Are the 2 mentioned monitors a good upgrade over my current one?

[maramsp]

Hey all.

For years and years now, I am on a full hd monitor. That started maybe 15 years ago already with a Samsung monitor that died, and got replaced by a Philips 21.5" screen that still lives as a backup monitor.
2-3 years ago I wanted something better, meaning a bigger screen, and hdr support, which ended up, me buying a Gigabyte Aorus CV27F:

AORUS CV27F Gaming Monitor Key Features | Monitor - GIGABYTE Global

Features Fascinating Appearance with Digital LED FHD, 165Hz with 1ms & FreeSync2 HDR 8bits VA panel with 90% DCI-P3 & HDR 400 AORUS Active Noise Cancelling(...

www.gigabyte.com

I chose to stick with full hd because my gpu back then wasn't the most powerfull, and I am still happy with this screen to date.
It has nice colors, has hdr400 (which was a blast for me to see back then compared to my old Philips screen) has unofficial g-sync support, and overall feels very great!

Though as of late, more and more I think to myself, why not go 1 step further, and take a monitor that is even better, so with a bigger hdr, and also make the step to 1440p instead of full hd cause my new gpu can handle it quite well (Nvidia RTX 4070 TI Super)

So, I searched a bit, and found a review of a few screens on dutch website tweakers, which got me intrigued.

We are talking specifically about these monitors:
https://aoc.com/us/gaming/products/monitors/q27g3xmn-bk as the cheapest option, and:

https://aoc.com/us/gaming/products/monitors/ag274qxm as the more expensive option.

Also in the same review they are covering the: Cooler Master Tempest GP2711 and the Cooler Master Tempest GP27U as a comparison, but while the GP27U isn't sold anymore in the Netherlands and the GP2711 only has an 8 bit screen, I think I wont go for them.

But, (since this is quite some amount of text already) my question is:

Are these monitors (q27g3xmn-bk and ag274qxm) a significant upgrade to my current monitor?

I mean, the bells and whistles of a 10 bit screen compared with hdr 1000, and enough local dimming zones, sounds really nice to have, especially for the quite low prices they go for.

Before I conclude this line of text: Please don't advice me an oled monitor. I know they are great for contrast, etc, and also can have a peak brightness of around 1000 cdm/2, but I don't like the fact they need to be pixel refreshed every few hours and such. Also the fact that the good ones start between 700 and 800 euro, up to a lot more, doesn't attract me that much. That's why I opted for miniled ones instead.

So, do these monitors give me a good upgrade over my current monitor?

And is there something that someone could give me as an advice based on the above text.
Please do note that my max budget is 500-600 euro, and the monitor has to be sold on either megekko or azerty in the Netherlands, or any other store in the Netherlands that give pixel warranty. So dont advice me some other monitor that cant be bought in the Netherlands.

Thanks in advance for helping me out!

Greetings from Martijn from the Netherlands

Quick little edit:
I found the review about a different screen:

Xiaomi G Pro 27i QHD 180 Hz review: Value-priced Mini LED

The Xiaomi G Pro 27i is a 27-inch QHD IPS Mini LED gaming monitor with 180 Hz, Adaptive-Sync, HDR1000, Quantum Dots and wide gamut color.

www.tomshardware.com

Which seems like a very good monitor too. So the same questions i have about the 2 other ones goes for the Xiaomi one too.

 

[Ruru]

Hard to say, IMO monitors are just like any other peripherals, one may not fit for everyone.

Personally I upgraded first to a 32" 4K60 IPS monitor, then got a 27" 4K120 IPS for gaming so I put the bigger one as a media screen. 24" 1080p60 VA in pivot as a Discord screen as well.

 

[izy]

The Xiaomi one looks interesting, i think its cheaper than the AOCs and has more dimming zones.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I have never thought of AOC as making top quality or top performing monitors. Review comments are typically along the lines of "decent quality for the money". I know nothing about Xiaomi. I do agree with izy and it looks interesting.

I find Tom's review of it puzzling however. They cite the fact it does not have internal speakers as a "con". Really? I personally will automatically pass on a monitor that has speakers. They all produce poor quality sound, they are a waste of money, they result in extra wide bezels (at least on the bottom edge) and they produce poor quality sound (worth repeating). Plus, I am absolutely and totally dependent on a two monitor setup. So how do you set up and keep decent stereo separation with 2 monitors. Mute the right speaker on the left monitor and left speaker on the right monitor? Can you say, "Mickey Mouse"?

Who, looking for a gaming monitor, needs or wants a monitor with built-in speakers? So why is that a Con? IDK.

A monitor with built-in speakers is perfect for a basic "office" computer. But EVERY ONE I know who uses their computer for more than just basic office tasks also has a set of computer speakers connected to their computer, or they use a decent set of headphones.

IMO, integrated speakers are neither a Pro or a Con.

Tom's also cites the lack of USB port a Con too. Meh.

Before I conclude this line of text: Please don't advice me an oled monitor. I know they are great for contrast, etc, and also can have a peak brightness of around 1000 cdm/2, but I don't like the fact they need to be pixel refreshed every few hours and such. Also the fact that the good ones start between 700 and 800 euro, up to a lot more, doesn't attract me that much. That's why I opted for miniled ones instead.

Do NOT fall for the negative hype and falsehoods about OLED monitors and image retention/burn-in issues, etc. That WAS a problem many years ago with early generation OLED TVs and monitors. This was particularly true in places like airports and train stations where chart headers for arrival and departure information, or CNN logos were being displayed 24/7/365.

That is not how normal TV and computer users use their TVs and computer monitors. So, except in extreme cases where static images are displayed for hours and hours and hours on end, it is not a problem for normal users. But even in that scenario, OLED TV and monitor makers have, for many years now, incorporated mitigating and prevention features that automatically negate those issues. For example, they look for static images such as a CNN logo that is constantly displayed and periodically "shift" the logo a few pixels in different directions - not enough for us mere humans to detect, but plenty enough to prevent image retention. Other maintenance features (like pixel refresh) are automatic too. So the user does NOT have to do anything, except enjoy the exceptional display.

I have heard some comment on the Windows Taskbar being static. If that is a concern, then for peace of mind, change the setting to automatically hide the taskbar in desktop/full screen mode. Done.

I am an electronics tech. My first civilian job as a tech was repairing TVs and audio gear. I am just saying, I know what to look for. I have a 7 year old 55" Samsung OLED TV that is on about 6 hours every day. It is showing absolutely no signs of image retention or burn-in. Even the blues are still gorgeous (blue OLED LEDs reportedly have a shorter lifespan). And that is 7-year-old technology. These makers and OLED researchers have not been sitting and spinning on their thumbs since then. See, Here’s why you can stop worrying about OLED burn-in.

I am NOT trying to talk you into buying an OLED monitor. My point is, do NOT dismiss a monitor just because it uses an OLED display.

Price, however, may be a factor. OLEDs still tend to cost more. So if the OLED options in your part of the world are out of your budget range, then that is perfectly understandable. There definitely are great alternatives, including many decent mini LED monitors.

I will add this, however. Unless you are just unlucky, most monitors last many MANY years. So regardless your display technology of choice, I say, take the time to build up your budget and invest in a quality monitor from a reputable maker. Even if it cost $200 more, if you use (and enjoy) it for 8 years, that is less than $0.07 per day.

 

[maramsp]

I have never thought of AOC as making top quality or top performing monitors. Review comments are typically along the lines of "decent quality for the money". I know nothing about Xiaomi. I do agree with izy and it looks interesting.

I find Tom's review of it puzzling however. They cite the fact it does not have internal speakers as a "con". Really? I personally will automatically pass on a monitor that has speakers. They all produce poor quality sound, they are a waste of money, they result in extra wide bezels (at least on the bottom edge) and they produce poor quality sound (worth repeating). Plus, I am absolutely and totally dependent on a two monitor setup. So how do you set up and keep decent stereo separation with 2 monitors. Mute the right speaker on the left monitor and left speaker on the right monitor? Can you say, "Mickey Mouse"?

Who, looking for a gaming monitor, needs or wants a monitor with built-in speakers? So why is that a Con? IDK.

A monitor with built-in speakers is perfect for a basic "office" computer. But EVERY ONE I know who uses their computer for more than just basic office tasks also has a set of computer speakers connected to their computer, or they use a decent set of headphones.

IMO, integrated speakers are neither a Pro or a Con.

Tom's also cites the lack of USB port a Con too. Meh.

Indeed, thats what me got puzzling too...
But I think this monitor will not be the case for me, cause I cant find a store with decent pixel guarantee, so its a no go for me then, cause i had some dead pixels on my last couple of monitors, which were a pain to replace unfortunally.

But I think I will go for the AOC one, and then mount it on the wall with a vesa 100 thingy, and then place it above the desk that it needs to go on.

That way i do still have a sturdy build quality while also having the features that it comes with.
I dont care for the not so good osd that it seems to have, since once i calibrate it, i will not touch it again probally. And simply the price of just around 400 euros is just too good for a 10 bit screen with hdr 1000, even while it only has 384 dimming zones.

But maybe i still can opt for the "a bit more expensive" ips variant, which has more dimming zones, and iirc even is 4k.
I will most likely not set it on 4k then, since i know my 4070ti super is decent at 4k, but not great with the latest games.

Do NOT fall for the negative hype and falsehoods about OLED monitors and image retention/burn-in issues, etc. That WAS a problem many years ago with early generation OLED TVs and monitors. This was particularly true in places like airports and train stations where chart headers for arrival and departure information, or CNN logos were being displayed 24/7/365.

That is not how normal TV and computer users use their TVs and computer monitors. So, except in extreme cases where static images are displayed for hours and hours and hours on end, it is not a problem for normal users. But even in that scenario, OLED TV and monitor makers have, for many years now, incorporated mitigating and prevention features that automatically negate those issues. For example, they look for static images such as a CNN logo that is constantly displayed and periodically "shift" the logo a few pixels in different directions - not enough for us mere humans to detect, but plenty enough to prevent image retention. Other maintenance features (like pixel refresh) are automatic too. So the user does NOT have to do anything, except enjoy the exceptional display.

I have heard some comment on the Windows Taskbar being static. If that is a concern, then for peace of mind, change the setting to automatically hide the taskbar in desktop/full screen mode. Done.

I am an electronics tech. My first civilian job as a tech was repairing TVs and audio gear. I am just saying, I know what to look for. I have a 7 year old 55" Samsung OLED TV that is on about 6 hours every day. It is showing absolutely no signs of image retention or burn-in. Even the blues are still gorgeous (blue OLED LEDs reportedly have a shorter lifespan). And that is 7-year-old technology. These makers and OLED researchers have not been sitting and spinning on their thumbs since then. See, Here’s why you can stop worrying about OLED burn-in.

I am NOT trying to talk you into buying an OLED monitor. My point is, do NOT dismiss a monitor just because it uses an OLED display.

Price, however, may be a factor. OLEDs still tend to cost more. So if the OLED options in your part of the world are out of your budget range, then that is perfectly understandable. There definitely are great alternatives, including many decent mini LED monitors.

I will add this, however. Unless you are just unlucky, most monitors last many MANY years. So regardless your display technology of choice, I say, take the time to build up your budget and invest in a quality monitor from a reputable maker. Even if it cost $200 more, if you use (and enjoy) it for 8 years, that is less than $0.07 per day.

I know all of this, but still, if i read the reviews of some oled monitors that i want, then i see that an automatic thing starts after 4-6 hours to prevent burn in, even while the monitor still is on.
And that is simply a thing that i dont want.

I could try to find an oled screen that does the auto preventing burn in thing after 4-6 hours when you reboot the screen, but still.

I do like bright, vivid colors, especially the bright ones. So i know that i will be better of with miniled, if not only for the price.

If i go for that cheap AOC monitor i only pay around 400 euro, plus 30-40 euro pixel warranty, plus the cost for a vesa 100 mount.
If i go for a decent oled variant, i pay at least 300-400 euro more, and still then even it might not what i want. Plus, the oleds that i found are mostly all 4k, and i dont want that per se.
Maybe its even better for me to not have a 4k screen, cause of the fact that it then cannot set higher then 1440p. And i think im stubborn enough to still try to run my games at 4k then, and then later finding out that my gpu is not so great at 4k.

Nah, might be better then that i go for miniled. But man, if only the cooler master gp27u was still available then. Then i would have bought that screen, no matter what.

Nevertheless, thanks Bill, like always. I really appreciate your advice, not only for this topic, but as well for the others you've helped me with!

 

[Bill_Bright]

Thanks for kind words.

then i see that an automatic thing starts after 4-6 hours to prevent burn in, even while the monitor still is on.
And that is simply a thing that i dont want.

I have never it seen it interrupt usage. Not saying it won't, I just have not seen it. That would bother me too. I know on my TV, when such maintenance is due, it tells me it will do it when I turn it off and reminds me to leave it plugged in. Next time I power on, I get a quick popup telling me it completed successfully.

The OLED monitors I am familiar with behave similarly - that is, they only do those maintenance tasks when idle for a period, or in sleep mode. Not when the computer itself is still awake and performing user tasks.

I have never seen a Cooler Master monitor in person - only heard of them.

 

[maramsp]

Thanks for kind words.


I have never it seen it interrupt usage. Not saying it won't, I just have not seen it. That would bother me too. I know on my TV, when such maintenance is due, it tells me it will do it when I turn it off and reminds me to leave it plugged in. Next time I power on, I get a quick popup telling me it completed successfully.

The OLED monitors I am familiar with behave similarly - that is, they only do those maintenance tasks when idle for a period, or in sleep mode. Not when the computer itself is still awake and performing user tasks.

I have never seen a Cooler Master monitor in person - only heard of them.

Hmm, this makes me thinking..

What IF i then still would opt for an Oled screen?
I was browsing for some options and found a very promising screen at first sight. But i have to say, i havent found any reviews yet, but man for the price of only around 650 euros, it looks amazing.
It is this one:

AORUS FO27Q2 Key Features | Monitor - GIGABYTE Global

27" QD-OLED with QHD 240Hz ClearMR 13000 & HDR Trueblack 400 10-bit display color with 99% DCI-P3 Tactical Switch & OLED Care Black Equalizer 2.0 & KVM AOR...

www.gigabyte.com

So, @Bill_Bright could you maybe shine your light on that screen, and share your comments here? I mean, even when going all out with hdr gaming, the website stays that it can go to around a 1000 nits.
Given the fact that its also hdr400 true black, and a qd-oled, wouldnt this an amazing screen to have, and in potential not even better then all the other options that i have highlighed here?

So, Im very eagerly awaiting your reply to this, cause for me, Im really new in terms of oled and high hdr.
Even the website claims something about vesa ClearMR, which i have absolutely no clue of what it is.

So.. It looks like a blast this monitor, but is that true?

Thanks in advance again!

 

[Bill_Bright]

I found this review, but the lack of any testing or analysis hardly makes it a "review" And I don't really understand the cons. It is marketed as a gaming monitor but the so called reviewer seems to have down rated it because it is "geared at gamers". Seems pretty biased to me.

Also not a true review, this article at least explains in better detail the features. It also explains how the newer generation Q3 version differs - for example, it has a 360 Hz refresh rate compared to the Q2's 240 Hz. Personally, I already thought 240 Hz sounded great.

All I can say is my OLED "TV" is the absolute best looking TV I have ever owned. When I go shopping again for a new TV, I most likely will buy another OLED - unless some new technology come by.

I am not a serious gamer so I probably am not the best source for information there.

One thing I have noticed over the years is there are 2 kinds of PC gamers. The first type are those who game because they enjoy gaming - that is, they game to be entertained. The second type spend an inordinate amount of time (IMO) fussing over less important (again, IMO) issues like squeezing out 2 or 3 more FPS instead of just enjoying the action on the screen.

I just know when I do game, I am not looking to see if my monitors are displaying true blacks, the sharpest contrasts, or the most brilliant or most accurate colors. Who am I to say that alien's skin tones are accurate anyway?

I would say every screen technology has its advantages and disadvantage, and there are pundits for and against each one.

I will also say MUCH has to do with each individual's personal preference. This means, if at all possible, you need to find a store that has them on display and see for yourself. Sorry I cannot offer more.