Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > Display Units

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old January 24, 2016, 08:35 PM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 13,603
Default Acer Predator X34 G-SYNC Monitor Review Comment Thread

By combining a stunning 34" curved 3440x1440 IPS panel, a refresh rate of 100Hz and G-SYNC technology, the Acer Predator X34 is expensive but this may be the best gaming monitor available.

Read more here: Acer Predator X34 G-SYNC Monitor Review
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 07:15 AM
Lysrin's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,623

My System Specs

Default

Lovely display, thanks for the review. I cannot at this point "afford the price of entry"!

Question though, something I'm missing in the recommendations. AkG comments on the vertical limitation of the monitor and says "There are many users who would likely be better served by a more typical, lower priced, higher refresh rate, 2560x1440 144Hz IPS G-SYNC display." I can understand recommending the lower priced, higher refresh rate part but I don't see how 2560x1440 is going to gain you any better vertical play experience. The 1440 is the same on both monitors, all that is changing is widened horizontal from 2560 to 3440. So isn't the vertical view space exactly the same? I know one is 16:9 and one is 21:9, but again the 9 is the same in both cases. Maybe there is an issue with the way games handled scaling their menues on the 21:9 ratio?

I have always assumed with these 1440p ultrawides that I would get the same vertical experience I currently have on my 27" 2560x1440 and would just be adding on to the sides so to speak; like a smaller version of adding two more monitors on the sides. Is there something I am missing here in how the resolution is applied? Shouldn't 1440p be 1440p?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 07:23 AM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 13,603
Default

Quote:
I can understand recommending the lower priced, higher refresh rate part but I don't see how 2560x1440 is going to gain you any better vertical play experience. The 1440 is the same on both monitors, all that is changing is widened horizontal from 2560 to 3440. So isn't the vertical view space exactly the same? I know one is 16:9 and one is 21:9, but again the 9 is the same in both cases. Maybe there is an issue with the way games handled scaling their menues on the 21:9 ratio?
I think there was some confusion with an edit I did. I cleared it up now.

Yes, the vertical viewing is the same but due to the form factor, images "feel" constrained.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 08:22 AM
Lysrin's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,623

My System Specs

Default

OK thanks. So there is only a "feel" of being contrained caused by the extra width; trick of the eye. This would be a similar feel I would guess if someone was running say 3 1080p monitors in a multi-monitor set up. So in the case of the 3440x1440s in reality you are actually seeming more in game space than you would on a 2560x1440 monitor, it's just that the additional peripheral information makes it seem vertically narrow. So the example of not seeing the sniper on the roof top wouldn't be accurate. Looking forward in game you would have equal chance of seeing them on 2560x1440 and 3440x1440, correct? Although I haven't played on an ultrawide, it could perhaps be argued that you would have a greater chance of seeing them get into position on the 3440 screen as you have more chance of seeing them coming in the wider peripheral view. That a fair comment?

Thanks for the clarification. At least I don't have to relearn what resolutions mean because I just wasn't getting it! HWC is not the only site that has reviewed the ultrawides with similar language and it perplexed me. I assumed perhaps it was more related to games not handling the wide resolution well.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 08:59 AM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 13,603
Default

It really depends though. Look at the new Z35 and the BenQ we reviewed. Those utilize a 2560x1080 resolution which (IMO) is completely inferior to 2560x1440 despite their stupidly high price points.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 09:42 AM
ipaine's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 2,504

My System Specs

Default

While I'm sure it looks gorgeous, I just can't find myself liking the curved monitors. Now mind you I haven't gamed on one hardly at all, but used one at work for a bit and just didn't care for the experience. Give me a 3440x1440 or 2560x1440, but just no curves. I do think there is a chance I will end up getting a new monitor this year and would like to move up to a G-Sync one, just not going to be this one. I think I would have went with the Dell one, except they neutered it with a TN panel.
__________________
"Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong."
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 10:19 AM
Caldezar's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Port Moody, BC
Posts: 2,112

My System Specs

Default

I have the XB271HU, and had a the DELL U2713H before it... and I've really found that 2560x1440 in a 27" monitor is the ultimate size/resolution for me. I want to be able to look dead center at a monitor, and have my peripheral perfectly encompass the surrounding screen, without having to turn my head side-to-side for the outer edges. That said, I think if I was in to racing games I would be more on board with the ultra-wide, curved screens, but I really only play a couple of those.

This is a great review for, what appears to be an absolutely phenomenal monitor overall. I might even be tempted to try it just to see if I'm missing out... but not for $1700+ CAD. I just don't see it being worth almost double the price of my XB271HU. $900 was hard enough to choke down for a monitor... there's no way I'm paying double that, no matter how good it is.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 10:47 AM
Lysrin's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,623

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
It really depends though. Look at the new Z35 and the BenQ we reviewed. Those utilize a 2560x1080 resolution which (IMO) is completely inferior to 2560x1440 despite their stupidly high price points.
That res really is inferior if you have the option of 2560x1440. You are seeing less on screen compared to 1440. Not an improvement. IMO too 2560x1080 makes no sense, especially once you have used 1440. Once you game with the extra vertical real estate you really can't go back. Same as the argument in the past about comparing 1080 to 1200 with the latter being superior. If a gamer has or only wants to push 1080p, then the little bit of horizontal gain from the 2560 might be an option if they were comparitively budget priced, especially on mid-range GPUs. However certainly no gain over a 2560x1440 and at inflated prices not worth it for sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caldezar View Post
I have the XB271HU, and had a the DELL U2713H before it... and I've really found that 2560x1440 in a 27" monitor is the ultimate size/resolution for me. I want to be able to look dead center at a monitor, and have my peripheral perfectly encompass the surrounding screen, without having to turn my head side-to-side for the outer edges. That said, I think if I was in to racing games I would be more on board with the ultra-wide, curved screens, but I really only play a couple of those.

This is a great review for, what appears to be an absolutely phenomenal monitor overall. I might even be tempted to try it just to see if I'm missing out... but not for $1700+ CAD. I just don't see it being worth almost double the price of my XB271HU. $900 was hard enough to choke down for a monitor... there's no way I'm paying double that, no matter how good it is.
My interest in the ultrawide comes from the fact that I am playing Elite Dangerous and eventually Star Citizen and they would both look fantastic in ultrawide I think. MMORPGs would look nice on them too I think, giving wider views of vistas and combat. But I'm with you Caldezar, as much as I would like to throw caution to the wind and buy an ultrawide of some flavour the cost is just too far beyond reasonable for me to justify at this point. I could maybe get myself to $1000 CAD taxes in but even that would take a lot of convincing to do it guilt free!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 10:51 AM
sswilson's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 16,889

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lysrin View Post
That res really is inferior if you have the option of 2560x1440. You are seeing less on screen compared to 1440. Not an improvement. IMO too 2560x1080 makes no sense, especially once you have used 1440. Once you game with the extra vertical real estate you really can't go back. Same as the argument in the past about comparing 1080 to 1200 with the latter being superior. If a gamer has or only wants to push 1080p, then the little bit of horizontal gain from the 2560 might be an option if they were comparitively budget priced, especially on mid-range GPUs. However certainly no gain over a 2560x1440 and at inflated prices not worth it for sure.



My interest in the ultrawide comes from the fact that I am playing Elite Dangerous and eventually Star Citizen and they would both look fantastic in ultrawide I think. MMORPGs would look nice on them too I think, giving wider views of vistas and combat. But I'm with you Caldezar, as much as I would like to throw caution to the wind and buy an ultrawide of some flavour the cost is just too far beyond reasonable for me to justify at this point. I could maybe get myself to $1000 CAD taxes in but even that would take a lot of convincing to do it guilt free!
This is my issue when looking at upgrades these days. I'm so used to the 1200 that I'd never be able to go back to 1080p (that's for TVs.... ;) ) on my monitor, but I'm not convinced I have the grunt in a single 970 to properly drive 1440.
__________________
Gigabyte Z97N-WIFI / i7 4770K / 2X 8G Gskill 1866 Sniper / XFX XTR 750 / EVGA GTX 970 SSC ACX 2.0+
AZZA Titan 240 / Custom WC / Intel 730 Series 480GB SSD / Seagate Barracuda 1TB / Dell UltraSharp U2412M

Asrock AM1H-ITX / AM1 Athlon 5350 / 1X4G Gskill PC3-14900 / Intel 6235 Wi-Fi / 90W Targus Power Brick / Uncased 256GB Sandisk Z400S SSD / Mini-Box M350 / 24" Westinghouse L2410NM
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old January 25, 2016, 11:46 AM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,018

My System Specs

Default

There seems to be some confusion in arguments here, or at least amalgamation of various things.

16:10 is better than 16:9 for productivity purposes, sure. Example 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 on a monitor of the same size (lets say 24"). Of course, resolution and aspect ratio are two different things, 2560x1440 (16:9) is clearly better than 1920x1200 (16:9) by the same token. Of course, if you compare 2560x1600 (30", 16:10) to 2560x1440 (27", 16:9), the former provides more vertical space while the latter provides better pixel density (PPI). The balance of all these things matter.

However, resolutions and physical monitor size don't matter when it comes to field of view in games. This is separate from UI elements being smaller and the anti-aliasing (typically higher PPI) benefits of higher resolution.

The actual field of view is calculated based on the monitor aspect ratio along with the field of view scaling mode used.

As most games continue to use HOR+, 1920x1080 (16:9) actually provides more view horizontally, and the same view vertically, as 1920x1200 (16:10). As you can imagine, 21:9 also benefits from this, but this can be quite odd in some games unless you manually adjust the FOV value, and even then, you may not be able to get it quite right.

Anamorphic typically keeps the same view and does this for widescreen aspect ratios by cutting off a portion of the top or bottom. You may recall Witcher 2 was like this originally but fairly quickly changed due to complaints.

These are the most typically used ones, but there are others (such as Vert-, which is very detrimental to widescreen).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sswilson View Post
This is my issue when looking at upgrades these days. I'm so used to the 1200 that I'd never be able to go back to 1080p (that's for TVs.... ;) ) on my monitor, but I'm not convinced I have the grunt in a single 970 to properly drive 1440.
This is a false belief. A close relative has had both a 970 and 2560x1440 60hz monitor for at least 6 months at this point if not longer. He has played virtually everything demanding you can think of that is recent (Shadow of Mordor, Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquistion, etc) without issue.

If you are looking to simply max sliders in games you will definitely have problems, but smart adjustment of certain settings (on a per game basis) will have you playing without any worry.

Personally, I'd say you should be more concerned about the implications a higher resolution will have to your mouse settings.
__________________


Last edited by Vittra; January 25, 2016 at 11:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Acer Predator XR341CK FreeSync Monitor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Display Units 6 December 4, 2015 11:57 PM
Acer XB270HU G-SYNC Monitor Review (Comment Thread) SKYMTL Display Units 7 September 8, 2015 07:12 AM
BenQ XL2420G G-SYNC Monitor Review Comment Thread SKYMTL Display Units 21 January 22, 2015 07:26 AM