Corsair XENEON 32QHD165

Interlace pattern artifacts

On some monitors, particularly but not exclusively those with high refresh rates, interlace patterns can be seen during certain transitions. We refer to these as ‘interlace pattern artifacts’ but some users refer to them as ‘inversion artifacts’ and others as ‘scan lines’. They may appear as an interference pattern, mesh or interlaced lines which break up a given shade into a darker and lighter version of what is intended. They often catch the eye due to their dynamic nature, on models where they manifest themselves in this way. Alternatively, static interlace patterns may be seen with some shades appearing as faint horizontal or vertical bands of a slightly lighter and slightly darker version of the intended shade.

We did not observe any static interlace patterns on this model. Under certain conditions we observed some dynamic ‘interlace pattern artifacts’, fine interlaced vertical lines during movement or when scanning our eyes across the screen in a certain way. They weren’t readily apparent unless the refresh rate was around 100Hz or under, becoming more noticeable at refresh rates of ~60Hz or below. Even at relatively low refresh rates including 60Hz they were still reasonably faint and shouldn’t be bothersome or necessarily noticed by most people. Unless you’re sitting quite close to the screen and are sensitive to them, in which case you may find they catch the eye at times (particularly at relatively low refresh rates).

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the 32QHD165, with over 30 repeat readings taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 3.24ms (over ½ a frame at 165Hz) of input lag. At 60Hz we calculated a very slightly higher value of 3.75ms. These figures are influenced by both the element you ‘see’ (pixel responsiveness) and the main element you ‘feel’ (signal delay). It indicates a low signal delay which most users should be happy with. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with Adaptive-Sync active in a VRR environment or with HDR active in an HDR environment.

Perceived blur (pursuit photography)

Our article on responsiveness explores some of the key concepts related to monitor responsiveness. A particularly important concept is that of perceived blur, contributed to by the pixel responses of the monitor and movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. The perceived blur due to eye movement is the dominant form of perceived blur on modern monitors, but both factors are important. A photography technique which uses a moving rather than static camera to represent motion on a monitor is also covered, called pursuit photography. These photos reflect both elements of perceived blur, unlike static photos or videos which only reflect weaknesses in pixel response behaviour.

The images below are pursuit photographs taken using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting, with the UFO moving across the screen from left to right at a frame rate matching the refresh rate of the display. The test is set to run at its default speed of 960 pixels per second, which is a practical speed for such photographs and sufficient to highlight any weaknesses. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 120Hz and 165Hz using all ‘Response Time’ settings. All rows of the UFO Motion Test were used, highlighting a range of pixel transitions between various shades. The final columns show some reference screens for comparison, where possible, using what we deem to be their optimal pixel response time setup. The first reference screen is the Gigabyte M27Q, a 27” model with IPS-type panel that offers a level of responsiveness many are comfortable with. The second reference screen is the Acer XB323U GP, a model tightly tuned for high refresh rates that’s based around the same panel as the Corsair.

Note that wavy patterns surrounding some UFOs in the background are slight image retention. This was only observed during this test and is something we’ve seen on various monitors before. It soon disappeared when using monitor normally.



At 60Hz, shown above, the UFO appears relatively broad without clear internal detailing. This reflects a significant degree of perceived blur due to eye movement and is tied to the 60Hz refresh rate. There are also varying degrees of trailing behind the UFOs due to weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. There’s very little in the way of conventional trailing – the ‘Normal’ setting shows a little ‘powdery’ trailing, but nothing substantial. It’s similar to the reference screens in this respect. More so the XB323U GP which shows tighter pixel responses for some transitions than the M27Q, such as behind the yellow UFO cockpit. The ‘Fast’ setting introduces a moderate amount of overshoot, with some colourful and in places quite bright ‘halo’ trailing. It has quite an inky look behind the UFO cockpit for the dark background (top row) with some bright halo trailing behind the UFO body for the medium background (middle row) and to a lesser extent light background (bottom row). The ‘Fastest’ setting ramps this overdrive up to extreme levels, providing extreme overshoot. We consider the ‘Normal’ setting optimal for 60Hz. The pursuit photographs below show how things look with refresh rate doubled, to 120Hz.



At 120Hz, shown above, the UFO now appears significantly narrower with some clearer internal details. This indicates a significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement. There are again varying degrees of trailing behind the UFOs due to weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. The ‘Normal’ setting already performs quite well here – better than the M27Q in fact. There’s still a bit of ‘powdery’ trailing visible behind the UFO for the dark and medium backgrounds, which is essentially eliminated for the transitions shown using the ‘Fast’ setting. There is some overshoot using this setting, but substantially less than at 60Hz. This setting performs quite similarly to the XB323U GP, perhaps slightly less aggressive and therefore with slightly lower overshoot. The ‘Fastest’ setting introduces more obvious overshoot. We consider the ‘Fast’ setting optimal for 120Hz. The pursuit photographs below show how things look with refresh rate increased somewhat, to 165Hz. The reference screens run at 170Hz but this makes a negligible difference and therefore the comparison is still valid.

144Hz selectable rather than 165Hz via HDMI. Although not documented, we did test this refresh rate. It performs some way between 120Hz and 165Hz tested here, as you might expect.

At 165Hz, shown above, the UFO appears a bit narrower again with clearer internal detailing. The pixel response requirements for optimal performance are increased, so the deficiencies of the ‘Normal’ setting become more apparent. This still outperforms the M27Q, which provides more noticeable ‘powdery’ trailing. The ‘Fast’ setting cuts down on this so there’s just a touch of faint ‘powdery’ trailing remaining, for example behind the UFO body of the dark and medium backgrounds. The performance here is similar to the XB323U GP for these transitions, which shows respectable 165Hz tuning by Corsair using this setting. The ‘Fastest’ setting introduces a flare of overshoot, ‘halo’ trailing that’s quite a bit brighter than the background, particularly for the medium and lighter background. Some transitions observed during gameplay show this even more clearly and make this setting rather unattractive in our view. We consider the ‘Fast’ setting optimal at 165Hz.

As well as increasing refresh rate to minimise perceived blur due to eye movement, the monitor offers an alternative in the form of an ‘MPRT’ (Moving Picture Response Time) setting. This is a strobe backlight setting that causes the backlight to pulse at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display – 120Hz, 144Hz or 165Hz. Sensitivity to this flickering varies and some may find it bothersome whilst others will notice accelerated eye fatigue when using the setting, even if the flickering isn’t actively bothersome to them. The pursuit photographs below were taken with the monitor set to 120Hz using MBR. A few reference screens are also shown for comparison, using their respective strobe backlight settings at 120Hz. The Gigabyte M27Q using ‘AS’ (Aim Stabilizer) and the Dell S2417DG using ‘ULMB’ (Ultra Low Motion Blur).

Note that the ‘Overdrive’ setting can’t be adjusted with the ‘MPRT’ setting enabled.

With ‘MPRT’ active, the main object appears significantly narrower with clearer internal detailing. The white notches are visible and can be counted and the segmentation of the UFO is clearer. In practice even clearer than it appears in the image, with the brightness causing the camera to blend the black lines into the red a bit. This narrower and more focused look to the main image indicates a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement, the main purpose of a strobe backlight setting such as this. Some overshoot is visible behind the UFO, fragmented in appearance due to the strobe nature of the backlight. This isn’t extreme overshoot, certainly not when compared to some strobe backlight settings. It’s largely in-line with the Dell S2417DG included as a reference and significantly lower than the Gigabyte M27Q’s overshoot level. The Gigabyte also shows a distinct red fringe in front of the object, which is an example of the fringing that occurs during strobe backlight operation due to its backlight’s KSF phopshors. The QD LED solution used by the Corsair achieves a wide gamut without relying on this solution and is therefore free from such imperfections. So actually quite a pleasing performance here. The images below show things with a bump up to 165Hz, with ‘MPRT’ again enabled.

Though not shown here, 144Hz performed some way between 120Hz and 165Hz as you might expect. It appeared quite similar to 165Hz in terms of strobe crosstalk centrally and lower down, with a bit of overshoot noticeable further up the screen.

The clarity of the initial object is very strong, with internal details such as the notches now rather distinct. By eye, the segmentation is again more distinct than it appears in the images. The overshoot visible at 120Hz has now been largely replaced by a more conventional-looking trailing. Or repetitions of the object, broadly termed ‘strobe crosstalk’. This strobe crosstalk is not extreme at shown here as it is still quite a bit fainter than the main object. It’s important to note that strobe crosstalk varies at different areas of the screen. Not all areas refresh simultaneously, so its appearance can differ depending on how high up or low down on the screen movement is being observed. The images below show pursuit photographs running from the top to bottom regions of the screen, with the screen set to 120Hz using ‘MPRT’.

Further up the screen you can see overshoot behind the object and strobe crosstalk in front. The strobe crosstalk and overshoot soon becomes weaker as you move further down. Centrally, a touch of overshoot remains behind the object. This is overtaken by strobe crosstalk further down, becoming particularly strong nearer the bottom of the screen. This relatively strong performance for the central bands of the screen is good to see here as that’s where you mainly focus when playing settings that mostly benefit from such a setting, for example fast-paced FPS games. Below you can see how things look at 165Hz with ‘MPRT’ in action. As demonstrated earlier, things edge more towards strobe crosstalk now and much less towards overshoot. Further up the screen there’s a touch of strobe crosstalk in front of the screen, transitioning to behind the screen centrally. The more extreme strobe crosstalk is observed further down, where it basically melds into the main object and creates a double object. The relatively strong performance centrally is again good to see. The best performance in this test is actually observed a bit above centre, though this still forms part of the central bulk of the screen.

Responsiveness in games and movies

The monitor provided a fluid experience on Battlefield V, with the frame rate keeping up with the 165Hz refresh rate of the monitor. Compared to at 60Hz, the screen outputs 2.75 times as much visual information per second. When coupled with the low input lag of this model, an excellent ‘connected feel’ is provided. This describes the fluidity and precision felt when interacting with the game. There’s also a significant decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement, as demonstrated using Test UFO earlier. This combination of improved connected feel and decreased perceived blur due to eye movement can provide a nice competitive advantage in games like this. And this extra fluidity can be a welcome bonus outside of the gaming, on the desktop. When compared to 144Hz (or 144fps) the upgrade in refresh rate is not substantial and certainly isn’t as noticeable as when coming from 60Hz to 120Hz+. But it’s still a nice bonus which some will appreciate.

To round off the experience it’s also important that the monitor provides strong pixel responsiveness. And this model did that overall, with most pixel transitions performed well even with the fairly demanding pixel response requirements of the 165Hz refresh rate in mind. There was a touch of ‘powdery’ trailing for some transitions, usually involving particularly bright or dark shades. This was much fainter than the main object and stuck very close to it. The overall impact on perceived blur was quite minor and many would not notice these weaknesses at all. Our observations largely follow those from Test UFO, with a similar performance to the Acer XB323U GP and superior performance to the Gigabyte M27Q when it comes to pixel responsiveness. Over a broader range of pixel transitions, though, the Acer tended to use slightly more aggressive overdrive under its ‘Normal’ setting (or with Adaptive-Sync) than the Corsair under its ‘Fast’ setting. Speeding up pixel responses a bit and slightly cutting down on the ‘powdery’ trailing whilst introducing a little overshoot. There were only slight traces of overshoot in places on the Corsair, a little ‘halo’ trailing just slightly brighter than the background shade. You might see this when observing a tree against a bright sky, for example. But the overshoot is very much on the light side at this sort of high refresh rate and isn’t at all an eye-catching or widespread issue.

Similar observations were made on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. So a strong performance with most weaknesses on the minor side. Small amounts of ‘powdery’ trailing for some transitions and a slight touch of ‘halo’ trailing, rather than any distinct and clear weaknesses. We also made observations using movie content at a range of frame rates, including ~24 – 30fps and 60fps content on platforms such as Netflix and YouTube. No clear weaknesses presented themselves, with the visual fluidity limited by the frame rate itself rather than the monitor.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.

MPRT (Moving Picture Response Time)

Earlier in the review, we introduced the ‘MPRT’ setting, its principles of operation and how it performs using specific tests. When using ‘MPRT’ or a similar strobe backlight setting, it’s important that the frame rate matches the refresh rate of the display exactly. Otherwise you’re left with extremely obvious stuttering or juddering, which stands out in such an obvious way as there’s very little perceived blur due to eye movement to mask it. Adaptive-sync can’t be used alongside ‘MPRT’. We tested the setting in various game titles but will be sticking to our usual of Battlefield V at a solid 165fps and the monitor set to 165Hz for this section. As explored earlier setting the setting can be used at 144Hz (listed for HDMI) or 120Hz. Doing so decreases strobe crosstalk whilst increasing overshoot. We didn’t find these differences as dramatic during gameplay as you might expect when observing simpler testing scenarios such as Test UFO. We’d generally edge towards 165Hz as it offers the best ‘connected feel’ and lowest flickering. We consider the reduced overshoot a nice bonus, but everyone will have their own preferences for the balance of overshoot vs. strobe crosstalk. We can see the merits of running at 120Hz in this case – it’s also easier to sustain a solid 120fps than 165fps.

The ‘MPRT’ setting was highly effective in reducing perceived blur due to eye movement. The environment retained superior clarity during rapid movement of the character – including rapid spins or zipping around in a vehicle. This made tracking and engaging enemies easier and for this reason some will appreciate the competitive edge this setting can provide. Strobe crosstalk levels were not extreme centrally – it was still there, but a fair bit fainter than the main object so didn’t impede motion clarity in the same way we’ve seen with some strobe backlight implementations. And because KSF phosphors aren’t used for the backlight, you don’t have colourful flashes or fringing to deal with which can really prove distracting to sensitive users (holds hand up). There is still flickering from the backlight and as explored earlier brightness is locked (to around 120 cd/m²). Most users will naturally prefer the normal and more flexible and forgiving flicker-free operation of the monitor, perhaps with Adaptive-Sync. But for those who enjoy the benefits of strobe backlights we consider this to be one of the better implementations we’ve come across recently.

VRR (Variable Refresh Rate) technology

FreeSync – the technology and activating it

AMD FreeSync is a variable refresh rate technology, an AMD-specific alternative to Nvidia G-SYNC. Where possible, the monitor dynamically adjusts its refresh rate so that it matches the frame rate being outputted by the GPU. Both our responsiveness article and the G-SYNC article linked to explore the importance of these two elements being synchronised. At a basic level, a mismatch between the frame rate and refresh rate can cause stuttering (VSync on) or tearing and juddering (VSync off). FreeSync also boasts reduced latency compared to running with VSync enabled, in the variable frame rate environment in which it operates.

FreeSync requires a compatible AMD GPU such as the Radeon RX 580 used in our test system. The monitor itself must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The 32QHD165 supports FreeSync Premium via DP and HDMI on compatible GPUs and systems. Note that HDR can be activated at the same time as FreeSync. You need to make sure ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ is enabled in the ‘System Setting’ section of the OSD. On the GPU driver side recent AMD drivers make activation of the technology very simple. You should ensure the GPU driver is setup correctly to use FreeSync, so open ‘AMD Radeon Software’, click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click on ‘Display’. You should then ensure that the first slider is set to ‘Enabled’ as shown below. The top image shows the monitor connected by DP and the bottom image by HDMI. The setting is referred to as ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ in both cases, although the exact wording may depend on the driver version you’re using.

The Corsair XENEON supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 165Hz (144Hz max via HDMI). That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 165fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 165fps, the monitor will stay at 165Hz and the GPU will respect your selection of ‘VSync on’ or ‘VSync off’ in the graphics driver. With ‘VSync on’ the frame rate will not be allowed to rise above 165fps, at which point VSync activates and imposes the usual associated latency penalty. With ‘VSync off’ the frame rate is free to climb as high as the GPU will output (potentially >165fps). AMD LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) is also supported by this model, which means that the refresh rate will stick to multiples of the frame rate where it falls below the 48Hz (48fps) floor of operation for FreeSync. If a game ran at 28fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 56Hz to help keep tearing and stuttering at bay. LFC sometimes seemed to activate at slightly higher refresh rates, sometimes as high as 53Hz (53fps), but this makes little difference in practice. This feature is used regardless of VSync setting, so it’s only above the ceiling of operation where the VSync setting makes a difference.

To configure VSync, open ‘AMD Radeon Software’. Click ‘Settings’ (cog icon towards top right) and click ‘Graphics’. The setting is listed as ‘Wait for Vertical Refresh’. This configures it globally, but if you wish to configure it for individual games click ‘Game Graphics’ towards the top right. The default is ‘Off, unless application specifies’ which means that VSync will only be active if you enable it within the game itself, if there is such an option. Such an option does usually exist – it may be called ‘sync every frame’ or something along those lines rather than simply ‘VSync’. Most users will probably wish to enable VSync when using FreeSync to ensure that they don’t get any tearing. You’d therefore select either the third or fourth option in the list, shown in the image below. Above this dropdown list there’s a toggle for ‘Radeon Enhanced Sync’. This is an alternative to VSync which allows the frame rate to rise above the refresh rate (no VSync latency penalty) whilst potentially keeping the experience free from tearing or juddering. This requires that the frame rate comfortably exceeds the refresh rate, not just peaks slightly above it. We won’t be going into this in detail as it’s a GPU feature rather than a monitor feature.



Some users prefer to leave VSync enabled but use a frame rate limiter set a few frames below the maximum supported (e.g. 162fps) instead, avoiding any VSync latency penalty at frame rates near the ceiling of operation or tearing from frame rates rising above the refresh rate. If you activate the ‘Refresh Overlay’ setting in the ‘Picture’ section of the OSD, this will display the refresh rate of the display and therefore indicate the frame rate if ‘FreeSync’ is active and the frame rate is within the variable refresh rate range of the display. The final point to note is that FreeSync only removes stuttering or juddering related to mismatches between frame rate and refresh rate. It can’t compensate for other interruptions to smooth game play, for example network latency or insufficient system memory. Some game engines will also show stuttering (or ‘hitching’) for various other reasons which won’t be eliminated by the technology.

FreeSync – the experience

As usual, a range of games were tested using AMD FreeSync and the experience was similar in all cases. Any issues affecting one title but not another suggests a game or GPU driver issue rather than a monitor issue. To keep things simple, we’ll just focus on a single title for this section – Battlefield V. This title offers excellent flexibility with its graphics settings, allowing the entire VRR range to be assessed on our Radeon RX 580. Without significant adjustments it’s common to see some dips in frame rate below 165fps. Even slight dips below this without the technology active would result in tearing (VSync off) or stuttering (VSync on). Such interruptions are obvious to those sensitive to them, as we are, but sensitivity to this varies. We certainly appreciated the technology.

As frame rate falls further away and 165fps becomes a distant memory, the ‘connected feel’ worsens and perceived blur due to eye movement increases. This isn’t something a VRR technology can address and is purely linked to the decrease in frame rate. The lack of tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches is still a nice bonus, however. As usual for a VRR monitor without a dedicated G-SYNC module, variable overdrive isn’t used and you therefore see an increasing level of overshoot at decreased refresh rates. Things are really tuned optimally for high refresh rates such as 165Hz and when things fall significant below that, say into the double digits, some quite pronounced overshoot is introduced using the ‘Fast’ setting we prefer at high refresh rates. This included some quite bright ‘halo’ trailing’, particularly eye-catching as refresh rate closed in on 60Hz. Sensitivity to this overshoot varies, but we found the ‘Normal’ setting preferable for such refresh rates. It still provides a good level of acceleration for such refresh rates, which are less demanding in terms of pixel response requirements than higher refresh rates.

The technology worked down to the floor of operation of 48Hz (48fps), below which LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) came into play. Keeping the refresh rate at a multiple of the frame rate to keep tearing and stuttering at bay. There was a very slight and brief stuttering when passing this boundary in either direction. It isn’t as clear as the stuttering you’d get from your usual frame and refresh rate mismatches and not everyone will notice it. But for sensitive users it could potentially be annoying if you’re frequently passing this boundary. That isn’t specific to this model, it’s something we universally observe with Adaptive-Sync when the LFC boundary is crossed. The changes in overshoot levels could also be distracting for some transitions, too. As you’d suddenly go from maximum overshoot (48Hz) to significantly less (98Hz) – again, very common on Adaptive-Sync models.

Nvidia Adaptive-Sync (‘G-SYNC Compatible’)

As noted earlier, AMD FreeSync makes use of Adaptive-Sync technology on a compatible monitor. As of driver version 417.71, users with Nvidia GPUs (GTX 10 series and newer) and Windows 10 can also make use of this Variable Refresh Rate (VRR) technology. When a monitor is used in this way, it is something which Nvidia refers to as ‘G-SYNC Compatible’. Some models are validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means they have been specifically tested by Nvidia and pass certain quality checks. With the 32QHD165, you need to connect the monitor up via DisplayPort and enable ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ in the ‘System Setting’ section of the OSD. This enables Adaptive-Sync on the monitor and will unlock the appropriate settings in Nvidia Control Panel. When you open up Nvidia Control Panel, you should then see ‘Set up G-SYNC’ listed in the ‘Display’ section. Ensure the ‘Enable G-SYNC, G-SYNC Compatible’ checkbox and ‘Enable settings for the selected display model’ is checked as shown below and press ‘OK’. If you’ve enabled ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ and it was previously disabled, the monitor should re-establish its connection with the system and the technology should now be active.



You will also see in the image above that it states: “Selected Display is not validated as G-SYNC Compatible.” This means Nvidia hasn’t specifically tested and validated the display, not that it won’t work. On our RTX 3090 the experience was very similar to what we described with FreeSync. A slight difference was the floor of operation, which was 55Hz (55fps) with the monitor set to 165Hz and slightly lower if set below that. An LFC-like frame to refresh multiplication technology was employed below that to keep tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches at bay. There was again a very slight momentary stuttering as the boundary was crossed, as we observed with our AMD GPU. And the associated overshoot level change to go with the sudden significant refresh rate change. Our suggestions regarding use of VSync also apply, but you’re using Nvidia Control Panel rather than AMD Radeon Software to control this. The setting is found in ‘Manage 3D settings’ under ‘Vertical sync’, where the final option (‘Fast’) is equivalent to AMD’s ‘Enhanced Sync’ setting. You’ll also notice ‘G-SYNC Compatible’ listed under ‘Monitor Technology’ in this section, as shown below. Make sure this is selected (it should be if you’ve set everything up correctly in ‘Set up G-SYNC’).



Note again that you can activate the ‘Refresh Overlay’ setting in the ‘Picture’ section of the OSD. This displays the refresh rate of the display and therefore indicates the frame rate if that is within the VRR window (48 – 165Hz). This is a useful indication that the technology is active. And as with AMD FreeSync Premium, HDR can be used at the same time as ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’.

HDR (High Dynamic Range)

HDR (High Dynamic Range) on an ideal monitor includes the simultaneous display very deep dark shades and brilliant bright shades. A vast range of shades between these extremes should also be outputted, including vivid and highly saturated shades as well as much more muted ones. The monitor would ideally support per-pixel illumination (e.g. self-emissive displays such as OLED), or as an LCD provide a very large number of precisely controlled dimming zones. A solution such as FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) with a generous number of dimming zones, for example. Such solutions allow some areas of the screen to output at very high luminance levels whilst others remain very dim. Colour reproduction is also an important part of HDR, with the ultimate goal being support for a huge colour gamut, Rec. 2020. A more achievable near-term goal is support for at least 90% DCI-P3 (Digital Cinema Initiatives standard colour space) coverage. Finally, HDR makes use of at least 10-bit precision per colour channel, so its desirable that the monitor supports at least 10-bits per subpixel.

HDR10 is the most widely supported standard used in HDR games and movies and what is supported here. For most games and other full screen applications that support HDR, the Corsair XENEON automatically switches to its HDR operating mode if an HDR signal is provided. As of the latest Windows 10 update, relevant HDR settings in Windows are found in ‘Windows HD Color settings’ which can be accessed via ‘Display settings’ (right click the desktop). Most game titles will activate HDR correctly when the appropriate in-game setting is selected. A minority of game titles that support HDR will only run in HDR if the setting is active in Windows as well. Specifically, the toggle which says ‘Play HDR games and apps’. If you want to view HDR movies on a compatible web browser, for example, you’d also need to activate the ‘Stream HDR Video’ setting. These settings are shown below. Also note that there’s a slider that allows you to adjust the overall balance of SDR content if HDR is active in Windows. This is really just a digital brightness slider, so you lose contrast by adjusting it. The settings in the OSD are greatly restricted under HDR and although the image balance is better than some models when viewing SDR content under HDR, it’s still a bit off. So we’d recommend only activating HDR in Windows if you’re about to use an HDR application that specifically requires it.

To keep things simple, we’ll just focus on our two main test titles here; Battlefield V and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We’ve tested both titles on a wide variety of monitors using HDR and know they’re a good test for HDR capability. With the experience described here very much dictated and limited by the screen itself. Although our testing here is focused on HDR PC gaming using DisplayPort, we made similar observations when viewing HDR video content on the Netflix app. There are some additional points to bear in mind if you wish to view such content. We also made observations using HDMI, which would be used when viewing HDR content on an HDR compatible games console for example, and things were very similar. Testing on both our Nvidia and AMD GPUs showed that the HDR implementation was similar in both cases, too. As is often the case under HDR, the settings available in the monitor are greatly restricted. You can’t change presets or adjust settings such as brightness, colour channels or gamma.

The Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 is VESA DisplayHDR 400 certified. This is the lowest level of VESA DisplayHDR certification, so only a basic HDR experience is offered. This DisplayHDR certification level isn’t as strict as higher tiers when it comes to colour gamut, with some monitors certified at this level providing limited extension in the gamut beyond sRGB. For this model we measured 94% DCI-P3, though that undersells the gamut as we observed significant extension beyond that in the green to blue regions of the gamut and hence good encroachment towards Rec. 2020 there. This is shown in the representation below, with the red triangle showing the monitor’s colour gamut, the blue triangle DCI-P3 and green triangle sRGB. This generous gamut provided a good injection of vibrancy where the developers intended it. Some rather vivid orange and red fruit and flowers, lively-looking flames and brightly painted blue objects are just some examples which stood out well on both titles. Shadow of the Tomb Raider also showcased some very full-looking deep purples, greens and quite rich reds for the attire of various characters in the game. A good showcase of shades well beyond the much more restrictive sRGB colour space. Because the developers have Rec. 2020 in mind as their ultimate goal, or at least good presentation with strong DCI-P3 coverage, the strongly oversaturated shades observed under SDR were suitably toned down. Earthy browns and skin tones now appeared appropriately neutral, whilst vegetation showcased an excellent range of greens. Including minty greens and yellowish greens which appeared appropriately balanced rather than somewhat neon in appearance. There were some good deep and lush-looking greens where required, too. Although the colour gamut worked in the monitor’s favour here, improved luminance control would’ve helped inject extra depth to some shades as well.

Colour gamut 'Test Settings'

The HDR10 pipeline makes use of 10-bits per colour channel, which the monitor supports via 8-bit + FRC. At some refresh rates (144Hz+ for DP, 120Hz+ for HDMI) the dithering stage is offloaded to the GPU at the native resolution, for bandwidth reasons. We’ve carefully observed a range of content (including fine gradients) on a broad range of monitors where 10-bit is supported monitor side (usually 8-bit + FRC) and where the GPU handles the dithering under HDR. Including comparisons with a given model where the monitor handles the dithering at some refresh rates and the GPU handles it at others. Regardless of how ’10-bit’ is achieved, the result is very similar in the end. It’s possible some subtle differences might be picked up during a careful side by side comparison of very specific content, but the difference is far from clear. The 10-bit colour signal enhances the nuanced shade variety, which helps the monitor put its generous colour gamut to good use. It also aids its display of very closely matching dark shades, lifting out shadow detail in a natural and ‘believable’ way and helping subtle distinctions there. Very different to what some sort of gamma enhancement under SDR might achieve. Brighter shades also benefit, with smoother gradients and more natural shades for weather effects and other fine particle effects, for example. The image below is taken from one of our favourite HDR scenes on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Remember that the photo is purely for illustrative purposes and in no way represents how the monitor appeared running HDR in person.

This scene certainly highlighted the advantages of 10-bit colour nicely, with a good mixture of closely matching dark and bright shades. VESA DisplayHDR 400 doesn’t require local dimming for the backlight, however. And this model doesn’t use this, nor does it use any sort of Dynamic Contrast. The backlight simply stays at a high level, with the entire scene set in this way. The peak luminance we recorded (401 cd/m²) is not at all impressive by HDR standards and just edges past the minimum requirements for the VESA DisplayHDR 400 level. Bright elements such as the light streaming from above and glint on the water surface were far less eye-catching than we’ve seen. Meanwhile, this moderately high luminance level being maintained even for darker content – or where darker content dominates – gives far from an atmospheric look to such scenes and elements within scenes. The black depth is lifted up and ‘IPS glow’ is brought out as strongly as you’ll see on this model. There’s supposed to be a close link between luminance levels and colour output under HDR as well, which isn’t provided here. So although the colour gamut helps a lot here, some medium (and not just darker) shades lack a bit of depth because of the universal brightness control. There’s really nothing HDR-like about this contrast experience from the Corsair here, unlike the Acer XB323U GP which provides a more dynamic and ultimately more enjoyable experience in that respect. With a similar colour gamut but superior luminance control and levels from the backlight, gaining it VESA DisplayHDR 600 certification. The section of video review below runs through the HDR experience using various scenes in Shadow of the Tomb Raider.

The 32″ 2560 x 1440 experience

This monitor has a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution and 32” screen size, yielding a pixel density of 91.79 PPI (Pixels Per Inch). This is vastly lower than a 32” ‘4K’ UHD model (137.68 PPI) and somewhat lower than a 27” WQHD model (108.79 PPI). This means the potential clarity and detail isn’t as high as these tighter pixel densities, with the gap between this screen and a UHD screen of a similar size being particularly large. The pixel density of this model is similar to a 24” Full HD model, though, which is a level many are quite comfortable with. Whilst it won’t match the sharpness or clarity and detail potential of a significantly tighter pixel density, it’s by no means a poor pixel density. It’s a level which many users are quite comfortable with. The large screen size also provides a good amount of immersion. We found the experience to be engrossing from our usual viewing position of ~70cm or slightly further back, but not overwhelming by any means. The following images give an impression of the desktop real-estate and multi-tasking potential offered by the screen. The third image is a side by side comparison with a 27” WQHD screen (FI27Q-X) to try to give an impression of the relative differences there.

Note that these images are just for illustrative purposes and don’t accurately reflect how the monitor appears in person. They’re still a useful indication of the desktop real-estate offered here, however. Interlaced lines are moiré from the camera and not observed in person.

The size also gives you the flexibility to sit a bit further from the screen if you wish, whether for gaming or other tasks. Console gaming or watching movies on a couch or bed, for example. Whilst sitting from our normal viewing position at a desk, we found the gaming experience to be particularly engrossing. We do prefer higher pixel densities ourselves, particularly appreciating ‘4K’ UHD models of this sort of size, but we didn’t find the pixel density ‘poor’ in this case. It’s certainly easier to drive this resolution at high frame rates than on a ‘4K’ UHD screen, even with a powerful GPU such as the RTX 3090 used in our test system. The photos below show a range of game titles running on the monitor. They’re just here to fire up your imagination and don’t accurately represent how the monitor appears in person.

Interpolation and upscaling

It may be desirable or necessary to run the monitor below its native 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) resolution. Either to gain extra performance, or because your system (such as a games console) doesn’t support a WQHD signal. The monitor provides scaling functionality via both DP and HDMI. It can be run at resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 (Full HD) and can use an interpolation (scaling) process to map the image onto all pixels of the screen. This is supported at up to 165Hz (144Hz via HDMI) as well as 120Hz and 60Hz. As noted earlier a ‘4K’ UHD downsampling mode is also offered, at up to 60Hz. To ensure the monitor rather than GPU is handling the scaling process, as a PC user, you need to ensure the GPU driver is correctly configured so that the GPU doesn’t take over the scaling process. For AMD GPU users, the driver is set up correctly by default to allow the monitor to interpolate where possible. Nvidia users should open Nvidia Control Panel and navigate to ‘Display – Adjust desktop size and position’. Ensure that ‘No Scaling’ is selected and ‘Perform scaling on:’ is set to ‘Display’ as shown in the following image.

The monitor offers a few scaling options under ‘Aspect Ratio’ in ‘System Setting’; ‘AUTO’, ‘4:3’ and ‘16:9’. The default ‘AUTO’ setting (you’re locked to this if using Adaptive-Sync) will use interpolation to fill up as much of the display as possible whilst respecting the aspect ratio of the resolution selected to avoid distortion or stretching. The other settings will enforce either a 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio, regardless of the source resolution’s aspect ratio. When running the 1920 x 1080 (Full HD or 1080p) resolution, the interpolation process of the monitor provides a somewhat softer look to the image compared to a native Full HD screen of this size. Not as much softening as some models provide with their interpolation process, however. Furthermore, there’s a ‘Sharpness’ slider that can be increased to help offset this softening a bit. It won’t make things look like a native Full HD display, but we found setting this to ‘7’ provided a decent boost to sharpness without a heavily filtered or clearly oversharpened look. This was one of the better interpolation processes we’ve come across and appreciated the sharpness adjustment offered.

As usual, if you’re running the monitor at 2560 x 1440 and viewing 1920 x 1080 content (for example a video over the internet or a Blu-ray, using movie software) then it is the GPU and software that handles the upscaling. That’s got nothing to do with the monitor itself – there is a little bit of softening to the image compared to viewing such content on a native Full HD monitor, but it’s not extreme and shouldn’t bother most users.

Video review

The video below shows the monitor in action. The camera, processing done and your own screen all affect the output – so it doesn’t accurately represent what you’d see when viewing the monitor in person. It still provides useful visual demonstrations and explanations which help reinforce some of the key points raised in the written piece.

Timestamps:
Features & Aesthetics
Contrast
Colour reproduction
HDR (High Dynamic Range)
Responsiveness (General)
Responsiveness (VRR)

Conclusion

By combining a 2560 x 1440 (WQHD or 1440p) resolution with 32” screen size, the Corsair provides a decent (but not particularly high) pixel density whilst creating an immersive experience. The monitor is very sturdily built, with an unmistakably solid and hefty die-cast aluminium stand. Good ergonomic flexibility is provided as is an intuitive customisable ‘RapidRoute’ cable management system. USB-C ports are also included for extended connectivity needs, whilst the OSD (On Screen Display) is simple and easy to navigate. Not as feature-rich as some offerings, particularly when it comes to game-specific features such as on-screen crosshairs or dark visibility enhancements. But including the most important settings are included and the very flexible preset system allows for excellent customisation opportunity.

Strong colour consistency was offered by the IPS-type panel, whilst the very generous colour gamut added a heavy dose of extra vibrancy to sRGB content. Full Adobe RGB coverage (and extension beyond) alongside 95% DCI-P3 coverage gives a lot of flexibility to content creators who wish to work with such extended colour spaces. The gamut was put to good use under HDR – but on the brightness and contrast side under HDR, things were less impressive. The luminance levels reached barely scraped past the minimum VESA DisplayHDR standard and no local dimming (or even Dynamic Contrast) was offered. Under SDR contrast was in-line with our expectation, around the 1000:1 specified or perhaps a touch above depending on settings. And a moderate and fairly normal if not slightly below normal level of ‘IPS glow’ was observed.

The monitor performed well at high refresh rates, including its maximum 165Hz where pixel responses were rapid enough for a fairly strong performance. Input lag was low, whilst Adaptive-Sync did its thing to get rid of tearing and stuttering. This worked well as both AMD FreeSync Premium and Nvidia’s ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’. As usual the lack of variable overdrive meant it didn’t deliver a true single overdrive mode experience. A fairly well-implemented strobe backlight setting (‘MPRT’) was also included – not at all flexible in terms of brightness but set to a reasonable level in our view. And without the common KSF phosphor related issues or strong central strobe crosstalk. This is a solid first monitor offering from Corsair, but based on its RRP/MSRP at time of review it’s tough to outright recommend. The 32QHD165 rubs up against the Acer XB323U GP when it comes to price. They’re based around the same panel, but the Acer has a more powerful backlight with local dimming. Providing a far more accomplished and dynamic HDR experience, at the VESA DisplayHDR 600 rather than 400 level. That will make the Acer the clearly more compelling choice for those interested in the HDR side of things. The Corsair’s solid stand, strobe backlight mode, USB-C connectivity and FreeSync via HDMI could sway some the other way, though. A range of cheaper IPS alternatives are also available that share the ~32” screen size and WQHD resolution, though lack a colour gamut quite this generous.

Positives	Negatives
Strong colour consistency, highly vibrant colour output due to gamut (appropriate for HDR) and sRGB emulation with adjustable brightness	sRGB emulation not particularly flexible or well-tuned (GPU-level methods may be preferred), no Adobe RGB or DCI-P3 emulation with extension beyond both gamuts natively
Very light matte screen surface provides fairly direct light emission without clear layering or strong graininess	Moderate ‘IPS glow’, though slightly lower than some models of the size still certainly a feature. Fairly unimpressive brightness for HDR and no local dimming
Good 165Hz pixel response performance without major weaknesses, low input lag and VRR working as expected with AMD and Nvidia GPUs	No variable overdrive – moderate overshoot as refresh rate dips unless ‘Response Time’ setting reduced
Good ergonomic flexibility, very solid stand and an immersive experience with good ‘desktop real estate’	Pixel density decent though not particularly high – unlike the price, which is high for the specification and feature set

The bottom line; strong colour performance, convincing 165Hz output and a remarkably solid stand – but a tad pricey for the feature set and HDR level.PC Monitors

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases made using the below link. Where possible, you’ll be redirected to your nearest store. Further information on supporting our work.

Buy from Amazon

 

Donations are also greatly appreciated.