Acer XB273K makes 4K, 144 Hz, and G-Sync a bit more accessible

Acer's Predator X27 gives games the full G-Sync HDR treatment, but its $2000 price tag puts it out of reach of all but the most dedicated videophile gamers. The company is making high refresh rates and 4K gaming a little more accessible today at the IFA trade show with its XB273K display. This 27″ screen boasts a 3840×2160 resolution and a maximum refresh rate of 144 Hz, but its HDR star dims to DisplayHDR 400 standards. It's still compatible with Nvidia's G-Sync variable-refresh-rate tech for a tear-free gaming experience.

The XB273HK has an IPS panel capable of reproducing 90% of the DCI P3 color space, meaning it can likely handle 100% of sRGB and then some. Like the Predator X27, the XB273K comes with a shielding hood more typically seen with pro content-creation displays and a fully-adjustable stand with height, tilt, and swivel adjustments. At $1299 in the USA and €1499 in the EU, this monitor will still not be cheap, but gamers looking to push pixels with the muscle of a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti will likely find it an agreeable companion. Expect the XB273K to be available in the fourth quarter of this year.

Comments closed
    • Chrispy_
    • 1 year ago

    IPS contrast ratio is still only ~1000:1 right? It doesn’t seem like the right technology for HDR at all.

    I wish IPS manufacturers would sort that out. I can’t go back to IPS after VA. I mean, I *did* but returned it within the 30 day cooloff period to go and buy a VA with 3000:1 static and mutli-zone dimmable backlight on top of that.

      • Freon
      • 1 year ago

      Local dimming can greatly extend contrast ratio.

    • Kretschmer
    • 1 year ago

    Barring a phenomenal increase in power from the 2080Ti, I don’t understand why anyone would buy a 4K 144Hz monitor and then run it at 75 FPS.

      • techguy
      • 1 year ago

      75 is still > 60. I happen to think 2080 Ti will be more than 20% faster than 1080 Ti also, but we can wait for reviews on that.

        • Pickle Nose
        • 1 year ago

        75 > 60 math comes out to 25% faster

        • Kretschmer
        • 1 year ago

        Yeah, but why pay for 144Hz and then get capped at 75FPS? I’d rather rock 1440P at 100+Hz.

          • Beahmont
          • 1 year ago

          Future proofing and G-Sync make running at below the official refresh rate not that bad of a proposition.

          4 years from now a 1440P at 100+Hz will still be running at the same speed and resolution, but there’s a decent chance that 4 years from now that 4k monitor will be running at 144Hz as well.

            • Kretschmer
            • 1 year ago

            I mean, if you want to pay 2+ times as much for the hope that you can use the main feature within 4 years, that’s fine. I’d rather enjoy my setup now and would hope that OLED or some sort of successor technologies (better HDR, better panel uniformity, better strobing) would make this panel obsolete vs. $500 monitors four years from now.

            If you look at where we were for gaming monitors in 2014, a $1,300 monitor would be slapped silly by today’s offerings at half the price.

    • psuedonymous
    • 1 year ago

    DisplayHDR400 + no FALD = just SDR. If it can’t achieve a high dynamic range output, it is by definition not HDR. An SDTV that accepts 1080p is still not HD regardless of what you want to label the box with.

    • K-L-Waster
    • 1 year ago

    If they’d release a 1440p version [u<]with a less eye-watering price[/u<] I might be tempted.

      • gerryg
      • 1 year ago

      If they’d release a 1440p version [u<]with a non-proprietary technology[/u<] I might be tempted. Oh, wait, they did [url<]https://techreport.com/news/34040/acer-xv273k-brings-4k-144-hz-and-freesync-together[/url<]

    • techguy
    • 1 year ago

    I’ve contemplated the purchase of a high-end gaming monitor recently but you know what? I don’t think they’re even remotely worth the cost and frankly, I’m not sure why anyone would buy these products. I have a 27″ 1440p 144Hz Freesync display already, and while I can’t take advantage of Freesync being a Geforce user, I just can’t see paying $1300, a full $1000 more than what I already paid for my current monitor, for such a minor bump in quality, let alone the $2000 they’re asking for the high-end variants of these displays.

    I understand that Gsync adds a significant cost but with the size of the panels used by these gaming displays the value proposition is just completely out-of-whack. My 70″ 4k HDR TV cost $2000 2 years ago. You want to tell me a 27″ display with Gsync and 144Hz and otherwise similar specs to my 70″ TV is worth the same price? Out of your mind. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a cheapskate or a “budget gamer”. I’ve never shied away from buying new, expensive hardware nearly every generation – when GTX 980 came out I bought 3 of them for a Tri-SLI 5960x watercooled rig that cost me over $5000 to build (over $1000 in watercooling gear alone), and since then I’ve purchased Titan X (Pascal), 7900x, and a number of other components for other machine builds over the years. That being said, the price of “gaming” components just keeps climbing and if this is how things are going to be from now on I don’t see the value anymore.

    Maybe I’ll take up dinosaur egg collecting. Probably less expensive.

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 1 year ago

      You compared two products, one mainstream, one not, then complained they are the same price. You know how these things work with pricing, so why the complaining about nothing?

        • techguy
        • 1 year ago

        70″ 4k HDR TVs are “mainstream” now? Really? I’m the only person I know in the real world that has one, let alone a bigger display.

          • Srsly_Bro
          • 1 year ago

          I’m sure I can find one at best buy, or one similar to it. Go to Best buy and look for that monitor. Stop being a silly butt.

            • DancinJack
            • 1 year ago

            I’ve a 65″ 4K HDR TV about 35 feet from me.

            /shrug

          • PixelArmy
          • 1 year ago

          While “mainstream” might not be the right word, your TV is definitely aimed at a far larger market and has far more competing products. Compared to your TV, this has 2.5 the pixel density, VRR, likely a higher refresh rate, and an IPS panel vs probably a VA. You’re also free to put your 70″ on your desk and game on that.

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 1 year ago

          I got a 75” Visio E series 4K TV for my folks at Christmas for less than $1500.

            • techguy
            • 1 year ago

            E series is nice value but not great quality, in my experience. I have both an E (48″) and an M (70″). The increase in dimming zone count alone makes for a very large difference in picture quality. Nonetheless, that is another datapoint which further reinforces my point that these crazy expensive gaming displays are massively overpriced.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 1 year ago

            For my mother, the most important criterion by far was the size of the screen. It could just as well have been 1080p, as long as it was BIG.

            • Beahmont
            • 1 year ago

            What’s the response time, the real one and not the marketing BS, and the refresh rate, the real one and not the marketing BS, on the 4k TV you are comparing it too?

            This is very important because it’s my understanding that Refresh rates and response times increase difficulty to manufacture exponentially as they increase and that increases price at a greater than commensurate rate.

      • VincentHanna
      • 1 year ago

      [quote<]I've contemplated the purchase of a high-end gaming monitor recently but you know what? I don't think they're even remotely worth the cost and frankly, I'm not sure why anyone would buy these products.[/quote<] Especially because the concept of freesync/G-sync is so at odds with the concept of a high-end rig. The value that you get from syncing technologies declines by an order of magnitude for every 30hz or so of refresh. That $1000 is just so much better spent on a GPU that can actually push 144FPS, than it is on a monitor that will automatically downshift itself to whatever the GPU's speed is.

        • techguy
        • 1 year ago

        I agree completely, which is why I don’t care that the Freesync feature of my current monitor is useless to me. Had the same discussion with a friend a few months back and he wisely decided to purchase a 1080 Ti instead of a Vega card.

        I’m more interested in these displays because of their HDR and high refresh rate capabilities.

        • Freon
        • 1 year ago

        I still find Gsync subjectively superior to ULMB getting 100+fps. So, it has some value. “An order of magnitude” seems like a pretty silly hyperbole.

        • synthtel2
        • 1 year ago

        That works until you run into a game that’s CPU-bound and won’t hold 144 no matter what you do.

        Going for 144 Hz w/ ULMB seems like the real reason to have an 8700K OC’ed to the moon and DDR4-4000 or higher, but there are a lot of games in which even that just won’t cut it.

        • Firestarter
        • 1 year ago

        there are plenty of games that benefit from VRR even with the fastest of CPUs/GPUs, be it because they’re poorly optimized/too ambitious in scale or because the gameplay is just not fast enough to warrant sacrificing graphical fidelity for higher framerates

        • Voldenuit
        • 1 year ago

        [quote<]Especially because the concept of freesync/G-sync is so at odds with the concept of a high-end rig.[/quote<] I have a GTX 1080 Ti and a G-Sync monitor. Scratch that, I've got two (a 120 Hz ultrawide and a 144 Hz 16:9). Once you got used to the buttery smoothness of VRR, you notice when it's missing even at high framerates. Although I don't really need two, the 144 Hz was my main gaming monitor until I got my ultrawide.

      • Freon
      • 1 year ago

      I paid $750 for the XB270HU. Gsync plus a decent IPS panel and fairly low blur is a nice combination. “Worth it” may depend a lot on how much disposable income you have, but it was worth it to me knowing I’d keep it as my primary gaming monitor at least 6-7 years.

    • chuckula
    • 1 year ago

    [quote<] It's still compatible with Nvidia's G-Sync variable-refresh-rate tech for a tear-free gaming experience.[/quote<] Trust me, after seeing Turing's prices, there's no such thing as a tear-free gaming experience with Nvidia.

      • Krogoth
      • 1 year ago

      Turing is powered by tears of envious gamers who want the best and greatest!

    • Pville_Piper
    • 1 year ago

    If you can afford the GTX 1080ti SLI what’s another $2000 for a monitor? And hey, get you a pair of RTX 2080tis to go with that monitor just because you can!

      • K-L-Waster
      • 1 year ago

      Now, where to fit all this in the Koenigsegg….

        • Growler
        • 1 year ago

        Obviously, your personal assistant brings it in their vehicle to your posh mansion. As if someone who could afford all of this would [i<]carry[/i<] things like a commoner!

        • End User
        • 1 year ago

        Nah. They’ed bring their 6×6.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This