21:9 is awesome, especially for games! And that’s what this display is for. Resolution is indeed too low though, I’d rather go with only 144 or 120 Hz.
If this were a 5k monitor, what hardware do you know of that would be able to push 200 FPS in modern games? It makes sense for a gaming monitor to be able to be used at its default resolution.
For mixed-use though, I agree that a higher res would be better.
I wish more manufacturers would release a quality monitor like the Dell U2515h: http://amzn.to/2fG0WWC
That monitor in my eyes is the standard by which all other monitors should be measured. It has a built in KVM, high PPI (2560x1440), and a beautiful IPS display. I use two of them at work. If they supported freesync/g-sync and a 144hz refresh then it would be absolutely perfect.
I see a valid point for speakers, even if 5W ones. Cable companies around my place have their set-top boxes with standard HDMI output these days. It would be trivial to connect these sets on this monitor along with my PC. Not to mention gaming consoles.
In another words, it becomes a TV instantly, eliminating the need for a separate TV set.
I have searched for this quality in almost every monitor / TV I may potentially purchase, and will keep disqualifying any model that doesn't provide inbuilt speakers.
I have a small den, and can't spare room for a second monitor for TV duties.
Even better if said monitor can apply picture-in-picture capabilities among all the possible inputs.
VA-type panels have the slowest response times between IPS and TN, but also the best contrast.
Additionally, at 200hz, your response times need only be under 5ms (1000ms/200hz=5ms per frame) for it to not affect perceived motion blur on the screen.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_predator_... TFT Central recently reviewed this 144hz VA panel monitor, and found that response times for pixels varied between 3.4ms fastest to 16.9ms slowest transition times, so motion blurring will be apparent in general, but it shouldn't be too distracting.
It'll definitely be better than older VA gaming panels we had in the past, such as the one in the Eizo Foris FG2421, which was marketed as a 120hz monitor with a 240hz mode that was achieved by blinking the backlight twice per frame (to help with perceived motion blur), but even the Eizo Foris FG2421 had response times as bad as 44ms at times...
As Dr_Orgo also points out, it might actually be a good idea to manually set the monitor's refresh rate to a lower value, so as to avoid surpassing the VA panel's actual response time capability. Something like 96hz or 120hz would be a good match for VA's response time characteristics, while avoiding extraneous blurring from overdriving or underdriving the pixels.
I recommend skepticism of the 200 Hz refresh rate for a VA panel. The Acer Predator Z35 (200 Hz, VA Panel, curved ultrawide) was found by TFT Central to only support 100-120 Hz refresh rates due to slow response times leading to blurring. VA panels likely haven't changed since that review, so this monitor will likely not be able to reach 200 Hz with good image quality.
The low PPI and poorly supported ultrawide format also makes this a poor choice. Just get a 2560x1440 IPS 144 Hz free-sync or g-sync monitor and call it a day until OLEDs.
Monitor makers, if your listening, this is what we want.
1440p, IPS like colors, 144hz, lowest latency possible with screen tech (gsync and adaptive) or 4K, IPS like colors, 120hz or better, lowest latency possible with screen tech (gsync and adaptive)
Must offer Gsync tho, that's 2/3rds the gaming market.
While we have the former, we don't have the latter. Hopefull this year at CES we will see some 4K 120 hz monitors now that both Pascal and Polaris can push 120hz at 10bit and at 4k
No, we really don't want that. What we want is exactly this monitor here, but with 10 or 12 bits per channel colors not this old 16.7M colors crap.
AND you are dead wrong about Pascal or Polaric pushing 120Hz @ 4k... with any eyecandy left in the game. That is, the 120Hz @ 4k is only worth anything at maximum ("Ultra") settings anything - which right now not even Titan X Pascal can do in most new AAA titles.
Interesting headline specs. The low PPI doesn't matter much in images, even more, in video or gaming. It matters if the image is static and it is one solid color. I really can't complain with the specs. The only issue I will find here probably is pricing. I reckon around $200 more than an 27inch model with QHD.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
Back to Article
SirMaster - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
But who wants a 79PPI monitor in this day and age?close - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
And with this aspect ration, curved or not?Strulf - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
21:9 is awesome, especially for games! And that’s what this display is for. Resolution is indeed too low though, I’d rather go with only 144 or 120 Hz.blzd - Sunday, November 13, 2016 - link
Maybe once 21:9 support becomes standard in games. That has yet to happen.jsntech - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
When I saw that pixel pitch I thought the same thing. I get it's a gaming monitor but I always cringe when I see PPIs that low...hah.ddriver - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
Gamers I presume.twtech - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
If this were a 5k monitor, what hardware do you know of that would be able to push 200 FPS in modern games? It makes sense for a gaming monitor to be able to be used at its default resolution.For mixed-use though, I agree that a higher res would be better.
Beaver M. - Saturday, November 12, 2016 - link
UW1440p would be enough.deemon - Sunday, November 13, 2016 - link
meVatharian - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
What's next? 42" 1600x720 400 Hz monitor with Freesync? Ideal for consoles, perhaps... but 30fps is life.eek2121 - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
I wish more manufacturers would release a quality monitor like the Dell U2515h: http://amzn.to/2fG0WWCThat monitor in my eyes is the standard by which all other monitors should be measured. It has a built in KVM, high PPI (2560x1440), and a beautiful IPS display. I use two of them at work. If they supported freesync/g-sync and a 144hz refresh then it would be absolutely perfect.
Gonemad - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
I see a valid point for speakers, even if 5W ones. Cable companies around my place have their set-top boxes with standard HDMI output these days. It would be trivial to connect these sets on this monitor along with my PC. Not to mention gaming consoles.In another words, it becomes a TV instantly, eliminating the need for a separate TV set.
I have searched for this quality in almost every monitor / TV I may potentially purchase, and will keep disqualifying any model that doesn't provide inbuilt speakers.
I have a small den, and can't spare room for a second monitor for TV duties.
Even better if said monitor can apply picture-in-picture capabilities among all the possible inputs.
blzd - Sunday, November 13, 2016 - link
Agreed, also console gamers are more likely to use built in speakers then they are to hook up headphones in my experience.Hurn - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
Big question:How well does the 4 mSec (presumed Grey to Grey) response time cope with 200 Hz refresh rate?
Can you say "ghosting" ?
JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
VA-type panels have the slowest response times between IPS and TN, but also the best contrast.Additionally, at 200hz, your response times need only be under 5ms (1000ms/200hz=5ms per frame) for it to not affect perceived motion blur on the screen.
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/acer_predator_...
TFT Central recently reviewed this 144hz VA panel monitor, and found that response times for pixels varied between 3.4ms fastest to 16.9ms slowest transition times, so motion blurring will be apparent in general, but it shouldn't be too distracting.
It'll definitely be better than older VA gaming panels we had in the past, such as the one in the Eizo Foris FG2421, which was marketed as a 120hz monitor with a 240hz mode that was achieved by blinking the backlight twice per frame (to help with perceived motion blur), but even the Eizo Foris FG2421 had response times as bad as 44ms at times...
As Dr_Orgo also points out, it might actually be a good idea to manually set the monitor's refresh rate to a lower value, so as to avoid surpassing the VA panel's actual response time capability. Something like 96hz or 120hz would be a good match for VA's response time characteristics, while avoiding extraneous blurring from overdriving or underdriving the pixels.
Dr_Orgo - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
I recommend skepticism of the 200 Hz refresh rate for a VA panel. The Acer Predator Z35 (200 Hz, VA Panel, curved ultrawide) was found by TFT Central to only support 100-120 Hz refresh rates due to slow response times leading to blurring. VA panels likely haven't changed since that review, so this monitor will likely not be able to reach 200 Hz with good image quality.Dr_Orgo - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
The low PPI and poorly supported ultrawide format also makes this a poor choice. Just get a 2560x1440 IPS 144 Hz free-sync or g-sync monitor and call it a day until OLEDs.Morawka - Thursday, November 10, 2016 - link
Monitor makers, if your listening, this is what we want.1440p, IPS like colors, 144hz, lowest latency possible with screen tech (gsync and adaptive)
or
4K, IPS like colors, 120hz or better, lowest latency possible with screen tech (gsync and adaptive)
Must offer Gsync tho, that's 2/3rds the gaming market.
While we have the former, we don't have the latter. Hopefull this year at CES we will see some 4K 120 hz monitors now that both Pascal and Polaris can push 120hz at 10bit and at 4k
deemon - Sunday, November 13, 2016 - link
No, we really don't want that.What we want is exactly this monitor here, but with 10 or 12 bits per channel colors not this old 16.7M colors crap.
AND you are dead wrong about Pascal or Polaric pushing 120Hz @ 4k... with any eyecandy left in the game. That is, the 120Hz @ 4k is only worth anything at maximum ("Ultra") settings anything - which right now not even Titan X Pascal can do in most new AAA titles.
deemon - Sunday, November 13, 2016 - link
https://i.imgur.com/G76yqns.pngzodiacfml - Friday, November 11, 2016 - link
Interesting headline specs. The low PPI doesn't matter much in images, even more, in video or gaming. It matters if the image is static and it is one solid color.I really can't complain with the specs. The only issue I will find here probably is pricing. I reckon around $200 more than an 27inch model with QHD.