Dat gamut! But I'm pretty certain, given the low price.. the catch would be that this display has a low brightness. Since they are not citing HDR 600 capabilities.. despite that gamut, this seems to be a 250nit-350nit monitor.

I can only speak for myself but I really would like mini-led to come down in price for monitors. That is what I am waiting on. We can already get a 65" mini-led back lit TV with 25,000 zones from TCL for $3K so I have t o assume monitor prices will come down over the next year. A very high zone FALD monitor is pretty much the holy grail at least in the near future. Its a non emissive panel so no burn in but will have very high contrast.

Ahmad Bilal:

Dat gamut! But I'm pretty certain, given the low price.. the catch would be that this display has a low brightness. Since they are not citing HDR 600 capabilities.. despite that gamut, this seems to be a 250nit-350nit monitor.

HDR 600 means it's not a HDR device, so you can safely ignore it, unless you are a sheep. HDR is 1000 lumen, and that's a bare minimum for HDR. HDR10 is what you want,it's a different rating system, and those devices usually do over 3000 lumen. So tell me about HDR600 again? New TVs do over 8000 lumen, some over 9000!

So these monitors don't have hdr-hdr10? So not to open a can of worms, what 27" or larger 1440p monitor has all the bells and whistles at a reasonable price?

what marketing does is downplays HDR standard to HDR 400, 600, whatever is the max brightens the screen can achieve. Any good monitor, even from 15 years ago, and especially CRT monitors from waaaay back, can achieve ~350 peak luminescence, a Should we just brand them HDR 350 now? 😉 It is bizarre really, because you need deep blacks to achieve good contrast, without them, peak brightness doesn't even matter.