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 22, 2024·
If high refresh rate gaming and fast response times are your priorities, and you want to save a bit of money, the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) would be a solid choice, though it's not as ideal for media consumption or productivity due to its lower resolution and screen size. Conversely, if you're looking for superior image quality with higher resolution for productivity and media enjoyment, and are willing to spend more, the Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) offers a larger, sharper display, making it better for HDR gaming and tasks that benefit from more screen real estate. Both monitors excel in producing deep blacks and have good color performance, but the Gigabyte's higher brightness could enhance HDR content. 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)
- Very good for competitive gaming
Advantages of the Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED)
- Good for productivity
- Best in class for media consumption
- Best in class brightness
- Best in class color volume
Key differences
Competitive Gaming
8.9
6.8
240Hz
REFRESH RATE
240Hz
1.1 ms
TOTAL RESPONSE TIME
0.0 ms
20 - 240 Hz
VARIABLE REFRESH RATE
48 - 240 Hz
No
STROBING / BFI
No
113 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
1000 nits
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is very good for competitive gaming, while the Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) is only fair.
Productivity
5.7
7.6
2560 x 1440
RESOLUTION
3840 x 2160
110 PPI
PIXELS PER INCH
139 PPI
Yes
ADJUSTABLE STAND
Yes
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) is good for productivity, while the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is poor.
Media Consumption
7.5
10.0
2560 x 1440
RESOLUTION
3840 x 2160
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
Inf:1
113 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
1000 nits
639 nits
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
Unknown
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) is best in class for media consumption, while the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is good.
Cost
$900
$1,200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) has a price of $900 and the Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) costs $1,200.
HDR Video Editing and Color Grading
No
Yes
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is not suitable for HDR video editing and color grading while the Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) is suitable for HDR video editing and color grading.
Print Photo Editing
No
Yes
The Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) is not suitable for print photo editing while the Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) is suitable for print photo editing.
Key similarities
Casual Gaming
9.5
9.9
2560 x 1440
RESOLUTION
3840 x 2160
240Hz
REFRESH RATE
240Hz
Inf:1
NATIVE CONTRAST
Inf:1
113 nits
SDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
1000 nits
639 nits
HDR PEAK BRIGHTNESS
Unknown
97.3 %
DCI-P3 COLOR GAMUT
99.0 %
Matte
COATING
Matte
The Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) and Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) are both best in class for casual gaming.
HDR Gaming and Media Consumption
Yes
Yes
Both the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) are suitable for HDR gaming and media consumption.
Digital Photo Editing
Yes
Yes
Both the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) are suitable for digital photo editing.
Give feedback
We’re constantly working to improve.
How the Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) and the Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) compare to other monitors
Spec Comparison
 |  | |
| Corsair Xeneon 27QHD240 (W-OLED) | Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) |
GENERAL | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | |||
$900 | $1,200 | ||
Screen Size | |||
Screen Size | 27" | 32" | |
Resolution | |||
Resolution | 2560 x 1440 | 3840 x 2160 | |
Screen Type | |||
Screen Type | OLED | OLED | |
Screen Sub-type | |||
Screen Sub-type | W-OLED | QD-OLED | |
Refresh Rate | |||
Refresh Rate | 240Hz | 240Hz | |
COLOR, CONTRAST & BRIGHTNESS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Native Contrast | |||
Native Contrast | Inf:1 | Inf:1 | |
SDR Peak Brightness | |||
SDR Peak Brightness | 113 nits | 1000 nits | |
HDR Peak Brightness | |||
HDR Peak Brightness | 639 nits | Unknown | |
Suitable for HDR Gaming and Media Consumption | |||
Suitable for HDR Gaming and Media Consumption | Yes | Yes | |
sRGB Color Gamut | |||
sRGB Color Gamut | 100 % | Unknown | |
MOTION CHARACTERISTICS | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Total Response Time | |||
Total Response Time | 1.1 ms | 0.03 ms | |
Variable Refresh Rate | |||
Variable Refresh Rate | 20 - 240 Hz | 48 - 240 Hz | |
Strobing / BFI | |||
Strobing / BFI | No | No | |
Persistence Blur Score | |||
Persistence Blur Score | 8/10 | 8/10 | |
Ghosting Score | |||
Ghosting Score | 9.6/10 | 10/10 | |
TEXT & IMAGE CLARITY | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Pixels Per Inch | |||
Pixels Per Inch | 110 PPI | 139 PPI | |
Coating | |||
Coating | Matte | Matte | |
Text Clarity Score | |||
Text Clarity Score | 6.6/10 | 6.9/10 | |
Image Clarity Score | |||
Image Clarity Score | 7.1/10 | 7.9/10 | |
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 FO32U2P (QD-OLED) vs. Dell Alienware AW3225QF (QD-OLED)
VS
Compare Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) vs. Samsung Odyssey OLED G9 G95SC (QD-OLED)
VS
Compare Gigabyte FO32U2P (QD-OLED) vs. Acer Predator X45 (W-OLED)
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
