This is actually great as it should allow smooth animation at less than 60Hz, which is difficult to achieve. Even for weaker systems, it's nice as you can play at FullHD, and work/read at UHD. Too bad it doesn't support >60Hz when used with FullHD resolution. My greatest issue with this monitor is the size-to-resolution ratio. Basically, you get pretty much reference DPI (96) with 24" (94). This monitor gives you 163 DPI, which is kinda weird. If you set Windows to 200% zoom, so legacy apps don't look blurry, you'll get image enlarged beyond standard values, as with FullHD 27" monitor... Unless you don't care, or your apps support zooming properly, then there's no problem.

Why would I buy this when I can get 34" Acer with 100hz for $300 more?

Uh, because you don't want a 34" monitor, and/or you don't want to spend $300 more?

Why won't you want 34" monitor? Also if you can afford to spend 1K for monitor you can surely add little more and buy better one.

Why ask why as if there is only one answer or preference? Why do you demand others justify their preference to you?

Why won't you want 34" monitor? Also if you can afford to spend 1K for monitor you can surely add little more and buy better one.

Uh, a bunch of different reasons? For example I currently have 3, 27" monitors mounted in a surround pattern, I use them all individually, but they are all the same size and it makes it look uniform. The monitor stand I mount it on can't support a larger monitor without it overlapping another, so I physically can't go to a bigger size. I'd have to buy a new stand. Competitive video game players generally prefer smaller screens. As a fairly high level CS:GO player, I actually preferred my 24" BenQ to my 27" XB270HU because it's physically harder to see things on the corners of the screen. The 34 would be even more difficult. Is the 34 acer actually the same as this? Same Panel? Same Response time? Same Input Lag? No back light bleed problems? No build construction problems? Does it come with Freesync or G-Sync? Does it have a Vesa mount? I don't know because I personally don't even know what monitor your talking about. If you sit 3' from the screen, a 34" monitor @ 4K will have worse image quality then a 27" monitor @ 4K. Budget is $1000. Some people actually budget things and don't spend over that amount of money. You're a hobbit and live in the shire, you can't physically fit a 34" screen through your door. I don't know, my point is that it's not the same monitor and it's priced higher. It's like asking why a person who's seeking a 24" monitor wouldn't buy the more expensive 27", then once you get them that far, why not the 34?

Yep. 1440p is sweet spot for 27" imo. But there is a substantial 'moar res is better' crowd regardless of size whom marketing targets and bilks on a daily basis. Even phone manufacturers smell their money and are beginning to make 4k 5" displays for them.

I remember a time when 1080p was the "sweet spot" for monitors under 34", and even 768p was once claimed to be the spot! You are vastly underestimating the human eye my friend. Your logic is not that far from people claiming you can't see a difference above 60 fps, and we all know that's absolutely false.

I remember a time when 1080p was the "sweet spot" for monitors under 34", and even 768p was once claimed to be the spot! You are vastly underestimating the human eye my friend. Your logic is not that far from people claiming you can't see a difference above 60 fps, and we all know that's absolutely false.

Cant recall anyone saying 1080p as a sweet spot for under 34" since there were no 1080p monitors above 27" (aside from the ultra wides which are fairly recent). And we're not talking TVs either. Above 27" they get into 1440/1600p territory. But regardless, its not the point and neither is the 60fps thing much relevant. People dont seem to understand that the higher res you go, the law of diminishing returns applies. Especially when screen size is factored in. 1080p to 1440p @ 27" is quite noticeable. 1440p to 2160p @ 27" may indeed be noticeable, but much less so (when scaled equally). But it is not the OMFG-what-a-difference-gotta-buy sort of thing. I am sure you can make out test patterns designed to highlight the differences close up, but with every day general content use it may be questionable. Hell, even a 4k 40" TV viewed from 3' all it takes is for me to step back an extra couple feet or so and it becomes virtually indistinguisable from 1080p. I realize that some people may use the argument that since manufacturers make them, therefore even 24-25" 4k displays must be awesome. I think these small silly UHD models (Dell) are just for milking the gullible masses. The only reason to buy a 27" 4k display imo is due to lack of space. Size = greater immersion in my book. Therefore 30" and above for 4k is a far more interesting proposition to me than a measly 27". http://www.dr-lex.be/info-stuff/ultrahighdef.html

I remember a time when 1080p was the "sweet spot" for monitors under 34", and even 768p was once claimed to be the spot! You are vastly underestimating the human eye my friend. Your logic is not that far from people claiming you can't see a difference above 60 fps, and we all know that's absolutely false.

Haha, you're so right with this. Human eye does really weird stuff to make the image more clear, like oscillation to achieve better resolution through temporal aliasing. For example I haven't got perfect vision, and I could see issues with subpixels on 15.6" Samsung 4k laptop panel, from around 1 meter, and from around 70cm they were so obvious, that they were disqualifying that laptop. However I bought one with Sharp 4k display, which is so stupidly good, that it would be difficult to beat it in terms of clarity. At almost 300dpi, the graphics and text are very clear and smooth and there's a significant difference when compared to 150 dpi, and you can still distinguish 200dpi from it. Above that... one would need pretty good eyes or perhaps there are some other aspects of vision that I'm not aware of. Eg some of my family members with worse eyesight could still read faster from that screen and they experienced less eye fatigue. Anyway... if we call ~300dpi cool (or 288 to have perfect 3x zoom), then we'd need (calculating for 288dpi): 24" - 6k 27" - 6,8k 31" - 8k That's a lot of bandwidth, especially when people want bazilion fps. I wouldn't mind high-res screen with games rendered at low-res, but only text, gui etc, and some key areas around cursor or crosshair at native high res. It's some kind of tradeoff that could be widely adopted.

Yep. 1440p is sweet spot for 27" imo. But there is a substantial 'moar res is better' crowd regardless of size whom marketing targets and bilks on a daily basis. Even phone manufacturers smell their money and are beginning to make 4k 5" displays for them.

Some anecdotal evidence: I have long streaks, days at a time, where I get to use my laptop exclusively for college work. During those times, I do not get to sit at the desktop and use my 1440p 27" display. The laptop display is 3200x1800 13.3". When I move back to the desktop, after some time, I miss the sharpness and smooth text on the 3200x1800 display. This is telling that while 1440p @ 27" is nice, ~110PPI is not nearly enough even for a desktop monitor. I'd say that for large monitors (12"+), 300PPI is really, really crisp and anything beyond delivers diminishing returns in terms of resolving individual pixels. I'd say 5K would be a nice upgrade and that most would notice the difference on a 27" monitor, however it's the horsepower needed to drive such a resolution that is holding things back. For work, I'd go with a 5K 27" monitor blindly, especially now that 5K 27" Korean panels are starting to pop up for as little as $200. As for smaller displays... going from 300PPI --> 400PPI on a ~5" mobile display is noticeable, however, going beyond 400PPI delivers diminishing returns. While 1440p still looks sharper than a 1080p display at sizes such as 5.5" - 5.7", in most scenarios the 1080p resolution would have resolved enough detail already. Beyond 1440p on those sizes is ridiculous right now since that is clearly going to take a toll on battery particularly with LCD technology (transmissive). Sony's 4K display on the Z5 Premium is ... :stewpid:

After the SLI+Swift fiasco I don't think that people with SLI will give a chance for this one too, unless they guarantee that SLI will work with G sync at 4K..officially. Though I too believe that regardless how awesome would be with its sharpness due to good PPI after a while eyes would be very tired and it's a risky buy overall..

Give me PG279Q already.

After the SLI+Swift fiasco I don't think that people with SLI will give a chance for this one too, unless they guarantee that SLI will work with G sync at 4K..officially. Though I too believe that regardless how awesome would be with its sharpness due to good PPI after a while eyes would be very tired and it's a risky buy overall..

It's quite contrary - the sharpen the image is, the less processing is needed on eyes/brain side, effectively reducing fatigue. Nonetheless, the resolution is not the only factor. In games, I'd favor frame rate over resolution in shooters, racing, etc. In a "perfect world" I'd say such combo would be good: big, high-dpi screen for work - at least 24", 200dpi, but 27"+ and 300dpi might be good too ~24" FullHD 120Hz+ for shooters huge/wide FullHD+ 100Hz+ for racing games and other fast/immersive ones Of course it would be great to have everything in a single device, yet I think that 120Hz+ FullHD beats 40Hz UHD in games hands down even with adaptive vsync. This particular monitor seems to be for people who can't rationalize buying multiple displays or they want to play some non-competitive games at max details.

Give me PG279Q already.

Oh, and that too.

Give me PG279Q already.

165Hz dayum, good thing it has g-sync, otherwise I can't imagine what kind of GPU horsepower one needs to push constant 165 frames with max settings @1440p. But yeah, I'm having my eyes now on both PG279Q and the 34" curved one with 100Hz. 4K isn't appealing to me.