1080p on 35" is that for real? for £300 maybe, for £500 they can keep it

It's an ultrawide (with an extra 33% horizontal resolution, not just a stretched 1920px) 200 Hz refresh rate and G-Sync. If you can find something remotely resembling that for under £300 you are more than welcome share.

35" - I'm like, ooh!
Curved - I'm like, oooh!

1080p - I'm like, oh.

1440p or GTFO

Tempted to swap it for the 32" monitor that I just got.
But the fact that it's only 1080p, where as mine is 1440p probably not makes it worth it.
I just recently got LG's new 43" 4k monitor, and that was just too huge for my need.
I guess my ideal monitor would be around 34" and around 1600p, but that doesn't exist AFAIK.

Anyway.... seems like a great deal for people who's in the market for this display. :smiley:

As it's an ultrawide, height is about the same as a 28" 16:9 monitor.

HDR is coming

Wish the x34 was this price!

1080p on 35" is that for real? for £300 maybe, for £500 they can keep it

Nice price but holding out for an Asus ROG Swift PG279Q price drop. Used my mates for a couple of days and thought it was amazing, especially because I was going from a 24" 1080p Dell

1080 high. Yuck.

Heart the Predator monitors. Great looking things - heart the colour scheme but they are too pricey for me :disappointed:

35" - I'm like, ooh!
Curved - I'm like, oooh!

1080p - I'm like, oh.

1440p or GTFO

35" at 1080p for £500 no thanks.

1440p 100Hz VA Z35P has been released so they're clearing stock on this one I guess, shame it's too large for the resolution; I'd do £500 for the Z35P but I get the feeling it'll be >700...

If I had £499 to spend on a monitor, I would by a 4K / 5K one as the image quality will be better. Also, 35" screen!? too big, too close, better off buying a 50" LED TV for the same money and using it from a distance and also using it for other devices too. £500 is a lot to spend on a 1080P screen in my opinion, I have also used curved monitors and found them odd to look at and make uncomfortable viewing.

LOL @ all the comments talking about 1080p.

1080p is 1920 x 1080, this display is 2560 x 1080, HENCE ULTRAWIDE.

It's only 33% more pixels after all.

Erm, no. Not if you're actually seriously into gaming.

1440p and IPS, or go home.

No, they are both 1080p.

Yes I can read. I don't want a monitor that size that's only 1080 high though.

Aside from the fact you're getting 33% more pixels than standard 16:9 1080p.

And fewer pixels than a 1440p monitor, but for a much higher price. Are you paid by Acer?

FLOL...I mean it's interesting logic, I give you that. I really wish I was paid by someone to shill on the internet.

In reality I just like to apply some common sense and offer a counter argument.

1080p is 1080 lines displayed progressively. It has nothing to do with HD, Full HD or the number of pixel.

Full HD is 1920x1080p but 1080p is not Full HD.

Ultrawide has very limited value, a lot of games still don't support it and display in a pillar box format. Kinda pointless wasting your money to leave 33% of the screen blank.

Sorry I must have missed the common sense.

I keep looking but good to know I'm not wasting my time. Fingers crossed, thanks!

Thanks for clearing up the incorrect info here, saved me the task. Such as this is not 1080p.

Also, I wonder if people realise how huge a 35" 16:9 monitor would be...or how much it would cost..

4k is great but can't go over 60hz due to port limitations. That's why monitors like this are amazing for gaming.

A 200hz TN/IPS would be amazing for games. VA is a blurry mess at 100hz and doesn't improve beyond that. Google this monitor with the terms "blurry", "ghosting" etc if you need convincing.

It is 1080p.

if your building a simulator of some sort you can't get better but watching movies on this thing or playing any other game that isn't a simulator is going to be a poor experience.

edit : I had this monitor oh & it gets very very hot it also weights a ton & is very awkward to carry to say the least

I had the previous model and it's stunning. But had to sell as it's simply huge ! Need nearly 1.5/2 foot for the stands alone.

It's really not, 1080p (or Full HD/FHD) is a standard, not just referring to the number of vertical lines present. The standard name for this resolution is UW-UXGA.

It makes me chuckle how many people come out the woodwork and start spouting pc nerd facts, on these things. But still game on a 5 yr old gpu and cpu. Makes you wonder what actual % of these people walk the walk, as well as talk the talk. I expect it's low. Not that I'd be a fan of this for the ovs reasons, but still funny too read all the trolling :sunglasses:

If you play Overwatch, don't bother with this monitor.

It's not 1080p but would have the same fidelity as a 1080p monitor.

But you would have a much bigger FOV and it wouldn't require a ridiculously powerful gfx card to get a decent FPS.

For me I might struggle as used to a 1440p monitor, otherwise it's a great price for a cracking monitor.

I've owned this monitor for a year now. Great if your a gamer with an Nvidia GPU. It's not 1080p but 2560 x 1080 resolution. Nvidia G-Sync unfortunately increases the cost of this but if you have a decent Nvidia GPU, it provides a great gaming experience. I'd obviously look elsewhere if you have an AMD GPU as there are better value Freesync monitors with a similar or better spec. At 120 - 140 Hz, I don't notice ghosting or blurring as some reviews have mentioned, to be honest I couldn't notice at 200Hz either while gaming but that could be just me. There is also an "Ultra Low Motion Blur" setting if ghosting is a concern which works up to 120Hz. I wouldn't recommend this monitor if games are not your main PC use as the resolution does come more into play if you are intending to have multiple windows open in view at the same time.

It's 1080P. It is you know

I have the x34a it's a nice monitor, not as big as you'd imagine. They are beautiful for gaming, I'm not sure what the refresh rate is on this but anything over 100hz makes a huge difference.
I think the res on mine is just about right, 1080p is probably a little low. Better to go for 27" version if I had to change mine

Our eyes can't see more than 60 dots per inch anyway:smirk:

Yes they can.

No, it's not. 1080p = 1920x1080. This is 2560x1080...

That's right, keep clinging on the that one tenuous thread of pedantry as if your life depends on it. The point people are making, as you damn well know, is that 1080 vertical pixels isn't worth the price asked. 35" 2560x1080 has a similar pixel density to a standard 1920x1080 screen a 27 to 28 inches. The pixel density on that size is sh1tty as hell and definitely not worth a premium.

It's not pedantry, it's an internationally accepted standard that means one, and only one, thing. 1920x1080. People misusing the term is not helpful and simply confusing for readers.

And what do you mean by "similar pixel"? Because 2560x1080 has 33~% more pixels than 1920x1080..
Regarding pixel density, 1080p on a 27" would be 81 PPI, this 35" would be 79... Do those 2 whole PPI really make it "sh*tty"?
1080p on a 28" would actually have LESS pixel density than this monitor... I get the impression you've commented without actually running through the numbers.

You claim it's not 1080p, but it isn't 1440p is it? It's not 2160p is it?

How many lines of progressive scan do you think it has?

Give you a clue, it's more than 1079 and less than 1081.

I meant pixel density, and 1080p on a 27" IS sh1tty.

Did you not read the wiki article?..
"1080p" refers to 1920x1080 drawn using the progressive scanning method. Thats what the "p" stands for.
You also seem to be confused thinking progressive scan is related to the total number of lines. It's a method of drawing. As opposed to interlaced (alternating lines). Nothing to do with total number of lines...

PPI is pixel density...Pixels Per Inch..
I see you're now moving the goal posts, now 1080p on a 27" is insufficient.
So what is your arbitrary definition of sufficient PPI?

Nah, didn't touch the goal posts, but please keep up the straw man attempts in a **** poor effort to discredit my opinion. 1920x1080 for a PC monitor doesn't belong on anything bigger than 24". 27"+ is the domain of QHD, and once you've lived with that you'll understand just how sh1tty 1080 looks on a large monitor.

And decent freesync monitors going?

I know exactly what it looks like, I've got a 27" 1440p Dell monitor at home. Which I would personally consider very nice, but not even remotely necessary. Certainly not for an average user. So I don't really understand where you're coming from with your statement that it's "sh*tty" with less resolution.

I think this is very amazing price! shame I already have 27" acer predator. my wife will kill me if I buy this

Eww Acer

Not confused at all, I just know that 1080 lines is still 1080 lines no matter how wide you make it.

The big jump from SD (540 lines) to Full HD was made by doubling up 1080 lines of image. 4k again makes the image clearer by doubling the number of lines to 2160.

Going from a 1080p monitor to another monitor that also has 1080 progressive scan lines does not add any lines, so you don't get any more detail. 1080p already has 1920 dots across, so horizontal resolution is already OK. It's the 1080 vertical dots that is the weak point and not addressed by going ultrawide.

Add to that the problem that many games don't even support ultrawide resolution will mean you're going from a 1920x1080 image on a 1920x1080 display to a 2560x1080 display with a 1920x1080 image on it and a black bar either side.

Kinda pointless really.

It will display a 1080p image. It won't display a 1440p image or a 2160p image. It's 1080p.

You know there are the same number of pixels per inch horizontally as there is vertically, so how can the number of pixels horizontally be OK but not vertically?

It CAN display a 1080p image, but that doesn't mean it would be a 1080p screen. I'm not arguing that it's a resolution that is considered low by current standards. My issue is that it is NOT considered a 1080p screen because it is wider than a 1080p screen.

You can argue about the additional wide resolution not being useful. That's at least a valid argument. But it entirely depends on what you use it for, and you're guessing what the potential user would be doing with it. Being able to lay two documents side by side might be a big bonus. And there are many games that would use the resolution, such as flight sims and driving games, which would be awesome on this screen.

For document viewing you simply wouldn't pay £500 for a g-sync panel. You're better with multiple screen for that purpose, which would fit in the same space as this and could each have a higher resolution.

In my experience, ultra-wide is a bit naff for driving games, where you'd benefit more from 1440p than from ultrawide. An ultrawide with 1440 lines would be OK, but that's a whole different price hike.

Best value is 1080, followed by 1440, followed by 1440 ultra-wide, followed by 4k - if you can put up with 60fps, which I can't as you might as well get a console for that. 1080 ultra-wide just isn't a sensible use of money when you could have 1440p for the same price and get signifcantly improved graphics detail. It doesn't matter how wide the FOV is in a flight simulator if the cockpit takes up half the screen. Go 1440p and the FOV will be two thirds of it.

Its finished so now cold BOOOOO ebuyer

You sound like you know your stuff. If you had £500 (+ or - 100) to spend on a monitor for 50% work , 30% watching films, 15% photography, 5% gaming. What would you recommend in 27 to 35 inch range?

You don't explain what "work" it is you do but, assuming it's email/spreadsheet/word based I would recommend a 27" 16:9 1440p IPS screen for that. Assuming you'll be sat at a home sized desk, with the screen not to far away from the back of the keyboard, you'll find 27" a great size for filling your vision ahead but only having to move your eyes, not your head, when you need to look at the edges of the screen. With anything bigger or wider, you'll spend your time having to move your head a lot which I don't find practical with a single monitor. Moving your head from a first monitor to a second monitor is fairly natural, as you can angle each towards you, but around a single big screen isn't comfortable. The IPS panel type will give you clear edges for on-screen fonts, making text easier to read without tiring.

For watching films, I'd recommend a TV. No, seriously. Any decent computer monitor will make your movies look rubbish, showing up artifacts and other digital noise that can be really distracting for the viewer. I have a 55" LG OLED for this purpose, but it's obviously not within your budget. I can't even begin to recommend a panel for movies, but an IPS will help with colour reproduction.

For photography, I'd recommend a camera :O) Seriously though, assuming you're touching up hi-res photos, you need it big and clear. Definitely IPS (OLED not within budget) and 4k would help, but again you have a budget challenge. For static images, the 60Hz limit of 4k wouldn't be an issue and you'd be able to have more of a zoomed image on screen at any one time.

For gaming, I'd recommend a 4ms IPS panel with a 1440p resolution. If you're gaming at 1080, you may as well use an Xbox.

Given 27" isn't big enough for 4k, in summary you're best with a 1440p IPS panel like the:~

27" Acer XB271HU G-Sync LED Monitor, 165Hz IPS Panel, 2560x1440, 4ms, 100,000,000:1, HDMI/DP, USB, 2x Speakers, Grey/Red

Currently around £635, I have the previous 144Hz version of that and am extremely happy with it.

I'm not sure I would recommend paying for a G-Sync monitor if they don't have a G-Sync enabled graphics card though. Especially if they have a Radeon with FreeSync.

Agree with your comment in principle but, in practice, most of the decent screens tend to have G-sync anyway and I'd include nVidia in my recommendation list if asked. That said, the monitor I recommended also has an HDMI input which is compatible with any source.

If gaming wasn't a factor at all, we could indeed remove the 144Hz recommendation and then jump to cheaper 1440p IPS panels which didn't have G-sync but seeing as G-sync was in budget, then why not? There are definitely improvements to be had, even on normal desktop work. I find a 144Hz panel much less tiring to stare at all day.

Yeah the high end screens do tend to be G-Sync enabled. There is the Acer Predator XB271HK that could be considered if they would rather 4K over refresh rate. I think that is about £550 as opposed to the £600 for the [email protected] screen, but without knowing a bit more about the system and what they are going to use it for, as well as how good their eyesight is lol, it makes it difficult.

thanks for the help Guys.