Acer HN274H 27" @120Hz?

[snuuggles]

Has anyone gotten any firm information on the new HN274H monitor announced at CES? As far as I can tell, it's what I've been waiting for, a larger-format (27"+) 1080p display that accepts 120hz input.

Can anyone confirm the following:

- it *definitely* will accept 120hz input via DL-DVI or displayport.
- release date
- price

I'm very interested in this, assuming it isn't vaporware like the Asus.

 

[snuuggles]

bump.

I'm honestly very surprised at the general lack of interest I've observed in high-refresh-rate displays. People spend hundreds (thousands!) of dollars a year playing games, and seem complete disinterested in the single most important aspect of that experience *resolving moving images well*.

People nit-pick resolution, color accuracy, viewing angles blah blah blah (my GOD, if you only/mostly play games, who CARES about the color accuracy?!!), and they ignore the fact that 60hz refresh is objectively and demonstrably LAME (er, does that make sense?).

For displays that are used for high-end photo/cad work, obviously still image fidelity is key, but for the gen pop, high refresh is simply far, far more important. Am I out of my mind? (wait, don't answer that...)

 

[smackababy]

This monitor was announced yesterday correct? Why would anyone have any firm information on it?

 

[snuuggles]

*Somebody* knows. But, more to the point, I'm just generally surprised that there wasn't already a post on this *anywhere* on anand. Like I said, seems like a lack of interest - people obsess over potential voltage tweaks on Sandy Bridge as soon as the tiniest peep of information is revealed, yet when the most important bit of pc technology is upgraded in a fundamental way, "meh".

I have a pc mostly to play games. These are defined by *moving images*, the fact that this major upgrade to moving image display is not being covered by almost any news source is strange to me. I thought after the 120hz review last year we'd start to get some interest, but I just don't see it, and I don't know why.

 

[jackstar7]

I can't find anything confirming 120hz. Very frustrating detail to leave out.

I'm wondering if there is some workaround they've figured to get 3D without 120hz.

 

[SirPauly]

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-32254_1-20027299-283.html

The monitor includes a 1,920x1,080-pixel resolution as well as support for dual-link DVI and HDMI 1.4 inputs. It will also be one of the first 3D capable monitors to include a WLED backlight.

 

[snuuggles]

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-32254_1-20027299-283.html

Hey SirPauly, I've seen that. What's frusterating about this (and all) the posts on this display is that they dance around the 120hz input issue.

 

[Barfo]

27" 1080p? do not want.

 

[nanaki333]

HD3D perhaps?

 

[SirPauly]

Hey SirPauly, I've seen that. What's frusterating about this (and all) the posts on this display is that they dance around the 120hz input issue.

It's 120hz, it has to be to offer 3d vision support.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-32254_1-20027299-283.html

Finally a cleaner looking design from Acer, but still looks like absolute basic ergonomics only. With the 3D emitter included it also likely won't be cheap, this monitor really is built for 3D and not much else.

I certainly have no interest in this over my BenQ XL2410T.

 

[SirPauly]

Sure, a lot of display vendors are moving in that direction.

 

[Rhentno]

All of this chatter makes me love my 21" CRT that much more. I played F:NV on my 22" LCD and then I played on my CRT at 1600x1200 at 85hz. The game looks lush, vibrant and smooth on my CRT. Such a better visual experience.

 

[jackstar7]

It's 120hz, it has to be to offer 3d vision support.

If that is true, then why wouldn't they state it clearly? It just seems like a missed chance for better marketing.

I'm concerned that there might be a new workaround from nV or AMD that would let these monitor makers avoid the 120hz requirement as we know it.

 

[snuuggles]

27" 1080p? do not want.

Hey Barfo, I'm worried that gaming at above 1080p will result in terrible frame-rates without speding $400 a year on GPUs, can you really get good frame-rates in new games at 2560x[whatever]??

Also, atm I'm not sure even DVI-DL will support 2560x1600@120hz, I think it's just too much bandwidth. Not sure about that though, I know the new displayport specs will support it though...

Anyway, I agree that for non-gaming, 1080p is low, but I mostly game so framerate>resolution as far as I'm concerned.

 

[SirPauly]

If you're concerned, just wait for more data, for your personal clarity. It's not like one can purchase these displays yet.

 

[snuuggles]

If that is true, then why wouldn't they state it clearly? It just seems like a missed chance for better marketing.

I'm concerned that there might be a new workaround from nV or AMD that would let these monitor makers avoid the 120hz requirement as we know it.

*Exactly* my fear. I suspect that this was just careless marketing, and bad (non-existant) reporting, but since TVs are clearly able to support "3D" without actually supporting full 1080p@120hz input, it's clear that Nvidia *could* have jiggered up some way to support that style of 3D without supporting the real 120hz input.

Which is why I'm hoping someone from anand or one of these other sites that are there at CES would just ask someone there for us.

Also, when can we get it and how much

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Hey Barfo, I'm worried that gaming at above 1080p will result in terrible frame-rates without speding $400 a year on GPUs, can you really get good frame-rates in new games at 2560x[whatever]??

No, new games cannot be run at 2560 without seriously GPU horsepower, not without sacrificing quite a bit of eye candy at least. Of course the same could be said of trying to drive 1080p @ 80-100fps if not better to really try and get the most out of its 120Hz refresh rate. Either way I feel I need every ounce of my 2x SLI GTX470s to run either either my 2560x1440 @ 60Hz U2711 or my 1920x1080 @ 120Hz XL2410T.

The only plus side to 2560x1600 or 1440 is that 1280x800 or 1280x720 could be run without interpolation, but with "pixels" that large it will still won't look great and the resolution will feel noticeably small to anyone used to 1680x1050 or higher.

Also, atm I'm not sure even DVI-DL will support 2560x1600@120hz, I think it's just too much bandwidth. Not sure about that though, I know the new displayport specs will support it though...

No, dual link DVI will not support it, and yes, currently Display Port is the only interface has the bandwidth to do it.

Anyway, I agree that for non-gaming, 1080p is low, but I mostly game so framerate>resolution as far as I'm concerned.

I'm in the same boat, which is why I run multiple monitors . I might even argue that some of the older 1680x1050 120Hz panels might be the best way to go because it would be even easier to drive games at that resolution at a high average fps vs. 1080p.

I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen some smaller options for 120Hz monitors such as in the 1600x900 range. Although I wouldn't expect to see any until we start seeing more manufacturers market their current 120Hz LCDs for speed as much if not more so than they do for their 3D capabilities. Right now the current crop of 120Hz LCDs are prohibitively expensive so it doesn't really matter whether or not the mainstream can afford them because they couldn't afford the GPU power to properly drive them anyway.

 

[Throckmorton]

The only plus side to 2560x1600 or 1440 is that 1280x800 or 1280x720 could be run without interpolation, but with "pixels" that large it will still won't look great and the resolution will feel noticeably small to anyone used to 1680x1050 or higher.

No, you can't do that. People have asked nVidia, and they replied that they will not add that capability because it's not worth the time to program. Basically they won't even have some code monkey spend an hour adding that capability to the driver.

If you send any monitor a lower res, it will always interpolate (assuming it scales at all). Unless you can convince a manufacturer to take 1/4 res and scale each pixel to 4.... yeah right.

 

[SirPauly]

*Exactly* my fear. I suspect that this was just careless marketing, and bad (non-existant) reporting, but since TVs are clearly able to support "3D" without actually supporting full 1080p@120hz input, it's clear that Nvidia *could* have jiggered up some way to support that style of 3D without supporting the real 120hz input.

Which is why I'm hoping someone from anand or one of these other sites that are there at CES would just ask someone there for us.

Also, when can we get it and how much

It wouldn't be 3d vision ready if that was the case - each eye has to be 60hz.

 

[jackstar7]

It wouldn't be 3d vision ready if that was the case - each eye has to be 60hz.

UNLESS they've come up with something new, which is what we're talking about.

This thing is at CES, so if they've innovated a way around 120hz for 3D, this is probably where it would be seen first.

 

[smackababy]

UNLESS they've come up with something new, which is what we're talking about.

This thing is at CES, so if they've innovated a way around 120hz for 3D, this is probably where it would be seen first.

But I am sure if they did have a new way of doing 3D, they'd be hyping it to the max.

 

[SirPauly]

UNLESS they've come up with something new, which is what we're talking about.

This thing is at CES, so if they've innovated a way around 120hz for 3D, this is probably where it would be seen first.

This thing is at CES, and there is going to be a 27 inch monitor, with an incredible amount of 3d stereo flexibility featuring both Dual-Link DVI support for frame sequential stereo 3D input that 3D Vision uses and HDMI 1.4 for stereo 3D content for consumer devices. This is amazing these aspects, when compared to earlier monitors, and kinda new.

 

[jackstar7]

Well, until someone says it's a 27" at 120hz, I'm remaining cautious.

Hardly seems like absurd behavior.

 

[SirPauly]

It's always wise to be cautious. The key for many is simply more data and this monitor is so new, very understandable.