A good price for a well-regarded monitor in the budget 1440p/170hz space. The deal really kicks in once you stack it with another $20 saved via Shopback, $5 more from buying eBay gift cards from SB which give another 2% back, bringing the eventual price to the $380's. 10+ quantity at time of posting.
As for the specs:
* WQHD 2560 x 1440
* 170 Hz
* IPS
* FreeSync / G-Sync
* 2x HDMI
* 1x DP
* 1x USB-C
this one is much better, but msi warranty is terrible
As someone who hasn't heard anything on a warranty claim for my Msi g273qf monitor in almost a month I second msi warranty being crap compared to dell. (Pretty sure my monitor got sent to Taiwan for testing but i need to call scorptec to confirm what's even happening at this point)
What failed on your MSI monitor?
I had an AOC 32" 1440p gaming monitor and half of the backlight LEDs failed 3 months out of warranty and they didn't want to know about it.
@bender: Massive yellow spot in the left middle part of the screen when displaying white, hdmi constantly losing connection and reconnecting which loops into hdmi not being able to handle the resolutions it should. eg: It has a 4k60 edid so it could accept a 4k60 signal but it couldn't display it consistently even after playing with video transfer rate or whatever the setting is called for the ps5. it struggled to handle 1440p120hz as well but all resolutions over displayport were fine.
Seems like the shopback cashbacks have expired.
why would you get this when you can get the mag274qrx for $550 240hz?
Why would someone buy a cheaper, more affordable option when another, more expensive option exists?
Yeah - hard to imagine that scenario.
This isn't that cheap for what it is, especially in this market.
I'm waiting for the Rtings review - but this one may have vastly superior colour accuracy compared to the Dell G2724D
@jasswolf: I've skimmed it, and it doesn't look anywhere near as detailed as an Rtings review - what makes you say this review is better?
Thanks for sharing, though! Lots of competition in this space right now
@DiscountForThee: Literally the response time measurements aren't completely bogus. RTings use a methodology that gives bad data on IPS panels.
Compared to that review, the only thing RTings does as well or better is a discussion on the monitor inputs and ergonomics. Might be worth not skimming.
You have all the technical data you need to see that despite having some fast response times it's a sloppy panel implementation. It's a $460 MSRP monitor that should go on sale for $350 or less.
@jasswolf: Is there some more information (external links) into what Rtings does wrong with their response time data? Sounds like an interesting read! I've been using Rtings for technical panel comparison for ages given their detailed testing
@jasswolf: I see you cover some things in another comment - I'll check it out, thanks! Would still love some external sources for how Rtings does it badly if you have any
@jasswolf: Good resource for what goes into technical testing - but are there any other respected reviewing or technical publications that also share the views of the measurements / rankings from Rtings being "completely bogus"?
@DiscountForThee: TFTCentral, PCMonitors, probably anyone who picked up a test tool from TechteamGB?
Anyone who uses updated testing feels this way about monitors. RTings have failed to make the change, which makes sense given they live off referrals bonuses. They created an IPS>all cult and they're profiting from it, so why would they change?
They do the same thing with repeatedly talking down OLED TVs, and holding up harman curve variants and headphone measurement techniques that push the M50X and SHP9500 headphones. Legitimate technical testers in these fields repeatedly call them out for not updating their testing.
@jasswolf: I could only find this one article where TFTCentral talks about Rtings, and it is about OLED burn in and not response times. Do you mind pointing me in the direction where they expressed their dissatisfaction about Rtings and their measurements being bogus? I have been unable to find this (but sounds like something which is definitely out there!)
Also, Not sure what you mean with Rtings talking down OLED when the overwhelming majority of their highest rated TVs are OLED? Like, its only OLED in their top 10
@DiscountForThee: They're all effectively colleagues, no one is going to publish a story or video that is clearly trash talking anyone. I'm putting my own flavour on it, but they do not regard RTings well because they have refused to correct and they do misrepresent response time measurements. The first video I linked you has a section that specifically highlights RTings' techniques, and the 2nd video references that part of the video.
Their long term burn-in test is poorly conveying the strengths and weaknesses of OLED, QD-OLED, and LCD technologies, so much so it's being used by LG as a marketing tool.
Please stop skim reading and viewing and thinking you've capturing that level of detail, then coming back to challenge me on it. I shouldn't even need to highlight how that comes across as both arrogant and disrespectful. I've said what I've said and I'm not going to quibble about my wording when I'm not presenting myself as a professional reviewer.
@jasswolf: Thanks for sharing! I was wondering if this was a clear, defined, documented problem that the industry had with Rtings (like what people have with Userbenchmark lol) or… if this was a personal quibble by someone who is not a professional reviewer. I didn't mention anything about the quality of the burn in tests, just that the content didn't mention anything about your claims about TFTCentral having documented beef with Rtings response time testing. But you've cleared this up as your own interpretation so that is all good!
It still looks like Rtings holds OLED in very high regard since they are literally their top rated TVs. Seems to contradict your previous claim of them:
repeatedly talking down OLED TVs
So I'm a little lost on what to believe at this point sorry, was just looking for some informative links
@DiscountForThee: To be clear I am looking to learn - and I'd love some links showing the following things:
"TFTCentral, PCMonitors, probably anyone who picked up a test tool from TechteamGB" saying, that Rtings, explicitly, "measurements / rankings from Rtings being "completely bogus""
Other publications documenting the reasons "Do not trust RTings for ratings and technical measurements on a monitor. "
"They created an IPS>all cult" sounds like it should be an easy one for you to prove, considering their top rated TVs and monitors are not IPS.
I'm reading a ton of claims from your end but until you provide some links, it kinda feels a bit "trust me bro". I want to be proven wrong (not that I'm making any claims I want you to be proven correct!)
@DiscountForThee: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-test
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-burn-in-test-updat…
https://www.whathifi.com/news/lg-display-says-its-oled-panel…
I'm getting the impression you're not typing any appropriate search terms into Google, so I'm going to call it a day here. Please do the rest on your own.
@jasswolf: I think I didn't get my points across very well. I don't have any interest in the burn in tests (and I'm not sure why you think I do?) and I am a little confused how you think those links provide support for any of the claims I have quoted?
@DiscountForThee: You just agreed not to take me too seriously with some of my comments, I've shared with you significant technical explanations as to why RTings were way off the map. They've got skin in the Amazon referral game, and they help uphold silly arguments made around IPS monitors.
These weren't serious claims, I'm not pointing to some grand conspiracy, and I think I've already made that clear enough. Stop trolling and get back on your main account.
@jasswolf: Further to this, go back and look at RTings previous TV review methodology to see how they treated OLED panels in their assessments. The mere possibility of burn in, and the lack of sufficient weighting for purer blacks in HDR lead to a significant skewing of scores.
These days, they simply try to argue down the technology in terms of burn-in and peak brightness, despite scoring it well. Why? Because they're still going to get a lot more referral revenue from LCD TVs.
They haven't made enough revenue on memberships and donations for a very long time, so they're relying on the referral revenue too - which like many tech publications - has them leaning on what they know will be an easy sell for most. OLED is now coming into a regular price point so the stance has softened, but they still publish flawed and extreme burn-in tests to hedge their bets for the sake of SEO and referral revenue.
I'm going to do a very rare thing here now and block you, because you clearly had an intention very early on in this exchange to be a churlish clown in response to comments that were clearly littered with a bit of creative licence. Good luck with the neckbeard-esque attitude, I'm sure it will serve you well in whatever forum war you roam to next.
That 240Hz has mediocre response times, while this 170Hz monitor has too much overshoot.
The 240Hz monitor would be an improvement, but barely so in terms of perceived motion resolution.
I'd argue for the MSI to be sub-$350, but I'm not recommending either monitor.
looking at the reviews, looks very good and i'd argue a 240hz under $600 is budget. show me a cheaper 240hz monitor thats not garbage
or even a better monitor near the $600 mark
Samsung G6 would be better when it's on sale for $500-$600. Much, much, much better. There's been plenty of FHD 240Hz that are better for less, often as low as $300.
There's almost no point getting a 240Hz monitor when the motion resolution of it is barely any different from a 144Hz monitor, certainly not worth paying $200 more.
@jasswolf: LS27BG652EEXXY?
surely not, even rtings doesnt think so…
and its a VA panel…
im not sure you sound like you know more about monitors than me lol
Do not trust RTings for ratings and technical measurements on a monitor. They provide good info on input latency, basic image quality measurements, compatibility, and ergonomics assessments, but their response time measurements are not up to date, and they are inherently flawed for IPS monitors. You cannot trust their numbers there.
You can see the difference in their motion photography, which is representative of how the human eye perceives things while tracking an object moving across the screen.
Look at the motion photography examples on RTings themselves:
ASUS 2nd gen QHD 360Hz IPS vs G6
The actual test image that's moving across the screen.
The G6 is arguably doing the best job, but there's some mild dark smearing that will show up a little more in darker and high contrast scenes.
So why is it able to do this?
While OLED response times are faster, persistence of image is a factor too, and without black-frame insertion, that's very high on OLED while it's not at 500-1000Hz. 360Hz LCD behaves differently in an effort to minimise persistance due to its slower response times.
So to do better than 360Hz TN or fast VA right now, you need at least one of:
a) 360 Hz OLED (available next year)
b) OLED with 120Hz+ BFI (at least halves max brightness, requires HDR be disabled for low input lag)
c) LCD with strobing backlight (requires more R&D to better perfect due to strobe crosstalk)
d) 500Hz+ LCD that has appropriate response times to drive it (ie. probably not IPS, also probably where LCD technology caps out)
The caveat with the G6 is it seems to have unreasonably high input lag, more akin to a 144Hz monitor, but I'm not sure if it's been fixed in recent firmware or not.
Hope that brings you up to speed (pardon the pun)!
This monitor or the Dell one https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/796339 ?
I have no idea how these two monitors compare. I know im looking for a high refresh rate monitor with colours that don't look washed out. Mainly for single player games and occasional WFH situations. Hopefully someone can advise ! Thanks!