Gigabyte M27Q

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 were very faint and difficult to spot at higher refresh rates, including 170Hz but anything in the triple digits really. They were more noticeable at relatively low refresh rates of ~60Hz or lower. They aren’t something most users would notice or find bothersome, especially at higher refresh rates.

Responsiveness

Input lag

A small utility called SMTT 2.0 was used alongside a sensitive camera to analyse the latency of the M27Q, with over 30 repeat readings taken to help maximise accuracy. Using this method, we calculated 3.71ms (~2/3rds of a frame at 170Hz) of input lag. We measured similar latency at 60Hz. The input lag measured here is 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 find acceptable. Note that we don’t have the means to accurately measure input lag with Adaptive-Sync active in a variable refresh rate 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. Chief amongst these is the concept of perceived blur. This is contributed to by both the pixel responsiveness of the monitor and the movement of your eyes as you track motion on the screen. Perceived blur due to eye movement is the dominant form of perceived blur observed on a modern monitor, but both factors play an important role. We also explore a technique called ‘pursuit photography’ in the article, using a moving camera to capture motion in a way that reflects both aspects of perceived blur. This contrasts with static photos or videos which only reflect weaknesses in pixel responsiveness.

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 highlights weaknesses well. The monitor was tested at 60Hz (directly below), 120Hz, 144Hz and 170Hz using the main ‘Overdrive’ pixel response time settings; ‘Picture Quality’, ‘Balance’ and ‘Speed’. We have excluded the ‘Auto’ setting from this analysis as it was identical to ‘Balance’ in our testing. Results for 165Hz weren’t included, but performance there was very similar to 170Hz as you might expect. 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, using what we deem to be their optimal pixel response time settings. The first reference screen is the Gigabyte AORUS FI27Q-P using an Innolux AAS (IPS-type) panel and the second is the ViewSonic XG270QG using a responsive LG Display Nano IPS panel.

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. Varying degrees of trailing can be observed behind the UFOs due to weaknesses in pixel responsiveness. Using the ‘Picture Quality’ setting performance is very impressive, similar to the XG270QG and superior to the FI27Q-P used for reference. There’s no real trailing to speak of – there appears to be a bright ‘halo’ around the UFO for the light background (bottom row), but we didn’t observe this by eye. The ‘Balance’ setting introduces strong overshoot, visible as a colourful inky trail or bright halo trail behind the object, depending on the transition. This appears similar to slightly more intense using the ‘Speed’ setting. We deem ‘Picture Quality’ to be optimal here. The pursuit photographs below show how things looked with refresh rate doubled, to 120Hz.

At 120Hz, shown above, the UFO now appears significantly narrower with somewhat clearer internal detail. 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 pixel response requirements are ramped up now, but the monitor still puts in a respectable performance using the ‘Picture Quality’ setting. Things are again similar to the XG270QG reference and superior to the FI27Q-P. There’s a little ‘powdery’ trailing, particularly for the dark background (top row). But this is much less extensive than on the FI27Q-P. The ‘Balance’ setting introduces moderately strong overshoot, even stronger using the ‘Speed’ setting. This has a woven or jagged appearance in places, which are overdrive artifacts and appear as an over-sharpening during movement. We consider the ‘Picture Quality’ setting optimal here. The pursuit photographs below show how things look increased a little more, to 144Hz.

At 144Hz, shown above, the UFOs appear just slightly narrower and more sharply focused. This is a relatively minor difference due to an increase of just 24Hz, reflecting a slight further decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. The trailing characteristics are broadly similar to 120Hz. The bump up in pixel response requirements for optimal performance means the ‘powdery’ trailing now extends a bit further back and is a bit more noticeable. It’s again similar to the XG270QG, which sets quite a high benchmark. A bit bolder behind the yellow UFO cockpit for the dark background, perhaps slightly reduced there for the UFO body and similar for the medium background (middle row) and light background. It’s significantly better than the more extensive trailing observed on the FI27Q-P. The ‘Balance’ setting introduces overshoot, which isn’t quite as strong as at 120Hz but still eye-catching to us in practice and has accompanying overdrive artifacts. The ‘Speed’ setting intensifies this. We again consider ‘Picture Quality’ optimal here. Below pursuit photographs below see things bumped up further, to 170Hz. Although the reference screens are set to 165Hz, this makes very little difference when compared to 170Hz so this comparison still provides value.

At 170Hz, shown above, the UFOs appear a little narrower again and a bit more sharply focused. The trailing characteristics are similar to 144Hz overall, but the ‘powdery’ trailing extends a little further back and is just a touch bolder due to the increased pixel response requirements for optimal performance here. The ‘Picture Quality’ setting is again largely comparable to the XG270QG reference. The trailing is a bit more pronounced and somewhat denser behind the cockpit, with the dark background. But elsewhere the trailing is similar. It’s a large improvement over the FI27Q-P reference, which shows some pixel responses that are clearly much slower than optimal here. The ‘Balance’ setting again introduces overshoot, toned down further but still quite visible with some bright ‘halo’ trailing and some ‘inky’ trailing as well. We found this widespread and eye-catching in practice, more extreme for some transitions than those shown here as well. The ‘Speed’ setting intensifies this further. We again consider ‘Picture Quality’ optimal here and it’s what we used for our subjective testing a bit later on.

As well as increasing refresh rate to minimise perceived blur due to eye movement, an alternative way to minimise this can be found in the form of the Aim Stabilizer strobe backlight setting. With this enabled, the backlight pulses at a frequency matching the refresh rate of the display – either 120Hz, 144Hz, 165Hz or 170Hz. 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 Aim Stabilizer. The ‘Overdrive’ settings are greyed out with this active and set to a high level, whilst the brightness control is also inaccessible and HDR can’t be used. A few reference screens are also shown for comparison, where possible, using their respective strobe backlight settings at 120Hz. The AOC C24G1 using MBR (Motion Blur Reduction) and set to what we consider its optimal setting for that. And the Dell S2417DG using ULMB (‘Ultra Low Motion Blur’).

With Aim Stabilizer active at 120Hz, above, the UFO is narrower with more distinct internal detailing even when compared to 170Hz with the setting disabled. The white notches on the UFO body can be counted and the segmentation of the UFO is more distinct. This reflects a significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement. The trailing behaviour is quite messy. There’s clear overshoot behind the object, with fragmentation into a strong initial overshoot trail and weaker secondary trail due to the strobe nature of the backlight. There’s also a repetition of the object in front, clearest for the dark background but also visible for the medium background. The all-encompassing term ‘strobe crosstalk’ is used to describe fragmented trailing like this. The KSF phosphors used for the backlight also introduce a colourful (magenta to red) fringe to some of this crosstalk, due to their relatively slow decay rate. The reference shots are free from such clear strobe crosstalk, strong overshoot or colourful fringes. The image set below shows results with a bump up in refresh rate to 170Hz, Aim Stabilizer again active. Note that we didn’t include results for intermediate refresh rates here as they didn’t show any novel behaviour. They just appeared some way between what is shown at 120Hz and 170Hz.

The internal detailing is now even more distinct, with the notches appearing somewhat sharper. This reflects another decrease in perceived blur due to eye movement. The weaknesses – in particular strobe crosstalk – are again distinct. The fragments of trailing are more compact now but also more numerous, due to the increase in refresh rate. There is distinct crossover between the main object and some of this strobe crosstalk for the dark and medium background. In practice we found the overall experience in terms of motion clarity slightly improved at 165Hz compared to 120Hz due to the decrease in perceived blur. But the weaknesses were really rather apparent to us in both cases – we explore the impact of this subjectively a bit later on. 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 165Hz and Aim Stabilizer active. Strobe crosstalk variation at different points was also observed at 144Hz and 120Hz – the end result was quite similar and we didn’t feel it was worthwhile documenting these observations.

Further up the screen the screen strobe crosstalk appears in front of the object. This becomes fainter and eventually disappears a bit further down. For the more central regions of the screen the strobe crosstalk becomes displaced behind the object, becoming increasingly bold further down the screen until it eventually melds into the main object. Making the object appear doubled. Whilst the strobe crosstalk isn’t too strong centrally, and this is the main area of the screen you observe when immersed in something like a competitive FPS game, it is still visible in some central regions and very strong lower down. There’s also that pesky overshoot throughout the screen and some additional issues to consider, as we explore a little later when we provide subjective analysis of this setting.

Responsiveness in games and movies

On Battlefield V, with the frame rate keeping up with the refresh rate, the monitor provided a fluid 170Hz experience. The monitor is outputting up to 2.83 times as much visual information per second as a 60Hz monitor. This has two key benefits, one of which is to enhance the ‘connected feel’. Which describes the precision and fluidity as you interact with the game, something also enhanced by the low input lag of the monitor. The other key benefit is a significant reduction in perceived blur due to eye movement, as demonstrated earlier using Test UFO. The bump up from 144Hz to 170Hz with suitable frame rate isn’t as substantial or as readily noticeable as the initial boost from 60Hz to 144Hz (or even up to 120Hz for that matter). But it still provides an edge in terms of ‘connected feel’ and decreased perceived blur which was a nice bonus.

Our earlier testing with our preferred ‘Overdrive’ setting also revealed some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, but only minor ones. This was reflected when gaming on this title, with just a bit of ‘powdery’ trailing in places. Overall, this was just a touch higher than you’d see on models using Nano IPS panels, such as the ViewSonic XG270QG or LG 27GL850. But not massively so – there was nothing that really stood out too much or had a major impact on perceived blur. Where some darker shades were involved in the transition, for example shadowy areas of the game, the ‘powdery trailing’ was sometimes slightly heavier in appearance. Bolder than what we observed on the XG270QG, for example. We still wouldn’t describe it as a ‘heavy powdery’ trailing and it certainly didn’t appear smeary as would typically greet you for similar transitions on a VA model. The performance was far superior to what we observed on the likes of the Gigabyte AORUS FI27Q-P and BenQ EX2780Q at high refresh rates, too. They use Innolux AAS (IPS-type) panels that the Sharp panel of the M27Q comfortably outperforms.

We made similar observations on Shadow of the Tomb Raider. This title doesn’t really require rapid pixel responses, particularly low input lag or a refresh rate of 170Hz for an enjoyable experience. It’s not a fast paced or in any way competitive game. Even so, it was nice to have these boxes ticked. There are plenty of dark shades here, so again some instances of ‘powdery’ trailing which was a touch bolder than for transitions involving only medium to lighter shades. But this was still quite constrained, much more so than the more widespread and noticeable weaknesses on slower IPS-type models or your typical VA experience. We wouldn’t describe it as anything approaching ‘smeary’ in appearance. So certainly a respectable 170Hz performance on this title, overall. We also observed a range of video content, including ~24-30fps movie content and 60fps videos. In both cases the monitor performed very well. There were no clear weaknesses from the pixel responses of the monitor, such as overshoot or distinct trailing from slower than optimal pixel transitions. The frame rate of the content really acted as the key barrier to fluidity.

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.

Aim Stabilizer

We’ve already introduced the Aim Stabilizer feature, its principles of operation and how it performs using specific tests. When using Aim Stabilizer or any strobe backlight feature, it’s vital that your frame rate matches the refresh rate of the display exactly. Otherwise you’re left with very clear stuttering or juddering. This is because there’s very little perceived blur due to eye movement to mask it. As with most strobe backlight technologies, you can’t use Adaptive-Sync at the same time as Aim Stabilizer. As explored using the UFO Motion Test for ghosting earlier, activating this feature significantly reduced perceived blur due to eye movement. We used the feature on a range of games but will simply focus on Battlefield V running at a constant 170Hz with the feature active. Our overall observations were similar when using this model at lower refresh rates, although overshoot and indeed flickering was intensified at reduced refresh rates. The setting achieved its main goal of significantly reducing perceived blur due to eye movement. The game world retained more detail and sharper focus during movement, including rapid turns of the character. This makes tracking and engaging enemies potentially a bit easier and can provide a competitive edge.

There were quite a few visual distractions when using this setting, however. Particularly lower down the screen, there was strobe crosstalk which was at times about as bold as the object itself. Causing duplication. This was much weaker centrally, which is where your main focus is. Although even centrally and higher up we noticed some strobe crosstalk – sometimes with a distinct colourful magenta fringe due to the phosphors used on the backlight. Usually where brighter shades move against a darker background. We also observed strong overshoot that appeared throughout the screen. Bright ‘halo’ trailing and some colourful and sometimes ‘inky’ trailing which quite distracting in our view. We also observed some flashes of colour such as cyan and magenta in places when observing lighter coloured objects. This is quite common on wide gamut models when a strobe backlight setting is used, but was quite noticeable in this case. These visual distractions, the flickering, inability to adjust brightness or use Adaptive-Sync at the same time really limit the appeal of this setting. Some users may still find some use for it, competitively speaking, but most will want to avoid it.

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 must support ‘VESA Adaptive-Sync’ for at least one of its display connectors, as this is the protocol that FreeSync uses. The Gigabyte M27Q supports FreeSync Premium via DP 1.2a+ and HDMI 2.0 on compatible GPUs and systems. Note that HDR can be activated (at the same time as FreeSync) as well. You need to make sure ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ is set to ‘ON’ in the ‘Gaming’ 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 Gigabyte supports a variable refresh rate range of 48 – 170Hz (144Hz max via HDMI). That means that if the game is running between 48fps and 170fps, the monitor will adjust its refresh rate to match. When the frame rate rises above 170fps, the monitor will stay at 170Hz 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 170fps, 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 >170fps). 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 36fps, for example, the refresh rate would be 72Hz to help keep tearing and stuttering at bay. LFC sometimes seemed to activate at slightly higher refresh rates, closer to 52Hz (52fps), 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. 167fps) 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 go to ‘Game Assist’ and activate the ‘Refresh Rate’ feature, the monitor will display the refresh rate. This will coincide with the frame rate of the content if the monitor is within the main VRR window. The counter reacts very rapidly to changes in frame rate. Finally, it’s worth noting 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 we tested a range of game titles using AMD FreeSync and found the experience similar in all cases. Any issues affecting one title but not another suggests a game or GPU driver issues rather than a monitor issue. We’ll therefore simply use Battlefield V as an example for this section. The in-game graphics options are flexible enough to allow the full VRR range to be assessed. Our Radeon RX 580 isn’t a very powerful GPU, so maintaining 170fps at the native WQHD resolution is difficult. Even with graphics settings set to ‘low’, it was common to see dips significantly below this and at many points the average frame rate closer to 100fps. Without a VRR technology like FreeSync, even the slightest dips below 170fps would cause obvious (to us) tearing if VSync was disabled or stuttering if VSync was enabled. Sensitivity to tearing and stuttering varies, but for those sensitive to it the technology is very nice to have.

There was a decrease in ‘connected feel’ and increase in perceived blur related to the drop in frame rate. That isn’t something FreeSync can address. This becomes even more pronounced as frame rate drops further – but the lack of tearing and stuttering was easy for us to appreciate. The technology worked all the way down to 48Hz (48fps in the game), below that LFC (Low Framerate Compensation) kicked in. This worked well to keep tearing and stuttering at bay below 48fps by ensuring the refresh rate stuck to a multiple of this. As usual, there was a momentary stuttering when the technology activated or deactivated – not a problem if you’re only occasionally passing the boundary. But if you’re frequently passing it there’s the potential for annoyance. A big tick for this model is that our preferred ‘Overdrive’ setting (‘Picture Quality’) worked well across the entire VRR range. There was no obvious overshoot (mere traces, for some transitions) using this setting, whilst pixel responsiveness remained very respectable. Any higher setting produced strong to extreme overshoot. So you don’t need to worry about adjusting the overdrive setting based on refresh rate in this case.

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 specifically validated as G-SYNC compatible, which means they have been specifically tested by Nvidia and pass specific quality checks. With the M27Q, you need to connect the monitor up via DisplayPort and enable ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ in the ‘Gaming’ 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. On our RTX 3090, the experience was very similar to what we described with FreeSync. The floor of operation for VRR was slightly higher and depended on the static refresh rate selected for the monitor. At 170Hz and 165Hz, the floor was 55Hz. At 144Hz it was 53Hz and at 120Hz it was 50Hz. We observed the same LFC-like frame to refresh multiplication technology below this, keeping tearing and stuttering from frame and refresh rate mismatches at bay. There was again a momentary stuttering as the boundary was crossed, much as we observed with our AMD GPU.

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’).



Finally, remember that you can use the ‘Refresh Rate’ feature in the ‘Game Assist’ section of the OSD to display the current refresh rate of the monitor. This will reflect the frame rate if it’s within the main variable refresh rate window. The polling rate (update frequency) is very high for this so it can be difficult to read exact frame rate at times, but it will still give an indication of the frame rate and the fact the technology is working. And as with AMD FreeSync, HDR can be used at the same time as ‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’.

HDR (High Dynamic Range)

On an ideal monitor, HDR (High Dynamic Range) involves very bright light shades and very deep dark shades being displayed simultaneously. The monitor should also be able to display an excellent range of shades between these extremes, including highly saturated alongside more muted ones. The monitor would ideally support per-pixel illumination (e.g. backlightless technology such as OLED) or failing that offer a very large number of dimming zones with precise control. A solution such as FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) with a good number of dimming zones, for example. This would allow some areas of the screen to exhibit strong brightness 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.

The HDR10 pipeline is the most widely supported HDR standard used in HDR games and movies. That’s what’s supported in this case. For most games and other full screen applications that support HDR, the Gigabyte automatically switches into its HDR operating mode. 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. When viewing SDR content with HDR active in Windows things appeared better-balanced than we’ve seen on some models, but as explored shortly you lose access to many adjustments in the OSD, including gamma and colour channels. We’d recommend only activating HDR in Windows if you’re about to specifically use an HDR application that requires it, and have it deactivated when viewing normal SDR content on the monitor.

To keep things as simple as possible, we’ll just focus on a few titles in this section; Battlefield V and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. We’ve tested both titles on a broad range of monitors under HDR and we know they’re a good test for monitor HDR capability. The experience described here is largely 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, many settings are inaccessible. This includes gamma, sharpness and colour channels being greyed out. Somewhat unusually for HDR, brightness can be adjusted and no sharpness filter is applied by default. You can access the ‘Super Resolution’ slider if you wish to add a sharpness filter on top. All presets acted the same way under HDR and had no specific effect on the image, except that some applied an additional sharpness filter – ‘Reader’ did this mildly and ‘Movie’ strongly. We found the experience decidedly ‘non HDR-like’ with reduced brightness so preferred to just leave this at the default of ‘100’. Reducing the brightness too much seemed to make things more muted than an equivalent brightness adjustment under SDR, too.

The Gigabyte M27Q is VESA DisplayHDR 400 certified. This is the lowest level of certification VESA certifies for, so only a basic HDR experience is provided. The colour gamut requirements are quite loose here, although we recorded 95% DCI-P3 on this model which is actually a box ticked even for higher tiers. This is shown in the graphic below, taken from earlier in the review. The red triangle shows the monitor’s colour gamut, the blue triangle DCI-P3 and green triangle sRGB. With the monitor providing a decent match for the near-term target developers have in mind under HDR (DCI-P3), the colour reproduction under HDR was pretty respectable overall. The game developers have this in mind as the near-term target for HDR, so unlike where sRGB is targeted (under SDR) you don’t have the same oversaturated look to shades. The yellows of yellowish greens and reds of some reddish brown shades weren’t brought out too strongly, for example. Giving tree trunks and foliage a more natural look, whilst keeping Lara’s skin tone and hair looking more appropriate as well. There were some good dashes of vibrancy where the developers wanted there to be. Fires had a vivid look to them and there were some very lush-looking green shades in forested areas for example. The colour gamut actually extends quite a way beyond even DCI-P3 for some green shades and encroaches more on the longer-term Rec. 2020 standard here, giving quite a lively but still appropriate look to green-dominant shades. Some shades, such as those fires, some brightly painted orange objects and blue dresses weren’t as vivid as they would be with an even more generous colour gamut. But better than most HDR models we’ve seen in this tier. There was also a certain sapping away of depth due to the universally high brightness of the backlight, as we cover shortly.

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, due to bandwidth limitations. Regardless of the method used to achieve the ’10-bit’ colour signal, we find the result very similar. Some subtle differences may be noticed during careful side by side comparison of very specific content, but things are really handled very well even if GPU dithering is used. This enhanced precision offered by the 10-bit signal enhances the nuanced shade variety. With a superior range of very closely matching dark shades, shadow detailing is lifted out in a natural way. This uplift in detail is very different to what a gamma enhancement would achieve under SDR as that simply gives a ‘flooded’ or unnatural appearance. The greater variety of closely matching bright shades, meanwhile, creates a more natural look to various elements such as smoke effects, areas of sky and weather effects. Smoother gradients with more natural progressions are observed here. The image below shows one of our favourite scenes under Shadow of the Tomb Raider for highlighting a strong HDR performance. Note that the photo is purely for illustrative purposes and in no way represents how the monitor appeared running HDR in person.

The nuanced shade variety facilitated by 10-bit colour reproduction was highlighted nicely here. The sun streaming in from above, the spray from the waterfall and some of the dimmer details amongst shaded rocks and vegetation all benefited. With the maximum luminance fairly limited by HDR standards and a lack of local dimming, there were no advantages to brightness or contrast under HDR. This is where the VESA DisplayHDR 400 standard is again very limited. Bright elements such as the sun glint on the water and the bright sky above didn’t stand out as they can in this scene on more capable HDR performers. And the nuanced shade variety for brighter shades could have done with further accentuation from a higher peak luminance and effective local dimming. Darker shaded areas such as rocks and vegetation suffered from a lack of depth, too. With ‘IPS glow’ brought out relatively strongly due to the high backlight luminance levels here. Unlike some models with this DisplayHDR level, the monitor does not support Dynamic Contrast under HDR. Ideally it would use Dynamic Contrast with precision enhanced by HDR metadata – this sort of reactive solution some models without local dimming, like the ViewSonic XG270QC, employ to good effect. You also have to be careful not to activate ‘DCR’ before enabling HDR, as instead of using any sort of Dynamic Contrast it simply upsets the image. The video section below gives a run-through of the overall HDR capability of the display using Shadow of the Tomb Raider as an example.

Interpolation and upscaling

It may be desirable or necessary to run the monitor below its native 2560 x 1440 (WQHD). Perhaps for performance reasons, or because a system such as a games console is being used that doesn’t support the WQHD resolution. 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. The refresh rates supported were covered at the end of the ‘Features and aesthetics’ section, but the monitor only supports interpolation at up to 144Hz maximum regardless of input used. 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 various ‘Display Mode’ settings in the ‘Gaming’ section of the OSD, as explored in the OSD video. A setting that will be of particular interest to some is the ‘1:1’ pixel mapping feature, only accessible if ‘AMD FreeSync Premium’ is disabled in the OSD. The monitor will only use the pixels called for in the source resolution to display the image, with a black border around the image using the remaining pixels. The default ‘Full’ setting instead uses interpolation to map the source resolution onto the 2560 x 1440 pixels of the display. The ‘Aspect’ setting does the same but will respect the aspect ratio of the source resolution so that it doesn’t stretch things. This will require a black border in some cases. When running at 1920 x 1080 (Full HD), the monitor presented the image that was a fair bit softer than viewing a native Full HD screen of the size. We found setting ‘Super Resolution’ to ‘1’ presented a more pleasing image. Whilst it didn’t look quite the same as a native Full HD resolution would, it offset the excessive softening quite nicely and provided a fairly crisp and detailed look overall. You can alter this and also the ‘Sharpness’ setting to help fine-tune to your own preferences, which is a good flexibility to have. With the overall image presentation and flexibility in mind, we consider this a relatively strong interpolation performance.

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 used, processing done and your own screen all affect the output – so it doesn’t accurately represent what you’d see in person when viewing the monitor. 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 (Adaptive-Sync)

Conclusion

There are now a large number of 27” 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) models on the market, with a range of different panels and price points. The Gigabyte M27Q uses a novel IPS-type panel from Sharp, which in many respects delivered a pleasing performance. The resolution and screen size combination delivered a respectable pixel density, providing a good amount of desktop real-estate and providing good clarity potential to text and other suitably high resolution content. The pixel layout of this model was unconventional, which was largely overcome by correct setup of Windows ClearType. Even following that some ‘fringing’ issues remained, not always related to text. But we’d classify these issues as minor and not something most users would notice or find bothersome. The monitor offered simple styling and a fairly basic overall construction, especially when compared to the heftier powder-coated metal stands of the AORUS product line. But the stand design was functional and although full adjustability wasn’t provided, tilt and height adjustment was along with VESA holes for those seeking more flexibility. The OSD, as usual for Gigabyte models, was very comprehensive and could be controlled instead using the feature-rich Sidekick software suite.

The contrast performance was largely as expected for the panel type. Static contrast exceeded specifications slightly, sitting just below 1200:1 following the adjustments made to our ‘Test Settings’. A fair improvement over some competing models, most notably those with Nano IPS panels. Certainly not sufficient for a deep or atmospheric experience in dimmer room lighting, especially when coupled with the moderate amount of ‘IPS glow’ that went with the territory. The screen surface was a light to very light matte anti-glare solution with a relatively smooth finish, keeping lighter shades free from clear graininess and preventing a layered appearance in front of the image. The monitor provided vibrant and varied colour output, with a generous colour gamut 95% DCI-P3 and 95% Adobe RGB recorded. If strong saturation or the use of such colour gamuts in your workflow isn’t your thing, an sRGB emulation mode is offered that allows brightness to be adjusted. More than can be said for some such settings, even though the usual restrictions including locked gamma and colour channels still applied.

The generous colour gamut coverage worked well for HDR content, where the near-term target is the DCI-P3 colour space. Elements that should look vibrant did, whilst more muted natural shades appeared more appropriate than under SDR. An even more generous colour gamut would have injected a bit more vibrancy, but we’d still put this above the colour output we’ve seen from many monitors under HDR. 10-bit processing did its thing to enhance nuanced shade variety, even though GPU dithering was relied upon for that. On the contrast side, under HDR, things were far less impressive. No local dimming, not even any Dynamic Contrast and a far from spectacular peak luminance. The experience was anything but dynamic, not only when considering dark vs. light elements more broadly but also by sapping away at shade depth more generally. In some scenes shades appeared less rich and saturated than they could because of this, despite the generous colour gamut. Ticking some boxes but not others under HDR is like a broken chain, really. Ticking only some boxes is all too common for monitors touting ‘HDR’ capability, even those significantly more expensive than this one.

Responsiveness was strong overall, with low input lag and a competent 170Hz performance. Whilst there were some weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, they were only minor. Coming quite close to Nano IPS models in fact, which set a pretty high bar in this respect. We didn’t observe bothersome overshoot using the optimal ‘Overdrive’ setting, even at lower refresh rates. This was refreshing to see and particularly useful when using Adaptive-Sync, as usually you’d need to consider switching to a different pixel overdrive setting depending on your expected frame rate. Adaptive-Sync worked nicely on a broader level, too, on both our AMD (FreeSync) and Nvidia (‘G-SYNC Compatible Mode’) GPUs. Without nasty surprises such as flickering or unexpected stuttering. The floor of operation was slightly higher on the Nvidia GPU side, but didn’t stray too far – and LFC or a similar frame to refresh multiplication technology kicked in below that anyway. Overall we consider this to be a capable monitor for PC gaming and general desktop use, with very competitive pricing. Whilst there are some minor points you could moan about, such as the subpixels or basic stand design, the overall price to performance ratio is excellent. And in many respects it’s a more compelling option than its competitors.

Positives	Negatives
Vibrant and varied colour output with strong consistency and good coverage of both the DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB colour spaces	Gamma tracking not quite at ‘2.2’ target on our unit, some potential ‘fringing’ issues related to subpixels
Decent static contrast for panel type, light to very light screen surface with fairly smooth surface texture keeps image free from a grainy or layered appearance	Moderate ‘IPS glow’ ate away at detail and atmosphere, especially in dimmer room lighting. HDR performance very limited from contrast perspective
A competent 170Hz performance with well-tuned pixel responses throughout the VRR range. Adaptive-Sync worked well on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs	Some minor weaknesses in pixel responsiveness, strobe backlight implementation of limited appeal due to overshoot and other visual disturbances
A good resolution and comfortable pixel density for work and play, a comprehensive OSD with accompanying software and height-adjustable stand	Basic overall design, particularly when considering the stand base. No swivel or pivot with included stand

The bottom line; a compelling budget offering for PC gaming and general purpose use, with an emphasis on vibrant colour output and respectable responsiveness.<span class="su-quote-cite">PC Monitors</span>

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.