Acer Predator Z35 35" 2560x1080 VA 200Hz G-sync
- Thread starter martian1
- Start date
Nothing, nor the trickle of XZ35s that appeared on the continent last month.
According to the TFTCentral guy, there was a recall on the panels used in these two and the XR3501 ... though there's been been constant availability of the latter in US / Canada. Bit weird.
According to the TFTCentral guy, there was a recall on the panels used in these two and the XR3501 ... though there's been been constant availability of the latter in US / Canada. Bit weird.
Soldato
OCUK have these in stock
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/acer-predator-z35-35-2560x1080-va-200hz-g-sync-widescreen-super-wide-zeroframe-curved-led-monitor-mo-091-ac.html
The spec says they are "Gsync V2" ? They look better than the X34 but are a lot cheaper ? They are VA and have 200mhz refresh ? Seems a bit of a raspberry in the face of people who bought the X34 ?
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/acer-predator-z35-35-2560x1080-va-200hz-g-sync-widescreen-super-wide-zeroframe-curved-led-monitor-mo-091-ac.html
The spec says they are "Gsync V2" ? They look better than the X34 but are a lot cheaper ? They are VA and have 200mhz refresh ? Seems a bit of a raspberry in the face of people who bought the X34 ?
Last edited:
Not at all - the Z35 is 2560 X 1080 vs 3440 X 1440, trade offs are being made, I don't see how any X34 owner would feel wronged by the introduction of the Z35.
Soldato
The refresh rate, if they can do 200mhz VA why not 200mhz IPS ? Is it a tech thing?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,823
A nice option for nVidia owners 
200Hz must be pretty immense!!!!
200Hz must be pretty immense!!!!
Soldato
which do you reckon would be better this or the Asus PG279Q they are about the same price?
But the X34 and Z35 don't even have the same resolution, they aren't really comparable like that.
A nice option for nVidia owners
200Hz must be pretty immense!!!!
Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but the point of G-Sync is to sync the GPU output directly with the monitor refresh rate... Name me 1 recent game you expect to achieve 200 FPS in good quality, or the 200hz doesn't actually matter...
Could be wrong, I'm sure someone smarter will chip in if I am.
Permabanned
The resolution is only 2560x1080... two Titan-X or 980ti could run Battlefront at that FPS on full settings
And G-Sync improves appearance of image if you can't make the full screen refresh rate... best way to describe it is like v-sync, but without the delay/lag
That's the thing the lower resolution could make 200fps achievable without triple cards etc a trade off but one I am willing to explore if the reviews are favourable. I would like to know how much of a trade off it is being 1080p obviously if it looks awful compared to 1440 on this size screen then I would have to look elsewhere
Permabanned
35" 2580x1080 will be horrible... the dot-pitch will be abomiable
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,823
I was considering this monitor tbh before I got the X34, I personally feel that the other benefits outweigh the poor resolution
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,823
So you can order and then return it because it's not perfect? Nope
Tad unfair TBH...first one was BLB hell and the second one was zig zaggy nonsense
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
From a quick look Anandtech are saying it's a 144hz panel, Acer rate it at 200hz for overclocking, they weren't sure if it would be covered under warranty or how many panels would even hit that refresh rate, I would say the way they stated it they were sceptical about it.
So for most people, will run below 144hz, buy a panel that runs 144hz, pay more because it might overclock to 200hz.... not sure where the appeal is in paying more for something that might not work and that you almost certainly won't actually use anyway and will feel almost identical to a 144hz version of literally the same panel.
That is before you talk about the absurd res for that size or frame times. Difference between 60 and 120hz screens, 8.3ms drop in frame time. 120-144hz difference, 1.4mz, 144 to 200hz difference 1.9ms IF it works which doesn't seem clear. There are diminishing returns from higher response rate. What panels need is better response time from pixels which is down to the tech. OLED will make the tech underneath it run that much faster and is able to do so with better colour reproduction, brightness and black levels.
Paying big on silly techs that don't really provide anything seems completely pointless. Giving up resolution for size/response that provides no real benefit seems even more ridiculous.
So for most people, will run below 144hz, buy a panel that runs 144hz, pay more because it might overclock to 200hz.... not sure where the appeal is in paying more for something that might not work and that you almost certainly won't actually use anyway and will feel almost identical to a 144hz version of literally the same panel.
That is before you talk about the absurd res for that size or frame times. Difference between 60 and 120hz screens, 8.3ms drop in frame time. 120-144hz difference, 1.4mz, 144 to 200hz difference 1.9ms IF it works which doesn't seem clear. There are diminishing returns from higher response rate. What panels need is better response time from pixels which is down to the tech. OLED will make the tech underneath it run that much faster and is able to do so with better colour reproduction, brightness and black levels.
Paying big on silly techs that don't really provide anything seems completely pointless. Giving up resolution for size/response that provides no real benefit seems even more ridiculous.
Soldato
^^^THIS
I don't think I ever said that?!
I'm expecting to have the Z35 with me any day for a review soon. Although with Xmas coming up and all the other screens I seem to be sent at the moment it might well take me longer than normal. Busy period!