Tuesday, October 2nd 2012

AOC Releases the i2757fh 27-inch IPS Monitor

AOC, the leader in monitor display technology, announces the retail availability of the i2757fh, a 27-inch IPS display with a 2 mm bezel that gives the monitor a sleek, borderless appearance. The monitor's widescreen IPS (in plane switching) panel also allows for more consistent, uniform color from all viewing angles, delivering amazingly sharp image quality.

An iF Product Design Award winner, the monitor delivers uncompromising display technology coupled with an artistic design that features a metallic hook-shaped stand that allows for three different modes of viewing - as a photo frame without a base, as a standard function stand, and as a height-adjustable stand that detaches with the push of a button. The AOC 27-inch IPS Monitor is now available for $349 MSRP. AOC also offers the i2757fh at Bestbuy.com and the retailer's top 250 stores for a special price of $299.99.


"The i2757fh model, part of AOC's 57 Series, combines an anti-glare IPS screen with a narrow bezel so that images seem to float without a distracting frame," said Chris Brown, AOC Marketing Manager. "The monitor's IPS technology and award-winning design deliver an unparalleled display experience to consumers."

Designed to meet high environmental and technical standards, the i2757fh is made of eco-friendly materials such as arsenic-free glass and mercury-free panels. Also, the LED backlight panel requires 50 percent less energy than typical CCFL monitors. The i2757fh can display 16.7 million colors, while its 50,000,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio provides accurate color reproduction when displaying images with extreme differences between light and dark. The monitor also features ultrafast performance with a 5 ms response time, which allows pixels to change colors quickly to avoid streaking, blurring and ghosting in fast-moving scenes and video games. The monitor's dual HDMI ports support the latest DVD and Blu-ray players or gaming consoles, and it can also be connected to desktops or notebooks via VGA cable. Direct insert connectors face the rear, making it easier to connect the monitor to power and input sources.

The monitor also includes built-in speakers for optimal desktop sound, and the multifunctional, detachable stand allowing for standard monitor or "photo frame" placement. Other bonus features include an Off Timer that shuts down the monitor automatically if desired, Screen+ software that divides the screen into four self-contained work areas for improved productivity, and Eco Mode, which enables the user to select five different optimized display settings (Text, Internet, Game, Movie and Sport).

Specifications
● Borderless design
● Anti-glare IPS Panel for wide viewing angle
● Narrow bezel: 2 mm
● Full HD 1920 x 1080 resolution
● Ultra low power consumption
● 5 ms response time
● 50,000,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio
● Rear-facing ports
● Detachable stand
● 16.7 million colors supported
● Built-in speakers
● Eco Mode
● Compatible with Windows and Mac
Add your own comment

41 Comments on AOC Releases the i2757fh 27-inch IPS Monitor

#1
Dj-ElectriC
● Full HD 1920 x 1080 resolution


Nuff....
Posted on Reply
#2
theonedub
habe fidem
On sale for $269 right now on Bestbuy.com- might be worth picking up just to play with.
Posted on Reply
#3
[H]@RD5TUFF
I like AOC as a bargin brand for monitors, but a 27" IPS @ 1080 . . . . seems pointless to me, they should have gone with a higher resolution! :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#4
BigMack70
the 1080p virus needs to stop... seriously... step up this lousy resolution on 27" panels please

It was cool in 2007. Not anymore. At least these guys know how to price it...
Posted on Reply
#5
Solaris17
Creator Solaris Utility DVD
meh i think 1080 is fine your not supposed to sit 4" from a 27" display anyway.
Posted on Reply
#6
[H]@RD5TUFF
by: BigMack70
the 1080p virus needs to stop... seriously... step up this lousy resolution on 27" panels please

It was cool in 2007. Not anymore. At least these guys know how to price it...
Agreed, hardware is more powerful than ever these days, it's time for bigger resolutions!!!:nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#7
xorbe
My aging parents really appreciated the 27" 1080p screen that I got them last year. It really is easy on the eyes. I have my 1920x1200 15" laptop for when I need to squint!
Posted on Reply
#8
DoomDoomDoom
I got excited, then I saw 1080p.

There goes my fun. Sleek looking monitors, too. Would look great in a dual setup.
Posted on Reply
#9
3870x2
by: Solaris17
meh i think 1080 is fine your not supposed to sit 4" from a 27" display anyway.
^ Makes sense. I have a 24 inch monitor, and if I sit too close while playing a game I tend to get a bit of motion sickness. Never had this problem watching a movie though.
Posted on Reply
#10
PopcornMachine
FULL HD! OMG! SIGN ME UP!

And the thin bezel on 3 of the sides is nice, but the 1.5 inch at the bottom kind of ruins it.
Posted on Reply
#11
Benetanegia
by: Solaris17
meh i think 1080 is fine your not supposed to sit 4" from a 27" display anyway.
You're not supposed to sit that close to a 20" monitor either. But the point is, there's no point getting a 27" over a 24" if you're going to have to sit farther away from it so that it looks decent. You'd end up with the 27" taking up the same field of view, which is a complete waste of money. Just get the 24" and sit closer.

A larger screen is supposed to offer a larger screen, meaning a larger something to look at and most importantly having more screen real estate, not something that you are forced to put farther away from you so that it looks exactly the same.
Posted on Reply
#12
m1dg3t
IPS is not very good for gaming and then they gimp it even more by sticking 1080p resolution! :shadedshu

What do you expect from a $300 IPS panel though, right?
Posted on Reply
#13
Octavean
I understand what some people are saying about 27" monitors at 1920x1080 but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree.

I have four 27" monitors. One is an IPS 2560x1440 and three 1920x1080 monitors are in a triple monitor setup. I can see the obvious difference between the two resolutions and quality of screen but I'm fine with both.

The point I want to make is one of cost though. One of the lowest priced name brand 2560x1440 IPS monitors (HP, Asus and so on) in the market today comes in at about ~$680 USD. I'll also add that a model such as the HP ZR2740w at ~$680 USD skimps on simple things like an on screen menu system.

In todays market no one should be looking at a typical name brand 27" monitor in the ~$300 range expecting more then 1920x1080. This is just unrealistic. If you want more or expect more then you should also be prepared to pay more and quite frankly this is so obvious no one should have to say it. I'll also say that those who reject 27" / 1920x1080 monitors shouldn't begrudge those of whom that are interested in a low cost large screen monitor.

Yes I know of the cheap Korean IPS 2560x1440 monitors but given the method of attaining them and the lack of a true local support system (as well as the lack of ports typically) it's not directly comparable and they cannot be considered a name brand product.
Posted on Reply
#14
Benetanegia
by: Octavean
In todays market no one should be looking at a typical name brand 27" monitor in the ~$300 range expecting more then 1920x1080. This is just unrealistic.
It's not unrealistic to expect better screens at lower prices. It's been ages since 1920x1200 became available. 5 years since then and instead of a progress what we got is a step back. It's simply ridiculous that you can get tablets with a higher resolution screen, than PC monitors for the same price.

And Intel wants/expects/is going to push for 4k PC displays by next year. Expecting 1440p right now for afordable prices is not unrealistic at all.

EDIT: Besides look at two of the data points you provided. 1) The cheapest name brand 1440p screen sells for $680 and already skimps on features. 2) Cheap Korean 1440p screens are shipped worldwide for $300-350. That's half as much, man, there's a $300 difference netween the 2 and they're small companies, and you have to suppose they make a profit, so you better bet that big name companies can do it for cheaper (economics of scale). Can we expect a branded 27" 1440p IPS monitor to come out of the blue for that price. Maybe not, as much as it was not realistic for a southern US black guy to expect to be free overnight in 1850. But it's entirely posible and the only thing preventing it from happening is the interest of some. Right now their market model is to release 1080p panels for cheap, in a highly contested price bracket and to price "premium" screens well above that so that they can make big profits on them. But it's not unrealistic at all to expect that some brand at some point jumps the gun and decides to be highly competitive and agressive with those "premium" panels.
Posted on Reply
#15
Octavean
by: Benetanegia
It's not unrealistic to expect better screens at lower prices. It's been ages since 1920x1200 became available. 5 years since then and instead of a progress what we got is a step back. It's simply ridiculous that you can get tablets with a higher resolution screen, than PC monitors for the same price.
It's unrealistic to make such an expectation until such time as the market actually goes in that direction. As of yet it hasn't happened. Simple. All I am saying is if people want the higher resolution screens there is no shortage of them you just have to pony up the ~$680+ to do so with a name brand product with full warranty stateside.

Basically the price is what it is until such time as it changes.

I don't really see much point in the comparison with the korean models because while they are typically decent monitors they have no stateside warranty, they tend to use B quality panels (or perhaps -A) , they lack typical ports (often only have one port or you pay more) and the build quality may be somewhat lacking with respect to those of brand name manufacturers.

What will likely happen or what is happening now is that some select off brand 2560x1440 models will be offered in the USA, Canada and other areas for ~$400 to ~$500 (note that we are still not talking ~$300 or less). Once they make a foothold in the market other more well known companies may feel the need to address that segment of the market,...or address it a little better.

AURIA EQ276W 27" IPS LED Monitor

Nixeus NX-VUE27 monitor

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6286/nixeus-27-inch-ips-monitor-for-the-masses

http://www.microcenter.com/product/384780/EQ276W_27_IPS_LED_Monitor

But again it hasn't happened yet. Saying ~$300 branded 2560x1440 monitors should be widely available now is like me saying I should be able to buy a high-end Intel 8 core 16 thread 5GHz processor for $200 or less. Just because I think it should be so (wishfully, greedily or otherwise) doesn't make it so.
Posted on Reply
#16
speedpc
So which one would you purchase this AOC i2757fh 27-inch IPS Monitor 1920x1080 5ms 16:9 for $299 or the Hanns-G HZ281HPB Black 27.5" 1920 x 1200 3ms. 16:10 for $224.00 Just curious :) My son likes to play guildwars 2 and some bf3 (he as a Nvidia 670). I want to upgrade his 19" monitor and the prices seem decent. Sorry not sure what the issue is with 1080 monitors guess i'm out of the loop. lol I appreciate the feedback Thx
Posted on Reply
#17
EpicShweetness
My only input is the 1080p thing makes sense, for the cost of the likely GPU you are getting. In other words if I buy a $800 monitor, and I get a $200 GPU I can not take advantage of that 1440/1600p resolution. However take that resolution down to 1080p, and now that monitor is $250/300, and your $200 GPU can take advantage of that rez (mostly lol). Same thing goes for the GPU if I can afford a $500 or even $1000 (GTX 690) GPU then I most likely have the dough for that $800/1200 monitor, or I just wasted my money as cards in that price range run games at 1080p beyond 60fps. I could debate multiple monitor solutions and stereoscopic 3D, but ya, you get the point.
Posted on Reply
#18
nemesis.ie
I saw "2mm bezel" and thought that sounded good - but looking at the pic it looks like the casing is 2mm but then there is maybe a 1cm black border around the actual panel. :(
Posted on Reply
#19
Prima.Vera
by: Benetanegia
But the point is, there's no point getting a 27" over a 24" if you're going to have to sit farther away from it so that it looks decent. You'd end up with the 27" taking up the same field of view, which is a complete waste of money. Just get the 24" and sit closer.
Sorry, I had to post this, but is the most stupid thing I've read this week. No offense! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Posted on Reply
#20
Benetanegia
by: Octavean
What will likely happen or what is happening now is that some select off brand 2560x1440 models will be offered in the USA, Canada and other areas for ~$400 to ~$500 (note that we are still not talking ~$300 or less). Once they make a foothold in the market other more well known companies may feel the need to address that segment of the market,...or address it a little better.
Soo... it's not unrealistic. Something cannot be unrealistic if you can describe a simple way for it to happen, like you did.

No one's saying we should have $300 1440p monitors widely available already. But it's entirely posible, $300 1440p monitors exist, plain and simple, and as such, people are entitled to express their dissapointment when the next 27" from a known brand is yet again 1080p. Besides no one asked for $300 monitors anyway, just more affordable, there's a massive gap between $350 and $680, you know...

by: Octavean
But again it hasn't happened yet. Saying ~$300 branded 2560x1440 monitors should be widely available now is like me saying I should be able to buy a high-end Intel 8 core 16 thread 5GHz processor for $200 or less. Just because I think it should be so (wishfully, greedily or otherwise) doesn't make it so.
No it's not the same. Not at all. It's not even remotedly close to being the same. No one is offering anything even close to such a thing. If AMD or some korean company was offering something even remotedly similar, yes of course you could expect for Intel to offer such a thing. If similarly spec'ed processors were being bundled on tablets already, of course you could expect Intel to offer such a thing. The point is no one can offer such a thing and no one can touch Intel performance wise and that's why you can't expect something like that to happen.

Nothing to do with LCD market. 1440p does exist and it's entirely viable and profitable to manufacture and ship 1440p panels worldwide, for less than $350.
Posted on Reply
#21
Fourstaff
by: Benetanegia
It's not unrealistic to expect better screens at lower prices. It's been ages since 1920x1200 became available. 5 years since then and instead of a progress what we got is a step back. It's simply ridiculous that you can get tablets with a higher resolution screen, than PC monitors for the same price.

And Intel wants/expects/is going to push for 4k PC displays by next year. Expecting 1440p right now for afordable prices is not unrealistic at all.
Its all about economies of scale, given that TVs uses 1080p too its becomes quite hard to beat the cost effectiveness of 1080p. Also, you don't get the same economy out of manufacturing small phone/tablet screens at a fixed resolution since there is no de facto standard, making it somewhat more responsive.

by: Benetanegia
EDIT: Besides look at two of the data points you provided. 1) The cheapest name brand 1440p screen sells for $680 and already skimps on features. 2) Cheap Korean 1440p screens are shipped worldwide for $300-350. That's half as much, man, there's a $300 difference netween the 2 and they're small companies, and you have to suppose they make a profit, so you better bet that big name companies can do it for cheaper (economics of scale).
Its all about the QC, support and profits.
Posted on Reply
#22
Benetanegia
by: Fourstaff
Its all about economies of scale, given that TVs uses 1080p too its becomes quite hard to beat the cost effectiveness of 1080p.
Yeah, but that can change easily. Incredibly easy for LG and Samsung, for example. Shift some 1080p production to more 1440p production, done. No, there's more to it.
Its all about the QC, support and profits.
Profits*. That's it. The problem is not making 1440p available to the masses (and being equally profitable or more in this segment). The problem is that for the time being if they do so, they loose the "premium" market. There's really nothing (currently marketable) above 1440p, they have nothing yet, so releasing afordable (not $300, but $400-500) 1440p monitors right know it means that not only they'd loose that enthusiast bracket, they put their semi-professional ($1000-1500) and professional ($2000-5000) markets at risk too, and THAT would hurt the most. In the consumer market they can find a balance between ASP and volume, that's what they do with 1080p panels every time the price is lower and lower, they do. And they could do it with 1440p too. The problem is the limited enthusiast and professional markets. Any shift from that pro market to good consumer level monitors and their profits would suffer.

But again, you'd think that in a free market at least one of the competitors with a small market share (and maybe a small presence in the pro market) would try to increase it by releasing a cheap quality monitor.

*QC and support is largely similar than with inferior panels, (if you believe in Santa and fairies) it explains the difference between big name brands and no-name brands, but doesbn't explain 1080 vs 1440. 1080p is cheap and gets cheaper, 1440p never seems to, that's what we complain about.
Posted on Reply
#23
Octavean
Incorrect. These news posts of inexpensive or quasi inexpensive 27” 1920x1080 monitors are filled with the same comments expressing discontent over the resolution. These replete ad nauseam comments specific to the cheaper monitor news threads makes it very clear that people are expecting 2560x1440 at that low price from name brand manufacturers. Some exemptions to this would be the newer 29” 2560 x 1080 21:9 monitors.

In physics you often deal with complicated problems. In order to deal with them more easily the problem is often simplified to the major components. However, one must always be careful not to over simplify because then you’re not dealing with a model that represents the problem your trying to solve.

Earlier, I quite clearly defined the limits of which I was referring to in terms of the hardware, price, brand and given market. You seem to be ignoring those limits in an attempt to launch a reasonable argument.

Being able to describe a simple system doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with it being realistic or unrealistic if it is conditional. For example the simple act of ice melting which obviously requires specific conditions be met. Expecting ice to melt without the conditions being met is indeed “unrealistic”.

Will the prices fall on 27” 2560x1440 IPS monitors from name brand companies? One would expect so but it is provisional or conditional and right now one such condition is time. It is “unrealistic” to expect such a price drop from the specified hardware before its time. Saying “now is the time” simply doesn’t make it so.

Anyone that was serious about buying such a monitor would likely know what the pricing landscape is like.

Obviously people have the right to complain all they want. I personally don’t like to complain about things I can’t change by the simple act of complaining.

Maybe someone should call the major name brand monitor manufacturers (Asus, Dell, Acer, BenQ, Samsung, LG, Apple and so on) and tell them that we expect ubiquitous 27” 2560x1440 IPS LED monitors for ~$300, ~$400 or maybe even ~$500,….now. When they stop laughing we might get an ETA as to when there will be such offerings. But then again maybe not.
Posted on Reply
#24
Fourstaff
by: Benetanegia
Yeah, but that can change easily. Incredibly easy for LG and Samsung, for example. Shift some 1080p production to more 1440p production, done. No, there's more to it.
You would need to retool your factory, why bother when current production is still selling like hotcakes?

by: Benetanegia
Profits*. That's it. The problem is not making 1440p available to the masses (and being equally profitable or more in this segment). The problem is that for the time being if they do so, they loose the "premium" market.
They are a business, not charity, hence profit comes first. Especially the listed companies with a good amount of debt, they live and die by profits.

by: Benetanegia
But again, you'd think that in a free market at least one of the competitors with a small market share (and maybe a small presence in the pro market) would try to increase it by releasing a cheap quality monitor.
And one of them did! see: Catleaps
Posted on Reply
#25
Benetanegia
by: Octavean
Incorrect. These news posts of inexpensive or quasi inexpensive 27” 1920x1080 monitors are filled with the same comments expressing discontent over the resolution. These replete ad nauseam comments specific to the cheaper monitor news threads makes it very clear that people are expecting 2560x1440 at that low price from name brand manufacturers. Some exemptions to this would be the newer 29” 2560 x 1080 21:9 monitors.
Completely false. This argument pops up EVERY TIME a new 1080p monitor is released. Not only on cheap ones.
For example the simple act of ice melting which obviously requires specific conditions be met. Expecting ice to melt without the conditions being met is indeed “unrealistic”.
Incorrect. You're taking your own argument, turning it down and expecting it to be right. For example, in most (populated) parts of the world, in the grand mayority of days, ice will melt. It's not unrealistic at all to take an ice cube out of the fridge and expect it to melt. Not at all, in most places it will. Likewise the same applies here. You took one posibility out of the dozens of posibilities and chose it like the only posible or realistic one, simply because it's the current situation and you pretend that it won't change and not only that, but that it's entirely unrealistic for that situation, those conditions, to change.
I personally don’t like to complain about things I can’t change by the simple act of complaining.
The simple act of "complaining" is a drive for change if there's little more you can do. You now just look like one of those sad people, who not only never do anything to change things, but choose to go against the ones who do, no matter how small (or irrelevant) the "effort", simply because they don't agree with them in the believe that it's better to just "play along" with the people on power. Back to 1850 and the black guy. Since he cannot do anything, stfu and get back to work right? Thanks god not everyone is like you. I do see with great sadness how the mayority is turning into that tho.

by: Fourstaff
You would need to retool your factory, why bother when current production is still selling like hotcakes?
You're just justifying them. Is this TPU or an investor meeting from one of those companies?
They are a business, not charity, hence profit comes first. Especially the listed companies with a good amount of debt, they live and die by profits.
Again justifying their POV. No need for that, they can do it themselves pretty well. And even if true, it doesn't make our complaints any less valid. So again why punish the concerned consumers?
And one of them did! see: Catleaps
I don't think they sell outisde of Korea. They are probably not even allowed to. Start selling outside Korea and in large qualtities and how much do you think it will take LG to charge them a hefty premium so that they are a more "reasonable" competitor??
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment