118°
EXPIRED
Acer Predator XB271HUAbmiprz 27-inch 1440p 165Hz Gaming Monitor with G-Sync £460.49 @ Amazon
Acer Predator XB271HUAbmiprz 27-inch 1440p 165Hz Gaming Monitor with G-Sync £460.49 @ Amazon

Acer Predator XB271HUAbmiprz 27-inch 1440p 165Hz Gaming Monitor with G-Sync £460.49 @ Amazon

Buy forBuy forBuy for£460.49
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Over £60 cheaper than when I was looking yesterday. Yes it's expensive, but it is cheaper than anywhere else I can find.

It's not the IPS version, so if that's what you're looking for, look elsewhere, but for gaming, the 1ms response on the TN panel is unbeatable.

Great reviews all round.

26 Comments

Is thier a ips version and freesync

Original Poster

RedRain

Is thier a ips version and freesync



​There is an ips version of this screen with 4ms response that is identical otherwise, but it was around £670 last I looked.

Lucky88

Freesync monitorshttp://www.144hzmonitors.com/list-of-freesync-monitors/



Thz

I think this is the cheapest price currently, but I can't get myself to part with 460 when it sold for 413 just 2 months ago

Original Poster

Lahn

I think this is the cheapest price currently, but I can't get myself to … I think this is the cheapest price currently, but I can't get myself to part with 460 when it sold for 413 just 2 months ago



​Yeah it sucks, pretty sure I chose one of the worst times to build a pc.

RedRain

Is thier a ips version and freesync



There is an IPS version, however, there is not a FreeSync version.

So, to answer your question. No. There is not.

Mad1Maxx

​Yeah it sucks, pretty sure I chose one of the worst times to build a pc.


you're not alone

Lahn

I think this is the cheapest price currently, but I can't get myself to … I think this is the cheapest price currently, but I can't get myself to part with 460 when it sold for 413 just 2 months ago


And don't expect it to get that cheap again anytime soon. Pound has plummeted and they aren't manufacturing too many of 1440p 144hz+ screens due to quality control issues.

arealmentalist

And don't expect it to get that cheap again anytime soon. Pound has … And don't expect it to get that cheap again anytime soon. Pound has plummeted and they aren't manufacturing too many of 1440p 144hz+ screens due to quality control issues.


True doubt it will drop again, but currently this has to be the cheapest G-Sync 144hz+ 1440p monitor I've seen, but where are the cheaper Freesync ones @. This would be no good to me with my R9 Fury.

hamzahuk

True doubt it will drop again, but currently this has to be the cheapest … True doubt it will drop again, but currently this has to be the cheapest G-Sync 144hz+ 1440p monitor I've seen, but where are the cheaper Freesync ones @. This would be no good to me with my R9 Fury.



It's generally a bad place to look for a FreeSync deal in the Gsync monitor deal thread ;-)

The problem is two fold.

The more expensive screens are paired with more expensive (stronger/better) cards.

NVIDIA sell the premium graphics cards right now, while AMD are struggling to compete with the midrange card.

That along side the lack of quality controls with FreeSync, it's open source, comes with a plethora of mediocre screens that barely do any sort of adaptive refresh.

Some are only doing adaptive refresh within 45-70 hertz range, what's the use of that?
Edited by: "Nate1492" 5th Dec 2016

Picked this up for £453 a few days ago, wish I tried a TN panel months ago instead of wasting time and effort on the IPS lottery. They're not perfect but their imperfections are less annoying than the current gaming IPS monitors by a long stretch.

Nate1492

NVIDIA sell the premium graphics cards right now, while AMD are … NVIDIA sell the premium graphics cards right now, while AMD are struggling to compete with the midrange card.That along side the lack of quality controls with FreeSync, it's open source, comes with a plethora of mediocre screens that barely do any sort of adaptive refresh.Some are only doing adaptive refresh within 45-70 hertz range, what's the use of that?


But there are also more good FreeSync monitors than there are G-Sync monitors, due to the fact that there are far more on the market total, and those are also a lot cheaper than their G-Sync equivalents. It's nothing to do with the market positions of AMD and Nvidia, but simply the cost of implementing the G-Sync module in the monitor. FreeSync monitors also have advantages in terms of connectivity. G-Sync displays are very limited in that regard.

Equally, there's no reason to actually buy one of the bad FreeSync monitors, because you'd have to be absolutely crazy not to be doing some fairly thorough research on a product before dropping hundreds of pounds on it. Something like the Acer XF270HU, a 144Hz 1440p IPS FreeSync monitor, can be had for under £400 and has a 40-144Hz FreeSync range. A comparable G-Sync display would cost you at least £150 more. Even this TN panel with similar specs costs over £70 more.

AMD have new high end cards arriving soon, and personally I'm planning to get rid of my 1070 and pair one of them with a FreeSync monitor (probably the XF270HU I mentioned). I can't justify paying £150+ just for a G-Sync module.

Aretak

But there are also more good FreeSync monitors than there are G-Sync … But there are also more good FreeSync monitors than there are G-Sync monitors, due to the fact that there are far more on the market total, and those are also a lot cheaper than their G-Sync equivalents. It's nothing to do with the market positions of AMD and Nvidia, but simply the cost of implementing the G-Sync module in the monitor. FreeSync monitors also have advantages in terms of connectivity. G-Sync displays are very limited in that regard.Equally, there's no reason to actually buy one of the bad FreeSync monitors, because you'd have to be absolutely crazy not to be doing some fairly thorough research on a product before dropping hundreds of pounds on it. Something like the Acer XF270HU, a 144Hz 1440p IPS FreeSync monitor, can be had for under £400 and has a 40-144Hz FreeSync range. A comparable G-Sync display would cost you at least £150 more. Even this TN panel with similar specs costs over £70 more.AMD have new high end cards arriving soon, and personally I'm planning to get rid of my 1070 and pair one of them with a FreeSync monitor (probably the XF270HU I mentioned). I can't justify paying £150+ just for a G-Sync module.



I do not see 'more good freesync monitors' around.

Where are the 1440p, 165+ hz TN or IPS displays?

The acer xf270HU is not on the same level as the Predator series.

If you've bought into the "AMD will be good at sometime" hype, then fine. But after the 480 failure, not buying in till it's already there.

Does g sync/free sync really matter on 2k 144hz monitors? I'm currently own acer XF270HU, but I have gtx1070 graphic card :s. I'm thinking return that monitor and buy g sync monitor. Anyone can answer my question please ?

Nate1492

[quote=Aretak][quote=Nate1492] But after the 480 failure, not buying in … [quote=Aretak][quote=Nate1492] But after the 480 failure, not buying in till it's already there.


The '480' is a mid range card don't forget, also I'm not gonna lie but it was kinda funny how overhyped the card was, where people were saying it was beating a 1070 (lol). I think by Nvidia releasing there 1060, it was a HUGE surprise to the masses and even me that a '60' series card was bringing such performance to the table equaling to that of the 980. This year I think Nvidia won this year due to that 1060 surprising alot of people as it was soo unexpected in terms of performance.

scott_li

Does g sync/free sync really matter on 2k 144hz monitors? I'm currently … Does g sync/free sync really matter on 2k 144hz monitors? I'm currently own acer XF270HU, but I have gtx1070 graphic card :s. I'm thinking return that monitor and buy g sync monitor. Anyone can answer my question please ?



I mean, to each their own.

But with all the adaptive syncs, you stop screen tear.

Experience it and see if you like it, I almost surely would think so.

Nate1492

I do not see 'more good freesync monitors' around.Where are the 1440p, … I do not see 'more good freesync monitors' around.Where are the 1440p, 165+ hz TN or IPS displays?The acer xf270HU is not on the same level as the Predator series.If you've bought into the "AMD will be good at sometime" hype, then fine. But after the 480 failure, not buying in till it's already there.


Ah, the inner fanboy emerges.

If you don't see the fact that there are more good FreeSync monitors on the market (both than bad ones and G-Sync ones), I don't know what to tell you. You could quite easily visit any online store or review site and see them right now, but I guess that wouldn't be productive, because it wouldn't fit with your view of NVIDIA R DA BESTEST. As for 165Hz suddenly being the indicator of a good monitor, I can't help but laugh. As for the XF270HU, it's on par with any other 144Hz 1440p IPS monitor you care to mention. The reviews speak for themselves, so there's no need to give your opinion on a monitor that you've never used any merit.

Regarding the "AMD will be good at sometime" fanboy nonsense, I don't need to "buy into" anything, because I'm not some silly child who only buys from their favourite brand. I've owned excellent cards from both AMD and Nvidia. I was very happy with the Fury I had earlier this year in every respect, but am the kind of restless up/sidegrader who sells perfectly good things to buy shiny new ones regularly (I've also had two 1060s, another 1070, a 290X, two 480s and a Nano this calendar year). I've had some great times with AMD cards, and will do again in the future, once they have the right product for me. Sorry if that upsets you.

The 480 wasn't a "failure" by any metric you care to mention either. Objectively that is untrue. The recent numbers showing that AMD have clawed back more than 10% market share in the discrete graphics card sector compared to a year ago is proof enough of that. It's a good mid-range card with some advantages over the 1060, and which I imagine will prove to be the better long-term buy, as AMD cards usually are.

scott_li

Does g sync/free sync really matter on 2k 144hz monitors? I'm currently … Does g sync/free sync really matter on 2k 144hz monitors? I'm currently own acer XF270HU, but I have gtx1070 graphic card :s. I'm thinking return that monitor and buy g sync monitor. Anyone can answer my question please ?


It's not as important if you're driving games at very high framerates. You'll see a lot less tearing than at lower framerates. Personally, I wouldn't pay the extra for G-Sync. The monitor you have supports a VESA standard that isn't going anywhere, since Intel are supporting it too. There's a chance that Nvidia will get on board in the future, whereas there's no chance of anybody else ever adopting G-Sync.

Nate1492

I mean, to each their own.But with all the adaptive syncs, you stop … I mean, to each their own.But with all the adaptive syncs, you stop screen tear.Experience it and see if you like it, I almost surely would think so.



I mean one is IPS and £60 cheaper and another have g sync oO so hard to choose !

Original Poster

Up to £530 again it seems.

Mad1Maxx

Up to £530 again it seems.



Yep was just about to comment this :(FML

Nate1492

I do not see 'more good freesync monitors' around.Where are the 1440p, … I do not see 'more good freesync monitors' around.Where are the 1440p, 165+ hz TN or IPS displays?The acer xf270HU is not on the same level as the Predator series.If you've bought into the "AMD will be good at sometime" hype, then fine. But after the 480 failure, not buying in till it's already there.

scott_li

Does g sync/free sync really matter on 2k 144hz monitors? I'm currently … Does g sync/free sync really matter on 2k 144hz monitors? I'm currently own acer XF270HU, but I have gtx1070 graphic card :s. I'm thinking return that monitor and buy g sync monitor. Anyone can answer my question please ?



The 480 was a failure as it has not obtained market share in the video game market.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Not only has it sold poorly as a gaming card, the 460, 470, and 480 don't combine to even crack a single half percent. All 3 cards fall unde the minimum threshold to register. That is .15%.

Either the stock was abysmal, or the cards are not being used for gaming. Heck, did you see the thread about the AMD 480s? Top post was a guy buying 4 to mine currency.

That steam survey is an objective failure.

The XF270HU is a fine monitor, but the XB271HU (not the A, that's the TN) is *far* better. You can make assumptions about reviews and whether I have one or not, I won't entertain your pre-determined fantasy.

Oh, and your figure about AMD "clawing back 10% marketshare". Again, you are making things up, objective data is available.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

Yes, they have *Lost* 2% market share over the course of June 2015 to November 2016. So, what next? I mean, I don't know how I can discuss with someone if you are bent on making numbers up.

I mean, until you repair your reputation for credibility (10% market share!) I don't think your opinion should carry much water.

Nate1492

Oh, and your figure about AMD "clawing back 10% marketshare". Again, you … Oh, and your figure about AMD "clawing back 10% marketshare". Again, you are making things up, objective data is available.http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Yes, they have *Lost* 2% market share over the course of June 2015 to November 2016. So, what next? I mean, I don't know how I can discuss with someone if you are bent on making numbers up.I mean, until you repair your reputation for credibility (10% market share!) I don't think your opinion should carry much water.


Nobody (or, at least, nobody with the relevant education) uses the Steam Hardware Survey for marketshare. It's an indicator of gaming graphics card trends, and useful as such, but nothing more. It doesn't necessarily show miners, for example. We can assume from it that AMD are still far behind Nvidia in sales to gamers in general, but that is not the same as overall hardware sales.

Here's a marketshare analysis that doesn't use big words: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10613/discrete-desktop-gpu-market-trends-q2-2016-amd-grabs-market-share-but-nvidia-remains-on-top

Nate1492, I'm still waiting for you to repair your reputation after you thought Nvidia was a UK company who had, you say, claimed the 1060 was their official replacement for the 970 (despite the two 1060 models having the same MSRP as their two 960 predecessors). Got a link to that quote yet?

Aretak

FreeSync monitors also have advantages in terms of connectivity. G-Sync … FreeSync monitors also have advantages in terms of connectivity. G-Sync displays are very limited in that regard.


Do you mean that FreeSync supports DisplayPort and HDMI while G-Sync only supports DisplayPort? I think you may be out of the loop on that one - Nvidia quietly added HDMI support last year ("G-Sync Gen II" or "G-Sync II"). The monitor in this deal has it, for example.

As you seemed to be going through the cons but left out the pros, I'll just add that G-Sync also supports borderless windowed, which FreeSync has been allegedly going to get an update to include, but unless I'm mistaken, that's still MIA..?

G-Sync also works through the entire refresh range, while FreeSync has those limited windows. And FreeSync can still have ghosting issues that seriously affect overall image quality.

I'm not saying that G-Sync is better value than FreeSync, but it's indisputably a higher-quality solution - when you say "comparable G-Sync display", it's tricky, because FreeSync just isn't as good. Personally, though, I'm with you - G-Sync is nice, but not "£150 nice".

BetaRomeo

Nobody (or, at least, nobody with the relevant education) uses the Steam … Nobody (or, at least, nobody with the relevant education) uses the Steam Hardware Survey for marketshare. It's an indicator of gaming graphics card trends, and useful as such, but nothing more. It doesn't necessarily show miners, for example. We can assume from it that AMD are still far behind Nvidia in sales to gamers in general, but that is not the same as overall hardware sales.Here's a marketshare analysis that doesn't use big words: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10613/discrete-desktop-gpu-market-trends-q2-2016-amd-grabs-market-share-but-nvidia-remains-on-topNate1492, I'm still waiting for you to repair your reputation after you thought Nvidia was a UK company who had, you say, claimed the 1060 was their official replacement for the 970 (despite the two 1060 models having the same MSRP as their two 960 predecessors). Got a link to that quote yet?



Beta Romeo, you could *stop lying* as starters. I did not claim NVIDIA was a UK company. Starter for 10, don't lie.

As for the 1060 replacing the 970, it's clear, that's exactly what it's aimed at. The pricing, the branding, the market share (for gaming) matches the 970.

Also, did I say NVIDIA made an official statement saying the 970 was a replacement, or did I show a very well made graph showing, in simple terms, how the upgrade path looks?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7iJ_e6t_QAhWEDsAKHUpYDiwQFghAMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F3092193%2Fcomponents-graphics%2Fnvidias-geforce-gtx-1060-is-a-250-gtx-980-killer.html&usg=AFQjCNGmoooJ708ZD9uET3UywCRU3rkJ7A

The card is marketed as a Mid Range card, just like the 970 was for the last 1.5 years.

Nate1492

Oh, and your figure about AMD "clawing back 10% marketshare". Again, … Oh, and your figure about AMD "clawing back 10% marketshare". Again, you are making things up, objective data is available.http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Yes, they have *Lost* 2% market share over the course of June 2015 to November 2016. So, what next? I mean, I don't know how I can discuss with someone if you are bent on making numbers up.I mean, until you repair your reputation for credibility (10% market share!) I don't think your opinion should carry much water.

Nate1492

As for the 1060 replacing the 970, it's clear, that's exactly what it's … As for the 1060 replacing the 970, it's clear, that's exactly what it's aimed at. The pricing, the branding, the market share (for gaming) matches the 970.

Nate1492

Also, did I say NVIDIA made an official statement saying the 970 was a … Also, did I say NVIDIA made an official statement saying the 970 was a replacement

Nate1492

...or did I show a very well made graph showing, in simple terms, how the … ...or did I show a very well made graph showing, in simple terms, how the upgrade path looks?https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7iJ_e6t_QAhWEDsAKHUpYDiwQFghAMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcworld.com%2Farticle%2F3092193%2Fcomponents-graphics%2Fnvidias-geforce-gtx-1060-is-a-250-gtx-980-killer.html&usg=AFQjCNGmoooJ708ZD9uET3UywCRU3rkJ7A


My apologies. You said that Nvidia's UK prices were a clear indicator that the 1060 was replacing the 970. Either you thought Nvidia was a UK company, or you thought Nvidia was a US company whose prices in the exclusive currency of a particularly small market segment are indicative of their overall global market strategy. The second option seemed more stupid than the first, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. As you've just said it again in your latest comment, though, I admit that I was wrong to think so highly of you.


The pricing? The $200 3GB 1060 has replaced the $200 2GB 960, and the $250 6GB 1060 has replaced the $250 4GB 960. Oh, those are US dollars, by the way. Nvidia is a US company. If you just look at UK pricing... well, that would make sense, perhaps, if Nvidia was a UK company. But the pricing clearly shows the 1060 replaces the 960, regardless of any change in value of the pound. Did you forget your own starter for 10?

The branding? You think "970" followed by "1060" makes more sense than "960" followed by "1060"? The branding clearly shows the 1060 replaces the 960, regardless of innumerate points of view. Oops, looks like you forgot your own starter for 10.

The "market share (for gaming)"...?! I'm sorry, it's beyond my generous capabilities to ascribe any remotely complimentary meaning to that bizarre scrambled-together mess. Still, I suppose blithering =/= lying.


Yes. ("I don't know how else I can say it, the 1060 6GB was released as a replacement for the 970 segment. NVIDIA said this themselves.")

Do you need me to remind you of your own starter for 10?

No, you linked to this piece of garbage which had no statements from Nvidia at all, and a rather desperate attempt to suggest that arrow placement in one slide by one manufacturer suggested that the 970 would be replaced by the... well, it says 10XX. Insert a comment here about your starter for 10.

What is that link you just provided, by the way? It doesn't seem at all related to the topic at hand. Would you mind quoting the part you think is relevant?

Here's an article from back when the $249.99 6GB 1060 released, along with a table comparing its specs with its predecessor. For some reason, I trust the author of that article more than I trust you.

Oh, that's US dollars again, by the way. That's quite relevant, considering Nvidia is a US company. But maybe the relative prices in Botswana pula make the 1060 a replacement for the 980 Ti as well?
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text