AOC Unveils 27-inch High Definition LED Monitor with 2 ms Response Time

[Cristian_25H]

AOC, the worldwide leader in monitor display technology, announces the e2752Vh, a widescreen 27-inch LED monitor that delivers stunningly crisp and impressive image quality, as well as solid performance with a two millisecond response time. Ideal for multimedia applications, the energy efficient display also features two built-in 2.5 watt speakers for SRS-quality sound and is perfectly suited for PC gaming and Home Theater environments. The e2752Vh will be available for $299.99 in April at national retailers including TigerDirect, Best Buy, Newegg and Amazon, among others.





"This cost-effective WLED monitor cuts down on energy consumption while offering the features that power users search for in a display - an extremely fast response time, impressive image quality and a sizeable screen," said Robert Velez, AOC Marketing Manager.

The e2752Vh is able to display 16.7 million colors and offers a 2 ms response time that provides crisp, clear images even in fast action sequences while gaming or watching action films. The ultra-high dynamic contrast ratio of 20,000,000:1 reveals more depth and detail in darker scenes, while built-in speakers provide improved desktop sound. The versatile monitor is VESA 100 mm wall mount compliant, meaning that it can be used on a desktop or conveniently mounted on the wall to save space.

The monitor's slim and streamlined appearance is complemented by ergonomic, user-friendly design. The e2752Vh includes easily accessible digital and power connections that are rear-facing for direct insertion, a placement that is much more convenient than the more common downward-pointing ports. The monitor settings can be adjusted via the on-screen menu system, which is available in 14 languages including English, French and Spanish. The iMenu option also allows the user to change settings using only the keyboard and mouse, so that it is not necessary to reach up to the screen to adjust contrast, brightness and other preset modes. Other bonus features include embedded Screen+ software that divides the screen into four self-contained work areas for improved productivity, and an Off Timer that sets an alarm clock to turn off the monitor automatically.

Along with delivering strong performance, image quality and bonus features, the ENERGY STAR-compliant e2752Vh also reduces energy costs and environmental impact. The display's LED backlight is completely free of toxic Mercury, and the monitor also includes an eSaver feature that lets the user preset power conservation modes for the display when the PC is not in use. The monitor's Power Saving Mode uses 50 percent less power, and Standby Mode uses only 0.1w.

Specifications

- 27" viewable image size, diagonal
- 20,000,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio
- 2 ms GTG response time
- 16:9 Aspect ratio
- 300 cd/m² typical brightness
- 1920 × 1080 @ 60Hz resolution
- DVI-D with HDCP, HDMI with HDCP digital inputs
- Built-in speakers: 5 Watts
- Windows 7 compatible

[ZoneDymo]

and we are still stuck at that stupid 1920x1080 bullshit.
can we move on already please?

[Completely Bonkers]

CAN NOT BELIEVE as big as 27" but as small as 1920 × 1080

Shock, horror, fail.

The words "High Definition" have been reinvented into an all new meaning of underperformance.

[ZoneDymo]

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

CAN NOT BELIEVE as big as 27" but as small as 1920 × 1080

Shock, horror, fail.

The words "High Definition" have been reinvented into an all new meaning of underperformance.

high definition was a marketing term from the start just meant to sell crap to the ignorant.

[Yo_Wattup]

Meh, I'm more dissapointed at this 60hz BS. Choppy as shit to my eyes. I'd get a 1920x1080/120hz over a 2500x1600/60hz monitor any day of the week.

[Black Panther]

The only ones I know so far which offer a higher resolution are Hazro and Dell. There might be another couple of companies, but I don't know why the rest aren't following suit and manufacturing 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 for monitors 27" and larger.

[Ra97oR]

Wondering why they still making monitors with crappy built in speakers and massive screen with low resolution for their size...

I guess they are following "bigger is better" like I have a crappy 7.1 over a 2.0 reference system.

[Prima.Vera]

guys with small resolution comments are just boring. Over and over again same comments. Booooring! Probably they never use in their entire life a 27" with HD resolution, therefore the comments... Btw, one should remember, the bigger the screen, the further you need to stay from it...

Originally Posted by Yo_Wattup

Meh, I'm more dissapointed at this 60hz BS. Choppy as shit to my eyes.

That would be true if the monitor would be a CRT not a TFT. For TFT the refresh rate is almost irrelevant. Bigger refresh is worth only if you want 3D crap with glasses

[Volkszorn88]

For right now, i'm perfectly fine with 1920x1080 resolution because spending 1k + on crazy high resolutions and needing crazy fast gpus to support it is just crazy.

[ZoneDymo]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

guys with small resolution comments are just boring. Over and over again same comments. Booooring! Probably they never use in their entire life a 27" with HD resolution, therefore the comments... Btw, one should remember, the bigger the screen, the further you need to stay from it...




That would be true if the monitor would be a CRT not a TFT. For TFT the refresh rate is almost irrelevant. Bigger refresh is worth only if you want 3D crap with glasses

Assume more please.
Was using a 27 inch before, now using a 32 inch tv.
And before I had the 27 inch guess what I had, a 22 inch CRT that did 2048x1536@85Hz back in 2002.

[Completely Bonkers]

Originally Posted by Volkszorn88

For right now, i'm perfectly fine with 1920x1080 resolution because spending 1k + on crazy high resolutions and needing crazy fast gpus to support it is just crazy.

That's the biggest load of communist rubbish I've ever heard. It's like saying you don't like foreign potatoes because you need an expensive french chef to cook them!

With a high resolution screen your desktop is significantly improved, just by having high DPI for your fonts you can read more clearly and you can also read PDFs full screen without have to scale. When you read a piece of paper, do you look at it through a letterbox and magnifying glass? Scrolling and zooming? No. You dont need a crazy fast gpu to drive a high res. desktop.

For 3D gaming? Well, just run your games at a lower setting! If you have decent TFT hardware, the "hardware" does all the hard work of scaling and anti-aliasing to the screen resolution that you have chosen. The gpu is as fast at a lower resolution setting on a high res screen as it would be if it was driving a low resolution screen natively.

THATS HOW WE ALL USED TO GAME in back in early 2000's when we had weak GPU's (ATi 8500/9700) but screens (already) at 1600x1200! Worked then. Works now.

[Frick]

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

With a high resolution screen your desktop is significantly improved, just by having high DPI for your fonts you can read more clearly and you can also read PDFs full screen without have to scale. When you read a piece of paper, do you look at it through a letterbox and magnifying glass? Scrolling and zooming? No.

The problem is not all software plays nice with PDI scaling. Until that is solved I'm not interested in a HD monitor below 23 inches.

[Completely Bonkers]

Frick, the only software that doesnt work well with DPI scaling is software where the coders have written their own "display wrappers" around their software (e.g. fancy funny-shaped windows and non-compliant buttons) and have not used the correct Windows APIs/libraries. All commercial serious-software I've seen works fine. It's those chinese bios editors and other funky inde software that has problems where the programmer thinks they are "adding value" by farking with the output display rather than working and coding features and functions.

I have not come across any software that I would rate as a "keeper" that is not compliant with Windows and DPI scaling.

PS> Use DPI scaling from default 96dpi to 120dpi, dont use the setting "large fonts".

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by Volkszorn88

For right now, i'm perfectly fine with 1920x1080 resolution because spending 1k + on crazy high resolutions and needing crazy fast gpus with tons of vram to support it is just crazy.

FTFY...at least the manufacturers seem to be following suit moreso lately.

[Prima.Vera]

Originally Posted by ZoneDymo

Assume more please.
Was using a 27 inch before, now using a 32 inch tv.
And before I had the 27 inch guess what I had, a 22 inch CRT that did 2048x1536@85Hz back in 2002.

You compare CRT with TFT?? ) Hilarious! ) On that 22" CRT you could have played a game even in 640x480 at native resolution. In case you forgot, CRT's don't scale resolutions like TFT.
Another thing. Windows scaling sucks big time. I have a 17" old Dell laptop with 1920x1200 resolution and is a disaster. Everything is extremely small, or badly scaled and stretched even at 150%DPI. Some of my friends have a newer DELL with the same screen size but with 1366x768 resolution, and every thing is perfect on the screen. For Windows, bigger resolution, means smaller stuff on the scree, which for me is not an option, because I prefer to save my eyes and stay at a safe distance from the monitor, not really close to the screen to stare in order to see things. Not to mention the extra GPU power you need in order to play the games at full res. So think again when wanting a bigger res for your monitors.

[Assimilator]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

You compare CRT with TFT?? ) Hilarious! ) On that 22" CRT you could have played a game even in 640x480 at native resolution. In case you forgot, CRT's don't scale resolutions like TFT.
Another thing. Windows scaling sucks big time. I have a 17" old Dell laptop with 1920x1200 resolution and is a disaster. Everything is extremely small, or badly scaled and stretched even at 150%DPI. Some of my friends have a newer DELL with the same screen size but with 1366x768 resolution, and every thing is perfect on the screen. For Windows, bigger resolution, means smaller stuff on the scree, which for me is not an option, because I prefer to save my eyes and stay at a safe distance from the monitor, not really close to the screen to stare in order to see things. Not to mention the extra GPU power you need in order to play the games at full res. So think again when wanting a bigger res for your monitors.

So let's get this straight: because you were dumb enough to run a 17" screen at 1920x1200, and you don't want to upgrade your GPU, we should never ever have 27" monitors that run at more than 1920x1080? OKAY THEN CAPTAIN LOGIC.

BTW: your 640x480 CRT from 1996 called, it wants you back.

[Prima.Vera]

Originally Posted by Assimilator

So let's get this straight: because you were dumb enough to run a 17" screen at 1920x1200, and you don't want to upgrade your GPU, we should never ever have 27" monitors that run at more than 1920x1080? OKAY THEN CAPTAIN LOGIC.

BTW: your 640x480 CRT from 1996 called, it wants you back.

You drunk, stoned, or just forgot to take your pills??

[Jizzler]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

Another thing. Windows scaling sucks big time. I have a 17" old Dell laptop with 1920x1200 resolution and is a disaster. Everything is extremely small, or badly scaled and stretched even at 150%DPI. Some of my friends have a newer DELL with the same screen size but with 1366x768 resolution, and every thing is perfect on the screen. For Windows, bigger resolution, means smaller stuff on the scree, which for me is not an option, because I prefer to save my eyes and stay at a safe distance from the monitor, not really close to the screen to stare in order to see things. Not to mention the extra GPU power you need in order to play the games at full res. So think again when wanting a bigger res for your monitors.

Don't have to think about it... I had one of those Dell 17" laptops with a 1920x1200 screen. The experience was amazing!

However, I can understand it being a disaster if you were using Windows XP and not Vista. XP's scaling was poor compared to Vista back then.

[Yo_Wattup]

Originally Posted by Prima.Vera

That would be true if the monitor would be a CRT not a TFT. For TFT the refresh rate is almost irrelevant. Bigger refresh is worth only if you want 3D crap with glasses

Hahaha, obviously not a competitive gamer...


Also, "For TFT the refresh rate is almost irrelevant."

What?

[Prima.Vera]

Originally Posted by Yo_Wattup

Hahaha, obviously not a competitive gamer...


Also, "For TFT the refresh rate is almost irrelevant."

What?

explain