The admin (PCM2) is on holiday until November 23rd. Posting on the forum will be restricted during this period - no new topics or user registrations are accepted and replies to existing threads will be limited.
Buying a monitor? Please refer to this post before purchasing.
New user? Register here.
- Posts
PCM2Just to note that Hardware Unboxed (HUB) has now reviewed the Gigabyte M27Q P (also known as M27Q Pro and not to be confused with the ‘Rev 2.0’ M27Q discussed in this post). Nothing surprising to me based on the use of a Nano IPS panel, which I strongly believed would be used. But a few notes:
– Good gamma calibration for ‘2.2’ out of the box and aside from strong saturation from the gamut, well-balanced overall. It also has a better-calibrated sRGB mode when comparing both units they tested, though mileage may vary. And the setting still locks off colour channels and gamma control, with gamma approximately tracking the sRGB curve without a ‘2.2’ option – ‘sRGB’ gamma drops down at the low end and lifts blacks up so they’re lighter than intended. This can give a blocky and ‘banded’ or generally artificially uplifted look to dark scenes in my opinion, particularly annoying when viewing compressed video content with compression artifacts brought out too strongly.
– Static contrast of 968:1 (we recorded ~1200:1 on the original M27Q for comparison). Certainly not bad for a Nano IPS panel, still weaker than some competing IPS technologies.
– Good low input lag and responsive overall.
– ‘Picture Quality’ response time setting provides a single overdrive mode that performs pretty well throughout the VRR range, actually quite similar in performance to that setting on the M27Q. The ‘Balance’ setting works well at high refresh rates (170Hz or perhaps 144Hz+), with lower overshoot there than the same setting on the M27Q. Still some overshoot there, though – quite high for some transitions from HUB’s measurements but not too widespread.
– 98% DCI-P3 recorded, as specified and as expected for Nano IPS. Superior to the ~95% we recorded for the original M27Q. Adobe RGB coverage is inferior, though, as Nano IPS models are weaker there with ~90% Adobe RGB or slightly under vs. 95% Adobe RGB for the M27Q. This makes the M27Q surprisingly versatile and gives it potential for use for content creation within the Adobe RGB colour space. Or consumption by those who appreciate the extra vibrancy to green and cyan shades. A comparison of the M27Q (top) with a model with similar backlight to the M27Q P (bottom – ViewSonic XG270QG). The red triangle shows the monitor, green triangle sRGB and blue triangle DCI-P3.
– The screen surface of the M27Q was particularly good in terms of lack of layering, fairly direct light emission (‘light to very light matte’) and ungrainy. HUB doesn’t cover this aspect, but based on other similar Nano IPS panels it will be a tough grainier and not as light on the M27Q P – but not ‘bad’ in that respect and should be fine for most people. Just something I’m notoriously fussy about and sensitive to, so like to harp on about.
– RGB rather than BGR subpixels, all else being equal (which it isn’t) that is of course the preferred layout!
Overall I don’t really feel the M27Q P does enough to justify its price tag of ~$400, which is ~$80-100 more than the original model. In fact it brings it quite close to the M27Q X which is more like a 240Hz version of the original but with the normal RGB subpixel layout. The ‘P’ model isn’t an outright better monitor than the original in my view, it’s stronger in some areas and weaker in others. I consider the MSI G273QF/QPF a nice alternative for ~$300, with strong responsiveness and quite vibrant (but not heavily saturated) output. As covered in this thread, the gamma handling is my main complaint with that one as it tends to be a bit ‘wonky’ and there are no alternative gamma settings in the OSD. Some shades are a bit darker than they should be and some are a bit brighter. But most people will find it perfectly fine in that respect for general consumption and gaming, particularly as it tracks in a way that avoids overly bright mid-tones or ‘washing out’ the image. And for those who are particular about accurate gamma tracking, full calibration and profiling with an ICC profile will fix that up. Plus provide the other usual corrections and (for colour-aware applications) gamut mapping to fully correct sRGB output.
AgileNew user here but been lurking for a while. Just wanted to thank you for drawing up such a useful comparison. Usually people will lazily recommend you go for a product just because it’s newer, whereas you tell it like it is. Newer doesn’t mean 100% better.
Based on your advice I bought an M27Q. Honestly, I really like it. Except (and this was poor research on my part) I need to use it with other monitors that have RGB stripes. So I can’t perform proper Cleartype correction. I swapped it out for an M27Q P and for sure think it’s still a good monitor and it works better for me. But I still slightly prefer the original Q model for some reason. It isn’t a big difference for me but it just looks that bit richer. I think maybe the stronger contrast and maybe the smoother screen surface. I’m no expert on calibration so maybe it’s just how I have them set up. I find the response times fine on both and the image is vibrant anyway so I’m happy enough. 🙂
PCM2You’re welcome and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts with both monitors. In your case I absolutely agree that making the swap was the right decision. And it’s good that you aren’t finding the experience aside from that too different between the two models. Sometimes when you initially swap out one monitor for another you are very sensitive to even slight differences and things don’t always feel quite right. Hopefully you’ll get increasingly used to the M27Q P and will continue to enjoy the experience it offers. 🙂
I take it from your post that you use it for gaming as well as general desktop usage?
AgileYes I use it for games and a lot of time on the desktop and a bit of watching movies to help relax. Some of my time on the desktop is spent doing AutoCAD design, but nothing that needs high colour accuracy and just lots of manipulating of meshes etc. I thought the BGR would be a big issue with this but like you said it really isn’t. I perhaps find the Q P a bit sharper for some of the thin lines but I don’t call this night and day. I was also seriously tempted by the Q X but it just costs so much more in my country. If it was priced like in America I think it would have been an easy choice for the Q X over the Q P like you said.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.