Gaming Impressions and Closing Thoughts
Setup of a G-Sync monitor is painless. As long as you have recent drivers from GeForce.com it will recognize the Acer XB280HK and show you a new menu option. You simply enable G-Sync there then change the Vertical Sync setting to "G-SYNC" in the 3D Settings menu.
Once you have that done you are basically good to go. In some instances, the game's settings will need to be set to V-Sync Off in order to work properly, but I haven't personally run into that.
Running games at 4K is fundamentally different than running them at 2560×1440 due to the amount of GPU horsepower required. A single frame of 2560×1440 rendered gameplay is 3.68M pixels while a single frame of 3840×2160 is 8.29M pixels – an increase of 2.25x. That means in order to maintain a similar frame rate, your graphics configuration will need to be around 2x more powerful if you are running at the native 4K resolution of the Acer XB280HK.
In my opinion, the minimum graphics configuration to run the Acer XB280HK G-Sync monitor is a single GeForce GTX 980 or SLI configuration of GTX 780/780 Ti. That can be a sizeable investment in GPU hardware if you are just starting out with a new build and will require another $600-1200 over the $799 cost of the monitor itself. On the other hand, the ASUS PG278Q G-Sync monitor will be able to run with much less graphics horsepower in play because of the lower resolution – I think using a single GTX 970 is going to provide a great experience there.
As with many aspects of enthusiast PC gaming, the higher you invest in any single product component will often times influence the amount of investment required in other areas a well. That is definitely the case with this panel.
For my testing I used a pair of GeForce GTX 980 cards running in SLI sitting our standard GPU test bed of a Sandy Bridge-E 6-core processor and 16GB of DDR3 running at 1600 MHz.
Playing games at 4K is quite a breathtaking experience but requires some additional configuration. For example, our toughest game we use for testing is Crysis 3 and it could not be run, even with dual Maxwell GPUs, at 4K with the Very High IQ settings we typically use. Instead I had to move down the presets to Medium and lower MSAA from 4x to 2x. That resulted in a frame rate ranging between 40-55 FPS which is perfectly suited to show off the benefits of G-Sync. With a typical 4K monitor at that frame rate we would either see stuttering caused by shifting frame times or tearing as a result of misaligned scanning. But with G-Sync, you get an incredibly smooth gaming experience that is 100% playable.
Games that were less demanding on the GPU hardware hit the 60 Hz cap of the Acer monitor and thus simply resorted to the same experience as if V-Sync were enabled. Skyrim, GRID 2, Deus Ex and even Bioshock Infinite were able to run at the 60 FPS cap of the screen and thus aren't really using the benefits of G-Sync technology. I will say that Bioshock Infinite did have a few instances of dropping down to around 55 FPS, which might have caused some noticeable stutter issues on standard monitors, but weren't even noticed on the XB280HK until viewing the FRAPS data after the fact. That is a positive sign that G-Sync is having its intended benefit.
Other than Crysis 3, both Metro: Last Light and Battlefield 4 were running under 60 FPS for most of our play time but still were excellent gaming experiences at 4K thanks to the implementation of G-Sync. I had always expected that the 4K resolution was a perfect location for G-Sync to exist today and these specific gaming sessions have really driven that home for me. Yes, you still need a significant amount of GPU processing power to get 4K to run at playable frame rates, but that range of playable frame rates is extended to a much lower minimum with G-Sync.
Pricing and Availability
Acer told me that the XB280HK 28-in 4K G-Sync monitor would show up for sale in early to mid-October with a price tag of $799. Let's see how it all stacks up:
- Acer XB280HK 4K 60 Hz G-Sync – $799
- ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q G-Sync 2560×1440 144 Hz – $799
- ASUS PB287Q 4K 60 Hz – $649
- ASUS PB278Q 2560×1440 60 Hz – $478
- ASUS VG248QE 1920×1080 144 Hz – $269
- Overlord Tempest X270OC 2560×1440 ~120 Hz IPS – $449
There is a lot to look at with these comparisons and, of course, there are dozens of other monitors that we could be comparing to; I just wanted to keep things simple.
| Acer XB280HK | ASUS Swift PG278Q | ASUS PB287Q | ASUS PB278Q | ASUS VG248QE | Overlord X270OC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resolution | 3840x2160 | 2560x1440 | 3840x2160 | 2560x1440 | 1920x1080 | 2560x1440 |
| Refresh Rate | 60 Hz | 144 Hz | 60 Hz | 60 Hz | 144 Hz | ~100 Hz |
| Panel Type | TN | TN | TN | PLS | TN | IPS |
| GPU Power | High | Moderate | High | Moderate | Low | Moderate |
| G-Sync | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
| Light Boost / ULMB | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
| Price | $799 | $799 | $649 | $478 | $269 (+ kit) | $449 |
The Acer XB280HK has a $150 premium over the ASUS PB287Q, both very similar 4K monitors with the primary difference being the inclusion of G-Sync technology. The immediate reaction is to claim that NVIDIA's G-Sync is the full addition of that price difference - and you'd probably be right. I can't be sure if NVIDIA is actually charging that much for hardware + licensing to Acer or if Acer itself is marking up over the actual added cost because they know they have a premium product on theirs hands.
Final Thoughts
The Acer XB280HK finally fulfills the promise of the 4K G-Sync monitor we have been day dreaming about since the technology's launch back in October of 2013. Now that we have it, as well as another retail G-Sync option in the office, what kind of conclusions can we make? First, the two monitors, the ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q and the Acer XB280HK, are very different monitors and have a lot of competing features to help users decide between them. Luckily (or not) the price of both panels is identical so when they actually both show up in stock again, the debate will be based purely around other arguments.
The Acer 4K panel looks absolutely stunning when gaming at 3840x2160 and if you read over the GTX 980 / GTX 970 review and learned about NVIDIA's Dynamic Super Resolution technology, you can see why even lower resolution displays would want to take advantage of 4K rendering. Games like Crysis 3 and Skyrim look awesome with scalable textures and details visible that simply aren't there in any other configuration. The problem with a 4K resolution is of course the rendering horsepower required to run it - expect to need twice the GPU (either higher end cards or SLI) to really run 4K gaming at similar image quality settings you would with a 2560x1440 screen.
You are limited to a 60 Hz refresh rate on the Acer XB280HK while the ASUS ROG Swift monitor has the ability to run up to 144 Hz. For both desktop and gaming scenarios that can mean quite a lot and most users that take advantage of 120+ Hz gaming will instantly fall in love. But will you fall MORE in love with a higher refresh panel or a 4K image at 28-in? It's honestly a very difficult question to answer as the opinion varies even among the PC Perspective employees in our office.
I do wish that we had an IPS/PLS/IGZO version of this panel, as well as a 4K screen capable of 120 Hz refresh, but hey, we have to leave something for 2015 and 2016 right? Also remember that buying this monitor for its G-Sync properties will require you to stay in the NVIDIA GeForce graphics card ecosystem. If AMD releases a killer new product you will be able to run it on the XB280HK but not with the variable refresh capability. We are still waiting to hear from AMD and our pal Richard Huddy about our first FreeSync displays; hopefully we'll have more details on that before the end of October.
If you love what G-Sync can do for your gaming experience and you are willing to spend $799 for a new 4K panel, then the Acer XB280HK is going to be an awesome purchase for those PC gaming enthusiasts that can pump out the pixels required to make it sing. Next up we'll have a couple of new 1920x1080 G-Sync monitors to review to see if any more budget friendly options can make the cut!
Can you post please the
Can you post please the colour calibration settings you use for this monitor?
I own one of these and the
I own one of these and the B2888 from Iiyama which is made from the same panel.
Take my word for it when I say that there is little need for these products to exist.
If you all ready own something around the 27-30″ the 16:9 format and overall size of these panels, is most likely going to feel like a downgrade.
If you own an IPS panel, then this will feel like a downgrade. I know there is debate about how you don’t need wide horizontal viewing angles, and that is somewhat true. However the vertical plane of these panels is noticeably poor. A lot of people like to put a little back tilt on their screen, and as soon as you do that with these monitors, you get the inverse contrast. Even when slightly forward tilted, the top 1/3 of the screen is still darker than the rest. You effectively have to sit above the monitor in order to get a somewhat uniformed contrast/brightness spread.
If you don’t have a REALLY good computer, there’s quite a few 3d games that will be unpleasant to play. Even if you ‘max’ out Crysis 3 right now on a 1600p monitor, you won’t with 4k. A lot of graphics options will have to be lowered.
Additionally these panels have built-in scalers that cannot be disabled. This induces input lag and causes vertical screen tearing and frame latency blips. Even when you use programs to lock your frame rate to the refresh rate, to ensure a capped 16.9 ms frame latency, it’s not enough. Furthermore mulit-gpu setups do not like these panels because of how they are actually two mini panels combined in one.
The monitors can be overclocked to 70hz, but it provides no discerning difference.
If you all ready own a nice quality 27-30″ 1440p or 1600p monitor, whether it be TN, IPS etc, then do not buy these 4k TN products. Get yourself a 1440p 120hz ‘catleap’ monitor. That’s a much better use of your GPU horsepower.
@Rex Aevum
1. Two GTX 970
@Rex Aevum
1. Two GTX 970 would be all right if paired with a decent CPU/motherboard. Some games you’ll cap 60fps even with your normal ultra settings and AA. Where as others will be better with AA off – also some shadow/ambient occlusion reductions.
2. As mentioned in my previous post, at these screen sizes, no it’s not that noticeable. You have to sit almost a foot away from the screen to really tell. And if the game doesn’t use native 4k or higher textures, then the only benefit from 4k is the overall image quality -particularly in the LOD/long distance views). It won’t do anything for your texture quality.
3. It actually works out that driving 4k content takes roughly the same horsepower as driving a 120hz/144hz monitor. However I personally feel that driving a 120hz 1440p monitor is easier and of course smoother than pushing 4k. I also mentioned in my post that these 4k panels do not like multi-gpu setups. Either way, if you want 1440p, get a Catleap IPS panel instead. The Swift is overpriced TN panel.
4. Color reproduction is surprisingly good, no bleed. The viewing angles are poor, especially vertically.
5. Someone else will have to answer that.
Hello, I was wondering if
Hello, I was wondering if this monitor can handle 2k at 120hz or 144hz. I only have a gtx 980 so is a bit weak for gaming at 4k high and get 50fps constantly. I ask this because if I play a game very detail demanding like crisis 3, I would love to down the resolution and get better performance.
Thanks a lot.
Best regards.
Wilfredo Fornes.