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

skypine27 said:
The monitor we are talking about hasn't even been released yet dude. We are hoping for September.

However, if you have the patience to read through the Philipps 40" 4K thread on this board.....

You will find a user in there who has was using the LG 34" 34uc97 (the curved 34" 3440 x 1440 IPS) and then picked up the 40" Philipps for comparison.

I was really interested in his thoughts, since I am using the exact same LG 34" and was considering going BIG 4K for gaming (was running 2 x 980s back then, am running 2 x Titan Xs now) and sent him a few PMs asking for comparison.

In his opinion, HANDS DOWN WINNER was the big ass 40" 4k Philipps (again, we are talking for gaming). He played some of the same titles as I do and is NOT a competitive online FPS guy (i.e. online BF4, CoD, etc) Instead, he enjoys PvE FPS (Far Cry 4, etc) and RTS and online MMO games. He loved the Philipps for this and said he would never go back to the "tiny" size of a 34" 3440 x 1440

He posted some side by side pics of the LG vs the 40" Philipps on his desktop. The Philipps IS HUGE and towers over the "tiny" LG. This reminds me of the time I bought the 27" Asus ROG PG278Q swift as a possible replacement to my 34" LG. I couldn't do it. The speed was nice, but after getting used to 34" / 3440 x 1440 the Swift literally felt like stepping down to 22" monitor from 2010 so I sold it. He felt the same way about the 34" LG. Once he got used to the size of 40" 4K, he couldn't go down to anything lower.

So I think you'll find its a case of what you are used to. Im used to 34" 3440 x 1440 and there is no way I would down grade to any 27" or anything at 2560 x 1440, including real gems like the 144hz 2560 x 1440 IPS models we have out there now. Nope, I cant do it; 27" is tiny for me now days. The only way I can go is UP. I would go to a 40" 4K once the pic quality is nice. Or I could go up in speed, keeping the same 34" 3440 x 1440 real-estate. Ideally, I would love to go up to a 75-120 hz 40" 4K and drop in a 3rd Titan X, but that display tech simply isn't going to show up for a LONG time. I cant downgrade to a TN panel ever, once you go IPS color you aren't going to accept TN colors ever again. So I would think if you got used to 40" 4K like he did, you would NOT be able to step down to this new upcoming Predator at 3440 x 1440 @ 75hz or even @ 100hz. Your perceived benefits from picking up 15hz or even 40 hz + g-sync vs what you give up, i.e. 4k res on a nice 40" screen, well, you just wouldn't be happy with it.

Anyway, find that guy in the thread and PM him, he will reply.
Click to expand...

This is why they need to make a large G-Sync monitor. I can't live with a tiny ass screen anymore, and I can't live without variable refresh anymore.

These shitty display manufacturers are dropping the ball. It's absurd that there isn't a monitor for everyone.
 
I like the thought of a 40" 4k, but knowing the FPS hit you take pushing all those pixels and the power required to get a good framerate, it really seems counter-intuitive.

I ran SLI one time, and regretted it badly. I don't want to have to buy the newest $1000 single slot card every time one is released just to get a decent framerate at 4k+. I think 3440 x 1440 is as high as I'm willing to go until we get some cards that are drastically better than what we have now. Or is there something I'm missing here?
 
officer921 said:
I like the thought of a 40" 4k, but knowing the FPS hit you take pushing all those pixels and the power required to get a good framerate, it really seems counter-intuitive.

I ran SLI one time, and regretted it badly. I don't want to have to buy the newest $1000 single slot card every time one is released just to get a decent framerate at 4k+. I think 3440 x 1440 is as high as I'm willing to go until we get some cards that are drastically better than what we have now. Or is there something I'm missing here?
Click to expand...

We aren't far off from that point. I'm only running one of my GTX 980s right now (took the other one out temporarily to test a sound card), and it's not like games are a slideshow. And I've had no issues with SLI.

But if you're hesitant to run SLI, a single GTX 980Ti (not even close to $1000) will provide an enjoyable experience right now. And it'll just keep getting better the gen after this one, and the gen after that one, etc. We're past the point of 4K being unplayable, or taking $3,000 in GPUs to run.

144Hz and G-Sync will still provide a smoother experience, but there's nothing in a size that appeals to me yet. 48" 4K is like gaming at the movies, and 60Hz is more than smooth enough to enjoy.
 
imyourzero said:
144Hz and G-Sync will still provide a smoother experience, but there's nothing in a size that appeals to me yet. 48" 4K is like gaming at the movies, and 60Hz is more than smooth enough to enjoy.
Click to expand...
Not for me personally.

This is about aesthetics too, I hate when people say that high fps+high hz is only for competition/twitch.

100fps-hz/120fps-hz/144fps-hz:
~40/50/60% blur reduction, 5:3/2:1/2.4:1 increase in motion definition and path articulation, g-sync rides the fps graph +/- without screen aberrations

That said I'm fine with running very high settings (rather than the arbitrarily set ultra ceiling) to achieve a 100fps+ playing framerate, and utilizing g-sync to ride the fps graph +/- which would go into the 120's and 130's on the high end.

4k would need 120hz+ circuitry and gaming overdrive and probably require dp 1.3 - 1.4a output gpus and dp 1.3 - 1.4 inputs on the 4k monitor before I'd even consider it for a gaming panel. (That said, valve and occulus' VR headsets that I am interested in are currently 'only' 90hz but that's still better than 60).

Also, anything much over 30" - 32" (16:9) at desk distances is oversized imo since it just makes the exact same 16:9 scene jumbo and pushes the extents (and interface/huds/notifications) way into your periphery for an eye-bending and micro neck bending experience. That is unlike the 21:9 aspect or triple monitor where it actually adds more scene real-estate/FoV rather than just making the same 16:9 scene JUMBO on a wall in front of your face.
 
Last edited:
It's a matter of preference. For some, anything smaller than 40/48 inches isn't good enough but 60Hz is. There are probably others who want even bigger sizes like 60/70 in order for it to be good enough. I'm on the same boat as you as I don't consider 60Hz to be good enough, but 27 inches will do for now. It's too bad we can't have it all yet, 40+ inches 4k/5k 144Hz G sync all in one package.
 
I always find it funny when people talk about "60 Hz" is good enough, anything faster is only for FPS etc...

What most people don't realize is motion clarity falls right into the category of picture quality. I guess if you are using photoshop all day 60 Hz is OK. Anything with movement; what's the benefit of 1 Billion to 1 contrast ratio or the best colors ever imagined if any movement is a blurred mess?

I'm not staring at a painting in an art museum. Thing's move and motion clarity has been and still is the most under-rated and under-valued aspect of display technology.
 
There are tons of games with little or no motion. I don't see the point of playing Civilizations or Cities: Skylines at higher than 60hz. The better motion clarity makes little difference.
 
A background moving as slow as 480px/sec will already get noticeably blurred at 60hz refresh rates due to the sample&hold effect.
Especially fine detail and text are harder to see.
example:
http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=toronto-map.png&pps=480&pursuit=0&height=0

So there should be quite a "comfort boost" at higher refresh rates during regular use and even in applications such as Photoshop or Strategy games.
 
Last edited:
elelunicy said:
There are tons of games with little or no motion. I don't see the point of playing Civilizations or Cities: Skylines at higher than 60hz. The better motion clarity makes little difference.
Click to expand...

Bingo. And I would love to see the newest sim city on 40" 4K too.
 
elelunicy said:
I don't see the point of playing Civilizations or Cities: Skylines at higher than 60hz. The better motion clarity makes little difference.
Click to expand...
I do. :)

Just panning the camera around is enough for me to hate the motion blur of LCDs.

I loved my ULMB FG2421, but hated VA panels so I returned it; been running on my 75Hz no strobing PB298Q and even just navigating the desktop is much, much blurrier when in motion, not to mention less responsive from an input and visual standpoint. And yes, I can see the difference between 60 and 75Hz. It's not very different, but it is noticeable, especially if you run games at a solid 75FPS for a while then drop down to 60.

If there ever gets to be a 120+Hz strobing supported 21:9 (that isn't asinine VA) or 16:10, I'd jump to it ASAP (provided it was IPS/OLED/Futuretech). The difference even on the desktop alone is like night and day.
 
I did find this site stating ACER oc'd the monitor to 100hz ... If they sell it out of the box at 100hz I'm sold!
see http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/4/8726489/acer-asus-curved-monitors-computex-2015 "The company has also overclocked the refresh rate from 75Hz to 100Hz..."

If there were not so many complaints about the acer 144hz 27" IPS I would have bought it.
My initial preference would be this Acer 21/9 or the similar Asus with gsync 21/9 but I'm wondering if the 75hz are enough? I have 120hz on my laptop and I love the smoothness.
So now I'm even considering the Z35 HD 21/9 with 144hz gsync.
After all most of us were also happy gamers years ago when res was much lower... but this now adds smoothess of 144hz + Gsync in 21/9.

XR341CK (now called Z34 btw) vs the Acer Z35 monitor :

Advantages:

I love the blacks of VA and I don't need better viewing angels, I sit in front of my screen ;-)
2560x1080=2.764.800 vs 3440x1440= 4.953.600 pixels so fps almost doubles (I have 1 gtx980 but considering SLI)?
1" bigger than the 34" 21/9 displays.
most of all 144hz

I don't like :

all the extra useless internal speakers on the z35 (just adds to the price)
Colours and styling looks like it's build for kids
probably overpriced for just an extra wide HD screen.
In desktop the 1080p pixel density might suck (but enough for gaming in my opinion)

The Z35 also has more curve but I don't know it if this is better or worse...
But if they sell the Z34 out of the box at 100hz I'm buying that.
What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
MistaSparkul said:
It's a matter of preference.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don't understand why I can't just say that I prefer a larger 60Hz screen without a bunch of people trying to justify why these smaller, faster monitors are better for them. That's cool that you guys don't think 60Hz is enough for an enjoyable experience. I'm not knocking anyone for their choices, so why point out why mine is not for you?

Look, we all know that there is no perfect display and it's all about compromise. What are you willing to give up in order to have your important check boxes ticked? Greater than 60Hz is important to you guys, I get it. I've owned a 120Hz monitor capable of ULMB and the motion smoothness/clarity sure was nice. But I enjoy the experience that a huge 4K screen provides. Not only does the size greatly increase immersion, I do more than just play games and 4K is a godsend for productivity on the desktop (something no one has addressed in between all of the "moar speedz" comments).

Also, elvn, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but I have owned monitors of all sizes, including 27", 30", 32", 34", 40", etc. and I have to disagree. 32" is nice, but 40" is better (again, as far as immersion and bringing you into the game). I can't stand triple monitor because of the bezels, and I did hop on board that 21:9 train for a while. With two different 34" 21:9 monitors in fact. You're right about the extra FOV, but it doesn't come without downsides such as the fisheye effect near the edges and let's not gloss over the fact that those monitors are very vertically challenged. Plus it can be a bit tricky to get working with some games, while 16:9 is universally supported. I loved the width of the ultrawides, but the height left much to be desired. They are sooo narrow. You think my 48" gaming experience is silly but there are a whole lot of people in the Samsung thread having the exact same experience and loving it, so I'm not alone. In fact that thread is many times larger than this one, so there must be something that people like about gaming on large 4K displays. And yes, many of us are saying that it would be nice if we had 144Hz and G-Sync, but they don't

So there's no need for anyone to feel the need to justify why more hertz is better when I'm following the discussion and casually mention that I prefer a larger, more immersive experience until 144Hz and/or G-Sync comes to the larger monitors. I get it. I just choose something else right now, but I would like to follow along as these monitors advance with exciting new features. No one is right or wrong, but there are a few elitists who will inevitably say that my choice is wrong and theirs is right. Oh well, doesn't affect me or take away from my enjoyment. ;)
 
imyourzero said:
Look, we all know that there is no perfect display and it's all about compromise. What are you willing to give up in order to have your important check boxes ticked?
Click to expand...

Nuff said. Unfortunately there is no way around it.
 
Of course people have their preferences and monitors have their tradeoffs. Some people prefer console gaming and TVs even.
When you say that 60hz is "more than smooth enough" I just have to vehemently disagree though. There is so much better available now finally after so many years. Still not perfect but measurably greatly superior motion excellence (blur reduction + motion definition). 4k for the time being is stuck in the mud.

Regarding the size comments..

I've owned a 37" 16:9 and found it eye bending and micro neck bending at normal desk viewing distances (~2') considering the vast majority of 16:9 game scenes. interfaces, and design. I moved it back around 4' on a pillar and sold it soon afterward.

27" isn't much smaller than the standard 30" 16:10 apples to apples ppi-to-perspective wise (see image below). You are talking about TV sizes more than typical monitor sizes. 27" and 30" aren't small desktop monitors.

Perceived size is relative to viewing distance.
A 21:9 or 27" 2560x1440's perceived size to your perspective at typical desk viewing distances of ~ 2' (and possibly on an ergo monitor arm) is quite large and can push well into your periphery horizontally.
In an extreme example, VR headset's tiny screens are hugely immersive to your perspective. Conversely, 50"+ 1080p tvs at living room viewing distances won't appear to have bad ppi having been "shrunk" to your perspective.
21:9 3440x screens are the same height as 27" 16:9. The "narrowness" is extra width by design for a wider aspect and immersive sides in games and additional desktop real-estate, not for sinking the monitor space back further and essentially shrinking it to your perspective.

40"+ with the standard 16:9 viewpoint at ~ 2' +/- is ridiculous for gaming imo. The only way I could see doing that is if all games allowed you to set up a virtual central monitor space containing the standard scene and interface elements, with all the added screen size being additional FoV for immersion, or otherwise have FoV manipulation with similar result. Making the same exact 16:9 scene JUMBO on a giant wall in front of your face (at a desk) and out of bounds is not the same thing as adding more game world real-estate/FoV for immersion.



Desktop resolution real-estate comparison below. In this same-ppi comparison the 4k screen is 40.8". Desktop real-estate wise, it makes more sense to me to have slightly larger with higher resolution like 4k. (Nearly all) games don't work that way though.

4k_21x9_2560x-27in-and-30in_1080p_same-ppi.jpg


I do agree that bezels in multi monitor setups are bad and they are not for me. (Perhaps three 21:9's or a 21:9 in the middle of two 16:9's with thin and tucked bezels would be ok though since the bezels would be far from my focal/central view).
Someday a taller (though not wall), high rez, wide aspect 144hz g-sync monitor would be great. I hope VR will continue to mature over time into higher resolutions at high hz as well, with games designed from the ground up for the "giant screen" of VR - with immersive FoV and suitable interfaces.

These 21:9 screens like this thread talks about are tempting but I'm probably going to hold out for a 3440x1440 144hz someday rather than the 2560x1080 144hz or the 3440x1440 100hz, as well as following valve and oculus's VR systems and most likely getting a VR setup eventually.
 
Last edited:
Yes, hopefully VR will be the end game for us and none of this conventional monitor tech will even matter (one day).

High Hz is great, there's no doubt. But as I said, we buy displays based on what creates the best experience for us. You don't agree that 60Hz provides an enjoyable experience when there are faster displays out there, and you don't like sitting close to huge displays. That's fine - who am I to argue? But I and others (reference: the hundreds of people in the Philips and Samsung threads) prefer huge displays as we find them to provide greater immersion. Yes, we like the JUMBO sized screens and the IMAX-like experience that they provide. I did not get that from a 27", 30", 32", or 34" monitor, no matter how close I sat from them (typical distance for me is 2.5 ft.).

Simply put, you guys have been spoiled by high Hz displays and you no longer find 60 Hz acceptable. Conversely, I have been spoiled by large displays that make me feel like I am there and have no desire to go back to a smaller display. You are not speaking out of ignorance because you've owned larger displays and didn't care for them. Similarly, I am not speaking out of ignorance because I've owned a 120 Hz display. We have both "been there, done that" and we can make our cases all day long but at the end of it all, no one is changing anyone else's mind. :) Just buy what makes you happy. That's what I do and it works out well.

At least we agree on the bezel issue! ;)
 
I am very happy with my 60hz 34" Samsung. The only way I would upgrade is if Samsung makes a 144hz ultrawide. I cannot bring myself to actually spend money on an Acer product.
 
30" is about my limit for a computer monitor. I have one at work and tend to sit about 2 feet from mine and I already struggle to see edges. I can't imagine playing infront of a 40", that's just insane to me. I would easily give up size for smoothness though. I don't think I can go back after gaming at 144hz, it's just too magical, which is why I got an ROG swift at home. 27" is not to big and not too small for me.

I am curious about curved displays though. I wonder if it will solve the problems I have with large displays and making my peripheral vision feel weird.
 
If your desk isn't up against the wall like a bookshelf you could always set a larger monitor back further. Living room scenarios would also be great for large high hz + variable hz panels.

If desktop rez was very high and all the gaming and gpu tech worked in windowed mode better you'd have a lot more options for gaming on a "wall monitor". More customizable fov options would be great for it too like i mentioned in previous post. More or less running virtual monitors within a desktop rez and adding fov outside of the middle one. For now 21:9 high hz g-sync and 90hz VR are looking like the near and realistic future though.
 
Last edited:
Immersion is a ratio of screen size versus viewing distance and PPI. If you say, get a 40" 4K monitor and push it all the way to the back of your desk, you may end up with the same apparent viewing arc as a small monitor closer in. Defeating the purpose of getting a 40" in the first place.

It's like those people that buy 55" 4K TV's for their family rooms and then sit twelve feet away from it. Completely pointless.
 
Exactly. Which is why those of us who bought the 40" and 48" Samsungs typically sit between 2-4' away. It increases immersion. But then you have those who say that's way too close to sit to such a large screen, etc. etc. Mine fills a large portion of my field of vision. If I use a smaller monitor, or sit further back from a larger one, you're right -- immersion is lost because then I see less screen and more wall behind it, etc.

There's really no point in debating futher. I never knocked the Acer or any other niche gaming display, just indicated my preference for large 4K because of the immersion factor and extra pixels that can be used for desktop productivity. And I am not alone, just as those who prefer smaller higher speed displays are not alone. You guys need to realize that different people like different things, and it doesn't mean anyone is wrong. It just means that you value different characteristics and prefer another type of experience.

Looking forward to seeing this tech advance further. If a 40" 144Hz G-Sync VA was available right now, I'd be willing to spend quite a bit of money on it. But it doesn't exist, so I have to choose between size and speed until that day comes.
 
imyourzero said:
There's really no point in debating futher. I never knocked the Acer or any other niche.
Click to expand...

No, you actually just insist on posting in every thread possible in an attempt to rationalize your Samsung purchase instead.
 
Nikyo said:
No, you actually just insist on posting in every thread possible in an attempt to rationalize your Samsung purchase instead.
Click to expand...

Every thread possible? Hmm, at the moment I'm only following the Samsung thread, the Philips thread, this Acer thread, and a couple of BenQ threads. Why? Because at one time or another, I had genuine interest in all of them. And I'm still interested in seeing what people think of the XR341CK. But nice try, troll.

That's a funny comment coming from you, who posts in numerous monitor threads saying that any display that uses PWM is unbearable trash. I remember you and NCX posting such comments in the Philips and Samsung threads in fact, before you basically got run out of there after people realized that they were tremendously impressed with them. And you had zero interest in the display, so...why did you post there again? :confused:
 
imyourzero said:
Every thread possible? Hmm, at the moment I'm only following the Samsung thread, the Philips thread, this Acer thread, and a couple of BenQ threads. Why? Because at one time or another, I had genuine interest in all of them. And I'm still interested in seeing what people think of the XR341CK. But nice try, troll.

That's a funny comment coming from you, who posts in numerous monitor threads saying that any display that uses PWM is unbearable trash. I remember you and NCX posting such comments in the Philips and Samsung threads in fact, before you basically got run out of there after people realized that they were tremendously impressed with them. And you had zero interest in the display, so...why did you post there again? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, you're so interested that you're constantly telling people that you can't go below 40-48", k.

I only posted in the Samsung thread before and about all of two times after the fact to clear up some fairly ridiculous misinformation. Anything else was addressed toward Agent00F, who apparently believes he knows more about PWM and motion blur than Mark Rejhon. If you actually think it's logically sound to believe a monitor = good, largely because of favorable reviews from people extremely uneducated in display tech, then I suppose you should also apply the same logic and buy a pair of Beats based on a large number of favorable amazon reviews. Plus, I hear they're really popular with high school students; we know how knowledgeable they are about music!

But yes, I post in multiple threads warning about PWM and recommending alternatives, because the alternatives are far superior in more ways than one, and it is illogical to recommend a product that destroys motion clarity and has potential health hazards. What a piece of shit I am, right? Perhaps rethink your definition of troll, and your own post-purchase rationalization.
 
Look man, no one cares about our little argument. If you don't like what I post, feel free to put me on your ignore list. My IL is empty because even though I get frustrated with some things that members post, sometimes I do glean valuable information. Case in point - you posted in the BenQ BL3201 thread that it has less glow than most IPS monitors. As someone who likes IPS colors but hates IPS glow, that was useful to me.

I just ask that you stop overlooking the main recurring theme that I've been posting lately which is that, although I currently prefer what I have over other options, it doesn't mean that those other options are bad and that no display is right for everyone. But despite me posting that time and time again, others retract in shock that I might be enjoying something that they have no interest in and feel the need to post why Option X is superior in their eyes.

And it's not about justifying anything. I could just as easily make a dumb comment that anyone who isn't gaming on a large 4K is jealous of such a setup, but I know that's not the case. I realize that not everyone needs or wants a large monitor, or cares about anything other than refreshing those pixels as fast as possible. I'm still well within the return window for my display, so rest assured that if I was unhappy with it in any way, I wouldn't be going out of my way to justify it, I'd be sending it back.
 
I appreciate the good natured and reasonable exchange we've had about this (at least between a few of us).
Even though we've discussed this quite a bit already at this point, I hope the following will explain the concept better than I was able to relay it before.

I can agree about size in itself's potential.
- it is the lack of increased size at desk distances providing any increase in game real-estate in practically all games that is the real issue.

It's like saying you want to be surrounded by more of the world than what you can see out of an average window sized porthole/tunnel through a thick vault wall, but instead of blowing out more of the wall to make a bigger window and see/be surrounded by more of the world - you instead install a huge magnifying glass to blow the exact same window FoV and scene elements up in front of your face to the point where you can't see the periphery head on without turning your eyeballs and head to the extremes and back over and over.

In games eye-bending to the periphery to see huds - notifications, pointers, chat, minimap, action bars, etc as well.
Of course in most games you can actually move the "window" to look around freely too but you get the point I think :p

That is in regard to size at desk distances, besides the blurry and low motion def/path-articulation of 60hz/4k, at least currently
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
I appreciate the good natured and reasonable exchange we've had about this (at least between a few of us).
Even though we've discussed this quite a bit already at this point, I hope the following will explain the concept better than I was able to relay it before.

I can agree about size in itself's potential.
- it is the lack of increased size at desk distances providing any increase in game real-estate in practically all games that is the real issue.

It's like saying you want to be surrounded by more of the world than what you can see out of an average window sized porthole/tunnel through a thick vault wall, but instead of blowing out more of the wall to make a bigger window and see/be surrounded by more of the world - you instead install a huge magnifying glass to blow the exact same window FoV and scene elements up in front of your face to the point where you can't see the periphery head on without turning your eyeballs and head to the extremes and back over and over.

In games eye-bending to the periphery to see huds - notifications, pointers, chat, minimap, action bars, etc as well.
Of course in most games you can actually move the "window" to look around freely too but you get the point I think :p

That is in regard to size at desk distances, besides the blurry and low motion def/path-articulation of 60hz/4k, at least currently
Click to expand...

That.. is pretty accurate to my feeling actually. Which is why we need this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPKPrD7-hT0
 
Woah - quite alot of strange posts here by people defending "their" choice of screen!

I recently switched from a 1080p 24" 120hz gaming monitor to a 27" 1440p Korean IPS.
At first the IPS was so slow and it felt a bit like there was sub-30 fps when I was hitting 60+ all the time. After using the screen for 6 months it now feels much better and I don't notice the slowness that much.

Anyway, I'm interested in the Acer XR341CK 34" as it would be the perfect next step. It got everything!

However, backlight bleed issues are probably there like with most "new" gaming IPS screens out there.

If it has been covered earlier in the thread pardon me asking, but does anyone know ( far fetched question ) how bad backlight bleeding might be with Acer's 34"?
 
Xelathur said:
If it has been covered earlier in the thread pardon me asking, but does anyone know ( far fetched question ) how bad backlight bleeding might be with Acer's 34"?
Click to expand...

ASUS have confirmed that curved displays are more prone to backlight bleed.

Curved displays are considerably more difficult to ensure uniform backlighting and brightness consistency than traditional displays.
Click to expand...
https://pcdiy.asus.com/2015/06/asus-34-ultrawide-qhd-ips-219-curved-g-sync-monitor/
 
Last edited:
If it has significantly more chance of bad back light bleed then they have significantly less chance of getting my money.
 
zehoo said:
If it has significantly more chance of bad back light bleed then they have significantly less chance of getting my money.
Click to expand...

Agreed- though that problem being known, let's hope that ACER has payed special attention here.
 
I'm waiting to buy a monitor until this one is released, and hope it's amazing. But let's say hypothetically this monitor comes out and blows. Those waiting for this monitor as I am, what would you buy instead in the 34" or larger range instead?
 
zehoo said:
If it has significantly more chance of bad back light bleed then they have significantly less chance of getting my money.
Click to expand...

I STILL don't understand what blacklight bleed is, and I've owned 2 x 34" 3440 x 1440 IPS panels. The flat LG 34" which I replaced with the curved LG 34".

Does anyone seriously game in a pitch black room? I don't watch TV in a dark room either. I game with normal daylight / normal room lighting on, and I have never noticed light pouring out the back of my display. Either one of them.
 
You play any scary games or watch dark movies? And you do that with the lights on?

Backlight bleed is a pretty easy concept. LCD panels "shutter" the light out of a constant on backlight. It cannot close off 100% of the light, allowing a "glow" through. TN and IPS are pretty bad at leakage, VA is much better at sealing out the light.
 
In my experience it can also be exacerbated by high brightness settings, especially typical out of the box extreme brightness settings. The brightness can make it "flare" out from the edges and lowering it can help to tone it down. Some people get a defective monitor where it is really bad, either on all edges or on one side or on a quadrants edge(s). There are some models of monitor that just seem to have it a lot worse than others either in overall design/manufacturing/assembly or in bad batches/high-incidence panel lotteries.
 
Ya, will have to wait and see on this one. Not interested if it's 75Hz.
 
The 80-100fps range nets a lot of perceived motion clarity, if Acer really managed to OC it to 100hz that is quite significant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top