Comparison benq xl2546k, hp omen x25, acer nitro xv252qf,msi mag251rx

[IIISLIDEIII]

acer with the strobe is difficult to comment because I find it unusable, if you put a strobe that works at 230 nits it is useless to me because to kill the enemies I have to see them and with 230 nits I do not see well, I have to strain the view as a 90 year old myopic while I'm playing, it doesn't make any sense.

Could you please switch MBR to Normal and come back and comment on the Acer's performance? I know you have done it, but it seems you keep coming back to testing MBR to Extreme.

tried several times also on normal but it is completely useless, there is no visible difference between mbr off and mbr on normal, the only useful mode is extreme but it becomes useless due to the low brightness.
Strobing on Acer you realize that it is not there (unless you want to play with a really dark monitor) and it is a real shame because if you set it to extreme it reduces the blur significantly and could compete with Tn.

However, it is a good monitor in terms of responsiveness, input lag and fluidity (even without gsync the image is very smooth and almost totally free of tearing), the only aspect where it loses compared to benq and Omen x25 is the blur, the difference it's a lot.

You have to evaluate your needs and the type of games you use and decide whether to prefer 390hz with blur or 240hz with clarity, I haven't chosen yet.

So what's the best option right now for competitive BR games where you're usually hitting about 200fps with a mid-to-high-end rig (Warzone, Apex, etc.) but often have dips into the mid-100s?

For example, tracking aggressive movement up close in Warzone?

As I’ve said, COD is my main game. I would recommend the Acer XV252QF. Other people would recommend the HP X25. If you love Dyac, people would recommend the XL2546K. I have also seen a lot of good things about the HP X27 if you like 1440p. That thing has a very fast TN panel and is usually close to a chart topper for both input lag and response time. I’m surprised I don’t hear more people here talking about it. I guess a lot of us competitive players like 1080p 24” to 25”. The HP X27 is 1440p 27”.

Basically, this is what I would say.

Lowest input lag and highest refresh rate: Acer XV252QF

Best pixel response time while still having a relatively high refresh rate: HP X25

Best backlight strobing: Zowie XL2546K

Best response time and 4K: LG C1

1440p 27” option: HP X27

I don't know if I received a lucky xl2546 model but I can guarantee you that even without dyac it is very clear, on ufo test the blur is very little, similar to Omen x25, it has only a slight overshot that in game it is difficult to notice.
Acer does not have overshot, in this aspect the ufo test is cleaner than the benq, but it has a lot of blur in the ufo test that benq does not have, when you leave the ufo test and go to the game it is much easier to perceive the blur of acer than the overshot of benq.


x27 1440p looks like a great panel, I guess it is the 2k with less blur on the market, I was curious to try that too but the size is a big problem, if you get used to the reaction you have on a 24.5 it becomes hard to go on a 27, I think it is impossible to have the same reaction speed, you have to move the screen really far away and you lose focus, you also have a higher resolution to move, so lower framerate in game and more pixels to manage, so more input lag and higher response times than the little brother x25
I think x27 is the right choice for someone who wants to have only one monitor and play a little bit of everything without wanting to be too competitive.

[lizardpeter]

Can you try out the test I linked on the HP and Acer and let me know what you think? Maybe both with and without BFI. I’m more interested in your results without BFI, however.

https://www.testufo.com/persistence#ph ... aration=16

[IIISLIDEIII]

Can you try out the test I linked on the HP and Acer and let me know what you think? Maybe both with and without BFI. I’m more interested in your results without BFI, however.

https://www.testufo.com/persistence#ph ... aration=16

sorry, I tried it last night but I didn't notice any particular differences.
what should i look for?

[lizardpeter]

sorry, I tried it last night but I didn't notice any particular differences.
what should i look for?

Just look for how readable the horizontal street names are. I noticed a massive difference between a few of the monitors I tested. Obviously BFI helps a lot too, but I would be interested in seeing what you think about the HP X25 vs the Acer 390 Hz, both without backlight strobing.

Here is another cool test that it would be nice to know the results from, if you're interested.

https://www.testufo.com/gtg-vs-mprt

[IIISLIDEIII]

sorry, I tried it last night but I didn't notice any particular differences.
what should i look for?

Just look for how readable the horizontal street names are. I noticed a massive difference between a few of the monitors I tested. Obviously BFI helps a lot too, but I would be interested in seeing what you think about the HP X25 vs the Acer 390 Hz, both without backlight strobing.

Here is another cool test that it would be nice to know the results from, if you're interested.

https://www.testufo.com/gtg-vs-mprt

tomorrow I will do them even more carefully and I tell you.

Did you mention that you often play cod, multiplayer only or even br (warzone)?
I play both and trying the monitors these days I get the impression that the speed and of these "competitive" screens are appreciated more in cod multiplayer, not in battle royal.
On warzone the game is slower, you play a lot of position and the fights very often at long range, situations where absurdly fast response times count up to a certain point,maybe it is more important to have a clear image at the resolution level.

I'm starting to think that for br like warzone, absurdly, a 1440p rather than a 1080p can help more .....
What do you think?

[lizardpeter]

Did you mention that you often play cod, multiplayer only or even br (warzone)?
I play both and trying the monitors these days I get the impression that the speed and of these "competitive" screens are appreciated more in cod multiplayer, not in battle royal.
On warzone the game is slower, you play a lot of position and the fights very often at long range, situations where absurdly fast response times count up to a certain point,maybe it is more important to have a clear image at the resolution level.

I'm starting to think that for br like warzone, absurdly, a 1440p rather than a 1080p can help more .....
What do you think?

Yeah, I think they help more in multiplayer. In multiplayer in MW, CW, and Vanguard, the FPS is substantially higher too, helping to make better use of faster monitors. In Warzone, as you said, everything is a lot slower. The time to kill in multiplayer is also much faster, so that tiny difference from a faster monitor comes into play more as you can lock onto them faster and it makes up a greater percentage of the time to kill compared to a slower time to kill.

The biggest difference for me comes from playing something like Cranked on Shipment compared to Warzone. On that map and mode, everything occurs so quickly and the faster reactions from a top monitor (390 Hz) make a big difference. In Warzone, the long-range fights typically have much more room for slow reactions. Honestly, I can hardly play Warzone on the standard map anymore because it's so slow and boring. I kind of like the Rebirth and Resurgence modes on Alcatraz Island because it's a lot faster, but I still think the monitor matters less there. Almost no PC out right now at any resolution can get more than a locked 250 FPS in Warzone. Meanwhile, I can get 300 FPS+ in multiplayer. People with RX 6900 XT, god-tier RAM, and 12900k can get 400 FPS+.

As for 1440p, I'm not really sure. I used to play Fortnite when it first came out on 1440p 144 Hz. Then I moved to 1080p 240 Hz. I do feel as though I am never unable to spot an enemy from a distance, however. I would only potentially suggest 1440p if you are okay with 27" screens and have an absolutely top-of-the-line GPU. In Warzone on your system, are you CPU or GPU bottlenecked? I am usually CPU bottlenecked.

[sk1p]

My opinion:
I tried Benq XL2540, Dell AW2518HW, Acer xf252qx, Asus vg279qm, Acer vg252qx, LG 27GK750F, Asus vg258qm.

I didn't like input lag on all TN's, but IPS's really bit slower and image not so clear.

For several monthes I sticked to Acer xv272ux, this IPS 2k, 240hz really has TN clarity, also 2k gives some advantage in clarity(I play 1280*960 CS GO). I got level 10 faceit in cs go with this panel(I understand this is not an indicator of good panel), but I play like amateur and for me it the best 240hz panel right now.
So my conclusion:
on 1080 panels:
240 hz Input lag: IPS > TN
response time and clarity: TN > IPS
but IPS's 2k 240-270hz panels have the TN's pros. It's possible that xg27aqm and xv272ux(XB) are the best right now in clarity.

One more thing that input lag slightly higher on 2k IPS, then on 1080, but IPS's 240hz 2k input lag is better then on 240hz TN's.

[IIISLIDEIII]

Did you mention that you often play cod, multiplayer only or even br (warzone)?
I play both and trying the monitors these days I get the impression that the speed and of these "competitive" screens are appreciated more in cod multiplayer, not in battle royal.
On warzone the game is slower, you play a lot of position and the fights very often at long range, situations where absurdly fast response times count up to a certain point,maybe it is more important to have a clear image at the resolution level.

I'm starting to think that for br like warzone, absurdly, a 1440p rather than a 1080p can help more .....
What do you think?

Yeah, I think they help more in multiplayer. In multiplayer in MW, CW, and Vanguard, the FPS is substantially higher too, helping to make better use of faster monitors. In Warzone, as you said, everything is a lot slower. The time to kill in multiplayer is also much faster, so that tiny difference from a faster monitor comes into play more as you can lock onto them faster and it makes up a greater percentage of the time to kill compared to a slower time to kill.

The biggest difference for me comes from playing something like Cranked on Shipment compared to Warzone. On that map and mode, everything occurs so quickly and the faster reactions from a top monitor (390 Hz) make a big difference. In Warzone, the long-range fights typically have much more room for slow reactions. Honestly, I can hardly play Warzone on the standard map anymore because it's so slow and boring. I kind of like the Rebirth and Resurgence modes on Alcatraz Island because it's a lot faster, but I still think the monitor matters less there. Almost no PC out right now at any resolution can get more than a locked 250 FPS in Warzone. Meanwhile, I can get 300 FPS+ in multiplayer. People with RX 6900 XT, god-tier RAM, and 12900k can get 400 FPS+.

As for 1440p, I'm not really sure. I used to play Fortnite when it first came out on 1440p 144 Hz. Then I moved to 1080p 240 Hz. I do feel as though I am never unable to spot an enemy from a distance, however. I would only potentially suggest 1440p if you are okay with 27" screens and have an absolutely top-of-the-line GPU. In Warzone on your system, are you CPU or GPU bottlenecked? I am usually CPU bottlenecked.

cpu bound on warzone.
I agree with everything, large spaces and slow play like warzone don't really appreciate the qualities of a fast panel but it is also a very heavy game to manage so using a 2k panel on that game helps to slow down the fps even more.

Soon I will upgrade to the PC so I should also manage 2k resolutions with high framerate well but the 2k problem is the size, 27 inches are really too many, on warzone I can still use it precisely because the gameplay is slower, on multiplayer absolutely not .

I go on 12900k with 4600mhz cl18 ram, I'm still undecided on 6900xt vs 3090, I looked at different gpu benchmarks on the net but I don't trust that data much, each one shows different results.

As for fortnite I think it is much more demanding in terms of image clarity than cod, I think that on fortnite a tn is required to perform well.

My opinion:
I tried Benq XL2540, Dell AW2518HW, Acer xf252qx, Asus vg279qm, Acer vg252qx, LG 27GK750F, Asus vg258qm.

I didn't like input lag on all TN's, but IPS's really bit slower and image not so clear.

For several monthes I sticked to Acer xv272ux, this IPS 2k, 240hz really has TN clarity, also 2k gives some advantage in clarity(I play 1280*960 CS GO). I got level 10 faceit in cs go with this panel(I understand this is not an indicator of good panel), but I play like amateur and for me it the best 240hz panel right now.
So my conclusion:
on 1080 panels:
240 hz Input lag: IPS > TN
response time and clarity: TN > IPS
but IPS's 2k 240-270hz panels have the TN's pros. It's possible that xg27aqm and xv272ux(XB) are the best right now in clarity.

One more thing that input lag slightly higher on 2k IPS, then on 1080, but IPS's 240hz 2k input lag is better then on 240hz TN's.

thanks for your thoughts.
There is very good talk of 2k 270 as asus and acer, I'm curious to try one of these but it's the size that holds me back, I have a lg 27gn850 (2k 144hz) and it's really hard for me to be fast with my eyes on 27 inch.
But I don't understand how it is possible that these 2k have less motion blur than ips 1080, really strange.

[RestTarRr]

given that using zowie without strobe is like having a Ferrari in the garage and not turning it on, currently it is the only strobe that works seriously, the others are there for beauty.

The person I quoted and the quote I quoted specifically talks about Acer being miles behind in pixel response time to TN, not to dyac.

Yes, buying zowie and not using strobe is stupid but he specifically said vs TN, not dyac vs acer, and he specifically said that the acer is miles behind in pixel response time which is objectively wrong. Your continuous changing of subject and cherry picking just proves my point. No one is saying that dyac isn't the best strobing technology on the market or that acer is crispier. All I said was that his statement was incorrect and delusional. It's obvious that TN are still faster but you have to have a pretty wild definition of "miles ahead" to think this is what is happening. 2 years ago that statement would've been perfectly fine. In 2021 both panels are very competitive.

[IIISLIDEIII]

given that using zowie without strobe is like having a Ferrari in the garage and not turning it on, currently it is the only strobe that works seriously, the others are there for beauty.

The person I quoted and the quote I quoted specifically talks about Acer being miles behind in pixel response time to TN, not to dyac.

Yes, buying zowie and not using strobe is stupid but he specifically said vs TN, not dyac vs acer, and he specifically said that the acer is miles behind in pixel response time which is objectively wrong. Your continuous changing of subject and cherry picking just proves my point. No one is saying that dyac isn't the best strobing technology on the market or that acer is crispier. All I said was that his statement was incorrect and delusional. It's obvious that TN are still faster but you have to have a pretty wild definition of "miles ahead" to think this is what is happening. 2 years ago that statement would've been perfectly fine. In 2021 both panels are very competitive.

I have not tried hundreds of monitors for which I can not express absolute judgments, also it is possible that there are people more sensitive than others to blur.
Let's say that the response times on the best ips are not yet at the level of the best tn, the differences are not as huge as they used to be but unfortunately they still exist.
For the vast majority of non-professional players, the differences can be negligible, I'm not a pro, I'm just very passionate and a bit of a perfectionist so I pay a lot of attention to the blur, it really bothers me.

I have a friend who plays cod on a 27 4k xg27uqr and is delighted with how his monitor works and would never change it to a fullhd, he probably doesn't pay much attention to blur and that's okay with it.
Everyone is different.