​yes, but 4k monitors and tvs are just as bad because all the extra pixels slow down the bullets and balls. and definitely don't play online racing games on a black and white TV, someone using a colour TV will beat you in their red car

I was told curved Tv are bad for gaming because there are no Straight lines.
E.g. Your bullets in COD or football in fifa will follow the curve and not fly straight..?

I have been in the market for a gaming ultrawide for a few months and have decided to hold off until the end of the 2017 in the hope that 1.4 display port monitors become available.

Wish list is 34"-38", HDR, VA, 1440p, 144Hz, G-sync

Was going to buy a new skateboard the other day but holding off for a hoverboard.

Just that price tag, seems excessive. At least it's one of the peripherals that lasts a bit longer.

​Oh.... I will burn in hell. I'm really sorry you had to wash your pants :wink: But I would feel the same considering the amount I paid not to long ago and then...

It's awesome! Been playing Dying Light on it, 'kin mega! Need some newer games to push it!

Have you been impressed with your x34a?

I accept your apology, even though a small bit of poo came out when I saw your post, considering I had just spent 900 sodding quid on the thing!

Damn, I missed that!
Thanks and sorry

Not for the x34a

£769.99 - Argos
£799.99 - Currys / PC World

Amazon have now price matched this. So tempting but with 1080ti and HP omen x35 coming out in a few days I feel to wait. Even at 800, it's V experience. Ultrawide 34 inch native 120hz pc to 144hz with gync 2.0, HDR10 and IPS for 800 would be decent. This x34 should be more like £700 max IMO.

I've just entered this market too, if I knew how pricey the GSYNC tax was; I would have seriously considered getting AMD instead. Hoping for HUKD scorcher in the next month or so..

Me too I so want one but it's way too expensive..

Anyone receive theirs yet?

I'm sure you know what I think. Press the buy button if you have the money why buy a Skoda when you can get the rolls :innocent:

Good price but every white paper and personal use of anything Curved shows quite clearly you need to have a very large screen to provide any tangible benefit. Having a curved monitor is as much use as having a curved PC Chassis basically. Save your money......don't fall for the spin.

Can the people that are receiving it today please post if it arrived well packaged, any dead pixels, BLB, date of manufacture, photos, etc.
I really want to buy one tonight and just want to know if the eBuyer batch is recent and QA is better than launch models.
However, if 10 people egg me on - I will buy it now.

You won't regret it. I also use it for work and can open 2 excel spreadsheets easily on the one screen and work from it.

aoc looks pretty poor and it's 1080p. I like the omen but it's a va, not sure if that's inferior to IPS. I was under the impression VA had higher refresh rates but lower quality. This one is 100hz though so maybe they are looking at a better price point, like you say around 799 would be competitive.

hah nice, mine is being delivered today

Is this on sale or has this come down permanently?

In other news, HP omen x35 and that AOC AGON ultra wide comes out in a few weeks. They are supposed to be £799 rrp I think

Aaaaaah ****!! Being the OP I thought I'd better put my money where my gob is, just ordered. Thanks everyone for the hot votes and the enlightening and ongoing debate!

Well, looks like I'm wrong, after doing a bit of searching it turns out most modern games have a fixed vertical FOV so the wider the monitor the more the game engine will draw for you see.

FOV

have this monitor

worth every penny

when buying a monitor I dont mind spending alot because a monitor is not an item you upgrade every year or so I reckon easy 3 years enjoyment maybe more..

plus you use it all the time so your getting the benefits everytime you use it

I love it for multitasking , gaming is also a treat

actual comparisons

dont have a 4k so i supplemented with 1080p and 1440p. it would be the same outcome

i could give physical photos of it on each screen if needed

Yes you will be able to see the whole 3440 x 1440 in your 3840 x 2160.
This is exactly what happens when you play a modern cinema aspect ratio film. Your image is fit within the bounds of the 16:9 monitor. You get black boxes top and bottom, because cinema AR is 21:9. Trying to fit that AR into a 16:9 could only mean one thing, and that's letterboxing.

In fact you could produce any aspect ratio on any monitor if you want. You can fit 48:9 into a screen if you wished. The 48 part would be as long as your monitor's hor length, and the 9 part only takes up a portion of monitors ver length. You get letterboxing because of that. Or if you're playing games, on windowed mode, you see your desktop icons top and bottom.

The point of the ultrawide monitor is to play 21:9 content fullscreen without boxing.

So yes, your 4K monitor has more pixels, but to play ultrawide content, your 4K monitor has to compromise by displaying useless information on screen.

For your 4K monitor to use 100% of its pixels, you can only display 16:9 content, because that's the design by nature. It's the physical dimensions of the monitor.

The ultrawide's physical dimensions is 21:9 ratio. It's designed to display more.

About the only time a curved screen makes sense is like this - when you are likely to be the sole person using it. Curved TVs are a fad, curved monitors are not.

That being said I'll stick with my 40" 4K screen but purely as I have to do a lot of work on it and having 4x 1080P screen quarters is very handy.

you could just display a 21:9 image on a 16:9 screen with borders top and bottom. So if the 4k monitor has the same width as the 21:9 monitor you'd get the same effect. Only that would be one mahoosive 16:9 screen, like 42" or something?

You should, yes. Try it. The centre part of the image on the ultrawide monitor is the same as the full image from your 4K monitor, it's just not as high DPI.


1440p and 4K = both 16:9 aspect ratio = both render the same display area, with the 4K rendering it with higher detail.

4K to 3440x1440= a totally different aspect ratio, a WIDER aspect ratio. You're using pixel counts to compare the width of an image and that's not how it works in video rendering. It's all about the aspect ratio. 21 is greater than 16. How can that not be wider?

Yes, as I've said before, 4K has MORE pixels, but it doesn't use those more pixels for extra width, it uses them for extra detail.

Have you never seen a film on your 4K TV/Monitor that has black bars on the top and bottom? That's because your TV/Monitor's aspect ratio of 16:9 (also known as 1.77:1) isn't wide enough to display it at its native aspect ratio (usually 2.39:1), if you zoom it, you chop off the left and right sides. 1.77:1 < 2.39:1, it's a LESS WIDE image, even if the 1.77:1 image is 4K and the 2.39:1 image is 480p.

Another good example, did a 1080p blu-ray give you a wider image compared to an old widescreen DVD? Nope, it just gave more detail for the same area.



So you believe that every time you buy a higher resolution monitor, no matter the aspect ratio, you get a wider image? Wow.

I'm done. No matter what you reply with, you have the facts right here in these posts, what you choose to believe is your problem. A few minutes spent watching a youtube video about this topic would tell you everything you need to know, rather than trying to be an expert about something you clearly have no grasp on.

All I can think is you've bought a 4K monitor and you want to be convinced that it's the best in every way. It's not. Just like 21:9 monitors aren't the best in every way, they're wider, but they're (at the moment) less pixel dense as a 4K monitor so don't give AS sharp an image.

Because it's 880 pixels wider compared to the original size, 3440x1440 vs 2560x1440

Yet strangely enough that's not what you say the ultrawide is doing, you can't have it both ways.

Can you answer me this, if I set a custom resolution of 3440x1440 to run on my 3840x2160 monitor, will I see more of the image at the sides or not? (without changing the FOV)

Fallout 4 and GTA V nice images. Does anyone have an updated 16:9 conversion for Fallout 4. Not the old one my hud is still out? TIA

Ricky302, mate, stop making yourself look like a fool.
You're comparing literal pixels versus aspect ratio.
No one is denying 4K doesn't have more pixels than the 1440p Ultrawide.

Every display format has an aspect ratio. Games, Video, even a picture.
Even though 4K has more pixels, all it's doing is using more pixels to display the same information.
Imagine a 2x2 square, and imagine a 3x3 square or 4x4 square.
Your 2x2 is 1440p, and your 3x3 is 4K.
Your required output is a square, but the 4K has more pixels to display it. Hence it's crisper to the eye.

21:9 Aspect ratio is when your monitor is now 4x2,
It still displays the 2x2 square in the middle, but now there's extra 1x2 on each wide.

Your 4K even though is 3x3, but at the maximum, it can only display a full square.

You're a moron pure and simple. More pixels doesn't mean you're seeing more area, it just means the area you're seeing is more detailed.

I've got a 4K monitor and I've had a 34" ultrawide... you see more on the ultrawide.

If this wasn't the case...why would they exist? Why would they be called "ultrawide" if you were getting a less wide image? Are you really that dense?

It's the same as if I set a FOV of 70 on a 4k monitor or an FOV of 120 on a 1080 monitor... I'd be able to see more area compared to the 4K monitor even though the 4K monitor is more detailed.

Understand now?


Yeah, how stupid are people these days that will comment and argue about things they clearly don't have a clue about?

And it's in this reality since that's exactly what 21:9 vs 16:9 does. The pixel count does not matter and the fact that you think it does shows you don't understand what you're talking about.


Again, you're comparing the wrong thing. Yes, there's more pixels in 4K but again NO it does not render more of the area, the 21:9 monitor does, the image I showed you applies to whether a monitor is 1080p, 1440p, 4K, 8K, 10K, whatever.

If it is 16:9 then it shows less area than a 21:9 equivalent, whether it is higher resolution or not! Do a tiny bit of research and you'll see that.

Here's an image to try and make you understand- if you're even willing to admit the possibility that you're wrong, which I'm guessing is an impossibility because everyone on the internet has to be right whether they are or not.



NO MATTER THE RESOLUTION, the SMALLER image there is what you see on a 16:9 aspect ratio monitor, 720p, 1080p, 4k, 8k, 10k, whatever.

The WIDER image is the 21:9 image and again it doesn't matter whether it's 2560x1080 or 3440x1440, it's always going to render the same area, the difference is in how detailed it is.

Here's another one for you to drive the point home that the resolution DOES NOT MATTER for what you see in game, it's the aspect ratio, the resolution just affects the detail IN THAT AREA. So 4K, 8K whatever will ALWAYS be the 16:9 area, and 3440x1440 2560x1080 etc will be the 21:9 area:



You clearly just don't understand so I don't know why you'd argue with someone about this.


*facepalm*

Says the man with a 15 inch CRT monitor :innocent:

Ultrawide means you can set a higher FOV that doesn't distort like it would on a 16:10.... so yes, you do see more.

Lol a premium priced monitor from Acer, really.

No, I'm comparing it to 4K just like I said in my first post.
Seriously? just how stupid are people these days? In what reality will a monitor with 3440 horizontal pixels show more than one with 3840?
Here let me show you what your picture should have looked like.

You should really take your own advice.

Mate, don't bother explaining aspect ratios to someone who has obviously never experienced a 21:9. Let them be stuck in their own world thinking 4K 16:9 is wider than a 21:9.
He probably thinks his 4K TV shows a wider view than what he sees in the cinema.

4K = 16:9, the same aspect ratio as a standard 1440p= 2560x1440 monitor.

You're comparing this to the wrong resolution, its baseline resolution is 1440p (16:9) which is then made wider to 3440x1440 (hence 21:9 instead of 16:9).

You're not getting less of an image by going with a 21:9 monitor, you're getting more.

Yes, a 4K monitor has more pixels, but it shows less of an area.



Even with more pixels, the 4K 16:9 monitor will only show the centre part of the image...a 21:9 monitor will show extra on the left and right.

Once 4K gets more common, 3840x2160 will be the 16:9 from your example and 5120 × 2160 will be the 21:9 option for a 4K ultrawide.


2560 + 880 = 3440 = you're getting 880 extra horizontal pixels compared to a standard 16:9 1440p monitor.

There's those extra pixels. If you don't understand things, don't comment. It just makes you look stupid.

Adding extra pixels? 4K = 3840x2160, this monitor = 3440x1440 where are those extra pixels again?

Been using the Acer x342ck Ultrawide and could never go back to 16:9, ultrawide curved gaming is amazing.

The one I have overclocks to 120Hz and every single test (ufo tests etc.) showed no skipped frames. Also, it's calibrated and looks really good. I have no dead pixels and absolutely no backlight bleed on it. The fact that it has no internal image processing and virtually no input lag makes it really good for gaming too. You are absolutely right when it comes to contrast ratio though. This and the screen size alone makes me want to buy that Acer.

Btw, my mate has the Acer and been trying to talk me into buying it too. He explained the way Gsync felt to him more or less the same way you did :smiley:

I did notice that, but didn't want to comment on it. Besides, their comment to you is grammatically even more hilarious!

Either way, this looks like a very good deal. Had I not just purchased a 4KTV, I probably would have snapped this up.

Sorry you are or you're. My apologies for my android phone keep auto correcting wrongly. I hope your day hasn't been spoilt by my grammar.

I have the same experience after using a 120Hz and now 165Hz monitor at high framerates for some time. The problem is that it has now spoilt a lot of gaming on my PS4; I can't bare playing games with any sort of panning motions at 30fps anymore (FPS, third person, driving games etc). My new target average framerate is 90-100 fps (occasional dips to 60 fps with G-sync are OK), but below that, I now start turning down graphical settings as the smoothness is now more important to me than the graphical difference between "very high" and "ultra" settings. If movement is fast then your eyes don't really have time to notice or process higher resolution textures.

I've learned not to bother conversing with people on t'interweb who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're". Typically they are either children or Brexit voters.

TV's have various processing features that cause higher input lag and slower response times - even moving the mouse around on most TV's shows visible input lag.

Somebody with a high refresh rate + g-sync monitor would wipe the floor with another person playing on their living room TV...

I can not understand why people want to but monitor where you could just buy a TV at cheaper price and use it as monitor or both TV&Monitor. What I have been missing here ??

Beautiful screen but too expensive.

Gsync gives real smoothness to gameplay. Now I've experienced adaptive sync, I wouldn't like to use a monitor without it now. It's something you need to experience. I was fairly dismissive of it initially, but I've changed my opinion now.

I can't explain it, but the leap from 60Hz to 100Hz is instantly noticeable... to the point where now if I dip to 60 it was like when 60fps used to dip to 30. Hell, even 70 fps makes me shudder in BF1 :stuck_out_tongue: I know the QX2710 can 'overclock' but the overclocking also causes skipped frames and horrible gamma shift.

G-sync is again something I can't really explain... it's just something you need to witness with your own eyes really. Its not like a "wow!" kind of shock... but games responsiveness just instantly feels more natural.

The other thing is the QNIX panels don't have very good contrast ratios... the QX2710 has 617:1 on average... that's is almost doubled on the Acer. Don't get me wrong they are great budget monitors but for me the contrast and the fake overclocking were the biggest downsides.

Qnix Q2710 - this is exactly what I have right now, just branded X-star instead. Is the difference between that and the above Acer really that big? I know it has Gsync and it's wide etc but I mean the actual, perceivable difference when you play games on it. I quite like my X-star but pondering the idea of upgrading to that Acer now.

I'm not being prickly, I just don't get why you're recommending a 'professional' 60Hz monitor in a post for a gaming monitor. I can almost guarantee those even vaguely interested in this screen won't have much interest in doing professional digital work and the main priority is a high refresh rate and freesync/g-sync.

Besides, if you read the reviews you'd see the X34A is almost perfectly calibrated out of the box - sure, that still doesn't mean it's going to be good for pro digital work because of the curve... but it still shows it doesn't struggle in the colour accuracy and image quality department and at the same time it absolutely destroys most other monitors for gaming performance.

And by the way... a curved ultrawide monitor for gaming is absolutely not a gimmick. And the 144Hz Gsync monitors that are 'significantly cheaper' are also 7" smaller and 1080p...

My previous monitor before this was a QNIX QX2710 (using a Samsung PLS panel) and it was absolutely blown out of the water...

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

The pictures are only as good as the Oneplus 3 phone I took them on

Well someone's prickly.

As I said, "you can game on one while you watch videos on the other". If you really wanted, you could buy 3 and still have £150 left over. And you'd have over twice as many pixels!

As you know from reading the specs, it doesn't have 100Hz or G-Sync. It's a professional monitor rather than a pure gaming monitor. As a result colours are better and it doesn't have any gimmicks like curving or ultrawide. You can get 144Hz and G-Sync significantly cheaper than this. This offer is just good if you like gimmicks.

Bought one in December 16, Awesome monitor until it started to have loads of light bleed waiting on it getting picked up for refund.

How do you enable 100Hz and G-Sync on that? And what happens with the crosshair in the centre of the screen when you play FPS games?

Two Dell 25U15H's instead, thanks. Far more pixels, less than 2/3rds the price, and you can game on one while you watch videos on the other.

does it come with pre-build rig?

Looks fantastic! But think I'll stick to my 3d Vision Rog Swift for a wee bit longer. Nothing quite compares to the level of immersion when using 3d vision.

Can anybody comment on the recent quality of these units, as last year the reviews on build quality were abysmal.

Thank you!

I really can't work out where his logic is coming from tbh. Maybe he thinks those sarcastic posts about higher resolutions "making bullets slower" was true :smile:

And if you turn on gaming modes on newer TV's, they'll absolutely destroy older models in terms of input lag. TV's are still quite a bit off monitors but they have improved leaps and bounds over the past few years.

I have this, well... the X34 and it's absolutely incredible for gaming.



Only downside is the stand, which while being amazing quality... its only really suitable for people with huge desks. This desk mount bracket is cheap and does an awesome job...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0119NXXYQ/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Its not rubbish! and as for bullets curving around the screen...laughable Its a 34" screen not a 50 inch. I use a Nvidia Shield that can stream to my TV which is a 55" LG OLED and the gaming is rubbish on it, however, the Predator is a different type of animal made for gaming. Please take this as informed feedback not an argument!

When low lag HDR tv's come out, this could be a cheaper way to go.

Makes a lot of sense!
I spent last weekend moving my entire Xbox setup to the older non 4K tv in the kitchen because gameplay just felt rubbish on my Samsung curved tv. World a difference!

Worst thing in my samsung curved cost £1000+ and the lg 50" non 4K non curved can be picked up second hand for around £300.
Honestly speaking the Tv picture quality difference in negligible.

Moral of the story expensive doesn't mean better. (For gaming anyway)

This might be a silly question. But what's the point of this monitor if it's rubbish for gaming?

Hmmm, the new 27" monitors for 2017 will reportedly cost circa £2k for 4K, which is ridiculous if true. Goodness knows what the 30+ inch models will sell for when on the market.

I currently have a 34" Samsung curved 3440x1440, but tempted to bin it and go for the 34" Asus Rog Swift which sells for £999. Whilst a bit more than the Predator here, most reviews tend to give the construction and OSD the edge over the Acer.

You've never used a 21:9 monitor, have you? It adds more to the image on the left and right (normal is 16:9),so 16+5 = 21, so it's adding extra pixels. Not taking them away. And 1440p goes from 2560x1440 to 3440x1440...

HDR is completely redundant for PC use IMO. Almost all of the web is designed around the SRGB colour gamut. You are literally paying a premium just for a selection games/movies to look good but then have web/general usage look completely off unless you are OK with constantly turning the HDR setting off and on.

I've been using this monitor for a year now, an amazing screen. Paid pretty much this back then, so must be holding price.

Playing games in ultrawide after spending my life playing standard ratio is a significant change that blew my tiny mind.

i literally just bought the asus equivalent on overclockers yesterday to replace my dead 27" 1440p, i should have waited till id seen this. used pay later finance wont be able to cancel it fast enough for this.

Feel like I should clarify my comment as it has caused an argument!

I waited 3 months for the release of the C34F791 Samsung panel but then the early reviews of dead pixels, freesync issues and purple blur put me off.Then within the same week at CES 2017 the first HDR gaming monitors were announced for Q3/Q4 2017 release. It was at that point I decided I would wait in the hopes of a 1440p HDR ultrawide rather than spend the best part of £1000 on a monitor now that wouldn't be future proof. Whatever I buy will need to last me the next 4-5 years.

The X34A and PG348Q are excellent monitors, arguably the best available right now but they are over a year old and still command a high premium. I know the old chestnut of 'there will always be something better round the corner' but legitimately the monitor market is about to take a big leap forward with display port 1.4 & HDR.
Videos below of the ASUS 4k HDR monitor form CES 2017;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-Yc5YD0kEc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olRDnA1Kp4s

sod it, bought one :P thanks op.

gsync seem to keep their value, especially new. I don't think this will drop in price if buying new, it'll keep about 90% and then discontinue.

I think the timing is bad to spend this much on a monitor. Around the corner are major releases in tech so I can imagine this hitting £600 in about 2-3 months...

Worth it, if mine broke today I'd buy again tomorrow.

No, he said "I have been in the market" then changed his mind. Absolutely no need for you to jump on him. You read the comment properly.

Also, there's no need to call me a fool.

What an fool you are. I said your not in the market then.....WHY?......because he doesn't want it for until the END of 2017.............Read the comment properly

What a ridiculous response. I'm also in the market for a wide-screen monitor, but just because I don't opt for the best doesn't negate the fact.

Get off your high horse.

im still waiting on a 40" with the same specs cept the curve you can keep that.

TBF monitors with those specs are due out this year.
EDIT: Actually I lie, 4k/144hz HDR monitors are confirmed, but I would guess there would be a 1440p 21x9 variant sometime soon.

I have been in the market for a gaming ultrawide for a few months and have decided to hold off until the end of the 2017 in the hope that 1.4 display port monitors become available.

Wish list is 34"-38", HDR, VA, 1440p, 144Hz, G-sync

New native 100Mhz panel are launching in the next 2 motnhs, buying an old model may not be the best idea.

so tempted. But still bloody expensive.

I want the 38" one

Aren't they bringing out a new version of this very shortly, sure I saw a new version was due around March/April. I don't think it adds much, new one is slightly more curved and a few other minor changes. May be worth checking out in case the newer model would be better for you. It's the Acer Predator X34P: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3cDpnQYvMs

​ :laughing:

​yes, but 4k monitors and tvs are just as bad because all the extra pixels slow down the bullets and balls. and definitely don't play online racing games on a black and white TV, someone using a colour TV will beat you in their red car

Holding out for a price match on amazon. May even be worth the extra to ensure you can easily swap if you have back light bleed issues or dead pixels

I was told curved Tv are bad for gaming because there are no Straight lines.
E.g. Your bullets in COD or football in fifa will follow the curve and not fly straight..?

This is actually a good price