EK Classic RGB P240 review
Promo: VIP-SCDKey Games and Windows 10 / Office
Synology DS620slim Gigabit NAS Review
Fractal Design Vector RS review
Corsair iCUE 465X review
be quiet! Pure Base 500 review
Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Corsair HS35 Stereo Gaming Headset Review
Acer Z35P Monitor Does 3440x1440 at 120 Hz and G-Sync
Acer is releasing the Z35P Monitor with a native 3440x1440 resolution it can manage 120 Hz refres rates and is a G-Sync screen. The display is based on a 35” AMVA (Advanced Multi-Domain Vertical Alignment) panel.
The curved display offers a 3440 x 1440 resolution (21:9 UltraWide aspect ratio) with 1800R curve. The panel actually is a 100Hz refresh rate one, but Acer does some internal overclocking and made that 120Hz. G-SYNC has a variable refresh rate range of 30 – 120Hz. ULMB (Ultra Low Motion Blur) is not supported due to the backlight of the panel itself not supporting this modulation method.
The monitor offers 8-bit colour reproduction and is tagged with a 2500:1 static contrast ratio is specified alongside 178°/178° viewing angles and a 4ms grey to grey response time. Brightness output is 300 cd/m² maximum. It has a 100 x 100mm VESA mount and display outputs include DP 1.2 (supports G-SYNC), HDMI 1.4 and 4 USB 3.0 ports (plus upstream). 2 x 9W DTS speakers with ‘Acer True Harmony’ are also included for potentially quite decent sound output.
The monitor is available in the US for a rather steep $1100
Berke53
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 2013-04-20
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 2013-04-20
#5433086 Posted on: 05/18/2017 12:41 PM
After owning both 144hz and 100hz gsync monitors, i am certain that my next monitor will be 144hz or better without gsync. Tearing is hardly seen at 144hz anyway and there are multiple downsides to gsync such as, added cost, gsync scanlines, weird "waves" running down the monitor when gsync is active(seen more on some baggrounds than other). Freesync is even more crappy due to limited working range, added lag when hitting upper and lower sync range, at least its cheap.
Next monitor: 144hz with freesync disabled
I disagree
Even at high refresh rates tearing and stuttering is clearly noticable (to me at least).
Besides.. Even with a powerfull SLI setup you will be CPU limited before reaching 120+fps anyway. G-sync brings a clear improvement in comparison to a fixed refresh rate IMO. The only scenario where having a G-sync monitor has litte to no advantage is when your game runs at a fixed 144fps.
After owning both 144hz and 100hz gsync monitors, i am certain that my next monitor will be 144hz or better without gsync. Tearing is hardly seen at 144hz anyway and there are multiple downsides to gsync such as, added cost, gsync scanlines, weird "waves" running down the monitor when gsync is active(seen more on some baggrounds than other). Freesync is even more crappy due to limited working range, added lag when hitting upper and lower sync range, at least its cheap.
Next monitor: 144hz with freesync disabled
I disagree
Even at high refresh rates tearing and stuttering is clearly noticable (to me at least).
Besides.. Even with a powerfull SLI setup you will be CPU limited before reaching 120+fps anyway. G-sync brings a clear improvement in comparison to a fixed refresh rate IMO. The only scenario where having a G-sync monitor has litte to no advantage is when your game runs at a fixed 144fps.
Lowice
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 2014-01-24
Member
Posts: 44
Joined: 2014-01-24
#5433118 Posted on: 05/18/2017 02:09 PM
Why these ultra wide screen monitors?? Really don't get the point for gaming anyway but maybe for other types of work it would make sense.
Why these ultra wide screen monitors?? Really don't get the point for gaming anyway but maybe for other types of work it would make sense.
C-Power
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 2005-01-08
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 2005-01-08
#5433133 Posted on: 05/18/2017 02:56 PM
I have a Samsung CF791 (3440x1440 100hz, no g-sync) - Honestly (for me personally) I don't notice tearing or stuttering in games much, but I think this is because currently my setup is really balanced and pretty much any game runs around 100fps - some games like D3 I just put a manual fps limit of 110 in game and that works great too.
Also I really feel it's a lot more immersive then a flat panel 16:9 screen, This for me is noticable when gaming on my 55" tv compared to the monitor.
In all fairness tho, I bought an Ultrawide cause of music production (and some video edeting/photoshop), which was my nr1 priority, and that's where it really shines.
They're not for everyone, but they are actually great for games too imo (apart from some games having minor issues in menu's or UI).
I even run older games like SimCity4 and Command and conquer Generals fine on it, altho then you have black bars left and right cause they run in 16:9.
Last point - They're to expensive for what you get, that's my only issue, but if you use them mostly for other stuff then pure gaming they're great
If you "must' have 4k you can get those 40+ inch (60hz) screens at around 5 to 700 euro's.
I have a Samsung CF791 (3440x1440 100hz, no g-sync) - Honestly (for me personally) I don't notice tearing or stuttering in games much, but I think this is because currently my setup is really balanced and pretty much any game runs around 100fps - some games like D3 I just put a manual fps limit of 110 in game and that works great too.
Also I really feel it's a lot more immersive then a flat panel 16:9 screen, This for me is noticable when gaming on my 55" tv compared to the monitor.
In all fairness tho, I bought an Ultrawide cause of music production (and some video edeting/photoshop), which was my nr1 priority, and that's where it really shines.
They're not for everyone, but they are actually great for games too imo (apart from some games having minor issues in menu's or UI).
I even run older games like SimCity4 and Command and conquer Generals fine on it, altho then you have black bars left and right cause they run in 16:9.
Last point - They're to expensive for what you get, that's my only issue, but if you use them mostly for other stuff then pure gaming they're great
If you "must' have 4k you can get those 40+ inch (60hz) screens at around 5 to 700 euro's.
Australis
Senior Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 2006-04-27
Senior Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 2006-04-27
#5433138 Posted on: 05/18/2017 03:12 PM
After owning both 144hz and 100hz gsync monitors, i am certain that my next monitor will be 144hz or better without gsync. Tearing is hardly seen at 144hz anyway and there are multiple downsides to gsync such as, added cost, gsync scanlines, weird "waves" running down the monitor when gsync is active(seen more on some baggrounds than other). Freesync is even more crappy due to limited working range, added lag when hitting upper and lower sync range, at least its cheap.
Next monitor: 144hz with freesync disabled
Your comment reeks of ignorance.
There is no turning back from FreeSync or G-sync. (I upgraded from static 144 Hz ASUS VG248QE to FreeSync 144 Hz ASUS MG278Q.)
After owning both 144hz and 100hz gsync monitors, i am certain that my next monitor will be 144hz or better without gsync. Tearing is hardly seen at 144hz anyway and there are multiple downsides to gsync such as, added cost, gsync scanlines, weird "waves" running down the monitor when gsync is active(seen more on some baggrounds than other). Freesync is even more crappy due to limited working range, added lag when hitting upper and lower sync range, at least its cheap.
Next monitor: 144hz with freesync disabled
Your comment reeks of ignorance.
There is no turning back from FreeSync or G-sync. (I upgraded from static 144 Hz ASUS VG248QE to FreeSync 144 Hz ASUS MG278Q.)
deusex
Senior Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 2003-11-19
Senior Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 2003-11-19
#5433146 Posted on: 05/18/2017 03:35 PM
You should own one before you comment. I have the X34 and will never return or be able to play games on a square monitor. Like a TV rectangle is better than square, right?
Nice, wish they at least made it 38" and a little higher resolution.
Why these ultra wide screen monitors?? Really don't get the point for gaming anyway but maybe for other types of work it would make sense.
You should own one before you comment. I have the X34 and will never return or be able to play games on a square monitor. Like a TV rectangle is better than square, right?
Nice, wish they at least made it 38" and a little higher resolution.
C-Power
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 2005-01-08
Senior Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 2005-01-08
#5433179 Posted on: 05/18/2017 05:49 PM
Nice, wish they at least made it 38" and a little higher resolution.
LG 38UC99-W Says hello
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor
Nice, wish they at least made it 38" and a little higher resolution.
LG 38UC99-W Says hello
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor
penguin1
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 2017-03-23
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 2017-03-23
#5433188 Posted on: 05/18/2017 06:16 PM
a lot of ppl seem to be telling me to avoid and not go for curved screens yet, as they usually start having issues in 2-3yrs..
and that really shunned me away from it. haha, I wonder if there is any validity in that..
and to wait a couple more years for curved screen monitors to really become stable/mature.
a lot of ppl seem to be telling me to avoid and not go for curved screens yet, as they usually start having issues in 2-3yrs..
and that really shunned me away from it. haha, I wonder if there is any validity in that..
and to wait a couple more years for curved screen monitors to really become stable/mature.
deusex
Senior Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 2003-11-19
Senior Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 2003-11-19
#5433200 Posted on: 05/18/2017 06:38 PM
LG 38UC99-W Says hello
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor
Yeap, I know
Unfortunately I could only overclock it to 77Mhz max.
LG 38UC99-W Says hello
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-38UC99-W-ultrawide-monitor
Yeap, I know
Unfortunately I could only overclock it to 77Mhz max.
nhlkoho
Senior Member
Posts: 7697
Joined: 2005-12-06
Senior Member
Posts: 7697
Joined: 2005-12-06
#5433210 Posted on: 05/18/2017 06:55 PM
a lot of ppl seem to be telling me to avoid and not go for curved screens yet, as they usually start having issues in 2-3yrs..
and that really shunned me away from it. haha, I wonder if there is any validity in that..
and to wait a couple more years for curved screen monitors to really become stable/mature.
Curved screens haven't even been out that long. The earliest models at that time probably had issues because the tech was so new. LCDs and Plasma TVs both had the same problems when they were first released.
a lot of ppl seem to be telling me to avoid and not go for curved screens yet, as they usually start having issues in 2-3yrs..
and that really shunned me away from it. haha, I wonder if there is any validity in that..
and to wait a couple more years for curved screen monitors to really become stable/mature.
Curved screens haven't even been out that long. The earliest models at that time probably had issues because the tech was so new. LCDs and Plasma TVs both had the same problems when they were first released.
RadioActiveLobster
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 2008-03-11
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 2008-03-11
#5433250 Posted on: 05/18/2017 08:14 PM
From what I've read/heard elsewhere the colorshift on these panels (the AOC one uses the same panel) is pretty bad.
From what I've read/heard elsewhere the colorshift on these panels (the AOC one uses the same panel) is pretty bad.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5433279 Posted on: 05/18/2017 08:38 PM
Apart from specific esport games like CS, is 144Hz relevant anywhere else? Isn't that a requirement that basically makes the rest of your hardware look older much faster? There aren't really any GPUs that can maintain that in any meaningful way in a AAA title today, why bother? Just for CSGO?
I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm genuinely curious. My monitor choice would be a 1440p HDR monitor with 30-75Hz Freesync/Gsync, for example.
Apart from specific esport games like CS, is 144Hz relevant anywhere else? Isn't that a requirement that basically makes the rest of your hardware look older much faster? There aren't really any GPUs that can maintain that in any meaningful way in a AAA title today, why bother? Just for CSGO?
I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm genuinely curious. My monitor choice would be a 1440p HDR monitor with 30-75Hz Freesync/Gsync, for example.
RadioActiveLobster
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 2008-03-11
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 2008-03-11
#5433290 Posted on: 05/18/2017 08:58 PM
Apart from specific esport games like CS, is 144Hz relevant anywhere else? Isn't that a requirement that basically makes the rest of your hardware look older much faster? There aren't really any GPUs that can maintain that in any meaningful way in a AAA title today, why bother? Just for CSGO?
I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm genuinely curious. My monitor choice would be a 1440p HDR monitor with 30-75Hz Freesync/Gsync, for example.
It's one of those things you have to kind of experience to understand.
I have 3 monitors, a 144Hz G-Sync panel and two 60 Hz panels.
Even at just the desktop I can instantly tell the difference between them. Everything on the 144Hz panel is so much smoother and more responsive.
Even if we exclude gaming completely I feel there is no contest, higher refresh rate is always better. Sure there is going to be a point of diminishing returns, at least in terms of desktop use but I see no reason to ever go with a 60Hz panel ever again.
For future display tech, Nvidia was showing of a 16,000 Hz panel for VR and it had massive benefits.
Apart from specific esport games like CS, is 144Hz relevant anywhere else? Isn't that a requirement that basically makes the rest of your hardware look older much faster? There aren't really any GPUs that can maintain that in any meaningful way in a AAA title today, why bother? Just for CSGO?
I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm genuinely curious. My monitor choice would be a 1440p HDR monitor with 30-75Hz Freesync/Gsync, for example.
It's one of those things you have to kind of experience to understand.
I have 3 monitors, a 144Hz G-Sync panel and two 60 Hz panels.
Even at just the desktop I can instantly tell the difference between them. Everything on the 144Hz panel is so much smoother and more responsive.
Even if we exclude gaming completely I feel there is no contest, higher refresh rate is always better. Sure there is going to be a point of diminishing returns, at least in terms of desktop use but I see no reason to ever go with a 60Hz panel ever again.
For future display tech, Nvidia was showing of a 16,000 Hz panel for VR and it had massive benefits.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12314
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12314
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5433292 Posted on: 05/18/2017 09:05 PM
Apart from specific esport games like CS, is 144Hz relevant anywhere else? Isn't that a requirement that basically makes the rest of your hardware look older much faster? There aren't really any GPUs that can maintain that in any meaningful way in a AAA title today, why bother? Just for CSGO?
I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm genuinely curious. My monitor choice would be a 1440p HDR monitor with 30-75Hz Freesync/Gsync, for example.
Why does it make your hardware look older, faster? If anything I feel like it makes the monitor future proof. As I buy new GPU's, all these games I play suddenly are capable of going up to the 144hz. As of right now, the games I play where I can reliably hit 4K @ 75Hz+ are: HOTS, Overwatch, CS:GO & R6 Siege and then basically every single older title - this monitor is 50% smaller than 4K - so there are probably a fair number of other games where I can 75+ if I buy this.
And then, when I drop my post Volta/Navi card or whatever in - any titles I missed now, I can go back and play at 4K, 100+Fps easily and the monitor is capable.
With my Ti, I'm seriously considering buying one of the $2K Acer/ASUS 4K 144Hz G-Sync monitors. I can run most games at 60+fps at 4K - even newer ones, you turn down 1-2 settings that barely impact visual quality. The way I see it, every single frame over 60 makes a 60+Hz monitor that much better than a 60hz one. I don't think of it like "I need 144fps to make this monitor worth it".. I think of it "I need 60+ fps to make this monitor worth it, every frame after that is just that much better". And I get new GPU's, the monitor just gets better and better because a whole slew of games that once were limited to below 60, or I'm turning down settings to hit, are now at 100+ fps.
That's my take on it anyway.
Edit: Radiolobster brings up a good point too. I have a XB270HU and 2 QHD Dell monitors and just browsing the desktop on the 60hz dell monitors annoys me. That being said, you said 75hz - which when I owned my Qnix, there was definitely a big difference between 60hz and when I overclocked it to 75hz.
Apart from specific esport games like CS, is 144Hz relevant anywhere else? Isn't that a requirement that basically makes the rest of your hardware look older much faster? There aren't really any GPUs that can maintain that in any meaningful way in a AAA title today, why bother? Just for CSGO?
I'm not trying to troll or flame, I'm genuinely curious. My monitor choice would be a 1440p HDR monitor with 30-75Hz Freesync/Gsync, for example.
Why does it make your hardware look older, faster? If anything I feel like it makes the monitor future proof. As I buy new GPU's, all these games I play suddenly are capable of going up to the 144hz. As of right now, the games I play where I can reliably hit 4K @ 75Hz+ are: HOTS, Overwatch, CS:GO & R6 Siege and then basically every single older title - this monitor is 50% smaller than 4K - so there are probably a fair number of other games where I can 75+ if I buy this.
And then, when I drop my post Volta/Navi card or whatever in - any titles I missed now, I can go back and play at 4K, 100+Fps easily and the monitor is capable.
With my Ti, I'm seriously considering buying one of the $2K Acer/ASUS 4K 144Hz G-Sync monitors. I can run most games at 60+fps at 4K - even newer ones, you turn down 1-2 settings that barely impact visual quality. The way I see it, every single frame over 60 makes a 60+Hz monitor that much better than a 60hz one. I don't think of it like "I need 144fps to make this monitor worth it".. I think of it "I need 60+ fps to make this monitor worth it, every frame after that is just that much better". And I get new GPU's, the monitor just gets better and better because a whole slew of games that once were limited to below 60, or I'm turning down settings to hit, are now at 100+ fps.
That's my take on it anyway.
Edit: Radiolobster brings up a good point too. I have a XB270HU and 2 QHD Dell monitors and just browsing the desktop on the 60hz dell monitors annoys me. That being said, you said 75hz - which when I owned my Qnix, there was definitely a big difference between 60hz and when I overclocked it to 75hz.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5433303 Posted on: 05/18/2017 09:36 PM
You both guys make good points, and I have never played using a 144Hz monitor. I'll give it a try whenever I have the chance, thanks.
You both guys make good points, and I have never played using a 144Hz monitor. I'll give it a try whenever I have the chance, thanks.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-28
After owning both 144hz and 100hz gsync monitors, i am certain that my next monitor will be 144hz or better without gsync. Tearing is hardly seen at 144hz anyway and there are multiple downsides to gsync such as, added cost, gsync scanlines, weird "waves" running down the monitor when gsync is active(seen more on some baggrounds than other). Freesync is even more crappy due to limited working range, added lag when hitting upper and lower sync range, at least its cheap.
Next monitor: 144hz with freesync disabled