too bad it doesn't support both AMD Freesync and Nvidia G-sync. this would really be a hole in the market 😉

too bad it doesn't support both AMD Freesync and Nvidia G-sync. this would really be a hole in the market 😉

I'm afraid won't see that, since no freesync user would buy a monitor with the gsync price tag I'm afraid. I guess they still sell more freesync models than if you could only get it with gsync's extra cost.

too bad it doesn't support both AMD Freesync and Nvidia G-sync. this would really be a hole in the market 😉

Who would want to run 60hz freesync when u can run 160hz vsync

So is this basically a 160Hz 19x10 panel with a couple inches slapped left and right so they include that magical 2560 number in there?

Who would want to run 60hz freesync when u can run 160hz vsync

Ehem, I'm sorry, but what the **** are you talking about?

Investing in "Hz" for gamming monitor is more demandinmg than investing in 4K. Today GPU's and CPU's are hardly handle 100 FPS not say 120 or 160FPS! I mean in SLI 🙂 2560x1080 probably its not bad resolution itself - for people which already own it. But "today" better look in 4K or atleast sub-4K res. coz You will be more feature prepared. 4K ye is demanding.. but atleast You can notoice serious difference in image quality. And on huge 4Kscreen, U can set custom resolution like.. 21:9 - U will have same thing, mby even better. oh just one thing - price is bit agressive...

Today GPU's and CPU's are hardly handle 100 FPS not say 120 or 160FPS! I mean in SLI 🙂

Who cares. If you could stay at a constant 160fps you would have no reason to have Freesync or G-sync, right? Besides, there are thousands of older, and less demanding new games that you can runt at those framerates on cheap low end PC's. Hearing this argument over and over again is really tiresome. It's pointless.

Who cares. If you could stay at a constant 160fps you would have no reason to have Freesync or G-sync, right? Besides, there are thousands of older, and less demanding new games that you can runt at those framerates on cheap low end PC's. Hearing this argument over and over again is really tiresome. It's pointless.

Thats not Me said : G-sync or Free-sync is needed with 160 FPS. But I can't agree there.. 1st coz "older games" probably don't support such specific aspect ratio well. 2nd what is the reason in buy new monitor for rly old games, and what if most like play in new titles? "hearing this argument over and over..." dude I say it first time on this forum 😀 And ofc. argument is not pointless. People should remind things, before potentially buy...

But I can't agree there.. 1st coz "older games" probably don't support such specific aspect ratio well.

Well, many do although some require modding.

2nd what is the reason in buy new monitor for rly old games, and what if most like play in new titles?

There are many new games that have light requirements. Battlefield 4 isn't the only game on the market you know. How about CSGO? It's one of the most popular multiplayer games right now, and it's one of those games that benefit the most from high refresh rate due to it's competitive nature. It's super easy to hit those framerates in CSGO on very modest machines.

"hearing this argument over and over..." dude I say it first time on this forum 😀

Wasn't meant towards you specifically. Many others write the same thing.

And ofc. argument is not pointless. People should remind things, before potentially buy...

In my humble opinion, it is more misleading than informative. The point you are trying to make assumes that everyone plays only games that run like ****, but no one seem to explain that when they write about these things so people get the wrong idea. Newbies will think they need a 980ti for 160fps in CSGO even though it couldn't be further from the truth.

^ Yep. Cant imagine buying a 1080p display nowadays for 799 euro.

The resolution should be 2560x1440. And now they have an attractive product.

Do you even realize that 2560x1440 is 16:9. This is a 21:9 monitor. It would have to be 3440x1440 to be a 21:9 monitor to be above 2560x1080.

I think 1440p is what he meant.. of course 21:9 = 3440x1440. And there are quite a few 3440x1440 units not far from that price already, some with freesync, just not at that high refresh rate. http://www.amazon.com/Acer-Curved-34-inch-UltraWide-Display/dp/B0111MRT90/

Yeah when I clicked on the article I was really hoping it was going to be 3440x1440. Its pretty much between one of those and a Rift for me atm.