Corsair XENEON 32QHD240 vs Philips 27M1F5800
Corsair XENEON 32QHD240
32″ · 2560×1440 · 240 Hz · IPSPhilips 27M1F5800
27″ · 3840×2160 · 144 Hz · IPSCorsair XENEON 32QHD240 and Philips 27M1F5800 are neck and neck on specs: gear scores 79 and 80.
- Resolution: Philips 27M1F5800 leads (3840×2160 vs 2560×1440).
- Refresh rate: Corsair XENEON 32QHD240 leads (240 Hz vs 144 Hz).
- Response time: Philips 27M1F5800 leads (1 ms vs 5 ms).
Corsair XENEON 32QHD240
If you care most about refresh rate.
Philips 27M1F5800
If you care most about resolution, response time.
Spec-by-spec comparison
| Corsair XENEON 32QHD240 | Philips 27M1F5800 | |
|---|---|---|
| 79 | Gear score | 80 |
| 32″ | Screen size | 27″ |
| 2560×1440 | Resolution | 3840×2160 |
| 240 Hz | Refresh rate | 144 Hz |
| IPS | Panel | IPS |
| 5 ms | Response time | 1 ms |
| ≈ $700 | Estimated price | — |
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 32QHD240 or Philips 27M1F5800 better?
Corsair XENEON 32QHD240 and Philips 27M1F5800 are neck and neck on specs: gear scores 79 and 80. Resolution: Philips 27M1F5800 leads (3840×2160 vs 2560×1440). Refresh rate: Corsair XENEON 32QHD240 leads (240 Hz vs 144 Hz). Response time: Philips 27M1F5800 leads (1 ms vs 5 ms).
Which has the higher refresh rate?
Refresh rate: Corsair XENEON 32QHD240 leads (240 Hz vs 144 Hz).