Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Acer rep at the Computex booth confirming the 100hz refresh rate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-sZ2LR0H48
Price around $1200 USD.
Think they can get it? This isn't exactly NEC or Eizo we are talking about here.
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.
Acer rep at the Computex booth confirming the 100hz refresh rate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-sZ2LR0H48
Price around $1200 USD.
I'll definitely be buying one to at least test out.
I'll definitely be buying one to at least test out. I wonder if the Asus model will compete with 100 Hz?
For anyone who's tried this and a large 60hz 4k monitor, which would you go with?
For anyone who's tried this and a large 60hz 4k monitor, which would you go with?
For anyone who's tried this and a large 60hz 4k monitor, which would you go with?
4K is so last year. I'll be pitting this new Acer against it's little but faster Predator brother and the Dell 5K.
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.
4K is so last year. I'll be pitting this new Acer against it's little but faster Predator brother and the Dell 5K.
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.
This is high praise coming from you.
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?
Thanks MistaSparkul, what is the approximate size of the image running at 16:9.....27"? I assume 2560x1440 scales perfectly from 3840x1440?
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
.
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.
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?
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?