A comparison of specs, key information, reviews, and best pricing from top retailers
Last updated -- hours ago | Report incorrect information
Company ProductName Specs
Company ProductName Specs
What we think
The PerfectRec monitor team Learn more
Updated April 12, 2024·
If you prioritize competitive gaming with the best possible responsiveness and image quality, the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 with its superb contrast and low response time is an excellent choice, though its price is higher and it doesn't shine as much in productivity tasks. On the other hand, the Gigabyte FI32Q-X offers a larger screen and is more affordable, suitable for a variety of tasks including competitive gaming, but its performance in contrast and response time isn't as outstanding as the Corsair. Neither are ideal for HDR video editing, but for casual gaming, digital photo editing, and enjoying media, they both perform well, with the Corsair having a slight edge in image clarity. Give Feedback
this description is based on the product variant with some specs and product variant with some specs. At the time of writing, the variant with some specs cost some dollars and the variant with some specs cost some dollars.
Advantages of the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED)
- Best in class for casual gaming
- Very good for competitive gaming
- Good for media consumption
- Good image clarity
- Best in class contrast
- Best in class response time
Advantages of the Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS)
- Good brightness
Key differences
Casual Gaming
9.5
5.9
2560 x 1440
RESOLUTION
2560 x 1440
240Hz
REFRESH RATE
270Hz
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
1000:1
113 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
400 nits
639 nits
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
600 nits
97.3 %
DCI-P3 COLOR GAMUT
99.0 %
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is best in class for casual gaming, while the Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) is poor.
Competitive Gaming
8.9
5.3
240Hz
REFRESH RATE
270Hz
1.1 ms
TOTAL RESPONSE TIME
8.0 ms
20 - 240 Hz
VARIABLE REFRESH RATE
48 - 270 Hz
No
STROBING / BFI
No
113 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
400 nits
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is very good for competitive gaming, while the Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) is poor.
Productivity
5.7
4.8
2560 x 1440
RESOLUTION
2560 x 1440
110 PPI
PIXELS PER INCH
91 PPI
Yes
ADJUSTABLE STAND
Yes
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) are both poor for productivity, though the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is somewhat better.
Media Consumption
7.5
5.4
2560 x 1440
RESOLUTION
2560 x 1440
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
1000:1
113 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
400 nits
639 nits
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
600 nits
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is good for media consumption, while the Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) is poor.
Cost
$900
$500
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) has a price of $900 and the Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) costs $500.
HDR Gaming and Media Consumption
Yes
No
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is suitable for HDR gaming and media consumption while the Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) is not suitable for HDR gaming and media consumption.
Key similarities
Digital Photo Editing
Yes
Yes
Both the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) are suitable for digital photo editing.
HDR Video Editing and Color Grading
No
No
Both the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) are not suitable for HDR video editing and color grading.
Print Photo Editing
No
No
Both the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) are not suitable for print photo editing.
Give feedback
We’re constantly working to improve.
How the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and the Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) compare to other monitors
Spec Comparison
 |  | |
| Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) | Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) |
GENERAL | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | |||
$900 | $500 | ||
Screen Size | |||
Screen Size | 27" | 32" | |
Resolution | |||
Resolution | 2560 x 1440 | 2560 x 1440 | |
Screen Type | |||
Screen Type | OLED | LED | |
Screen Sub-type | |||
Screen Sub-type | W-OLED | IPS | |
Local Dimming Zones | |||
Local Dimming Zones | N/A | 16 | |
COLOR, CONTRAST & BRIGHTNESS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Native Contrast | |||
Native Contrast | Inf:1 | 1000:1 | |
SDR Peak Brightness | |||
SDR Peak Brightness | 113 nits | 400 nits | |
HDR Peak Brightness | |||
HDR Peak Brightness | 639 nits | 600 nits | |
Suitable for HDR Gaming and Media Consumption | |||
Suitable for HDR Gaming and Media Consumption | Yes | No | |
sRGB Color Gamut | |||
sRGB Color Gamut | 100 % | 157 % | |
MOTION CHARACTERISTICS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Total Response Time | |||
Total Response Time | 1.1 ms | 8 ms | |
Variable Refresh Rate | |||
Variable Refresh Rate | 20 - 240 Hz | 48 - 270 Hz | |
Strobing / BFI | |||
Strobing / BFI | No | No | |
Persistence Blur Score | |||
Persistence Blur Score | 8/10 | 8.5/10 | |
Ghosting Score | |||
Ghosting Score | 9.6/10 | 7.6/10 | |
TEXT & IMAGE CLARITY | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Pixels Per Inch | |||
Pixels Per Inch | 110 PPI | 91 PPI | |
Coating | |||
Coating | Matte | Matte | |
Text Clarity Score | |||
Text Clarity Score | 6.6/10 | 6.1/10 | |
Image Clarity Score | |||
Image Clarity Score | 7.1/10 | 6.1/10 | |
PORTS & CONNECTIVITY | |||
|---|---|---|---|
HDMI 1.4 Ports | |||
HDMI 1.4 Ports | 0 | 0 | |
HDMI 2.0 Ports | |||
HDMI 2.0 Ports | 2 | 0 | |
HDMI 2.1 Ports | |||
HDMI 2.1 Ports | 0 | 2 | |
Micro HDMI Ports | |||
Micro HDMI Ports | 0 | 0 | |
DisplayPort 1.2 Ports | |||
DisplayPort 1.2 Ports | 0 | 0 | |
Give feedback
We're constantly perfecting our model
More comparisons for you
Compare Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) vs. Dell Alienware AW3423DWF (QD-OLED)
VS
Compare Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) vs. Dell Alienware AW2725DF (QD-OLED)
VS
Compare Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) vs. Cooler Master GZ2711 (W-OLED)
VS
Compare Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) vs. KTC M27T20 (VA MiniLED)
VS
Compare Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) vs. Dell AW2524H (IPS)
VS
Compare Gigabyte FI32Q-X (IPS) vs. LG 32UN650 (IPS)
VS
FAQs
Why trust us
This information was produced and vetted by the PerfectRec monitors team. We are a product research and recommendation organization that meticulously reviews and evaluates the latest monitor information and makes it digestible for you.
By the numbers
210
Monitors evaluated
10,500
Monitors stats compiled
15
Proprietary Monitors ratings developed
117,800
Recommendations made
17,670
Consumer hours saved
About the monitor team
Joe Golden, Ph.D
CEO and Monitors Editor
Joe is an entrepreneur and lifelong electronics enthusiast with a Ph.D in Economics from the University of Michigan.
Jason Lew
Staff Expert & Software Engineer
Jason is a staff expert and software engineer that has been making laptop recommendations for 7 years and moderates one of the largest laptop subreddits.
Chandradeep Chowdhury
Staff Expert & Software Engineer
Chandradeep is a staff expert and software engineer and expert in televisions and monitors. He’s been making monitor recommendations for ten years.
Featured in
