LOL…when I read these were 1080P I knew there would be a large number of the uninformed making comments about how that resolution would be "ridiculous" at these sizes. Thanks for not letting me down!
This is clearly not a "productivity" monitor. It makes sense for people who primarily want to play games with their system. For the time being, 1080p is still the best resolution for gaming with less than absolute top-end hardware.
The appropriate pixel density of a monitor depends on the distance from which you view it. A 31.5" monitor viewed from 31% further away will have identical angular pixel density as a 24" monitor of equal total resolution. While personally I prefer to sit close to a monitor too, focusing a little further away on a larger screen can considerably reduce eye strain.
Pixel density is fine. You're retarded. I'm using 55". I'm sitting about 4-5 feet away. Yes it's quite horrible for my eyes. I've NEVER had a SINGLE THOUGHT about the pixel density. Not ever.
This is absolutely the BEST value gaming monitor on the market. LARGE 32" screen, 144hz, 1080p, VA. I'd rather have this 32" screen, than a 27" screen. Every single time. 144hz is a requirement. VA panel sounds good.
The ONLY thing I don't like is the curve. I'm amazed you idiots point out the pixel density and don't mention the stupid gimmicky curve which warps the picture unless you are always sitting dead center, and at ideal distance.
Not to mention at $400. If this is really market at the "esports" crowd, they're fsr more likely to spend $200 on a 24" TN 144hz panel, and if they spend $400+, the Dell S2417DG pushes 1440p, G-Sync, and 144hz for $430 right now.
Gamers on a budget. An inexpensive video card can drive a 1080p display at a high refresh rate. This gets them a curved screen with a high refresh rate for very little money.
How is pointing out the flaws in a product with remarkably dumb combination of features stupid? If it was ultrawide and curved, we probably wouldn't be so harsh on it. If it was flat, we wouldn't be so harsh on it. If it was smaller, we wouldn't be so harsh on it.
It's massive, it has a low pixel density, it has a curve on a standard aspect ratio, and it's missing DisplayPort
You thinking your useless posts matter is stupid. You not realizing that you want this monitor to transform into something else is stupid... and doubly so when you realize all these changes you want to make to this monitor turn it into something else that already exists. There is this thing called a "niche" - maybe Google the definition so you can try and become a little bit less of a waste of space.
this review site hasn't had the smartest articles in some time now.
in the first paragraph it says it has a va panel, and in the second paragraph its now an ahva panel with 3000:1 contrast ratio.
ahva being ips technology, it stands for advanced hyper viewing angle. this panel is actually an sva panel, made by samsung. which is how it achieves a 3000:1 contrast ratio. the same one is used in their own chg70 monitor which also features local dimming(only 6 zones though, so its not really much of an upgrade) and im pretty sure acer is selling one with the same panel, as well as vivitek.
if it was a good article written by someone knowledgeable they would have told you that, instead it reads like a hastily written advertisement.
How many people have systems capable of driving 4k resolution at anywhere near 144Hz? This is a gaming monitor.
If you want a productivity monitor, or a good all-around monitor, sure you'd be better off getting a 60Hz 4k IPS. But that's clearly not the target market for this monitor.
And regardless, monitors are supposed to last very long, so even people with a Pascal Titan X might eventually have to tone down to 1080p within 4-5 years or something.
144hz is probably the bigger reason it doesn't matter as much. The maximum timing mismatch between rendering and display is 7ms instead of 16.7, making tearing artifacts visible for a much shorter period if vsync is off and extra latency much smaller if vsync is enabled.
Don't know why this doesn't have Displayport. I think most are not into e-sports when they are picking on resolution. Counterstrike is mostly played at that resolution. I'm one of them using the BenQ Gaming monitor that they all use for tournaments. FHD gets me around 300fps. This is what you want. At QHD.... I only get 120 to 140 fps..... it's not enough and would have to get a GTX 1070 to get back to the preferred framrate for Counterstrike. I just feel that many of you don't realize that getting close to 300fps in very important to be competitive in CS:GO. And 144hz refresh and 1ms response is mandatory as well. Thanks.
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
34 Comments
Back to Article
Inteli - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
31 inch at 1080p, and curved 16:9? That's ridiculous.smartthanyou - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
LOL…when I read these were 1080P I knew there would be a large number of the uninformed making comments about how that resolution would be "ridiculous" at these sizes. Thanks for not letting me down!Inteli - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
So how am I uninformed despite the standard resolution on monitors 30+ inches being at least 1440p for a decade?Oh wait, you can't be serious with a username like that.
saratoga4 - Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - link
>So how am I uninformed despite the standard resolution on monitors 30+ inches being at least 1440p for a decade?They're not for everybody, but there is definitely a use for larger 1080p monitors. Not everyone wants to sit up close to a screen.
TesseractOrion - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Agreed. These things are barely worth producing IMHO. Who on earth will actually buy this crap? Makes no sense at all...twtech - Sunday, December 18, 2016 - link
This is clearly not a "productivity" monitor. It makes sense for people who primarily want to play games with their system. For the time being, 1080p is still the best resolution for gaming with less than absolute top-end hardware.Inteli - Monday, December 19, 2016 - link
1080p isn't my issue. The pixel density is.saratoga4 - Wednesday, December 21, 2016 - link
>The pixel density is.The appropriate pixel density of a monitor depends on the distance from which you view it. A 31.5" monitor viewed from 31% further away will have identical angular pixel density as a 24" monitor of equal total resolution. While personally I prefer to sit close to a monitor too, focusing a little further away on a larger screen can considerably reduce eye strain.
flyingpants265 - Wednesday, March 13, 2019 - link
Pixel density is fine. You're retarded. I'm using 55". I'm sitting about 4-5 feet away. Yes it's quite horrible for my eyes. I've NEVER had a SINGLE THOUGHT about the pixel density. Not ever.This is absolutely the BEST value gaming monitor on the market. LARGE 32" screen, 144hz, 1080p, VA. I'd rather have this 32" screen, than a 27" screen. Every single time. 144hz is a requirement. VA panel sounds good.
The ONLY thing I don't like is the curve. I'm amazed you idiots point out the pixel density and don't mention the stupid gimmicky curve which warps the picture unless you are always sitting dead center, and at ideal distance.
rtho782 - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
We're in a world where people expect 1440p in a 5.5" screen, but 1080p will do at 31.5".Who buys this crap!?
Inteli - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Not to mention at $400. If this is really market at the "esports" crowd, they're fsr more likely to spend $200 on a 24" TN 144hz panel, and if they spend $400+, the Dell S2417DG pushes 1440p, G-Sync, and 144hz for $430 right now.shabby - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Wannabe gamers.JeffFlanagan - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Gamers on a budget. An inexpensive video card can drive a 1080p display at a high refresh rate. This gets them a curved screen with a high refresh rate for very little money.Inteli - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
I get that $400 is cheap for a curved screen, but a good high refresh rate display can be had for half the price of this.temps - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
I'm always surprised how the hardware review site with the smartest articles has a comment section populated with so many spectacularly stupid people.Inteli - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
How is pointing out the flaws in a product with remarkably dumb combination of features stupid? If it was ultrawide and curved, we probably wouldn't be so harsh on it. If it was flat, we wouldn't be so harsh on it. If it was smaller, we wouldn't be so harsh on it.It's massive, it has a low pixel density, it has a curve on a standard aspect ratio, and it's missing DisplayPort
temps - Monday, December 19, 2016 - link
You thinking your useless posts matter is stupid. You not realizing that you want this monitor to transform into something else is stupid... and doubly so when you realize all these changes you want to make to this monitor turn it into something else that already exists. There is this thing called a "niche" - maybe Google the definition so you can try and become a little bit less of a waste of space.Inteli - Monday, December 19, 2016 - link
I have never heard anyone say "my perfect monitor is a small 1080p curved TV"snarfbot - Wednesday, January 3, 2018 - link
this review site hasn't had the smartest articles in some time now.in the first paragraph it says it has a va panel, and in the second paragraph its now an ahva panel with 3000:1 contrast ratio.
ahva being ips technology, it stands for advanced hyper viewing angle. this panel is actually an sva panel, made by samsung. which is how it achieves a 3000:1 contrast ratio. the same one is used in their own chg70 monitor which also features local dimming(only 6 zones though, so its not really much of an upgrade) and im pretty sure acer is selling one with the same panel, as well as vivitek.
if it was a good article written by someone knowledgeable they would have told you that, instead it reads like a hastily written advertisement.
pretty sad really.
twtech - Sunday, December 18, 2016 - link
How many people have systems capable of driving 4k resolution at anywhere near 144Hz? This is a gaming monitor.If you want a productivity monitor, or a good all-around monitor, sure you'd be better off getting a 60Hz 4k IPS. But that's clearly not the target market for this monitor.
hojnikb - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
No freesync no buyInteli - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
To be fair, is FreeSync really necessary at 1080p?ToTTenTranz - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
There's always virtual resolution + downsampling.And regardless, monitors are supposed to last very long, so even people with a Pascal Titan X might eventually have to tone down to 1080p within 4-5 years or something.
DanNeely - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
144hz is probably the bigger reason it doesn't matter as much. The maximum timing mismatch between rendering and display is 7ms instead of 16.7, making tearing artifacts visible for a much shorter period if vsync is off and extra latency much smaller if vsync is enabled.p1esk - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
If someone offered me this monitor for free, I would not take it. Seriously.AnotherGuy - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
U guys are being obnoxious for no reason. Take a quick look how much cost 144hz curved 32" screens... they are all from $450-$1000Ukyo - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
You tell `em!Inteli - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
And tell me how many of those are higher resolution than 1920x1080. My guess would be every single one.doggface - Sunday, December 18, 2016 - link
Yep. Agree."I don't understand why anyone would want anything I don't..?"
evilspoons - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
Gross, 32" 1080p? My Nexus 6P has more pixels than this. I was at least expecting 2560x something.TesseractOrion - Friday, December 16, 2016 - link
I'm sure Minecraft will look fine. And all those 'Lego' games LOL ;-)BigDDesign - Sunday, December 18, 2016 - link
Don't know why this doesn't have Displayport. I think most are not into e-sports when they are picking on resolution. Counterstrike is mostly played at that resolution. I'm one of them using the BenQ Gaming monitor that they all use for tournaments. FHD gets me around 300fps. This is what you want. At QHD.... I only get 120 to 140 fps..... it's not enough and would have to get a GTX 1070 to get back to the preferred framrate for Counterstrike. I just feel that many of you don't realize that getting close to 300fps in very important to be competitive in CS:GO. And 144hz refresh and 1ms response is mandatory as well. Thanks.Hrel - Sunday, December 18, 2016 - link
I don't understand why anyone would want a curved display.doggface - Sunday, December 18, 2016 - link
Your right, it is not as if your eyesight is curved or something..../s