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

Holy balls, if there isn't any frame skipping I'm gonna need to save up my lunch money...for new pants...
 
Q-BZ said:
Think they can get it? This isn't exactly NEC or Eizo we are talking about here.
Click to expand...

they weren't kidding when they announced IPS 144hz Predator.

NEC is the last company on the chart that is moving towards higher refresh rate, so I wouldn't bother bringing them up.
 
Last edited:
Asus's version of this type of monitor is limited to 75hz last time I checked, not sure how they can even compete at this point against the Acer.
 
Vega said:
I'll definitely be buying one to at least test out.
Click to expand...

Of course you will. ;)

Only one? :p

I know I speak on behalf of many when I say: We will be eagerly watching for your breakdown when the time comes.
 
I'm definitely buying this, first time I've ever been excited for a monitor
 
Hoping it really is released at 100hz

Im buying one even if it's 75hz

Man that 3x setup in the video looked ridiculous. That is not how I'd showcase the product, ie using s setup that no gamer in the right mind would use.

I'd have just 1 x of them powered by 2 x Titan Xs in SLI, showing the Witcher 3 and Far Cry 4 on ultra and even a texture modded Fallout New Vegas.

That 3 way setup was nuts (and not in the good way)
 
That using the LG panel? Whats the quoted pixel response time? It ghosts like crazy at 5ms on the dell and lg....
 
haahahaha that rep sounds like Asian Ahhhnnnoooolllldddd svarzenabanger.... ohhh a hundred hurts so good! Ill be down for one or three :D
 
Subbed. Been looking into 34" curved monitors, but have been holding out for one with G-Sync. Hope this things kicks some serious ass.
 
100hz now? Oh hell ya im in for one. Need either newegg or Amazon to get official pre order going.
 
Some sources say June-July others say August-September. Any updates because I really want this thing
 
SlippinJimmy said:
For anyone who's tried this and a large 60hz 4k monitor, which would you go with?
Click to expand...

I doubt many people in this thread have, and if they have, they're likely going to be more interested in the smaller, faster display (hence their presence in this thread). Just like supermi in the Samsung thread who put his Samsung against the Acer Predator and ended up choosing the Samsung for its image quality and immersion.

Are you asking to be steered in a direction? I'm just wondering, because even if 20 people replied to your question, it doesn't matter what they think. In the end, do you want a smaller monitor that is capable of smoother gameplay, or do you want a larger 4K display that provides more immersion and desktop real estate? It's really as simple as that.
 
SlippinJimmy said:
For anyone who's tried this and a large 60hz 4k monitor, which would you go with?
Click to expand...

4K is so last year. I'll be pitting this new Acer against it's little but faster Predator brother and the Dell 5K.
 
SlippinJimmy said:
For anyone who's tried this and a large 60hz 4k monitor, which would you go with?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Vega said:
4K is so last year. I'll be pitting this new Acer against it's little but faster Predator brother and the Dell 5K.
Click to expand...

That's silly. Last year's 4K monitors were crap. 4K is finally reaching a state of maturity. It isn't going anywhere any time soon. And these G-Sync panels are expanding and evolving so quickly that any of them will be "so last year" not too long from now.

skypine27 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm not the guy that you were talking about, but I owned the flat LG 34UM94 and the curved Dell U3415W. They were great monitors, but I could never go back after having 40-48" 4K.

NOTE: this does not make anyone who chooses one of these faster Acer G-Sync monitors "wrong", so no need to go on the offensive. It just means that I prefer a larger, more immersive experience over the absolute fastest and smoothest gameplay that I can get. That's whey they make so many different displays...so that each one of us can decide what type of experience is important to us and what compromises we are willing to live with.
 
Vega said:
4K is so last year. I'll be pitting this new Acer against it's little but faster Predator brother and the Dell 5K.
Click to expand...

Why compare it against the Dell when that monitor isn't even a gaming monitor to begin with? :confused:
 
There are no 4K or 5K monitors above 60 Hz, so really there aren't any "gaming" monitors in those resolutions. And no, putting G-Sync on a 60 Hz panel doesn't make it a "gaming" monitor.
 
Exactly so I figure the only real comparison would be against the 27 inch predator. I would love to know how going from the 270HU to this monitor is like and if it's well worth it or if there's too many problems.
 
We will have to wait until it comes out. I'm also curious if going down to 100 Hz and slower pixels will be worth it vs the incredible 27" Predator. I'm using it now and BF4 is amazing on it at 144 FPS.
 
Vega said:
We will have to wait until it comes out. I'm also curious if going down to 100 Hz and slower pixels will be worth it vs the incredible 27" Predator. I'm using it now and BF4 is amazing on it at 144 FPS.
Click to expand...

This is high praise coming from you.
 
Q-BZ said:
This is high praise coming from you.
Click to expand...

I've gotten a pretty good sample and compared it side by side with the Swift. Prefer the Acer.

I used to be 100% all about ULMB but G-Sync 144 Hz is pretty epic. Buttery smooth, no tearing, super low input lag and still quite high motion clarity.

Really the only thing to complain about with the Acer is the IPS glow but that comes with the territory. I painted the bezel matte black and corrected the bright power LED.
 
Vega, any prospect of you doing a triple display? :D

Would be interested to know what sort of GPU horsepower is required to drive such a monstrosity.
 
Sorry I'm pretty much out of the multi display business. One of the reasons I am interested in this monitor is it diminishes the need for multi-monitor and bezel gaps etc.

Three of these in landscape for a 7.16 to 1 width to height ratio is ridiculously impractical and just plain silly. IMO of course.
 
Fair enough, there are probably others crazy enough to attempt such a setup.

Out of interest, can someone explain to me how you deal with games that don't natively support a 21:9 aspect ratio? Do you run them with horizontal black bars on the side, and if so what resolution is that?
 
Vega said:
Sorry I'm pretty much out of the multi display business. One of the reasons I am interested in this monitor is it diminishes the need for multi-monitor and bezel gaps etc.

Three of these in landscape for a 7.16 to 1 width to height ratio is ridiculously impractical and just plain silly. IMO of course.
Click to expand...

I never thought I'd see the day when you quit using multi displays :eek: I was expecting you to do a debezelled triple 270HU in portrait :(

Blade-Runner said:
Fair enough, there are probably others crazy enough to attempt such a setup.

Out of interest, can someone explain to me how you deal with games that don't natively support a 21:9 aspect ratio? Do you run them with horizontal black bars on the side, and if so what resolution is that?
Click to expand...

Running the game with black bars is the most practical solution. It just ends up being your standard 16:9 2560x1440 resolution. Other people try out editing the settings in notepad or use a third party program to make the game run in 21:9.
 
Thanks MistaSparkul, what is the approximate size of the image running at 16:9.....27"? I assume 2560x1440 scales perfectly from 3840x1440?
 
skypine27 said:
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

.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your post; I read some of the post over at that thread but did not see that one. I recently upgraded from a Dell U3011 to a Dell U3415W and I could not see myself going back to the U3011. I am contemplating taking the U3415W and purchasing the Phillips 40” 4K. I could not see myself going back to the U3011 after using the U3415W and I believe it would be the same way if I were to use a 40” panel. I am currently running two EVGA GTX 780 TI Classifieds.
 
Grunt said:
I appreciate your post; I read some of the post over at that thread but did not see that one. I recently upgraded from a Dell U3011 to a Dell U3415W and I could not see myself going back to the U3011. I am contemplating taking the U3415W and purchasing the Phillips 40” 4K. I could not see myself going back to the U3011 after using the U3415W and I believe it would be the same way if I were to use a 40” panel.
Click to expand...

It would be.

The U3415W is a fine monitor; I enjoyed mine very much. But after you go to a 40" 4K, it would be difficult to go back to the vertically-challenged 34" ultrawide. Especially one that didn't have the benefits of high refresh rate and/or G-Sync.
 
Dumb question: If you have a monitor with G-Sync that's "only" 60Hz and then you have another one with G-sync that goes to 120Hz or 144Hz... what's the difference basically? What are you giving up if you stick with the 60Hz if you have G-Sync?
 
Q-BZ said:
Dumb question: If you have a monitor with G-Sync that's "only" 60Hz and then you have another one with G-sync that goes to 120Hz or 144Hz... what's the difference basically? What are you giving up if you stick with the 60Hz if you have G-Sync?
Click to expand...

Well, since 60Hz is the maximum refresh rate of the display, gameplay can only get so smooth. Let's say that your GPU and CPU are powerful enough to run GTA V at 90fps. With the 60Hz display, it'll be really fluid but you'll be capped at 60 refreshes per second. With a 144Hz display, you have much more headroom. Both will benefit from G-Sync, but assuming that your hardware allows frames per second to exceed 60, the 144Hz monitor will feel faster, smoother, and more responsive.
 
Q-BZ said:
Dumb question: If you have a monitor with G-Sync that's "only" 60Hz and then you have another one with G-sync that goes to 120Hz or 144Hz... what's the difference basically? What are you giving up if you stick with the 60Hz if you have G-Sync?
Click to expand...


It's not a dumb question, the confusion is easy to understand.

Think of the two technologies separately. G-Sync is most useful when framerates vary significantly, which means going from high to low; more specifically, G-Sync is best when frametimes, the time it takes to render each frame or alternatively the time between frames being submitted to the framebuffer, start getting long, especially when they get longer than a single refresh (144Hz, or 1/144th of a second).

High refresh rates mean that higher framerates can actually be displayed, versus a lower refresh rate setup, which also helps with perceived input lag as your inputs (mouse, keyboard) may result in quicker responses seen on the monitor.

Combined, G-Sync on a higher refresh rate monitor will allow for low input lag and no tearing regardless of framerate, while also allowing for very fast transitions and twitch-level inputs when framerates are high, or rather when frametimes are low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top