Which monitor is better?

[jrieder46]

Which monitor is better?
ACER XV322QU Pbmiipprzx or Gigabyte M32Q

 

[Chomiq]

The one that has:
- better price and features,
- no dead pixels,
- no major backlight bleed and IPS glow.
Two of these three you won't find out until you buy.

 

[mama]

Neither. An LG OLED.

 

[Shou Miko]

Neither. An LG OLED.

All the hype about a 32inch LG OLED and rumors say it's limited to 60Hz.

I use the LG CX OLED 48inch as my main tv in my living room and I am really happy with it even gaming on my PS4 Pro I wouldn't use it as my PC screen because I got a lot of static items om my screen a lot of the times.

 

[Chomiq]

All the hype about a 32inch LG OLED and rumors say it's limited to 60Hz.

I use the LG CX OLED 48inch as my main tv in my living room and I am really happy with it even gaming on my PS4 Pro I wouldn't use it as my PC screen because I got a lot of static items om my screen a lot of the times.

32" OLED from LG uses printed RGB panel made by JOLED.

48" CX uses WRGB panel from LG.

Currently the smallest WRGB OLED panel made by LG is the 42" one.

That being said it's a completely different price bracket. Gigabyte and Acer cost around $400-450, 32" OLED costs $3000, 42" C2 will cost around $1200 on launch.

 

[Valantar]

Sadly neither have been reveiwed by TechSpot/Hardware Unboxed yet (their gaming monitor reviews are the best I've seen so far, and they're the only ones I've seen with in-depth response time and overshoot testing), but they do bring up the M32Q as a budget 32" 1440p option in their "best 1440p monitors" roundup - as a budget option to the Samsung Odyssey G7 and ROG PG329Q. If I were to guess, I'd expect the two candidates here to use the same Innolux panel. The question then comes down to features + how well the manufacturer tunes the panel, adjusts overshoot, etc. Personally, I would trust Gigabyte more than Acer there, but that's just guesswork based on how they've done on other monitors - which is of course not really transferrable. They really liked the M27Q though.

 

[Bomby569]

Sadly neither have been reveiwed by TechSpot/Hardware Unboxed yet

that's why it was on their "best of" video

Some friends have it and it's one of the best in that segment.

 

[lmille16]

I have the 27'' version of the Gigabyte and really enjoy it. You'll get a few more ports (USB 3.0 and USB C) with the Gigabyte and it also has a built in KVM switch if something like that is important to you. I did not have any issues with stuck/dead pixels.

 

[Chomiq]

I have the 27'' version of the Gigabyte and really enjoy it. You'll get a few more ports (USB 3.0 and USB C) with the Gigabyte and it also has a built in KVM switch if something like that is important to you. I did not have any issues with stuck/dead pixels.

27" uses a BGR panel instead of regular RGB on the M32Q.

There's also a review available in Polish:

From the summary:

Pro's:
Great colors, top calibration out of the box, sRGB mode with delta 1, great pixel responsiveness (Balanced OD mode recommended for high fps, for lower fps values, low 100s, when combined with Gsync use Picture OD mode).

Cons:
Issues with strobe function (slow red pixel transitions) and some minor IPS glow which is more evident on 32" models in comparison to 27".

M32Q is a monitor I would pick in this case but only if I had good return policy from the store.

 

[Valantar]

that's why it was on their "best of" video

Some friends have it and it's one of the best in that segment.

Interesting, seems like they only have the video for that one and no written review, and they didn't even list that video in their own review summary page for that model on the site (it had a single "expert review", which was external. Good to know! Gigabyte's monitors have been looking really good for the past little while, so I'm not surprised.

 

[lmille16]

27" uses a BGR panel instead of regular RGB on the M32Q.

Didn't even know that was a thing, you learn something new every day.

 

[Nike_486DX]

both are flat, which isnt ideal for a 24+ inch monitor. I would vote for acer cuz its got a better name lol

 

[Valantar]

both are flat, which isnt ideal for a 24+ inch monitor. I would vote for acer cuz its got a better name lol

24+? I can agree to it having some merit for 32" monitors, but 27"? Not even remotely. They just don't fill a sufficient part of your field of vision for a curve to make sense - they're not big enough to meaningfully wrap around anything. You really need an ultrawide or a >32"+ display to really see benefits from a curve. Curved ultrawides are awesome though.

 

[Bomby569]

24+? I can agree to it having some merit for 32" monitors, but 27"? Not even remotely. They just don't fill a sufficient part of your field of vision for a curve to make sense - they're not big enough to meaningfully wrap around anything. You really need an ultrawide or a >32"+ display to really see benefits from a curve. Curved ultrawides are awesome though.

you 2 are very confusing, that's a 32''.
but i agree that you need ultrawide to take the best of curved, i think it's more important than the size itself, but definetly not under 32'', i think there's no point like Valantar said.

 

[GerKNG]

the M32Q Is great.
but they are very unreliable. (i had three gigabyte monitors so far and none of them lasted longer than 6 months).
the last one was the 800€ expensive M32U 4K 144Hz Monitor which completely died after 5 weeks.

 

[Kapone33]

I have a 32QC and absolutely love it. The Q is an IPS variant of the same panel.

 

[Bomby569]

the M32Q Is great.
but they are very unreliable. (i had three gigabyte monitors so far and none of them lasted longer than 6 months).
the last one was the 800€ expensive M32U 4K 144Hz Monitor which completely died after 5 weeks.

sometimes at launch this products have problems, but i have friends that bought them and they are happy

 

[Valantar]

you 2 are very confusing, that's a 32''.

I'm well aware of that, please read again. The range given was ">24". The next step up, which would then be the entry step for curved screens making sense, would be 27". Which was what I commented on, not whether it makes sense for this specific monitor.

but i agree that you need ultrawide to take the best of curved, i think it's more important than the size itself, but definetly not under 32'', i think there's no point like Valantar said.

Yeah, even a 34" 21:9 is 10cm wider than a 32" 16:9, which is again 10cm wider than a 27" 16:9. And width (as the human field of vision is wider than it is tall) is the key to curved displays making sense. And arguably, even 32" 16:9 isn't quite there, though that depends how close to it you sit.

 

[mama]

32" OLED from LG uses printed RGB panel made by JOLED.

48" CX uses WRGB panel from LG.

Currently the smallest WRGB OLED panel made by LG is the 42" one.

That being said it's a completely different price bracket. Gigabyte and Acer cost around $400-450, 32" OLED costs $3000, 42" C2 will cost around $1200 on launch.

"That being said it's a completely different price bracket. Gigabyte and Acer cost around $400-450, 32" OLED costs $3000, 42" C2 will cost around $1200 on launch."

Not sure if it's location specific but those prices are not right.

 

[INSTG8R]

24+? I can agree to it having some merit for 32" monitors, but 27"? Not even remotely. They just don't fill a sufficient part of your field of vision for a curve to make sense - they're not big enough to meaningfully wrap around anything. You really need an ultrawide or a >32"+ display to really see benefits from a curve. Curved ultrawides are awesome though.

This! my 27” 1440 “curved” added NOTHING to it. My current 34” 3440x1440 UW definitely benefits from it