This monitor was almost perfect, but the HDR 400 is a bit of a shame, was hoping for HDR600 on a monitor like this. Honestly confused on what has happened to monitors they used to be leading technology, now they're insanely overpriced for such small devices. I own the pg279q which this one is clearly based of minus a few extra Hz and new chassis it doesn't sound too different but chances are this will be a lot more expansive than that was almost 6 years ago even though it hasn't got much extra going for it.

Ricepudding:

This monitor was almost perfect, but the HDR 400 is a bit of a shame, was hoping for HDR600 on a monitor like this.

Honestly HDR600 is the absolute bare minimum for a new screen as far as I'm concerned, and that's quite far from a real HDR screen no matter what the advertisers what to try to pervert the meaning of HDR into. I have no real reason to upgrade to such thing even from my ancient monitor, because my ancient monitor from all those years ago is still a 27" 1440p 144Hz IPS with low enough input lag. What it lacks is what pretty much every IPS lacks: Proper blacks/contrast ability for an HDR experience. At this point I'd seriously just get a high refresh OLED TV if it weren't for the fact that they're all 4K and therefore impossible to power. At the "that thing doesn't cost more than its own weight in gold" price point, monitor options haven't improved at all in at least 6 years now. You want shitty pseudo HDR that barely makes a difference? Still more expensive than almost an identical screen from 6 years ago.

Neo Cyrus:

Honestly HDR600 is the absolute bare minimum for a new screen as far as I'm concerned, and that's quite far from a real HDR screen no matter what the advertisers what to try to pervert the meaning of HDR into. I have no real reason to upgrade to such thing even from my ancient monitor, because my ancient monitor from all those years ago is still a 27" 1440p 144Hz IPS with low enough input lag. What it lacks is what pretty much every IPS lacks: Proper blacks/contrast ability for an HDR experience. At this point I'd seriously just get a high refresh OLED TV if it weren't for the fact that they're all 4K and therefore impossible to power. At the "that thing doesn't cost more than its own weight in gold" price point, monitor options haven't improved at all in at least 6 years now. You want shitty pseudo HDR that barely makes a difference? Still more expensive than almost an identical screen from 6 years ago.

Yeah HDR 600 is, but they make HDR 1000 insanely costly in monitors, Asus one is a good 2.5k I think last i checked. I could build a top of the line PC for that on just a monitor. I am in a similar boat to you, sounds like you have my monitor or something similar. It's 6 years ago and I just never see a reasonable upgrade path for it. Either far far far too expensive or ones like this where it's the same damn monitor with a fresh coat of paint again for 6 years running with a price hike. I'd go buy LG 48 inch, though if they ever do a under 40 inch i'd go to them, considering that 48inch is about 1k? less than most of these monitors I can only assume a 35ish inch would be maybe 800? But yet have better colors, full hdmi2.1 VRR, 4k 120hz 10bit 1000HDR... Monitor makers are being insanely greedy, I got this monitor for £550 almost 6 years ago, 165hz ips 1440p monitor, this monitor which is meant to be the new upgrade finally, has 2 things on it... 240 instead of 165hz and Nvidia reflex and that is it but it's going to be at least £300 more maybe even double. HDR 400 I won't count and my monitor looking at Rtings can reach that and higher on SDR content (chances are could get around the same on HDR assuming it accepted the signal)

Meh, no decent Freesync monitors. I pretty much gave up looking for one that is useful for gaming and working with photos both.