HP Pavilion Gaming 32 HDR display shines bright for $449

We reported earlier on HP's addition to the mainstream gaming laptop market with the Pavilion Gaming Laptop 15 refresh. The company also says that that the more into gaming a person is, the higher the chance that they use a desktop PC as a gaming platform. Desktops need monitors, and HP's Pavilion Gaming 32 HDR monitor could deliver a premium viewing experience at an affordable price.

HP's Pavilion Gaming 32 HDR display has a 2560×1440 resolution that refreshes at a better-than-usual 74 Hz. Gamers with AMD graphics cards will probably have a better time playing games tear-free at that native resolution than owners of comparable Nvidia cards thanks to the display's baked-in FreeSync support. The manufacturer touts a relatively-quick 5-ms response time for the display. Anandtech reports that the 32 HDR's FreeSync range is 48 to 75 Hz, which unfortunately isn't wide enough to use Low Framerate Compensation or to earn the monitor a FreeSync 2 badge.

Where the Gaming 32 HDR really shines is in brightness and color. HP touts 600 cd/m² of peak brightness (300 cd/m² typical), a 6000:1 static contrast ratio, and 95% coverage of the DCI-P3 color space. Anandtech says the edge-lit backlighting system achieves that high contrast ratio thanks to eight-zone local dimming.

This display is one of the first handful we can recall that touts compliance with VESA's middle-tier DisplayHDR 600 performance criteria, joining a couple of Samsung gaming monitors. That's a bar worth talking about given that VESA's list of DisplayHDR-compliant monitors doesn't yet include any models that meet the top DisplayHDR 1000 spec.

The 32 HDR has one DisplayPort and a pair of HDMI inputs, plus a headphone output and and an integrated two-Type-A-port USB hub. All of the display's buttons are placed on the bottom of the back of the unit, so users could put multiple displays close togther for impoved multi-screen immersion. The stand is adjustable for tilt only, but the back of the monitor has a 100×100 VESA grid for bolting it to a third-party monitor arm or a stand with greater articulation.

HP says the Pavilion Gaming 32 HDR Display will ring in at $449 when it goes on sale on May 11. The company didn't specify the warranty length, but it backs its current Pavilion displays with a three-year warranty.

Comments closed
    • spiketheaardvark
    • 2 years ago

    32in little big
    1440 keep going
    HDR I’m a little interested
    freesync wait for it

    48-74 and no LFC. just like all the others.
    I’m not sure I’ve seen a 1440 monitor with freesync LFC. The paranoid part of me is starting to think something nefarious is behind this.

    • Redocbew
    • 2 years ago

    That dude is standing there saying “Make sure you get my good side.”

    • steelcity_ballin
    • 2 years ago

    32″ and only 2560? No thanks. $500 isn’t a terrible price but for that screensize I’d expect a much higher resolution, and that refresh rate isn’t helping things. Save another $200 and get a much better monitor at that price point. Reminds me of those 27″ monitors that run 1920 resolution. Ew.

      • Usacomp2k3
      • 2 years ago

      For gaming, 2560 is the sweet spot for GPU power. The step up to 4k is only really possible on modern AAA gaming with $700+ GPU’s. 2.25x the pixels to drive is a huge increase in demand for only a minor step in visual fidelity.
      For business/productivity use, I would agree with you though.

      • EndlessWaves
      • 2 years ago

      32″ 2560×1440 is the same dpi as 24″ 1920×1080, which is the most popular pixel sizing.

      So while you may personally sit close enough to prefer tinier pixels, it’s getting very old seeing this comment on every single newspost that isn’t about a screen with the tiniest pixels on the market.

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      For gaming, 4K is an idiot trap that can’t be executed with today’s hardware.

      The resolution is fine, but that FreeSync range is anemic.

    • timesupuk0ed
    • 2 years ago

    Even if this offered a better refresh range at the same price I probably wouldn’t get it. 1 major flaw for me is that every single wire attached to the rear is going to be visible, and that’s a big no-no for me. Before anyone mentions that I use a monitor stand, I have tried 2 of them recently, both have terrible cable mangament imo, and one of them couldn’t go back enough so it was always in my face. When I first saw this, I was secretly hoping the ports would have been in the rear of the base, that way no ugly wires can be seen from a frontal view.

    Otherwise it looks like a good deal.

      • RAGEPRO
      • 2 years ago

      That’s interesting. Until today I couldn’t have imagined that anyone existed who actually cared that much about their monitor cables being visible.

        • timesupuk0ed
        • 2 years ago

        It’s not just monitor cables, but, all cables that get to me. Obviously, there is a limit in which form over function simply isn’t worth it, however, for cables that are in front of my face 24×7 i.e. power, HDMI for console, and display port for pc, that’s just too many for my taste.

        Again to each their own. I simply can’t stand visible cables so I work my rear off with cable management around my room, while still keeping it functional.

          • Usacomp2k3
          • 2 years ago

          You would hate my work desk, my entertainment center, my 2nd TV screen.

            • timesupuk0ed
            • 2 years ago

            Quite likely. I don’t have any control of the living room TV setup since my nieces are always messing it up, so I gave up a long time ago on trying to keep that clean. It’s not too much of a problem, since I’m hardly in the living room watching TV, however, I spend many hours in front of my monitor, thus, wires have to be hidden as much as possible without effecting functionality of the setup i.e. monitor still needs to be able to rise/fall in height, tilt, etc. without pulling on the wires or being stuck in one setting.

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      No reason to downvote someone for a subjective opinion, even if it’s an outlier.

      “I won’t buy this because X” is not “no one should buy this because X.”

    • brucethemoose
    • 2 years ago

    No mention of the panel type?

    My money is on VA, since most 32″ 1440p monitors from the past have been VA, and most panels you can look up still seem to be VA: [url<]http://www.panelook.com/modelsearch.php?op=advancedsearch&order=panel_id&inch_low=3000&inch_high=3400&resolution_pixels=8380[/url<] Which is definitely a good thing.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      Pretty sure this is the same AUO panel that was in the previous model. The improvements are very likely to be in the 8-zone backlight and HDR-enabled firmware.

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      It’s probably the same MVA panel that we’ve been seeing elsewhere. So great contrast and junky G2G timing.

    • JosiahBradley
    • 2 years ago

    Just 45 more Hz and this would be an upgrade.

    • hubick
    • 2 years ago

    Nope, still waiting…

    [url<]https://techreport.com/news/33051/asus-rog-swift-pg65-is-a-big-honkin-4k-120-hz-display[/url<]

      • Kretschmer
      • 2 years ago

      Buy 4K@120Hz.

      Cry as GPU renders games at 71 FPS.

        • hubick
        • 2 years ago

        FreeSync/G-Sync wouldn’t really be features if games nailed 120hz (or 75hz) all the time.

        Being able to hit 120hz is still a lot better than this. As is the 4K. And the size. Though I’m sure the BFGD’s will cost a lot more.

          • Kretschmer
          • 2 years ago

          I would much rather run a game at 1440P and 120FPS than 4K and 50-65 FPS. But this is all subjective. 🙂

            • hubick
            • 2 years ago

            I spent, like, a decade with the goal of maintaining 1024×768@30fps in games 😉

    • DancinJack
    • 2 years ago

    [quote<]FreeSync range is 48 to 75 Hz[/quote<] This kind of crap right here is why a vast number of Freesync monitors suck. AMD was just too lax with the requirements for the first version. Pretty annoying. Not that it is all AMD's fault. It's not like these display makers have to use crappy panels, alas, here we are.

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      Yes and no.

      Yes because it’s not a panel good enough to use LFC, and that’s disappointing.

      No because it’s the same price as a 60Hz fixed-refresh screen. No matter how disappointed we are that it’s not an LFC-compatible freesync range, it’s still better than 60Hz and it’s still better than fixed-refresh. I’m certainly glad that it’s NOT a 60Hz fixed display because it’s making the most of the panel that’s being sold. I’m sure that a 144Hz panel would add $350 to the price tag, and if this panel were capable of a lower minimum refresh, it would be advertised as such.

      I had an LGUM68 for a while with a 40-75Hz range and it was decent, provided I never dropped below 40fps. Using a tool called CRU I extended the window and overclocked a bit to give me 32-80fps and could use LFC. Sure, things remained tear-free and judder-free all the way down to 32Hz, but nobody wants to game at that framerate anyway, so it was a moot point.

        • brucethemoose
        • 2 years ago

        I don’t buy panel limits anyway. It’s just the LCD controllers and inputs that limit them.

        I for example, am ostensibly using a low grade 1440p IPS panel that’s “rated” for 75hz IIRC (though it only officially supports 60hz), but it came with an overspec LCD controller. I’ve been running it at 110hz for 6 years with heavy usage. Sure it ghosts more than some TN panel, but the higher refresh still helps with motion clarity immensely, and it hasn’t degraded one bit.

          • guardianl
          • 2 years ago

          “I don’t buy panel limits anyway. It’s just the LCD controllers and inputs that limit them.”

          Um, that’s just plain wrong. The liquid crystal structure, the transistor(s) being used to drive them etc. all dramatically affect how fast the crystal can change shape (to let more/less light thru for each R/G/B sub-pixel). If the crystal changes are, on average, unable to change state to keep up with the refresh rate it actually makes motion clarity *worse* because you end up never fully reaching the desired final luminance per frame…leading to a blurry mess.

          In you overclock a panel (that can’t keep up) you might actually see more motion, but it’s very likely a placebo-like effect. Those pixels are changing state more rapidly, but because of issues like under/overshoot you’re just getting something akin to extra noise in the viewing experience.

          TFT Central (tftcentral.co.uk) has some very accessible write-ups on how modern LCD technologies work, you should check them out.

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 2 years ago

        a pair of links people can use to see for themselves:
        1080p, 1080p ultrawide, 1440p, 1440p ultrawide and 4K freesync, minimum 70Hz:
        [url<]https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=409602160,384002160,344001440,256001440,256001080,192001080&A=2&sort=price&page=1&H=70,240[/url<] the same types of panels, except limited at 60Hz for non-freesync (or G-sync): [url<]https://pcpartpicker.com/products/monitor/#r=384002160,344001440,256001440,256001080,192001080&A=0&sort=price&page=1[/url<] For 1080p, you can save a few bucks, if you demand IPS you can save about 60-70 dollars. But generally it's closer to zero or no savings, especially if you are looking for a specific size of monitor. For 1080p ultrawide, non-freesync starts far cheaper, but also are smaller monitors. As the smallest Freesync models are 29". Once you get up to that size, Freesync is indeed cheaper than non-freesync. For 1440p, excluding an HP omen, all the Freesync models are 100Hz+. So like 1080 ultrawide, there is a large divide. For 1440p ultrawide, freesync is basically free, even though most do have the "limited" 48-75Hz range. at 4K, it's cheaper to get a Freesync display than not. For most screen sizes.

    • NoOne ButMe
    • 2 years ago

    Now if we could see a $1000 1000 NIT version, or $1500 at 100+Hz.

    Please?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This