Act fast to save $100 on a 240Hz OLED gaming monitor
I saw a lot of great discounts on PC hardware over Memorial Day, but even though many have ended there are still some killer deals to be had.
For example, the 27-inch Acer Predator X27U OLED gaming monitor is $499 at Newegg, which is $100 off its usual asking price. That's the cheapest I've ever seen this monitor on sale for, and one of the best post-Memorial Day OLED gaming monitor sales I've seen all week.
This Acer Predator gaming monitor offers an adjustable 27-inch (2560 x 1440 pixels) OLED panel with up to a 240Hz refresh rate and support for AMD FreeSync Premium Pro, so it's great for gaming. Plus, it supports HDR and comes with a built-in KVM switch.
And while $500 is still a little pricey for a 27-inch gaming monitor that's not 4K, I think the fact you're getting an HDR-capable OLED panel is what makes this display worth buying. Ever since I switched from IPS to OLED I've hated going back, because the striking brights, inky blacks and sharp contrast you get on a good OLED panel blows non-OLED displays out of the water when playing games or watching movies.
Plus, I kind of think the 1440p resolution can be a strength of this display because it hits a nice middle ground between 1080p and 4K gaming. You get more pixels than standard 1080p, but you don't need an incredibly beefy gaming PC to run the best PC games at high framerates on a 1440p display.
You should be able to game seamlessly at high speed too thanks to this monitor's 240Hz refresh rate and support for AMD FreeSync Premium Pro. It's also a good monitor for day-to-day productivity thank to its included KVM switch, and the built-in 5W stereo speakers are nice to have when you're lacking a pair of the best computer speakers.
This monitor sports both DisplayPort 1.4 and HDMI 2.1 ports, so you can plug in a modern console and count on full support for variable refresh rates and other HDMI 2.1-limited features. Plus, the display is adjustable, so you can tilt, swivel and raise or lower it a bit for optimal comfort.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Amazon Prime Video Redefines NASCAR Broadcasts with a Bold New Era of Streaming and Innovation
Amazon Prime Video has officially taken the wheel in NASCAR's latest media revolution, and it's not just about where fans watch races, but how they experience them. As part of NASCAR's new seven-year media rights deal kicking off in 2025, Amazon secured exclusive streaming rights to five mid-season Cup Series races annually. That alone is a landmark shift. But when Prime Video debuted with the Coca-Cola 600 on Memorial Day weekend, the first-ever points-paying Cup race aired solely on a streaming platform, it was clear this was more than just a broadcasting contract. It's the beginning of NASCAR's streaming era. Amazon's Broader Sports Play Prime Video's entry into NASCAR builds on Amazon's broader push into live sports. The tech giant already owns rights to the NFL's 'Thursday Night Football', Premier League soccer, and WNBA matchups. NASCAR represents the latest step in a long-term plan to draw cord-cutting fans and modernize the live sports experience. Advertisement For NASCAR, partnering with Amazon helps diversify its reach. As NASCAR President Steve Phelps said, the league aimed to 'secure long-term stability with an optimized mix of distribution platforms.' Amazon offers access to a younger, more tech-forward audience, and early numbers suggest it's working. Streaming Debut Delivers Younger, Engaged Viewers Amazon's first Cup race drew a peak of 2.92 million viewers, including 800,000 in the key 18–49 demographic—more than any NASCAR cable race in the last three years. While overall viewership lagged behind last year's traditional Fox broadcast, the younger median age and digital engagement signal growth potential. And for fans, the change wasn't just about the platform, it was about the product. Amazon eliminated full-screen commercials during green-flag racing, replacing them with picture-in-picture ads. It's a long-overdue fix to one of NASCAR's most frustrating TV traditions. Advertisement Related: NASCAR schedule 2025 Game-Changing Features: No Missed Moments, More Control Prime's fan-first approach includes innovations like 'Key Moments,' letting viewers rewind major highlights on demand, and 'Rapid Recap,' which delivers a condensed video summary for fans who join mid-race. These tools are built for modern sports viewers used to TikTok speed and DVR control. In addition, Amazon is using Amazon Web Services (AWS) to layer in real-time stats and predictive insights, similar to what AWS already powers for Formula 1. From tire wear to pit strategy, expect smarter analysis baked into the coverage. Advertisement There's also a seamless e-commerce tie-in, allowing fans to 'Shop the Race' and buy team gear in real time. It's an extension of Amazon's retail empire, but also a clever way to let passion turn into purchase with a single click. A Broadcast Team Built for Credibility Fans tuning in to Prime Video's NASCAR coverage were met by a familiar voice: Dale Earnhardt Jr., alongside longtime crew chief Steve Letarte and seasoned broadcaster Adam Alexander. The team brings deep credibility and experience, and unlike some networks, Amazon sends its entire crew on-site to every race, enhancing authenticity and access. Supporting them are pit reporters Marty Snider, Kim Coon, and Trevor Bayne, while Danielle Trotta, Carl Edwards, and Corey LaJoie lead pre- and post-race coverage. The Coca-Cola 600 post-race show ran over an hour, something rarely seen on traditional TV. Challenges Ahead for NASCAR and Fans Still, not everyone is sold. While Amazon partnered with DirecTV to stream races in bars and restaurants, some rural or older fans have struggled to adapt. Internet access, tech familiarity, and subscription fatigue are all real hurdles. Advertisement But team owners and sponsors are bullish. As 23XI Racing President Steve Lauletta said, 'This is a positive move to reach consumers where they are.' The marketing upside, especially for sponsors eager to tap Amazon's platform, is hard to ignore. Related: Prime Video Review 2025 – What to Know Before Subscribing The Future of NASCAR Broadcasting Ultimately, NASCAR's partnership with Amazon feels like a test case for the future of all live sports. It's not just about streaming, it's about flexibility, data, and personalization. If successful, this hybrid model of streaming and traditional TV could become the new norm across major leagues. Advertisement For fans, the tradeoff is clear: a slightly different way to watch in exchange for deeper, richer coverage that's focused more on the racing, and less on missing it. If Amazon continues listening to the fanbase and delivering a product built around access, engagement, and innovation, NASCAR may have found a long-term pit partner for the digital age. Related Headlines
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's tax and spending bill faces Senate scrutiny amid public discontent
The Senate will return from recess next week to consider the fate of Donald Trump's big tax and spending bill which the House of Representatives passed just before Memorial Day. The break doesn't mean all is quiet on the fiscal front. The few MAGA members who are brave enough to meet their constituents are getting an earful of hostility and scorn. Meanwhile, Democrats and progressive groups are airing TV ads against the cuts to the tune of millions of dollars. The president likes to call it his 'big beautiful bill,' but many Americans and even some GOP senators find it oversized and ugly. The House bill which only passed by one vote extends the 2017 Trump tax cuts for wealthy Americans and large corporations for another ten years. It pays for the tax breaks with sharp reductions in spending for health care and nutrition programs. Even with the deep cuts, the nonpartisan analysis by the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the plan would increase the national budget deficit by almost $4 trillion. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) says he doesn't expect any major surprises from his party colleagues in the upper chamber. He is either willingly ignorant or completely delusional. Concerns about the deficit have frightened MAGA budget hawks like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). Conservative Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) who opposes the Medicaid cuts in the House legislation described them as 'morally wrong and politically suicidal.' I rarely agree with the senator from the Show Me State but this time he's dead right. Supporters of Trump's reckless fiscal plan aren't doing themselves any favors either. Back in her home state during the recess, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) lamely tried to defend the indefensible last week when she responded to constituent concerns about deaths caused by health care cuts. She said, 'Well, we are all going to die anyway.' Her snide comment betrays GOP indifference to the suffering of the Americans who will die before their times because they can't afford care. The public outrage over the cuts and her callous comment is exactly why congressional Republicans are reluctant to do town meetings and why Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) are trying to fill the void to capitalize on the hostility. The Economist and YouGov conducted a national survey in mid-May which shed considerable light on attitudes towards the draconian proposal. A plurality of Americans opposed the bill but the really striking thing about the survey is how strongly attached Americans are to specific government agencies and their programs. Americans are philosophical conservatives but operational liberals. Trump plays on fears of big government but ignores the public's deep devotion to specific federal programs. Crap rolls down, not up the food chain. Trump aristocrats and plutocrats will do just fine, but his budget requires severe cuts in food aid and health care for the poor that will insidiously work their way down to struggling families in the middle. Meanwhile, three out of every four Americans want to maintain or even increase spending on Medicaid. Seven tenths of the population want to maintain or increase funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The president would reduce the Department of Education to a pile of rubble but two thirds (67 percent) of the public wishes to expand (42 percent) or maintain (25 percent) it. Hardy anybody (5 percent) supports Trump in his quest to gut the department. In contrast, less than half (47 percent) of the public wants to expand or maintain Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Musk got out of DOGE last week and on his way out blasted the president's deficit raising tax and budget bill. Americans share Musk's concerns. Most people don't believe Trump's riverboat gamble will drain the sea of federal red ink. But in the last month, the number of people who think the big beneficiaries of the budget blaster will primarily be the rich has risen significantly. Why are Trump and congressional Republicans feverishly pushing such a massive piece of legislation that has so little public support? The answer is they are blind ideologues who are hell-bent on destroying the good works of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal regardless of the pain and suffering the ruin rains on the American people. The president may not pay the price for his ignorance, but some GOP members of Congress will in 2026. Brad Bannon is a national Democratic strategist and CEO of Bannon Communications Research which polls for Democrats, labor unions and progressive issue groups. He hosts the popular progressive podcast on power, politics and policy, Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dive Deposits: For Wells Fargo and NatWest, it's the summer of looking forward
This story was originally published on Banking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Banking Dive newsletter. With the recent termination of several Wells Fargo consent orders and speculation about when the Federal Reserve's asset cap on the bank may be lifted, it could be easy – especially in a hyper-domestic news cycle – to miss a massive (overseas) development in bank independence. The U.K. government on Friday sold the last of its shares in NatWest, freeing the bank into private ownership nearly 17 years after bailing it out during the 2007-08 financial crisis. At the time, Royal Bank of Scotland, as NatWest was known before 2020, had bought Dutch bank ABN Amro for £49 billion ($79.4 billion) but became mired with toxic mortgage-backed securities. RBS's asset total stood at about £2.2 trillion – making it the world's largest bank, with nearly double the U.K.'s annual economic output. And the bank would have failed without a £45.5 billion bailout from the government. The U.K.'s Treasury on Friday noted that it received £35 billion from share sales, dividends and fees throughout its rescue of NatWest — but that's still a £10.5 billion loss. 'Nearly two decades ago, the then government stepped in to protect millions of savers and businesses from the consequences of the collapse of RBS,' U.K. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said in a statement Friday. 'That was the right decision then to secure the economy and NatWest's return to private ownership turns the page on a significant chapter in this country's history.' At the rescue's peak, the government owned 84.4% of NatWest. But the U.K. government has rapidly accelerated the sell-down of its stake in the bank: It owned roughly 38% of the lender as recently as December 2023. Likewise, U.S. regulators' hold over Wells Fargo has loosened considerably in 2025. Seven of the banks' consent orders have been terminated since January, with just the Fed's $1.95 trillion asset cap – in place for seven years – remaining. NatWest returned to profitability in 2017 and restored its dividend the next year. But the government held off on fully returning the bank to private ownership for several reasons: political uncertainty, low interest rates in the post-COVID era (which would have further lessened Britain's return on investment). The U.K. stalled the NatWest release amid tariff uncertainty at the start of the Trump administration in the U.S. But NatWest's share price, which has gained 70% in the past year, returned to its pre-bailout level for the first time since 2011 last month. The post-bailout era has seen NatWest morph from a global juggernaut to a primarily domestic lender. Nearly all of the bank's income was generated in the U.K. in 2024, compared with 62% in 2007. Its assets count roughly a third of what they were: £708 million as of Dec. 31. From Friday's statements, the bank appears to have embraced its newfound place. 'This is a sector that matters,' CEO Paul Thwaite said of domestic banking. 'Strong economies need strong banks, and vice versa.' Nonetheless, by releasing the bank entirely, the U.K. broadens NatWest's bandwidth strategically – such that it can use its surplus on more than buying back stock. NatWest reportedly put in an £11 billion bid for Santander's U.K. retail footprint (but the Spanish bank rejected it). Still, NatWest executives expressed their gratitude Friday. 'I am proud to have been part of the team that has helped build a simpler, safer, more customer-focused bank,' Thwaite said. 'It is thanks to the incredible loyalty of our customers and colleagues, along with the support of our shareholders – including the U.K. taxpayer – that this change has been possible.' NatWest Chair Rick Haythornthwaite added, 'We remain deeply grateful to the government – and to U.K. taxpayers – for their intervention and support. At a time of global crisis, this intervention stabilized our banking system and, by extension, our economy, protecting millions of savers, homeowners and businesses.' NatWest isn't the first bank the U.K. has released into private ownership after a 2008 bailout. The government exited Lloyds in 2017 – after plowing £20.3 billion into that bank's rescue. The government had recouped all related costs, with a £900 million cushion. NatWest, perhaps, may have served as a reminder of the finance sector's past wobbles. On a macro level, the divestment of government money (in NatWest's case) or regulator concern (for Wells Fargo in the U.S.) may signal that policymakers are ready to stop looking back – whether at scandals from 2016 or 2008.
