Acer 390Hz monitor - XV252QF

[kyube]

*wall of text*

Thank you for your input! Can we get testufo's of the 24G2ZU / 24G2ZE / 24G2Z and some input lag measurements perhaps? I'm very curious on this "mature" 23,8" 240hz ips panel that the AOC shares with the XG2431 and how the performance is when not strobing, thank you!

[lyrill]

Strange how conflicting the experiences are. I know many more CS players at my level (faceit 9-10) has changed to this and liked it very much. I like it too. Not revolutionary or anything but best I've tried. Some coming from 240Hz some from 144Hz. All think its an upgrade.

At the same time there still are ofcourse guys @ lvl 10 with 120Hz old panels, who arent tech savvy at all wiping floor with us. So. Yeah. There's always that.

Most of the time we deal with heavy placebo effects. I mean, on paper 390hz is suppose to be the best and only option to perform well on competitive games right? Your brain thinks so at least, wich doesn´t mean it is a fact.

I, myself, like to test it. I open Quake or Aim Lab (you can use any other game/app that shows you metrics about your accuracy) and try stuff. In my case the blur I had with 390hz was enough to make me track worse than with a good 240hz panel that has near instant pixel response time with no blur or overshoot. That was with Strobing disabled and enabled (doesn´t matter normal or extreme, same thing). These 360hz panels simply can´t keep up with the refresh rate.

Doesn´t mean that you won´t be getting input lag benefits and the monitor displaying every frame of your game, if you have good hardware.

As for "no one goes back", not right. A lot of players actually went back after trying 360hz/390hz, I could name a lot from Quake but it would be irrelevant for you, so all I can say is that this youtuber you guys seem to like a lot, moved back to 240hz (270hz more precisely) again. Why? Because he thinks the same as I do. Not worth it, doesn´t improve his game, good BOE/Innolux 240hz/270hz panel has better response time and input lag is nearly identical even with less 150hz (!) (wich again shows that these 360hz panels are not fully optimized, they should have way lower input lag than any 240hz because of the scanout speed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d-l9OyPmug

Plus, I don´t see this mentioned enough, worse PPI or Bigger screens with low resolutions, make response time worse. Why? Because there is a bigger distance between the pixels. So we must add that to the fact these 360hz panels can´t keep up with the refresh. It´s a total mess to me. I repeat, to me. I respect and accept any different opinion and someone that is actually doing better with this monitor. It´s very possible, since there were also a lot of awful 240hz models out there, and this Acer 390hz even with all its problems, is way better than A LOT of 240hz monitors I tested (I tested nearly all of them to be precise)

These are the best gaming monitors out there, in my opinion after testing (almost) everything:

AOC 24G2Z 240hz ips 0,5ms 23,8 1080p (24G2ZE without height adjustement, 24G2ZU with height adjustement)

Asus XG27AQM 270hz ips 0,5ms 27 1440p

Ozone DSP24 240hz tn 1ms 23,8 1080p (NOT the 25 inch version, using AUO panel)

Asus XG248Q 240hz tn 1ms 23,8 1080p (worse response time than the models above)

Auss VG279QM 280hz ips 0,5ms 27 1080p (AMAZING panel, but too big to me, makes me play worse with such a big size. Awful PPI too)

I suspect ViewSonic XG2431, using same panel as the AOC 24G2Z, would also make it to this list, but there is no way for me to get it on Europe.

Asus XG249CM 270hz ips 0,5ms 23,8 1080p is an upcoming monitor, that I think will also make it to this list, considering the panel used (BOE). Will try it when it launches (should have launched already)

There is no placebo. Your in game experience is just as "valid" or "none valid" as anyone elses'. Generally speaking, a specific individual doesn't need to use the same specified game to test when the testufo stuff are already universally fully enough telling for example in terms of your previous claims that 240hz performs better even on the same monitor? it doesn't. it's clearly more blurry in the

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

even in lowest speed.

in highest speed

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

the below is clearly way more densely packed.

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

the above at 60fps is complete garbage

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

you focus on the bottom, the top is a complete mess, you focus on the whole picture, the top might seem more readable, but that's just because you aren't focusing on the top or the bottom alone. focus on the top and you will clearly see the top is just still garbage, although less so since you are "trying" to focus instead of having it in the outer edge of your focal point, where as the bottom produce about the same result.

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

the top is almost so fast and so blurry it's literally not readable. bottom is relatively easier to follow, and still, same result as before.


And I'm not even testing with OC and VRB turned on.
--------------

I've tested all this long ago. And i've been reading your somewhat biased comments bashing the monitor. They are really not well informed on how high hz monitor works. You sound like you are attributing a hz level you are not comfortable with to it being universally bad, it's just a number,if you prefer 60hz so much you would intentionally read that frame comparison the wrong way and especially for example on the 1440 speed option, come to the conclusion that 60fps>240fps as well as 60fps>390fps. Didn't you also say they should have made 480hz monitor, like a few others long ago including me? Didn't I also again agree on that? It's just a number. It's not 100% false. Again if you or others have valid proof that the oc on this is bad, then it might proof this is worse than the more premium priced 360hz s. But you have been repeating that they are all trash. Isn't that a bit extreme and walking in circles so? Not to mention most other people have tested this to be indeed better than the other 360s. Therefore I officially urge you to stop spreading false information and misleading people.

[michaelcycle00]

Strange how conflicting the experiences are. I know many more CS players at my level (faceit 9-10) has changed to this and liked it very much. I like it too. Not revolutionary or anything but best I've tried. Some coming from 240Hz some from 144Hz. All think its an upgrade.

At the same time there still are ofcourse guys @ lvl 10 with 120Hz old panels, who arent tech savvy at all wiping floor with us. So. Yeah. There's always that.

Most of the time we deal with heavy placebo effects. I mean, on paper 390hz is suppose to be the best and only option to perform well on competitive games right? Your brain thinks so at least, wich doesn´t mean it is a fact.

I, myself, like to test it. I open Quake or Aim Lab (you can use any other game/app that shows you metrics about your accuracy) and try stuff. In my case the blur I had with 390hz was enough to make me track worse than with a good 240hz panel that has near instant pixel response time with no blur or overshoot. That was with Strobing disabled and enabled (doesn´t matter normal or extreme, same thing). These 360hz panels simply can´t keep up with the refresh rate.

Doesn´t mean that you won´t be getting input lag benefits and the monitor displaying every frame of your game, if you have good hardware.

As for "no one goes back", not right. A lot of players actually went back after trying 360hz/390hz, I could name a lot from Quake but it would be irrelevant for you, so all I can say is that this youtuber you guys seem to like a lot, moved back to 240hz (270hz more precisely) again. Why? Because he thinks the same as I do. Not worth it, doesn´t improve his game, good BOE/Innolux 240hz/270hz panel has better response time and input lag is nearly identical even with less 150hz (!) (wich again shows that these 360hz panels are not fully optimized, they should have way lower input lag than any 240hz because of the scanout speed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d-l9OyPmug

Plus, I don´t see this mentioned enough, worse PPI or Bigger screens with low resolutions, make response time worse. Why? Because there is a bigger distance between the pixels. So we must add that to the fact these 360hz panels can´t keep up with the refresh. It´s a total mess to me. I repeat, to me. I respect and accept any different opinion and someone that is actually doing better with this monitor. It´s very possible, since there were also a lot of awful 240hz models out there, and this Acer 390hz even with all its problems, is way better than A LOT of 240hz monitors I tested (I tested nearly all of them to be precise)

These are the best gaming monitors out there, in my opinion after testing (almost) everything:

AOC 24G2Z 240hz ips 0,5ms 23,8 1080p (24G2ZE without height adjustement, 24G2ZU with height adjustement)

Asus XG27AQM 270hz ips 0,5ms 27 1440p

Ozone DSP24 240hz tn 1ms 23,8 1080p (NOT the 25 inch version, using AUO panel)

Asus XG248Q 240hz tn 1ms 23,8 1080p (worse response time than the models above)

Auss VG279QM 280hz ips 0,5ms 27 1080p (AMAZING panel, but too big to me, makes me play worse with such a big size. Awful PPI too)

I suspect ViewSonic XG2431, using same panel as the AOC 24G2Z, would also make it to this list, but there is no way for me to get it on Europe.

Asus XG249CM 270hz ips 0,5ms 23,8 1080p is an upcoming monitor, that I think will also make it to this list, considering the panel used (BOE). Will try it when it launches (should have launched already)

There is no placebo. Your in game experience is just as "valid" or "none valid" as anyone elses'. You don't need to use a specific game to test when the testufo stuff are already universally fulling telling for example in terms of your previous claims that 240hz performs better even on the same monitor? it doesn't. it's clearly more blurry in the

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

even in lowest speed.

in highest speed

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

the below is clearly way more densely packed.

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

the above at 60fps is complete garbage

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

you focus on the bottom, the top is a complete mess, you focus on the whole picture, the top might seem more readable, but that's just because you aren't focusing on the top or the bottom alone. focus on the top and you will clearly see the top is just still garbage, although less so since you are "trying" to focus instead of having it in the outer edge of your focal point, where as the bottom produce about the same result.

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

the top is almost so fast and so blurry it's literally not readable. bottom is relatively easier to follow, and still, same result as before.

I've tested all this long ago. And i've been reading your comments bashing the monitor. They are really not well informed on how high hz monitor works. Therefore I officially urge you to stop spreading false information and misleading people.

So what you're saying is that the "matured" 240hz monitors he recommends are not better than the Acer 390hz? You haven't tried those though have you? I think Notty has valid points about the PPI and how this monitor does have slower GTG transitions and a bit more ghosting than say, the AOC 24G2ZU. With that said, every time Notty is confronted with people asking for evidence he just disappears so that's pretty sketchy too.

[lyrill]

Strange how conflicting the experiences are. I know many more CS players at my level (faceit 9-10) has changed to this and liked it very much. I like it too. Not revolutionary or anything but best I've tried. Some coming from 240Hz some from 144Hz. All think its an upgrade.

At the same time there still are ofcourse guys @ lvl 10 with 120Hz old panels, who arent tech savvy at all wiping floor with us. So. Yeah. There's always that.

Most of the time we deal with heavy placebo effects. I mean, on paper 390hz is suppose to be the best and only option to perform well on competitive games right? Your brain thinks so at least, wich doesn´t mean it is a fact.

I, myself, like to test it. I open Quake or Aim Lab (you can use any other game/app that shows you metrics about your accuracy) and try stuff. In my case the blur I had with 390hz was enough to make me track worse than with a good 240hz panel that has near instant pixel response time with no blur or overshoot. That was with Strobing disabled and enabled (doesn´t matter normal or extreme, same thing). These 360hz panels simply can´t keep up with the refresh rate.

Doesn´t mean that you won´t be getting input lag benefits and the monitor displaying every frame of your game, if you have good hardware.

As for "no one goes back", not right. A lot of players actually went back after trying 360hz/390hz, I could name a lot from Quake but it would be irrelevant for you, so all I can say is that this youtuber you guys seem to like a lot, moved back to 240hz (270hz more precisely) again. Why? Because he thinks the same as I do. Not worth it, doesn´t improve his game, good BOE/Innolux 240hz/270hz panel has better response time and input lag is nearly identical even with less 150hz (!) (wich again shows that these 360hz panels are not fully optimized, they should have way lower input lag than any 240hz because of the scanout speed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d-l9OyPmug

Plus, I don´t see this mentioned enough, worse PPI or Bigger screens with low resolutions, make response time worse. Why? Because there is a bigger distance between the pixels. So we must add that to the fact these 360hz panels can´t keep up with the refresh. It´s a total mess to me. I repeat, to me. I respect and accept any different opinion and someone that is actually doing better with this monitor. It´s very possible, since there were also a lot of awful 240hz models out there, and this Acer 390hz even with all its problems, is way better than A LOT of 240hz monitors I tested (I tested nearly all of them to be precise)

These are the best gaming monitors out there, in my opinion after testing (almost) everything:

AOC 24G2Z 240hz ips 0,5ms 23,8 1080p (24G2ZE without height adjustement, 24G2ZU with height adjustement)

Asus XG27AQM 270hz ips 0,5ms 27 1440p

Ozone DSP24 240hz tn 1ms 23,8 1080p (NOT the 25 inch version, using AUO panel)

Asus XG248Q 240hz tn 1ms 23,8 1080p (worse response time than the models above)

Auss VG279QM 280hz ips 0,5ms 27 1080p (AMAZING panel, but too big to me, makes me play worse with such a big size. Awful PPI too)

I suspect ViewSonic XG2431, using same panel as the AOC 24G2Z, would also make it to this list, but there is no way for me to get it on Europe.

Asus XG249CM 270hz ips 0,5ms 23,8 1080p is an upcoming monitor, that I think will also make it to this list, considering the panel used (BOE). Will try it when it launches (should have launched already)

There is no placebo. Your in game experience is just as "valid" or "none valid" as anyone elses'. You don't need to use a specific game to test when the testufo stuff are already universally fulling telling for example in terms of your previous claims that 240hz performs better even on the same monitor? it doesn't. it's clearly more blurry in the

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

even in lowest speed.

in highest speed

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

the below is clearly way more densely packed.

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

the above at 60fps is complete garbage

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

you focus on the bottom, the top is a complete mess, you focus on the whole picture, the top might seem more readable, but that's just because you aren't focusing on the top or the bottom alone. focus on the top and you will clearly see the top is just still garbage, although less so since you are "trying" to focus instead of having it in the outer edge of your focal point, where as the bottom produce about the same result.

https://www.testufo.com/framerates-vers ... &showfps=1

the top is almost so fast and so blurry it's literally not readable. bottom is relatively easier to follow, and still, same result as before.

I've tested all this long ago. And i've been reading your comments bashing the monitor. They are really not well informed on how high hz monitor works. Therefore I officially urge you to stop spreading false information and misleading people.

So what you're saying is that the "matured" 240hz monitors he recommends are not better than the Acer 390hz? You haven't tried those though have you? I think Notty has valid points about the PPI and how this monitor does have slower GTG transitions and a bit more ghosting than say, the AOC 24G2ZU. With that said, every time Notty is confronted with people asking for evidence he just disappears so that's pretty sketchy too.

My upgrade path on pcmr was 2420t pg248q and this. If it's good for him it's good for him, might be so for some others, that's the point, they are neither worse nor better for all use scenarios. My next monitor would likely be 500 or 600hz. The 2x rule still stands, downgrading to 240hz after having used 390hz for nearly a year is completely out of the question, like stop to think for a second, how absurd is that?. Give me not an optimized 360hz-400hz, give me an optimized 800hz-1000hz. Think big.

I respect people who can afford trying duplicate purpose monitors. For me the return on investment would be not worth it. Mice are cheaper to experiment around and more valid due different shapes etc, and still it's spreading energy thin. The viper 8k does seem like a be all end all no brainer choice. If you are on a viper ultimate, you might just wanna go with the sub 300hz monitors. I'm currently still testing lod on prime+. Let's just say it is a capability I would want on the viper 8k, but both shape unsurprisingly leave a lot to be desired

In terms of PPI they should prioritize it more than upping resolutions, with the basis of maxing hz first. It's a sin of the industry that should not be put on one 1080p top hz monitor, really weird and needless angle there.

In terms of GTG, again, guys, we are Blurbusters. MPRT is a superior benchmark than GTG. Come on.

In terms of ghosting, tried almost all settings including the often ignored ufo deluxe, don't see any obvious problems. Sure on 1440 dial and onwards the trail starts to be a bit obvious, like we've all known, but if you actually try to focus on the main image, as you should, not nitpick the one shade of ghost, you will understand that this is a lot better than having 10 shades of darker blur (or maybe they are darker/less obvious exactly because they are more...... blurry!) nothing is perfect, certainly not for a more budget top tier offering an otherwise end game deal.

Don't believe me? here you go some link on reddit . https://imgur.com/a/AzvPjwS . All this hugely depend on color and brightness scenarios across the system too. (ok that's actually planart lol)

also you seem to have missed my edits with your quote up there.

[planart]

All this tech is still deeply flawed and overpriced for what it is. Yes 390Hz is "better" than for example 160Hz, but in the greater sense they are still both kind of bad and we have a long way to go before it's even great. Everything gets blurry while moving and there's just different flavors and degrees to it.

And yes, I just spent last week doing photography work on a beautiful 32" 4K monitor. Spoiling my eyes with size and IQ. Coming back home to this 24" 1080p feels shit. Relatively smooth shit. But. Man, why does it have to be a world of such compromises. I want something that does it all, and perfectly.

[Salemthecaz]

All this tech is still deeply flawed and overpriced for what it is. Yes 390Hz is "better" than for example 160Hz, but in the greater sense they are still both kind of bad and we have a long way to go before it's even great. Everything gets blurry while moving and there's just different flavors and degrees to it.

And yes, I just spent last week doing photography work on a beautiful 32" 4K monitor. Spoiling my eyes with size and IQ. Coming back home to this 24" 1080p feels shit. Relatively smooth shit. But. Man, why does it have to be a world of such compromises. I want something that does it all, and perfectly.

That’s the beauty of technology! There’s always room to grow and improve over time, which is something makes it so exciting! I’d be so bored if one day technology reached its full potential, there’ll be nothing left to look forward to For now, just appreciate what we are witnessing, competition is good for consumers! Sky is the limit, people’s needs will never be fulfilled without any compromises! I recommend to build a dual monitor setup? That way you get the best out of both worlds!

[lyrill]

i mean if you indeed are doing pro photography (stills), isn't 4k obsolete since like forever ago lol (example 5dmk4 RAW/L: 6720×4480, M RAW 5040×3360 M 4464×2976, hell even S RAW/S1 is taller at 3360×2240, that's from 2016). You can't even view some artistic shots of some such human bodies in full rez because they are mostly portrait, for example 3k x 5k. Indeed you'd need double monitors JUST for photography alone, unless you enjoy dangling the cables around while tilting the monitors all over, even then landscape photos are still slightly shrinked.

[planart]

i mean if you indeed are doing pro photography (stills), isn't 4k obsolete since like forever ago lol (example 5dmk4 RAW/L: 6720×4480, M RAW 5040×3360 M 4464×2976, hell even S RAW/S1 is taller at 3360×2240, that's from 2016). You can't even view some artistic shots of some such human bodies in full rez because they are mostly portrait, for example 3k x 5k. Indeed you'd need double monitors JUST for photography alone, unless you enjoy dangling the cables around while tilting the monitors all over, even then landscape photos are still slightly shrinked.

Man. I have passed by most of your posts because quite frankly I can not understand anything you're trying to say. I'm sure you're a nice and knowledgeable guy but there's clearly a language barrier of sorts. Why does it seem you're attacking and disagreeing with everyone all the time? Also judging by this post and the previous ones you are probably a tech wiz but do you actually do anything with it? Work or even play in serious level?

Yes, I'm a professional photographer and I do product photography in the luxury field. Good 4K monitor is fine, for my post workflow. You know there's zoom tools available for per pixel accurate editing right?

[UmarellVidya]

I have a very similar case @planart. My friends also moved from the best tn monitors pros use till this day in competetive csgo or valorant (xl2540k, xl2546, xl2546k) and there was not a single person from my group of friends that wanted to go back to theirs tn benqs. All lv. 7-10 faceit. Nobody ever said something like "guys, this monitor is not for me, I'm going back to my xl2546k with dyac+" or whatever 240hz monitor they had before the purchase. Among my friends, I hear surprisingly positive opinions on the XV252QF (most of the units have been manufactured in march, one guy has a febr one but no problems at all he says). Even those who have thought there will be no significant difference between 240hz with dyac and 390hz are actually telling me "yo the performance difference is really cool" after spending a few days with the acer.

Just my personal opinion: If u dont stare at ufo tests all day and you're kinda a csgo/valorant/overwatch (the 390+ fps games) guy, you can't really go wrong with this acer monitor cuz this thing is a solid upgrade over any 144hz monitor and probably most 240hz ones. Especially if you can get your hands on a discounted unit as I did. Paid 400$, fully satisfied, would buy it again without a second thought after the experience.

This is cool to hear, I'm looking at this monitor for CS/Valorant/Kovaaks and was curious what areas in game you saw the biggest improvement in, or what maybe just felt better. I'm coming from a 120Hz Ultrawide (AW3418DW), so as far gaming performance goes this will be a pretty significant upgrade for me. Also, how'd you get it for so little? The lowest I've seen it is $450 and it's out of stock.

[lizardpeter]

All this tech is still deeply flawed and overpriced for what it is. Yes 390Hz is "better" than for example 160Hz, but in the greater sense they are still both kind of bad and we have a long way to go before it's even great. Everything gets blurry while moving and there's just different flavors and degrees to it.

That’s a really good way to put it. That’s why I’m more impressed by the latency of this monitor than anything else. That’s something they have been able to substantially improve over the past few years. The ghosting definitely is something that could be improved, but I still think this is probably the best monitor out. Hopefully within a few years there will be some massive improvements to response time.