Acer Predator XR341CK 34" 144Hz Curved Gaming Screen with G-sync

MistaSparkul said:
So that's the 75Hz Freesync version eh? Bah on one hand I would LOVE for the GSync version to be capable of 100Hz, but on the other hand I would also love it if it ended up being 75Hz so I don't feel the temptation to spend $1300 to upgrade from my 270HU :p
Click to expand...

Well it all depends on what is limiting factor - screen itself or tcon module.
 
Beerandcoffee said:
http://nl.hardware.info/vergelijkingstabel/producten/301429-273735-278007-274489-247776
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. The acer seems to clobber the curved LG 34" I'm currently using (the 34UC97) in the speed tests (grey to grey, etc) toward the bottom.

I'm really looking forward to replacing the LG with the g-sync version of the Acer (assuming its as as the freesync version is)

Thanks again for the link. Thats the first real world numbers on this monitor Ive seen anywhere. Now bring on the g-sync model!
 
I really wanted this monitor until they kept leaking more information and now that it's only 75hz and the QC problems with the first batch of the 27" version....ughhhh.

I might just opt for a 4k 32" like the BenQ and call it a day. I've never had a Gsync monitor anyway so I won't really be missing out having not even played games with it before. I had high expectations for the 34" but maybe it needs another year to bake for something better to surface.
 
delita said:
I really wanted this monitor until they kept leaking more information and now that it's only 75hz and the QC problems with the first batch of the 27" version....ughhhh.

I might just opt for a 4k 32" like the BenQ and call it a day. I've never had a Gsync monitor anyway so I won't really be missing out having not even played games with it before. I had high expectations for the 34" but maybe it needs another year to bake for something better to surface.
Click to expand...

You could. I decided to try a 60hz gsync 4k panel after a few years on a 115hz pwm free xstar dp2710 (2560x1440) (an early batch) and will never be looking back. Gsync makes the motion feel almost as smooth and responsive down to about 48fps, with degradation from towards 35fps but still no tearing, so it looks a lot better than my old 115hz screen did at 80 for example overall. Input lag is nil throughout by capping my fps at 59, though one or two games like Battlefield I've been capping it to 58 on with RTSS because it spikes too far otherwise occasionally. I was shocked, to be honest, how good it looked compared to my ips and pls panels on color with a little calibration ffor accuracy, with a very small amount of shift at the top (darkening) with around a 22" eye to screen distance. I've always been a huge proponent of ips tech but for gaming and even most color work, with this thing I can work just fine and drag stuff over to my second ips display a half sec to spot check if wanted. Definitely glad I made the jump... I won't be buying anything that's not variable refresh rate again for a monitor. It's just that big a change like going to an SSD was back in mid 2008. Whether that's freesync or gsync is up to whoever, but I would strongly recommend against buying a normal panel at this point :).
 
GoldenTiger said:
You could. I decided to try a 60hz gsync 4k panel after a few years on a 115hz pwm free xstar dp2710 (2560x1440) (an early batch) and will never be looking back. Gsync makes the motion feel almost as smooth and responsive down to about 48fps, with degradation from towards 35fps but still no tearing, so it looks a lot better than my old 115hz screen did at 80 for example overall. Input lag is nil throughout by capping my fps at 59, though one or two games like Battlefield I've been capping it to 58 on with RTSS because it spikes too far otherwise occasionally. I was shocked, to be honest, how good it looked compared to my ips and pls panels on color with a little calibration ffor accuracy, with a very small amount of shift at the top (darkening) with around a 22" eye to screen distance. I've always been a huge proponent of ips tech but for gaming and even most color work, with this thing I can work just fine and drag stuff over to my second ips display a half sec to spot check if wanted. Definitely glad I made the jump... I won't be buying anything that's not variable refresh rate again for a monitor. It's just that big a change like going to an SSD was back in mid 2008. Whether that's freesync or gsync is up to whoever, but I would strongly recommend against buying a normal panel at this point :).
Click to expand...

Would you recommend the Acer XB280HK? The only thing is I was hoping for a 30+ on the 4k panel, which had me back looking at non Gsync panels like the BenQ BL3201PH. Currently running 1 Titan-X but I would upgrade to a 2nd regardless of Gsync if I go 4k.
 
As someone that owns both the Acer XB270HU 1440p G-SYNC 144hz IPS and Acer XB280HK 4K G-SYNC. I'd recommend the Acer XB270HU. IPS and higher refresh rate more than makes up for the pixel density. Also Windows is so much more usable at 1440p than on a 4k screen.
 
Last edited:
Knil said:
As some that owns both Acer XB270HU 1440p G-SYNC 144hz IPS and Acer XB280HK 4K G-SYNC. I'd recommend the Acer XB270HU. IPS and higher refresh rate more than makes up for the pixel density. Also Windows is so much more usable at 1440p than on a 4k screen.
Click to expand...

What about with Windows 10 right around the corner? I am kind of leary to drop 799 on a 1440p monitor in 2015 when I feel we all know 4k support will probably be much more widespread literally within the next year, no? Not that I couldn't just upgrade again, I can afford it. Maybe I'll get 2 displays like you and use them both in areas where they are applicable.
 
delita said:
What about with Windows 10 right around the corner? I am kind of leary to drop 799 on a 1440p monitor in 2015 when I feel we all know 4k support will probably be much more widespread literally within the next year, no? Not that I couldn't just upgrade again, I can afford it. Maybe I'll get 2 displays like you and use them both in areas where they are applicable.
Click to expand...
4K will continue to spread yes, but I don't think it's even worth considering until DP 1.3 becomes standard on all monitors/GPUs and they crack the 60Hz barrier. 4K is hogtied until then, and it will be AT LEAST a year before we see faster 4K panels and a single GPU capable of running them.

We obviously don't know yet how powerful Pascal/HBM2 is going to be, but I have a strong suspicion that even it won't be capable of running a 4K screen at 120/144Hz at reasonable frame rates, so IMO it will be 2 years before there's a 4K equivalent of a 1440p 144Hz IPS screen. We will likely see a 21:9 before that (if there is sufficient demand), as that will obviously be less demanding than 4K, but even that's a good year or so off. I'd personally stay away from this Acer 21:9 though... at only 75Hz it's way overpriced for what it is. The likes of the IPS 144Hz Acer XB270HU and upcoming Asus PG279Q have it beat hands down and for less money. At the same price there would be a good argument for it, but at over $1000, insane.

Bottom line: a quality 1440p IPS 144Hz monitor is going to be the sweetspot for a long time yet.

:)
 
Last edited:
I've been using a 32" 1080P TV as a monitor for a couple years now. Sad that there isn't a 34" 1440P 144Hz monitor out yet. I'm really wanting to upgrade, but it seems like they release the 34" monitors with something missing. Like this Acer being only 75Hz and stupidly expensive. Or the currently available 34" monitors all lacking Gsync. It's like we can't get the 34" monitor that we really want.

Are there any rumors of such a beast coming out anytime soon?
 
officer921 said:
I've been using a 32" 1080P TV as a monitor for a couple years now. Sad that there isn't a 34" 1440P 144Hz monitor out yet. I'm really wanting to upgrade, but it seems like they release the 34" monitors with something missing. Like this Acer being only 75Hz and stupidly expensive. Or the currently available 34" monitors all lacking Gsync. It's like we can't get the 34" monitor that we really want.

Are there any rumors of such a beast coming out anytime soon?
Click to expand...
No because such a monitor NEEDS Display Port 1.3 for the bandwidth, which although the specs have been locked down for, has not made its way on to any products as yet. Even if it were put on a monitor tmrw though, there is no GPU with a DP 1.3 port to plug it in to. It will almost certainly will be next year and Pascal/HBM2 before we see that, so don't hold your breath.

You'd struggle to run any AAA title above 100fps anyway, even with a 980Ti set-up, so the Acer 75Hz is the best you're going to get for now... it's way overpriced though, so I'd still recommend a 1440p 144Hz panel for the best smooth gaming experience.
 
skypine27 said:
Tft has their review of the freesync version up:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_xr341ck.htm
I'm impressed and will likely jump on the gsync model without even waiting on a review.
Click to expand...

I will definitively wait for a review:

- There are issues with NVIDIA cards, on both the overdrive circuit and the whole frame skipping issue when going above 60Hz without an AMD card.
- There is no report of overclocking attempts yet.

the XB27HU is still the nirvana of gaming monitors. The review has the great news that this monitor uses the same panel of the Dell U3415, so there is hope for a DiY solution with higher refresh rates.
 
The calibrated color results are *awesome*. Photography vies for my 'primary hobby' status, and that's not something that I'd want to leave on the table.
 
geok1ng said:
I will definitively wait for a review:

- There are issues with NVIDIA cards, on both the overdrive circuit and the whole frame skipping issue when going above 60Hz without an AMD card.
- There is no report of overclocking attempts yet.

the XB27HU is still the nirvana of gaming monitors. The review has the great news that this monitor uses the same panel of the Dell U3415, so there is hope for a DiY solution with higher refresh rates.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with 75hz. I don't care at all if the gsync version is overclockable as its something i would never be interested in doing.

I got the impression that the nvidia glitch was a result of this being the freesync version of the monitor. Acer probably expected no one with an nvidia card to use this version of the screen and probably didn't test it extensively with one. If they let the gsync version ship with the same glitch, that's really sloppy.
 
Last edited:
Wish they'd get a G-Sync model released to the wild. And if it's as good or better than the Freesync version, I hope they let us preorder. So sick of this TV I'm using for a monitor.
 
bananadude said:
You'd struggle to run any AAA title above 100fps anyway, even with a 980Ti set-up, so the Acer 75Hz is the best you're going to get for now... it's way overpriced though, so I'd still recommend a 1440p 144Hz panel for the best smooth gaming experience.
Click to expand...

That might be true for single card users but 2-way sli 980 Ti's can probably do it. And seeing how expensive this thing is what if someone wanted to keep this display for many years? Once Pascal then Volta arrives I'm sure a 2-way GP100/200 setup can really push over 100fps in many new games and definitely older games. Having more than 75Hz at least gives some sort of "future proofness".
 
MistaSparkul said:
That might be true for single card users but 2-way sli 980 Ti's can probably do it. And seeing how expensive this thing is what if someone wanted to keep this display for many years? Once Pascal then Volta arrives I'm sure a 2-way GP100/200 setup can really push over 100fps in many new games and definitely older games. Having more than 75Hz at least gives some sort of "future proofness".
Click to expand...

Yes but that's the point... once you're able to get over 75fps, you're throwing those frames away on this monitor, so it offers no future proofing whatsoever as GPUs become more powerful. That's what makes this monitor so ridiculous at this price... it's a stop gap monitor, good for now for some, but not for long. As soon as DP 1.3 is out on GPUs and monitors, this will be left in the dust. Hell, even a 1440p 144Hz beats it now on performance.
 
bananadude said:
Hell, even a 1440p 144Hz beats it now on performance.
Click to expand...

But not in size. I tried a 144hz 27" 1440p after using my 34" LG.

It was "ungamable" to me. Felt freaking tiny, like I had gone back in time to 2012.

I'd like to see 120-144hz 34" ips panels and 120-144hz 40"+ 4K panels. But we're at least a year away from the former and maybe a decade away from the latter.

I'm picking up this g-sync puppy when it's released as a hold over until 144hz models in this size (or bigger) start dropping.

I've had really good luck selling my 2nd hand tech on eBay. Keep the original box and you'd be surprised how much your can get for your older stuff.
 
skypine27 said:
But not in size. I tried a 144hz 27" 1440p after using my 34" LG.

It was "ungamable" to me. Felt freaking tiny, like I had gone back in time to 2012.

I'd like to see 120-144 34" ips panels and 120-144 40" 4K panels. But we're at least a year away from the former maybe a decade away from the latter.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do like the format of 21:9, it's very pleasant... but as you say we're a way off 120-144 34" panels until DP 1.3 lands, but even then I think people underestimate how much more horsepower will be required to run it. Not that they'll have a choice, as the necessity of DP 1.3 will force the purchase of a new GPU anyway. All in that's a sizeable investment.
 
Knil said:
As someone that owns both the Acer XB270HU 1440p G-SYNC 144hz IPS and Acer XB280HK 4K G-SYNC. I'd recommend the Acer XB270HU. IPS and higher refresh rate more than makes up for the pixel density. Also Windows is so much more usable at 1440p than on a 4k screen.
Click to expand...

I own both a comparable panel as I said, other than the gsync, for a high refresh 1440p display, and an Acer XB280HK. I'd take the XB280HK for gaming every day of the year compared to a 27" IPS nowadays. The newer gen. TN is just, for all practical intents and purposes, identical looking when gaming. Doing color-sensitive work, it has a slight shift at the very top of the screen, so I do spot-check on my side monitors which are IPS but that's really about it (the accuracy otherwise is spot on, as the reviews all indicate too, when calibrated).

Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 both work perfectly at 4K... scaling hasn't been an issue for a year at least, by now, in either OS. A handful of random utilities you might putz with for a few minutes occasionally don't have high-res icons and have to be stretched for the save or folder ones... that's really about it and it's completely fine. All of the workhorse programs like photoshop, blender, substance, unity, unreal engine, illustrator, maya, microsoft office (including all of the ones in there from onenote to word to excel), visual studio, etc. scale and work perfectly (with the exception of unity which is adding scaling shortly but currently remains fully usable anyways). The general OS interface itself, web surfing, etc. scales just as you'd see on a tablet in quality: it looks great.

2560 resolutions are very old news by now (heck, my first 2560x1600 monitor was a 30" IPS back in 2008!)... and with variable refresh techs, even the 2560 monitors with high refresh rates (I'd been running high refresh 2560x1440 on PLS since late 2012 or so until May 2014 when I hopped on the 4k train... went back briefly to that display and now have an XB280HK) are very arguably outpaced now as the high refresh rate becomes far less important for the practical impact and use, while the resolution is a major deal for image quality and as for IPS vs TN, while the new generation of TN's are fantastic, there will be IPS versions any month now.
 
I can't reconcile the notion that higher resolution trumps everything else. There is simply no way that 4K + Gsync @ 60hz is better than 144hz + Gsync/Freesync OR ULMB. Even then, with VSR & DSR being available, you can still push the 27" 2560x1440 panels to much higher resolutions - both on the desktop and in games. I'm just not seeing the advantage of a 4K, 60hz, 28" G-Sync TN panel.
 
Vittra said:
I can't reconcile the notion that higher resolution trumps everything else.
Click to expand...

Some people do more than game and want the extra desktop real estate that 4K provides. Thus, the compromise with slower 4K panels.

Vittra said:
I'm just not seeing the advantage of a 4K, 60hz, 28" G-Sync TN panel.
Click to expand...

Me either. Bleh. Small, 60Hz, and the worst viewing angles.

The reason I'm willing to deal with 4K @ 60Hz is because the huge panel size of my display makes for an extremely immersive gaming experience. It's not the fastest available, but it's damn engrossing.
 
4K with G-Sync is not enticing enough for me. I need size. I'll be interested when they make a 40"+ 4K with G-Sync and/or high refresh rate (preferably both). We are quite a ways off from that...gotta wait until DP 1.3 for 4K at high refresh rates, and even then will they cater to the larger sizes?
 
there is a whole lot of confusion and misinformation going on [H]ere.

when it comes for features desirable in " gaming" monitors, nothing beats a strobing backlight,. I dare say that in 2015 if a monitor does not have a strobing backlight, it should not be considered a " gaming" monitor.

The predator 34" is way below the 27" when it comes to gaming. this does not mean that it is not a very good monitor, only that it is not a true gaming solution when compared to the competing 4k 40" alternatives.
 
According to that TFT Central, the G-Sync version (XR341CKA) "will feature an ULMB strobe backlight (Ultra Low Motion Blur) mode as part of the G-sync module for blur reduction benefits."

Unless they really flub it, the G-Sync version of the Predator 34" should be pretty killer! Just wish it was the originally announced 100Hz...
 
I'm sure I read somewhere that ULMB doesn't function below 85/100Hz? If so, the G-Sync version can't be 75Hz if it has ULMB. Some clarification is needed.
 
I think what thresholds it works at can be specified by Nvidia and they tailor it to the particular monitor in question. I've seen different values on different monitors over the course of it's lifespan. We should be also dealing with a Gsync 2.0 module in this monitor.

ULMB is usually mentioned as being most effective when pushing 100+fps though, so I'm not sure if it's the right choice over using G-sync for this monitor. It's going to depend on the individual I imagine.

imyourzero said:
Some people do more than game and want the extra desktop real estate that 4K provides. Thus, the compromise with slower 4K panels.
Click to expand...

My comment was specifically with reference to GoldenTiger saying he'd take the XB280HK over the XB270HU for gaming in particular. It really doesn't hold any advantage at all over the XB270HU - you can even use DSR on the desktop to hit higher resolution (It's 27" vs 28" after all, not significantly larger like the panel you are using) and retain all it's other benefits - Gsync/ULMB, IPS, 144hz.
 
bananadude said:
I'm sure I read somewhere that ULMB doesn't function below 85/100Hz? If so, the G-Sync version can't be 75Hz if it has ULMB. Some clarification is needed.
Click to expand...

The frequency of s strobe at 60Hz would cause visible flicker which is where the problem lies. But no reason the frequency of the strobe couldn't be doubles to 120hz (twice per frame) to eliminate visible flicker and still provide blur reduction benefits
 
85 Hz is the bare minimum I would consider for a strobe back-light. Anything below that the flicker becomes real noticeable. Preferable of course is 100+ Hz.
 
geok1ng said:
there is a whole lot of confusion and misinformation going on [H]ere.

when it comes for features desirable in " gaming" monitors, nothing beats a strobing backlight,. I dare say that in 2015 if a monitor does not have a strobing backlight, it should not be considered a " gaming" monitor.

The predator 34" is way below the 27" when it comes to gaming. this does not mean that it is not a very good monitor, only that it is not a true gaming solution when compared to the competing 4k 40" alternatives.
Click to expand...

The thing is, 27" is tiny. 2012 tiny.

People who want these 34" monsters, myself included, are generally most concerned with real estate for the immersion factor.

I was playing the witcher 3 last night on my 34" curved LG. WOW did it look awesome. I'll take the extra foot of width over anything 27" has to offer.
 
skypine27 said:
The thing is, 27" is tiny. 2012 tiny.

People who want these 34" monsters, myself included, are generally most concerned with real estate for the immersion factor.

I was playing the witcher 3 last night on my 34" curved LG. WOW did it look awesome. I'll take the extra foot of width over anything 27" has to offer.
Click to expand...

Meh size is really just preference. Some would consider 34 inch to be really tiny compared to their 50-60 inch TVs and others would consider that to be tiny compared to their 100+ inch projector screens. Just like you find 34 inch to be a good size many of us are perfectly fine with 27 inch and what it offers.
 
MistaSparkul said:
Meh size is really just preference. Some would consider 34 inch to be really tiny compared to their 50-60 inch TVs and others would consider that to be tiny compared to their 100+ inch projector screens. Just like you find 34 inch to be a good size many of us are perfectly fine with 27 inch and what it offers.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Take my GF for example. She is perfectly fine with 4 inches and what it offers. Ba-da, ting!

You're right, though. It's all subjective. Good thing there are so many monitors to accommodate the wide variety of preferences. It's just a shame when people start taking this stuff personally and going on the defensive/attack over an electronics purchase. People need to accept that not their choice may not be right for everyone and move on.

It's easy to lose perspective. 27" feels OK until you use a 34", 40"+. 60hz feels just fine until you experience 120hz, etc. But the only people worth listening to are those who have used both.
 
I went from a 32" 1440p to a 27" 1440p and although I liked the size of 32" it was a bit big for general web browsing etc. but the PPI at 1440p 27" is much nicer. Anything above 27-28 would have to then jump to 4k which is just not possible to run on any realistic PC. No idea why there is not something between 1440p and 4k for sizes around 32".
 
imyourzero said:
Exactly. Take my GF for example. She is perfectly fine with 4 inches and what it offers. Ba-da, ting!

You're right, though. It's all subjective. Good thing there are so many monitors to accommodate the wide variety of preferences. It's just a shame when people start taking this stuff personally and going on the defensive/attack over an electronics purchase. People need to accept that not their choice may not be right for everyone and move on.

It's easy to lose perspective. 27" feels OK until you use a 34", 40"+. 60hz feels just fine until you experience 120hz, etc. But the only people worth listening to are those who have used both.
Click to expand...

even though i've lost a lot of my competitive drive over the last couple of years, i still can't stand playing on anything bigger than my qnix, and even then 27" is still not the optimal size for competitive gaming (23-24 is.) you start missing things as you move the edges further and further into your peripheral, especially in games like battlefield or counter-strike where enemies tend to blend into the environment somewhat. i've posted this sentiment elsewhere, but bigger does not always equal better. it can be more fun however, but personally, i would only ever play single player games where aiming isn't required, like witcher 3, on the big screen.
 
Nicholars said:
I went from a 32" 1440p to a 27" 1440p and although I liked the size of 32" it was a bit big for general web browsing etc. but the PPI at 1440p 27" is much nicer. Anything above 27-28 would have to then jump to 4k which is just not possible to run on any realistic PC. No idea why there is not something between 1440p and 4k for sizes around 32".
Click to expand...

What is your definition of a realistic PC? You realize that there are many people already running 4K, right? ;) It certainly doesn't make up the majority yet, but it's definitely doable without absolute top of the line hardware.

Odellus said:
even though i've lost a lot of my competitive drive over the last couple of years, i still can't stand playing on anything bigger than my qnix, and even then 27" is still not the optimal size for competitive gaming (23-24 is.) you start missing things as you move the edges further and further into your peripheral, especially in games like battlefield or counter-strike where enemies tend to blend into the environment somewhat. i've posted this sentiment elsewhere, but bigger does not always equal better. it can be more fun however, but personally, i would only ever play single player games where aiming isn't required, like witcher 3, on the big screen.
Click to expand...

I've actually heard the opposite - that a larger screen gives a competitive advantage because what used to be a tiny blob of pixels on a smaller monitor can be recognized as an enemy (or whatever else) on a larger monitor.

As with everything, there are pros and cons. Personally I don't know and don't really care which is better for competitive use. I play for me, and larger wins every time (within reason). I'd rather feel like I'm playing on a movie screen than a normal monitor. But I can understand how for some, 27"-30" is pushing it and 32"-34" seems absolutely huge. Like I said, it's all about perspective.
 
imyourzero said:
I've actually heard the opposite - that a larger screen gives a competitive advantage because what used to be a tiny blob of pixels on a smaller monitor can be recognized as an enemy (or whatever else) on a larger monitor.
Click to expand...

that sounds like it could be true but it isn't at all. there's no game where you're not going to see someone because they're too small on the screen. maybe if you were playing on a phone from 2 feet away. even in battlefield where the maps are very large that doesn't happen, so it's definitely not ever going to happen in something like quake or cs. when you have a smaller area to focus on, any movement in that area is going to be much more noticeable. also, you could probably count the number of professional fps players that use a screen bigger than 24" on one hand. pretty much every quake player uses a 24" screen except for some guys using 21"~ crts and one guy using a pg278q. don't know about cs players that much but all the guys i've checked out were usually using benq xl24211ts or similar. just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
I definitely see what you're saying. At the same time, one could argue that the movement is going to be smaller and less noticeable. I think that's where people are coming from on the other side of this debate.

I do think that there is a point where large is too large. I would not want to sit 2.5 ft. away from a 65" display. You would most certainly miss things that were going on at the edges or in the corners. But a 40" does an excellent job of filling your field of vision without being so large that you have to turn your head/neck to see the perimeter of the display.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top