how a screen buffer works you can see why this is the case
gsync/freesync are technologies which try to predict how many frames your system will render, and tries adjust the monitors refresh accordingly, you can see why this will easily fail because its impossible to always predict what fps your system will render. whilst it can be useful in lower refresh rates my first paragraph details why this is less/not relevant in high refresh, but dw companies will still tax you for it regardless
gsync/freesync are technologies which try to predict how many frames your system will render
I don’t think this is correct, the frames are accepted and rendered in real-time rather than predicted.
Also AMD doesn’t charge for use of FreeSync, extra costs will be from extra hardware. G-Sync on the other hand is proprietary so Nvidia charges manufacturers to implement and be certified which is reflected in the price difference between FreeSync and G-Sync monitors.number vs frames that don't have tearing will be way lower, thus it will be hard to even notice it
My brother was running Doom Eternal on a 144Hz monitor. I think the average fps was around 100fps though it was rather inconsistent. Tearing was horrible, I doubt the just having a higher refresh rate on the monitor will make the tearing and stuttering less noticeable
@FireRunner: it can't be real time because test show there is an added input lag
do whatever works for you, there are a variety of ways to deal with tearing including vsync and this:
https://www.techspot.com/article/2192-screen-tearing-fix-pc-…but if your fps is inconsistent i would spend money to get it stable vs spending extra for the monitor
people see freesync/gsync as 'features' and are willing to pay extra
Developed by VESA, Adaptive Sync adjusts the display’s refresh rate to match the GPU’s outputting frames on the fly. Every single frame is displayed as soon as possible to prevent input lag and not repeated, thus avoiding game stuttering and screen tearing.
Don’t know why you think adaptive sync has massive input lag, it really doesn’t. AFAIK FreeSync compatible monitors are not much more expensive and it is a useful feature that's worth the small extra cost.
With G-Sync, you do have a case, the Nvidia Tax is definitely a considerable extra cost. Generally a FreeSync monitor is “G-Sync compatible” which works well enough in most cases if you own an Nvidia GPU@Mums Poop Sock: i'm confident because my arguments are sound and nobody comes up with valid counter-arguments
dude the pixel aperture of a tv is wayy worse, with the much lower PPI it's like looking through a flyscreen door to see your screen in comparison. Monitors are made to be seen at closer distances than TVs, and that's the least of the benefits going for a monitor over a tv
except a 50" 4k monitor has higher ppi than my 27" 1080p monitor..
but dw continue throwing logic out the window
@abctoz: This is 1440p, not 1080p genius…
Even that aside, you're ignoring that most TVs won't display 4:4:4 colour at full refresh rate anyway.
Just take the L and stop everyone clowning on you@Anthropomorphised: i said my monitor not this monitor, you make it sound like there is an order of magnitude of difference
if you're gaming you're not going to care about colour are you
it is clowny in the sense that i'm yet to hear a valid counter-argument, you would think after 20 replies from diff users i would get something
maybe i'm just arguing against one of those shitty new AI's that can't grasp actual concepts
@abctoz: Just because the benefits aren't noticeable to you doesn't mean that you aren't going to see them.
Most people don't just use the monitor to game, I edit photos on my computer too, so I want a quality colour space representation.
Maybe you can't grasp the fact that people have different priorities than you, and your preference does not represent what is inherently "best"
@Anthropomorphised: i am responding to your bombastic comment that there is a chasm of diff in "aperture" and "PPI" between a TV and a monitor, as if that somehow counters my original point
of course everybody has diff priorities, when did i claim this was not so
@abctoz: There literally is a chasm of difference. I have a 50" 4k tv mounted above my 27" 1440p monitor. I use the 50" as a secondary monitor and there's a clear screen door effect. I have another 2 4k TVs (48" and 55" ) from all 3 major brands. and the same is visible on them at monitor viewing distances, even if you move back. Text rendering is rubbish on televisions compared to monitors as well.
You making ridiculous inferences about this deal relative to a $400 tv and nobody caring about colour space are great examples. We're done.
@Anthropomorphised: if you move the 50" back so it looks the same size as a 27" then that would be a fair comparison
of course there will be differences but if you think that this somehow proves PC monitors have to be more expensive then i have a bridge to sell to you
@abctoz: 1) If you have to move your monitor back that far, you've A) got lots of space to spare and B) bought a tv which lacks the HFR capability, renders text worse, has poorer colours, and at $400 lacks VRR. the quality of a $400 tv panel is also going to be very poor, I would know as someone that stands within 3m of them every week at work. Comparatively the panel quality on a $400 monitor is typically going to be higher as the cost is concentrated on a smaller number of components.
2) Literally nobody is saying they have to be more expensive, that's a strawman argument.
@Anthropomorphised: 1) so basically if you have enough room to put a tv 1-2 m in front of you, then your argument is void?
2) if nobody is saying they have to be more expensive, then why are all the arguments against me "monitors have x feature, therefore should cost more", then when we start discussing the merits of those features and find out most of them are gimmicky
look i'm not trying to say this is bad value, in fact it is great value compared to all the other monitors out there(although i'm on the sidelines until a decent high refresh 4k monitor deal appears)
my argument is that this monitor is not an "unreal" deal in the sense that you could have bough a similar product 5-6 years ago for the same cost, and imo i don't see why monitors should have such a big premium vs tvs, reasons which have been laid out above.
both statements can true at the same time, coexist and live happily together
Best thread I've read for ages. Gold stars all round :)
A true testament to Mark Twain “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
This is seems to be a different monitor
OP's deal has DP 1.4
1.2a no?
that is for a slightly different model. This post is about VG272UV, that is is about VG272U. As far as I know, only difference is the type of IPA panel used. Not sure how it'll affect the quality
what is the best in terms of gaming experience monitor could be suggested. Atm I have 27'' IPS 1080p monitor AOC 27V2Q 27" IPS 75hz 5ms and it is about 70-80 cm distance to monitor during playing. I think to keep this monitor as second one for documents and buy something modern. Shall I go to 32" ? What is the best within say $500-650 budget? Thanks
If had to go with two monitors, I would keep them both the same size as it looks nicer instead of having two different sized monitors next to each other.
Yes I understand this, but I've got two already. 27'' as primary and old 24'' as the one for text messengers and things in the background. If I get new one I could just damp my old 24'' (it is 12 years old now)
I think this deal is pretty good value. I'm not sure if you can get a 32" with these specs at this price point.
Where did you bring it?
Acer as a brand and a company is shite
Bit of a statement there. Care to expand? Asking as I've so far found their stuff to be good. Bought a load of their laptops for a school some years back and everyone was happy and I've used a second-hand one at home for the last five or so years and it's been great.
How's this compare to the XV that rtings rates highly?
Damn, literally just bought 2x Gigabyte G27Q's last week.
Cheers OP grabbed one. Been procrastinating for years to replace my second screen’s Acer Q235H from god knows how many years ago. It doesn’t even have HDMI input…
Anyone know when these are expected to be delivered from centrecom?
Maybe buy from Scorptec, instock and 0$ delivery
Coming up $20 for me
Yeah, $29 delivery buying from Scorptec, so cheaper with CC, so I would also like an idea of when it's likely to be sent and if CC have a history of cancelling pre-orders or they honour their deals.
impulse brought as I was looking for a isp 165hz 27" monitor, then realised there was a scorptec link where they have it in stock. bruh
Where did you bring it?
WA if thats what you're talking about
Bought
Incredible value, bought the equivalent 144hz version 2 years ago for $600 and its been an incredible monitor.
The stand seems unable to adjust the height
It has vesa so you can chuck her on a mount
Can confirm, this stand is not adjustable (and pretty crappy in general). We immediately ordered a mount/arm for this - so factor that into your price.
cheers，still seem to be a good deal
Nice bought one too
Would this monitor be considered to high res? Like an imac equiv screen?
Definitely not "high res" and generally all mac panels will have much, much better colours.
Keep in mind for a 27" qhd panel, the visual acuity distance (the distance you can make out pixels) is about 85cm. If your eyes are further than this, higher resolution doesn't matter.
tossing up between this and a curved monitor. What's everybody's recommendations? I currently have a flat FHD monitor that's been great but looking to make the QHD jump and don't know if curved is worth it. I use it for gaming/work.
Went from a flat to a curved a few weeks back, and it has its positives and negatives. It takes a little while to get used to, but for the most part it's kind of immersive. They say it's meant to help improve your FOV, but I never had an issue before with my old monitor… FHD to QHD is a very noticeable improvement. Having done the opposite, and going from 4k to QHD though, I didn't see a huge decrease in visual quality.
Curved is pretty pointless at 27”. You need a larger display to actually make it worthwhile.
whats the difference between this one and dell S2721DGF
No real reviews I could find so not sure if related to the highly rated XV.
From a practical pov this would have a shit stand and possibly poor colour accuracy out the box.
Not sure about actual gaming performance though.
Dangggg this is a good looking deal ty OP. Now I gotta decide between this and the MSI Optix G273Q ($409)
- 1
- 2
1440p, 170Hz, IPS, 27”. Sounds great for $300