Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 vs Philips 498P9Z
Corsair XENEON 32QHD165
32″ · 2560×1440 · 165 Hz · IPSPhilips 498P9Z
48.8″ · 5120×1440 · 165 Hz · VACorsair XENEON 32QHD165 and Philips 498P9Z are neck and neck on specs: gear scores 74 and 75.
- Resolution: Philips 498P9Z leads (5120×1440 vs 2560×1440).
- Response time: Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 leads (3 ms vs 4 ms).
Corsair XENEON 32QHD165
If you care most about response time.
Philips 498P9Z
If you care most about resolution.
Spec-by-spec comparison
| Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 | Philips 498P9Z | |
|---|---|---|
| 74 | Gear score | 75 |
| 32″ | Screen size | 48.8″ |
| 2560×1440 | Resolution | 5120×1440 |
| 165 Hz | Refresh rate | 165 Hz |
| IPS | Panel | VA |
| 3 ms | Response time | 4 ms |
The gear score is computed from specifications only (e.g. for a mouse: weight, sensor, polling rate, connection and release year). It isn’t a lab test and doesn’t measure personal preferences like shape or grip.
Which one adds more to your setup?
The scanner finds your graphics card, CPU, RAM, monitor, mouse and keyboard in under a minute. You get a score out of 100, estimated FPS in games, a bottleneck check and upgrade tips made for you.
FAQ
Is Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 or Philips 498P9Z better?
Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 and Philips 498P9Z are neck and neck on specs: gear scores 74 and 75. Resolution: Philips 498P9Z leads (5120×1440 vs 2560×1440). Response time: Corsair XENEON 32QHD165 leads (3 ms vs 4 ms).