Acer Z35 200HZ 35 Inch 2000R Ultrawide W/G-Sync

M

Marm0t

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
245
"Fastest Gaming Monitor In The World"

Press conference here:


https://youtu.be/v483dBwE2ps?t=32m17s

Commercial here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ib9yuWPWNM

35 inch 21:9
2000R Curve
Overclocks to 200HZ
G-Sync
2560X1080


Somewhat cringeworthy press conference, but as someone who was considering the X3501 from Benq, this just stomps it across the board.

Weird to see Acer pushing the envelope these days.
 
Last edited:
I thought I wanted it. Now I really want it. If only it supported 3D Vision as well.
 
Marm0t said:
Somewhat cringeworthy press conference, but as someone who was considering the X3501 from Benq, this just stomps it across the board.

Weird to see Acer pushing the envelope these days.
Click to expand...

It does on paper but as usual it's going to come down to QA/QC and panel roulette which has been pretty spotty at best for Acer. I take my hat off to them for pushing the envelope but it's sure been a mixed bag.

ETA?
 
CrazyRob said:
I thought I wanted it. Now I really want it. If only it supported 3D Vision as well.
Click to expand...

1080p at that size you don't, I returned the BenQ after 2 days. 1080p at that size looks like straight ass. Pixels everywhere and super rough image quality(even with maxed AA/AF)
 
Martha Stewart said:
1080p at that size you don't, I returned the BenQ after 2 days. 1080p at that size looks like straight ass. Pixels everywhere and super rough image quality(even with maxed AA/AF)
Click to expand...

Maybe if I intended to use it from a desktop. I'll be mounting it in my Obutto Ozone, where my head will be 3.5 - 4 feet away from the screen. That should be just about the sweet spot I think.

Also, the cnet article claims $1200 and available in December. http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
 
Nice try Acer. Go bigger. Also 1080P = FAIL.

Let's try that again:
144Hz+, 40"+, non-TN, low latency, G-Sync + Freesync, curved option, HDMI 2.2, DP 1.3, and a resolution of not less than 3840x2160.
 
Can't say I agree on 40+ inch, but you are spot on about 1080p is pretty much an insult at this stage even in an "ultrawide" 21:9 configuration.

I do like that they at least considered refreshrates north of 144hz though, as 200hz sounds fantastic for ULMB purposes.
 
I'd take 1440 height for now. GPUs don't have dp 1.3 yet to support even 16:9 3840x2160 4k at 120hz (if a mfg made one with the circuitry for it), and 2160 height is frame rate crushing.

Regardless of the monitor's hz, lower frame rates will be blurrier.
If you are using variable hz at 1440p to run low (sub 75fps-hz to 90fps-hz mode/most of the time in game, really should be like 100 at least imo), you are essentially running a low hz, low motion definition and motion articulation, smearing blur monitor and missing out on most of the gaming advancements these monitors provide outside of the judder/tearing/stops avoidance.

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
 
200hz is nice and quite welcomed, but there are diminishing returns for response time and increasing the refresh rate; you need a very large increase to get noticeable improvements. 144 hz is 6.9 milliseconds (1000 / 144), and 200 hz (a 56hz increase) drops this to 5 ms. So even at 200 hz / 200 FPS, there is STILL going to be more motion blur going on than the old "Lightboost 100%" (brightest screen/lowest blur reduction effect) setting on lightboost monitors, which is either 2.25 ms or 3 ms (if you are using lightboost at 120 or 120hz)

And 200 fps is simply unrealistic in anything that isn't counter-strike Go, or an older game. While having bigger refresh rates is LONG overdue, why aren't they pushing out blur reduction technology instead? Benq has already done this (though they took a HUGE step back with the XL2730Z), Sony has done this for years now with their motionflow Implulse televisions, and even Eizo and LG have made models.

Yes I know there's ULMB, but that still only works at 85, 100 and 120hz and is Gsync monitor only. Now if ULMB worked at 144-200hz (so you can have a MUCH brighter screen and still have the same effect by not using a pulse width so low), then we're talking......
 
Martha Stewart said:
1080p at that size you don't, I returned the BenQ after 2 days. 1080p at that size looks like straight ass. Pixels everywhere and super rough image quality(even with maxed AA/AF)
Click to expand...

Really depends on the person. I'm using 3 50 inch panels @ 1080p 120HZ.

With scaling at minimum i cannot see individual pixels, but i'm not sitting close to the panels either.
 
what ulmb mode needs is a monitor with a much, much higher max brightness.. (and maybe even a little higher contrast/black depth and saturation).

ulmb mode mutes the screen way too much as it is imo even tweaked to hell and running only at 60 - 80 pulse width. The monitors just can't go bright enough to compensate.
 
Dan_D said:
Let's try that again:
144Hz+, 40"+, non-TN, low latency, G-Sync + Freesync, curved option, HDMI 2.2, DP 1.3, and a resolution of not less than 3840x2160.
Click to expand...

Yeah alright! Always amuses me people listing pointless specs and moaning x screen doesn't offer it. You'll be waiting a very long time for something that meets those specs. By which time there will be something better along anyway which no doubt you'd moan it didn't have!
 
Drags said:
Yeah alright! Always amuses me people listing pointless specs and moaning x screen doesn't offer it. You'll be waiting a very long time for something that meets those specs. By which time there will be something better along anyway which no doubt you'd moan it didn't have!
Click to expand...
Pointless? Hardly. The only thing you could say is pointless might be the refresh rate. It may be years before we can run games at such a frame rate at that resolution. None of the rest would I consider pointless.

I'm not getting my hopes up. I know that's a dream monitor. By the time all that gets done we might not be using LCD panels anymore.
 
Dan_D said:
Pointless? Hardly. The only thing you could say is pointless might be the refresh rate. It may be years before we can run games at such a frame rate at that resolution. None of the rest would I consider pointless.

I'm not getting my hopes up. I know that's a dream monitor. By the time all that gets done we might not be using LCD panels anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't mean the specs are pointless in what they deliver, I'm saying even listing them is pointless. It's just a meaningless wish list of things which don't exist, aren't available and probably won't be for a long time, posted as a way of saying "I don't want the monitor this thread is about because it doesn't offer me all this silly, unrealistic specs". My point being by the time all that was available there'd be something better along anyway
 
Drags said:
I don't mean the specs are pointless in what they deliver, I'm saying even listing them is pointless. It's just a meaningless wish list of things which don't exist, aren't available and probably won't be for a long time, posted as a way of saying "I don't want the monitor this thread is about because it doesn't offer me all this silly, unrealistic specs". My point being by the time all that was available there'd be something better along anyway
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how it is. People will always look forward to the next big thing, or at least of dream of the day when it will come. By the time we get monitors with all the bells and whistles (144Hz+gsync,etc.) and a 4k resolution people will start to say they want the same monitor but with either 5k resolution or 4k in a 21:9 format. >_>
 
Bullfuck.

It is not unrealistic/unreasonable to ask for a monitor that doesn't look like shit when you move your head one inch, or isn't as blurry as fuck when there's any movement.

People's standards are just way too low on average, which is why these dog shit monitors are still selling in the first place.

Asking for a 4k, low persistence, and good color quality monitor in 20-fucking-15 is NOT being unrealistic. It should be standard. It's almost fucking 2016. What a joke the display industry is.
 
yeah so your solution is for everyone to stop buying current monitors in some kind of protest until the manufacturers start producing something which either isn't technically possible or available at the moment? great! monitor technology has moved on quite a lot over the last few years. is it perfect? no, but it's getting better. is it for everyone? maybe not....
 
People will continue to move the goal posts when it comes to monitors. 200HZ is a welcome step forward for monitors in general. I know pixel-heads won't appreciate this display. And so does Acer. They aren't marketing it as such. It's balls to the wall fast and I'll be picking one up for certain. If but for nothing else than to send the message that we want high refresh rate monitors to become the standard.

Once people go 120+ Hz they rarely go back.
 
This is not a TN panel, so I don't know why people are bitching about the resolution.
It's MHVA is it not? that's quite impressive specs for MHVA.

It needs some sort of built in strobing ability that's not just ULMB, which is gsync only.
 
Falkentyne said:
This is not a TN panel, so I don't know why people are bitching about the resolution.
It's MHVA is it not? that's quite impressive specs for MHVA.

It needs some sort of built in strobing ability that's not just ULMB, which is gsync only.
Click to expand...

It's AMVA ( AU Optronics VA type)....you were half way there but getting MVA (VA) and AHVA (IPS type) mixed in the naming :)
 
Y'all be like I want a super duper high res 144Hz to let my SLI Titans do sum chew'in...

Here's I'm fapping at the thought of a 1920x1080p, 24", IPS, 144Hz display (preferably G-Sync so I don't have to swap my GTX 970), preferably at $499 or lower.
hW3qXVF.jpg


That is my dream monitor. ^^
 
Drags said:
yeah so your solution is for everyone to stop buying current monitors in some kind of protest until the manufacturers start producing something which either isn't technically possible or available at the moment? great! monitor technology has moved on quite a lot over the last few years. is it perfect? no, but it's getting better. is it for everyone? maybe not....
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't really getting better. In general, color reproduction and motion clarity are worse than they were 20 years ago. We've only got refresh rates that approached 20 year old CRTs within the past 3 or 4 years.

Everything has been a sidegrade at best. We got higher resolution and traded motion clarity and color reproduction for it. And we got dog shit backlights and dead pixels as an added bonus.
 
bigbluefe said:
Actually, it isn't really getting better. In general, color reproduction and motion clarity are worse than they were 20 years ago. We've only got refresh rates that approached 20 year old CRTs within the past 3 or 4 years.

Everything has been a sidegrade at best. We got higher resolution and traded motion clarity and color reproduction for it. And we got dog shit backlights and dead pixels as an added bonus.
Click to expand...

You can blame manufacturers for horrible QC but you can't blame them for what they're offering us with LCDs as that technology is just never going to be perfect. CRT is dead and OLED isn't even mainstream on big TV's yet, even Samsung has halted it for now. Only LG has had success with OLED so how can you get mad at Asus, Acer, BenQ, etc etc. for not offering something superior to LCD like OLED when really there's nothing else right now?
 
MistaSparkul said:
You can blame manufacturers for horrible QC but you can't blame them for what they're offering us with LCDs as that technology is just never going to be perfect. CRT is dead and OLED isn't even mainstream on big TV's yet, even Samsung has halted it for now. Only LG has had success with OLED so how can you get mad at Asus, Acer, BenQ, etc etc. for not offering something superior to LCD like OLED when really there's nothing else right now?
Click to expand...

There are all kinds of forks that display manufacturers could have taken but didn't because most consumers are tasteless dumbfucks. SED and FED were 100% better than LCD or OLED. The only reason those didn't make it to market is because idiots accepted cheap ass LCDs.
 
Dan_D said:
Nice try Acer. Go bigger. Also 1080P = FAIL.

Let's try that again:
144Hz+, 40"+, non-TN, low latency, G-Sync + Freesync, curved option, HDMI 2.2, DP 1.3, and a resolution of not less than 3840x2160.
Click to expand...

The idiocy is strong with this one do you even wasabi mango. Amd already has a 40 inch freesync monitor blame nferior and their priopretary crap you dont have a 40 inch gsync. For a mobo editor you are not really that smart radeon tech announced that greenland is getting dp 1.3 which can drive 4k 144hz freesync and 60hz freesync 4k hdr, we will also be getting tvs with freesync since next gen consoles are getting it.
 
Deathroned said:
The idiocy is strong with this one do you even wasabi mango. Amd already has a 40 inch freesync monitor blame nferior and their priopretary crap you dont have a 40 inch gsync. For a mobo editor you are not really that smart radeon tech announced that greenland is getting dp 1.3 which can drive 4k 144hz freesync and 60hz freesync 4k hdr, we will also be getting tvs with freesync since next gen consoles are getting it.
Click to expand...

You'll last a long time here calling people names. :rolleyes: I am not interested in Wasabi Mango monitors as they have no warranty support in the U.S. AMD doesn't make monitors so?? So far I haven't seen any other 40" FreeSync monitors, but I haven't been looking all that hard lately. The only thing I know of that fits that description is the Wasabi Mango UHD420 you pointed out and again, I'm not buying that. Many reviewers rated G-Sync as "superior" to FreeSync as it didn't have the ghosting and flickering issues. Calling NVIDIA "nferior" shows the bias on your part. That makes me take you seriously. :rolleyes:. I am not sure what Greendland's specs have to do with anything. I was talking about what I wanted on a monitor, what GPU I would connect to it is a separate issue.

I am no monitor expert, and I never claimed to be. You need to realize that interests and skills with regard to using computers covers a lot of areas and disciplines, not all of which everyone will know equally. My being a "mobo editor" doesn't mean I am or should be a monitor expert. I know a little more than the average person about them, and that's all I care to know. There are plenty of guys on the forums who know far more about them than I ever will. When I want to know something, I read their posts.
 
Last edited:
bigbluefe said:
There are all kinds of forks that display manufacturers could have taken but didn't because most consumers are tasteless dumbfucks. SED and FED were 100% better than LCD or OLED. The only reason those didn't make it to market is because idiots accepted cheap ass LCDs.
Click to expand...

that's not really true i don't think. SED died most likely because of the huge patent shitstorm between 2005 and 2008.
 
Internet muscles....Lots of shots being fired around here lately. H still rolls on honest and upright. Fuck the haters.

Anyway, looking forward to what Vega thinks of the 200hz beasty. I wish I could swing it and some Titan X SLi to run it properly.
 
spaceman said:
Internet muscles....Lots of shots being fired around here lately. H still rolls on honest and upright. Fuck the haters.

Anyway, looking forward to what Vega thinks of the 200hz beasty. I wish I could swing it and some Titan X SLi to run it properly.
Click to expand...

A single 980 Ti is more than enough to push this monitor. Keep in mind it's less pixels than any of the 2560x1440 displays.

Besides, as was already mentioned in the thread, pushing towards 200fps is where you run into CPU limitation, not GPU (in most cases.)
 
Going to take a stab in the dark and say this will do well with racing wheel owners that want a wider screen and 200hz.
 
Yes, I just don't want to. :p

In all seriousness, I am looking forward to Vega's thoughts too. I'd have ordered one right now myself, but nobody but the Acer store has it in stock.
 
Battle of the G-Sync 21:9's:

1000


Some interesting results coming out of 200 Hz G-Sync in regard to motion clarity....
 
I probably would have tried this one out had it been smaller. At 35" it would be hard and awkward to fit my 1440p monitors somewhere. I'd love to try 200hz to see if there's another noticeable bump like there was from 60 to 120-144Hz. I know there are diminishing returns but I'm curious as to what my cutoff is where I can't feel any more improvement. I'm not a huge fan of ULMB at the moment because the flickering does seem to bother me and the screen is too dim while enabled. So pure refresh is the only way for me to go right now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top