MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,585
X32 and X32 FP are different. FP was supposed to be out in Feb.
TFTC says Q2 and supposely they are going based off of Acer's own press release material.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
X32 and X32 FP are different. FP was supposed to be out in Feb.
Another quick update after using the monitor for a while...I feel like it's GREAT for gaming (even with HDR , irrespective of the HDR400 rating). I've been playing Doom Eternal and it looks beautiful with HDR enabled without tweaking the calibration settings. The only issue I've had is when the game starts, I need to toggle HDR off and on again (something is not being correctly by default).Quick update...I've spent a fair amount of time testing some games ( GTA V, Rise of the Tomb Raider demo, Doom, Resident Evil Village) with settings completely maxed and I think performance is of they monitor is very good. With the exception of forgetting to enable V-Sync in NCP (which I did not think of as i have not done any PC gaming configuration in a while - and this caused massive tearing in GTA in full screen mode) I can say motion looks pretty good, no tearing noticeable and no other visual issues with pretty erratic frame rates. I may just stick with this instead of waiting for the "perfect" monitor to be released.
I will wait patently for the LG UltraGear 32GQ950 to release.
Serious question though... I'm about 6 hours in a game with HDR enabled on my HDR400 monitor and I think it looks fantastic. The brightness is much greater than I expected and the colors in the game really pop. It could very well be this specific game's implementation of HDR, but can you really go by that rating to determine quality? Honestly from what I read, it seems a bit arbitraryUnfortunately HDR600…so more or less garbage for HDR.
My use case for a 32" 4k screen is primarily productivity tasks, but I also want to be able to occasionally and non-competitively run AAA game titles that make full use of my 6900 XTXH. With the priorities in that order, and knowing that I "need" to buy something soon (my old display died and I'm currently using a Dell U2719D that's not great for either purpose), is there a particular preference between the currently available AUO and Innolux panels?If it's using the same AUO panel as PG32UQ and others then it will probably be a good fit for productivity.
Depends on what you have in mind for productivity tasks I'd say. For color critical work AUO panel is a better option. For something like coding Innolux panel will be fine but it will be faster for occasional gaming so probably a better fit.My use case for a 32" 4k screen is primarily productivity tasks, but I also want to be able to occasionally and non-competitively run AAA game titles that make full use of my 6900 XTXH. With the priorities in that order, and knowing that I "need" to buy something soon (my old display died and I'm currently using a Dell U2719D that's not great for either purpose), is there a particular preference between the currently available AUO and Innolux panels?
Just curious...would many of you still waiting to purchase buy a monitor already out if HDMI 2.1 was a non-issue (ie. No console gaming, so DP for PC gaming would be fine)?
I do some gaming, no shooters though (or anything else with really rapid FOV changes where tearing might be noticeable), and use it as my main system display.Any of the 120Hz+ IPS options will likely be a huge upgrade over a 60Hz one. But it depends of course on what you use that 60Hz display for.
Dell G3223Q product page is up for the US - $1,099
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/del...23q/apd/210-bdbk/monitors-monitor-accessories
I've been using a pair of 32" 4K Dell UP3216Q for productivity/gaming for years, and had just ordered a pair of U3223QE (LG IPS nano black panel; only a slight improvement, but after nearly 7 years with the UP3216Q it was time for new monitors).
However, this new G3223Q looks really interesting. High refresh rate is great for games, and HDR is not a strict requirement for me (it looks great in games, but for productivity I won't have a backlight glow following my mouse pointer around unless I turn it off each time).
For productivity usage, is the display quality of the G3223Q likely to be noticeably inferior to the U3223QE, or is the G3223Q all upside over the U3223QE?
edit: It looks like it's using "M320QAN02.C" (link). PG32UQ uses "M320QAN02.3"
Still not dann word about the LG 32GQ950, waiting eagerly for a release date…
I had only the best experience’s with my OLED and a new panel for my CX, even after guarantee was officially over.I don't know that I would ever buy another LG after my experience with their customer support.
The HDR is garbage/filth on the M32U, resisting should be easyNo news at all on new 4k 32 monitors, and the M32U is on sale for $600. Must... resist... temptation...
If you're happy with it, great. The best way to see the deficiency of the HDR experience on your current display is to honestly have another display with higher/better rated/spec'ed HDR capabilities next to your current monitor. It's a bit of a Catch 22 trying to determine the HDR weakness of your current display by only looking at content on it. Your current monitor won't get as dark/bright/vivid (e.g. the "high dynamic" part of HDR) for whatever content you're watching and if you've never seen that content in "proper" HDR, you don't have any frame of reference to compare.Question...I may be wearing Gigabyte- colored glasses because my HDR experience has been great with the M32U...are there any games that you can think of that may be available as a demo that would show that HDR on this display sucks? I'm happy to test and provide feedback...right now I can only comment on Doom Eternal and it looks amazing
Another annoying problem I ran into, that I'm describing in case someone else runs into it and is searching for a solution, is that if you set both monitors as 144Hz and ever touch the Windows HDR setting, even if you turn it back off, the displays will start occasionally blinking (even across reboots). You can set one to 60Hz and the problem will go away. But you can also just do a clean install of the Nvidia drivers (yes in theory reinstalling drivers should have zero effect, but I've used this fix twice now to get rid of the blinking effect after playing around with Windows 10 HDR settings). A clean driver reinstall is also the only way to get the nvidia color accuracy mode to to say "Accurate" (as opposed to Reference Mode or Enhanced Mode, if you ever touch any setting there), although I think that is just a UI bug.
Until the 10k/1m dimming zone or stacked LCD models come out LCD HDR is always going to be blighted by halos, etc. Given the limitations, I'd ignore the HDR entirely and just view it as the cheapest 32" 4k144 monitor. And on that front I'm really tempted as well. $600 is getting low enough I can live with it being my main for only a few years. $1k makes that a much harder proposition; and the first 10k zone, etc LCDs will probably make the $3k Asus Proart look cheap.The HDR is garbage/filth on the M32U, resisting should be easy
It would blink every 5-10 seconds for about 3 seconds, making the monitor unusable. Probably a graphics card hardware or driver issue, not the monitor, I have an evga 3080.Hmmm
Hmmm, I have three displays at 144Hz with HDR. Turning HDR on or off does not result in any blinking for me. What's the interval for the blinking? Ever couple of minutes? I remember having this weird blinking-esque years ago but an Nvidia driver update eventually fixed it.